Religious Freedom Isn't About Freedom for All: Seattle Pacific University, Religious Freedom, and Discrimination Against LGBTQIA2S+ People
The idea of "religious freedom" has become a well-known phrase, and way of framing a new method of discriminating against LGBTQIA2S+ people. People in public offices--elected or appointed--serving people in the role of clerks as well as other administrative roles, can say that they do not want to help out or assist LGBTQIA2S+ people in their civil role like providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, because one's "religion," does not condone same-sex couples getting married. "It's in the Bible," is their excuse or rationale, and their authority, even though it is a literal and not historical, let alone intellectual, way of understanding the Bible. Most likely, a pastor or religious leader told them how to think about such matters, even though Jesus never talked about so-called "homosexuality," let along LGBTQIA2S+ people.
The latest use of the phrase, "religious freedom," has come up in a legal case brought against Seattle Pacific University (SPU), a private Free Methodist institution of higher education in Seattle, from the state of Washington, concerning SPU's practice of not hiring LGBTQIA2S+ people. SPU is suing the attorney general of Washington State, saying his investigation into SPU's anti-LGBTQIA2S+ hiring practices is a violation of (ready?) religious freedom. SPU is arguing that the state is wielding "state power to interfere with the religious beliefs of a religious university, and a church, whose beliefs he disagrees with."
What is SPU's policy that is causing the problem for them? SPU will not employ people who are in same-sex marriages, and expects employees to adhere to its policy that sex is only between a man and woman, and is reserved exclusively for their marriage. Extra-marital affairs or pre-marital sex are also forbidden.
I first blogged about SPU when Jeaux Rinedahl, an adjunct nursing professor, who is gay, sued SPU in 2021, because he was denied tenure. Interesting: his case was settled out of court.
Nevertheless, SPU affirmed their policy on sexual practices in May 2022, fearful that if it didn't it would lose its affiliation with the Free Methodist Church if it withdrew its policy. LGBTQIA2S+ allies responded by staging a sit-in outside the president's office and handing him miniature Pride flags at the graduation ceremony in June 2022.
In response to their stand at SPU, the attorney general started this investigation. SPU defends its position as a matter of "religious freedom," otherwise known as the freedom to discriminate against LGBTQIA2S+ people.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office stated that the filing of a lawsuit against his office by SPU "demonstrate that the university believes it is above the law to such an extraordinary degree that it is shielded from answering basic questions from my office regarding the university's compliance with state law," according to the Seattle Times. And the Washington state law? No discrimination is allowed against LGBTQIA2S+ people in terms of hiring practices, housing, or healthcare.
Here's a link to the story: https://www.advocate.com/religion/2022/8/01/christian-school-sues-over-washington-ags-probe-anti-lgbtq-bias
Also here: https://religionnews.com/2022/07/29/washington-state-attorney-confirms-probe-into-seattle-pacific-universitys-anti-lgbtq-hiring-practices/
"Religious freedom" is the new (and old) way of being able to discriminate against LGBTQIA2S+ people. Under federal law, a church, mosque, or synagogue can use "religious freedom" in terms of favoring members of their own faith in hiring practices for religious leaders, such as clergy. However, such is not the case with an church-connected institution of higher education, which also receives state and federal monies, to use "religious freedom" as a way of discriminating against LGBTQIA2S+ people. And many conservative church-related institutions of higher education have been using "religious freedom" as a way of discriminating quite a bit of late.
And if they use "religious freedom" to discriminate against LGBTQIA2S+ people, couldn't they use the same term and idea in discriminating people based on gender, race, religion, age, or ability?
Stay tuned on this case!
Comments
Post a Comment