Kentucky Law Journal Volume 95 | Issue 3 Article 2 2007 Civil Rights for Whom?: Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom George W. Dent Jr. Case Western Reserve University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Dent, George W. Jr. (2007) "Civil Rights for Whom?: Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 95 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol95/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Civil Rights for Whom?: Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom George W Dent, Jr' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 555 I. LEGAL DEFENSES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ........................ 558 A. U.S. Constitution ........................................... 558 1. Free Exercise of Religion................................... 558 2. Freedom of Expression and Association....................... 561 3. The EstablishmentClause .................................. 562 B. FederalStatutes ............................................ 563 C. State Constitutions .......................................... 564 D . State Statutes............................................... 565 II. GOVERNMENT ACTION SUPPORTING HOMOSEXUALITY............... 565 A. Laws Governing PrivateEmployers andService Providers......... 565 1. DiscriminationBased on Homosexuality ...................... 565 2. Does DiscriminationBased on Homosexuality Constitute Religious or Sex Discrimination?. ........................... 568 3. Private Service and Housing Providers....................... 569 4. Business Entities as Expressive or Religious Organizations ...... 572 B. Government Employment .................................... 575 1. Discrimination Against Homosexuals ........................ 575 2. The Religious Freedom of Government Employees .............. 577 a. Lum pkin v. Brown ................................... 577 b. Good News Employee Association v. Hicks ............. 578 c. Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District ........... 580 d. Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Wilkerson ............................. 580 e. Vernon v. City of Los Angeles .......................... 583 f Altman v. Minnesota Department of Corrections ......... 585 g. Akridge v. W ilkinson ................................. 585 i Schott-van den Eynden Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author thanks Rick Duncan, Jonathan Entin, Maggie Gallagher, and Jessie Hill for their helpful comments, and thanks Judy Kaul, Justin Hughes, and Christopher Boeman for their excellent research assistance. 554 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 95 h. Speech Codes ......................................... 586 i. Religious Judges ....................................... 586 3. Governance of the Workplace................................ 587 C. Government Contractors...................................... 588 1. Okwedy v. M olinari ..................................... 589 2. Catholic Charities of Maine, Inc. v. City of Portland ........ 590 3. CatholicAdoption Agencies in Massachusetts ................... 591 4. The Salvation Army in San Francisco ....................... 592 D. Use of Public Facilities....................................... 592 E. Students in Public EducationalInstitutions ...................... 595 1. Student Organizations..................................... 596 2. IndividualStudents ....................................... 598 3. University Speech Codes and Thought Control .............. 603 4. Use of University Facilitiesand School-SubsidizedActivities ..... 608 F Government Endorsement of Homosexuality ...................... 608 G. Regulation of Expressive Associations........................... 614 H . CiminalLaw.............................................. 618 1. FederalLaw ............................................. 618 2. State Law ............................................... 619 L RaisingChildren ............................................. 620 III. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS ................. 621 A. The Private Workplace....................................... 621 1. Bodett v. Coxcom b, Inc ................................... 621 2. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard .............................. 624 3. Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband ........................... 626 4. Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc .............. 627 B. PrivateColleges and Universities.............................. 627 IV. RESOLVING THE CONFLICT...................................... 628 A. GeneralPrinciples ........................................... 628 B. The Case For(and Against) Laws Supporting Homosexuality....... 629 C. The Case For (andAgainst) Religious Freedom................... 633 D. Resolutions................................................. 636 1. Equal Rights or Special Rights?. ............................ 636 2. EqualRespect for Homosexuality? .......................... 637 3. Freedom of Expression.................................... 640 4. Discriminationin Employment and Services................... 642 5. The Expressive Role of Law and Government.................. 645 C ONCLUSION ..................................................... 647 2006-2007] GAY RIGHTS VS. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INTRODUCTION Disapproval of homosexuality is widespread, deep-rooted, and of long standing. Although some cultures have tolerated some homosexual acts, more often they have been condemned. In the West, including America, homosexual acts were often crimes, and society often shunned homosexu- als. Many religions denounce homosexuality. For nearly 3,000 years the people of "the Book"-Jews, Christians, and Muslims-have deemed ho- mosexuality a grave sin, but disapproval of homosexuality is so widespread that it cannot be ascribed to theology. More likely, most people have an innate distaste for homosexuality. Put another way, given human nature, heterosexuality can be considered intrinsically better, an aspect of human flourishing.3 Further, heterosexuality, and especially traditional marriage, have important benefits for society.4 In the last forty years, however, a movement to change the treatment of homosexuality has emerged in parts of the West. This movement first sought only tolerance-the removal of legal burdens on homosexuality and an end to violence against homosexuals. Now the movement demands approval of homosexuality as legally and socially equal to heterosexuality. The demand for approval brings the gay movement into conflict with "tra- ditional" religion. This conflict flares throughout our culture, from the por- trayal of homosexuality in the media to its treatment in public schools. A key, if not paramount, battleground in this culture war is the law.6 In myriad contexts, from the right of university students to form Christian societies to the treatment by private employers of the gay partners of their employees, the gay movement is pressing for laws to require people and institutions to accept homosexuality regardless of their religious beliefs. In many a skirmish in this war, the tangible stakes are small, even trivial. Even taken as a whole, the material interests may not be that great. Homo- 2 See the TORAH (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) (Jewish), the NEW TESTAMENT (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:9-1o, 1 Corinthians 6:9-IO) (Christian), and the KORAN (The Heights 7:80) (Moslem). See generally WARREN J. BLUMENFELD & DIANE RAYMOND, LOOKING AT GAY AND LESBIAN LIFE 152-217 (1988). 3 See infra notes 560-63 and accompanying text. 4 See infra notes 564-73 and accompanying text. 5 Not all religions resist the demand. Although it is hard to find any acceptance of ho- mosexuality in Judaism or Christianity until the last few decades, some of their branches now condone homosexuality. This Article calls sects that reject equality "traditional." The term is imprecise since attitudes toward the gay movement range from enthusiastic support to blan- ket rejection, but it includes Orthodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and most Muslim and evangelical Protestant congregations. 6 See Joseph P.Shapiro & Gareth G. Cook, Straight Talk About Gays, U.S. NEWS &WORLD REP., July 5, 1993, at 47, 48 (stating that "laws are often the first step toward changing hearts and minds"). See generally JAMES DAvISON HUNTER, CULTURE WARS: 'IHE STRUGGLE TO DEFINE AMERICA (1991). Hunter lists law as one of the five fiercest battlegrounds in this war. Id. at 173. KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 95 sexuals have considerable economic and political power; in a free market democracy most businesses and governments will not want to antagonize this constituency. Even religious organizations that consider homosexual acts a sin often eschew discrimination against homosexuals in most spheres, including employment. Yet this war is not amenable to compromise. Again, the goal of the gay movement is not primarily economic; most gays already have above-aver- age incomes. The goal, rather, is approval of homosexuality as legally and socially equal to heterosexuality. Because of the tremendous influence of religion in America, this goal cannot be achieved