Challenging Discrimination: Unveiling the Troubling Tactics of the Christian Right

Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash

In a case that has caught the attention of many, the Supreme Court is deliberating on an issue that questions the legal protections afforded to LGBTQ individuals in accessing public accommodations. This case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, bears resemblances to the infamous Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado. Both cases involve small-business owners, a baker in the former and a web designer in the latter, who seek to deny services to same-sex couples planning their weddings. However, an important distinction arises: while the Masterpiece Cakeshop case involved an actual couple and a wedding cake, 303 Creative's case centers around a hypothetical scenario created by an anti-LGBTQ group. Let us examine this situation and shed light on the ulterior motives behind such a case.

A Contrived Argument

303 Creative, a small business owned by Lorie Smith in Colorado, is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a group known for opposing civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals. ADF has presented Smith as a victim whose rights are allegedly infringed upon by Colorado's anti-discrimination law, which protects individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, it is crucial to note that Smith has never designed a wedding website and has never been approached by a client seeking such services. ADF has crafted a narrative where Smith's rights are supposedly violated, despite the absence of any actual harm.

The Strategy of Alliance Defending Freedom: ADF's involvement in this case aligns with their larger agenda of eroding the separation between church and state. They have a history of advocating for patriarchal sex and gender norms, including opposing same-sex marriage and defending abortion bans. With 303 Creative, ADF seeks to redefine civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals as religious discrimination against Christians. By characterizing this legal battle as an infringement on Smith's rights, ADF aims to undermine anti-discrimination laws and advance their own ideology.

When the Supreme Court previously ruled on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, ADF did not achieve the decisive victory they had hoped for. Despite the conservative nature of the court, the ruling did not establish that the right to refuse services based on objections to someone's sexual orientation outweighs the individual's right to accommodation itself. Nevertheless, ADF considered the decision as an opportunity to argue that laws against sexual orientation discrimination infringe upon religious liberty. In their current case, 303 Creative, ADF appears to have found a more sympathetic audience among the conservative justices.

ADF's "War on Woke" Narrative

ADF has framed the 303 Creative case within the context of a broader conservative narrative, portraying themselves as underdogs fighting against supposed oppressors. They align themselves with right-wing voices, claiming that cultural elites and policies affirming transgender rights or LGBTQ equality are detrimental to society. By embracing this narrative, ADF aims to rally support and expand their influence, even though they have achieved notable victories in the Supreme Court and hold significant sway over judicial appointments.

\The argument presented by ADF during the 303 Creative case lacks a foundation in reality. Even if Smith were to be hired to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple, there is no compulsion for her to express any message that contradicts her beliefs. The anti-discrimination law does not dictate specific content that artists or individuals must convey. ADF's pre-enforcement challenge is divorced from the actual provisions of the law, further weakening their case.

While Smith has not faced any actual harm, ADF has already achieved a partial victory by bringing attention to 303 Creative through this case. The publicity surrounding the lawsuit has effectively communicated Smith's stance on same-sex couples seeking her services, without the need for explicit statements on her website. However, it is crucial to recognize the broader implications of this case. If ADF's arguments gain legitimacy, it could potentially affect the rights of numerous groups and communities beyond hypothetical weddings and websites. It is imperative to critically analyze cases like 303 Creative and understand the motivations behind them, as they have far-reaching consequences for the pursuit of equality and justice.

Michigan Councilman Sparks Outrage with Homophobic Rant and Votes Against Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

A Warren City Councilman, Eddie Kabacinski, drew condemnation after going on a homophobic and transphobic rant during a council meeting. The incident occurred moments before the council voted on an anti-discrimination ordinance. Kabacinski voted against the measure, citing religious reasons, but when he voiced his strong opposition to the anti-discrimination ordinance, he employed baseless claims about the LGBTQ+ community in his homophobic rant. Kabacinski claimed that LGBTQ+ individuals were targeting youth and seeking to change their gender. His remarks included claims of indoctrination and a vow to protect children from what he perceived as a threat.

Despite Kabacinski's objection, the Warren City Council voted 6-1 in favor of the anti-discrimination ordinance. This policy aims to protect individuals from discrimination based on various factors, including age, race, disability, education, familial status, gender identity, gender expression, height, weight, and ethnic origin. The passing of this ordinance demonstrates the council's commitment to promoting inclusivity and equal rights within the city.

Council President Patrick Green, who introduced the ordinance, emphasized the significance of such legislation in aligning Warren with other municipalities across the state that have similar anti-discrimination protections in place. The goal is to ensure equal treatment and opportunity for all residents, regardless of their background or identity. By enacting anti-discrimination ordinances, communities foster a more inclusive and tolerant environment.

