The layers of hypocrisy on the part of the religious right in relation to discrimination laws are many and varied. Let’s examine them.
In California, they’re screaming bloody murder that a bill adding sexual orientation to the state’s anti-discrimination laws don’t have an exemption for religious groups. But religion is already in the anti-discrimination legislation and they don’t want any religious exemptions for that one, even for private universities. See this Agape Press article about a recent decision by Georgetown University (a private Jesuit university) to not allow several evangelical protestant ministries on the campus. And the ADF has now signed on to represent those evangelical groups, presumably in court.
So here’s their argument: when it comes to discriminating against gays, even groups that are directly funded with our tax dollars should be allowed to do so. But when it comes to discriminating against religious groups, even private religious groups should not be allowed to do so – unless, of course, it’s them. If an evangelical school was forced to allow a Catholic or Muslim ministry on campus, we’d hear all about the tyranny of it all. There is no genuine appeal to principal here, there is only their own dishonest self-interest.
Their argument for why sexual orientation shouldn’t be added to the list of prohibited types of discrimination is that sexual orientation isn’t immutable like race is. From the Worldnutdaily:
“As a citizen of California and a religious person, I am terribly disappointed in Gov. Schwarzenegger,” said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for CRI. “It is bad public policy to add to the list of protected classes a sexual behavior.
“Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age [sic], national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected,” she said.
But wait…if the standard is mutability, then why do they think religion should be on the list? By any reasonable measure, religion is far more mutable than sexual orientation is. There is a growing body of evidence that sexual orientation is not at all mutable, but we know for a fact that no one is born into a religion. People can and do change their religion all the time. Isn’t it funny how their own arguments apply so perfectly to others, but never to themselves?
This one hasn’t happend yet, but it will: when they file suit and try to get the California law overturned. And I’ll remind them of the thousands of times they’ve ranted stupidly about how evil it is to get “unelected judges” to overturn “the democratic will of the people”. This is sort of the ideological equivalent of transubstantiation: the substance of their arguments are valid and logical when applied to others, then magically transform themselves and become invalid when applied to them.