Eddie Kabacinski has a history of controversial actions that have drawn public attention. In October 2020, he was ARRESTED for handcuffing a woman who had placed Black Lives Matter stickers on a yard sign in Eastpointe. Following this incident, he faced two additional arrests. His SECOND ARREST occurred in August 2021 when he was taken into custody for selling Trump-related merchandise without a permit in Utica. His THIRD ARREST happened when Kabacinski refused to wear a mask during a public hearing on redistricting at the former TCF Center in Detroit.

 

OC Supervisors Ban Pride Flag at County Properties Under New Policy

By Brandon Pho and Hosam Elattar, Voice of OC
Jun 6, 2023
Read the original article on Voice of OC: https://voiceofoc.org/2023/06/oc-supervisors-ban-pride-flag-at-county-properties-under-new-policy/

A narrow majority of Orange County Supervisors on Tuesday voted to ban the rainbow Pride Flag from flying on all County of Orange properties, including the Civic Center and public parks.

Their vote restricts flags hoisted at the county to OC, state and national flags, along with a flag for U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action.

Pride banners don’t currently fly outside county offices and properties, but Tuesday’s vote bans it and others from making their way up the flagpoles.

The ban on the iconic symbol for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people was requested by Supervisor Andrew Do and supported by Supervisors Don Wagner and Doug Chaffee in the beginning of LGBTQ+ Pride month.

They said that flying any flag in advocacy of a group of people would open their policymaking sessions up to “divisive” public forums.

“It’s a distraction,” said Chaffee. “It takes me away from really working to make the county better.”

Do argued his proposal wasn’t motivated by any one cause or social issue and that he has routinely supported the LGBTQ+ community.

People who opposed the Pride Flag praised Do’s proposal during Tuesday’s public comment – calling the symbol “divisive” and “sinful” – and looked on as Do attempted to dissuade any notion he was targeting it.

Do recounted the times he helped transgender people get vaccinated against COVID-19 and hired a gay man to the county’s top public health leadership role.

Wagner, however, made it clear that his support for Do’s proposal was indeed a response to flying the Pride Flag.

“It is not a coincidence that this policy is in front of us right now. It is not a coincidence that we’re considering it today for the first time in the more than 100 years of this County’s existence,” he said at Tuesday’s meeting.

“We’re considering it today, in response to the divisive effort to fly one particular flag. So yes, there absolutely is a connection,” Wagner said.

Supervisors Vicente Sarmiento and Katrina Foley, who wore pins in support of the Pride Flag during the discussion, voted against the ban, arguing their colleagues were capitulating to hate.

“By taking the stance today of banning the Pride Flag, which is what this is tantamount to, at all of our county buildings, our county board offices, other than in our internal offices, our parks, our airport, our harbors, our beaches, it sends the wrong message to America and to the world,” Foley said.

The county supervisors’ debate got tense with an audience consisting of people who supported the county flying the flag, while others were against the idea.

At one point, Foley asked Do if the flags flown by the OC Sheriff would then violate his new policy.

The police appreciation week flag – “are they not allowed to fly that any more?” Foley said.

“You’re free to ask and I’m free to ignore you,” Do said while some people in the audience laughed.

Toward the vote, Foley told her opposing colleagues:

“I’m through with this discussion but I’m not through with you.”

The idea of flying a Pride Flag on government property is often split down political lines, like most recently in Huntington Beach.

But things played out a little differently on Tuesday. Chaffee – a Democrat – sided with Republicans Do and Wagner on voting for the flag restriction policy. Sarmiento and Foley, both Democrats, voted against the policy.

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s regular Board of Supervisors meeting, both Sarmiento and Foley attempted to place a separate proposal on the agenda for a discussion on purchasing and flying the flag on county property.

That request was denied by Wagner, the board’s chairman, who told Voice of OC he went with Do’s request with the idea it would tee-up the entire discussion.

Sarmiento pointed to his hometown of Santa Ana, where he previously served as Mayor, and the similar Pride Flag push back they faced.

“The sky hasn’t fallen, we have not become more divided. We have not separated. If anything, it’s shown that we are inclusive, if anything, it’s shown that we are supportive of those communities that we know have been the targets of hate,” he said.

The decision comes amid a stark rise of hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community.

The OC Human Relations Commission put out the annual hate crime report in September which showed an 83% increase in hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community in 2021.

Hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community have increased by 2,100% since 2017, according to the commission.

The action came months after Huntington Beach City Council members voted to implement a similar policy restricting what flags can be raised over city properties.