Blog Posts Archives - American Atheists

Stop State Lawmakers from Using Beliefs to Deny Healthcare

American Atheists — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:03:07 +0000

As a Kentuckian, it’s disappointing to see that my state legislators are prioritizing discrimination over some of the most pressing issues in our commonwealth. In the middle of a pandemic, when healthcare is so critically important to all of us, the Kentucky Senate is advancing a Denial of Healthcare Law, Senate Bill 83. It’s even more disappointing to see similar bills popping up in other states, like Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Kentucky Senator Stephen Meredith’s bill would allow any worker in a healthcare setting—from doctors, nurses, and therapists, to nutritionists, physical therapists, nursing home faculty, hospital custodians, and more—to refuse to provide any service based on a philosophical or religious belief. Essentially, a healthcare worker could refuse to do their job and their employer could take no action against them. Even worse, this bill allows hospitals and payers to also refuse to provide or cover healthcare—including employers and insurance companies! Can you imagine all the services that could be denied and all the different “religious/philosophical beliefs” workers, employers, and insurers might have? Remember Kim Davis, the county clerk who refused to do her job and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Imagine if everyone working in a healthcare setting—or even your boss—had a legal right to deny you medical services. Here are a few examples in which “religious/philosophical beliefs” could be used to deny medical care. Receptionists could refuse to check in any patient they disapprove of: a single woman receiving pregnancy care, an overweight person receiving care for heart disease, a person living with HIV, a young person receiving a vaccine, or a smoker receiving care for lung cancer. Nursing homes would be able to refuse elderly people their ongoing treatment that they disagree with, such as contraception to prevent STIs, HIV care, or end-of-life palliative care. A pharmacist would be able to refuse to fill any prescription with which they disagree, ranging from contraception to HIV medication and beyond, and then refuse to refer the prescription to allow the patient to get it filled elsewhere. A medical researcher could refuse to publish the results of a government funded study if the results conflict with that individual’s personal beliefs. Your employer could refuse to cover pregnancy care to encourage women not to have children and take maternity leave. Think of all the harm to you, your friends, and family who are women, older Americans, living in rural areas, living with HIV, LGBTQ, or impoverished. Religious or philosophical refusals are not merely a matter of individual rights because they always affect someone else’s health or access to care, including your loved ones. There is simply no evidence that health care workers are regularly forced to provide health services that violate their religious beliefs. In fact, the opposite is true. Hospitals and other healthcare institutions regularly accommodate the desire of workers to avoid certain procedures that do not align with their beliefs. The number of instances where a worker has been purportedly forced to engage in such activities unwillingly is shockingly low. At the federal level, the Department of Health and Human Services for Civil Rights […]

The post Stop State Lawmakers from Using Beliefs to Deny Healthcare appeared first on American Atheists.

Oklahoma’s Church Superspreader Bill is a Recipe for Disaster

American Atheists — Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:30:50 +0000

In the early days of the pandemic, public health restrictions were uncertain, and there were many questions regarding what was essential. Churches were labeled as nonessential and for good reason — they are not immediately necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens. At the same, there’s been unfairness in the way officials have implemented these COVID-19 restrictions in Oklahoma. For example, restaurants and sporting goods stores were allowed to remain open. Critics have latched on to these examples to argue that churches are just as essential. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because you think sporting good stores aren’t essential doesn’t make churches any more essential. Now, drawing on that outrage, certain lawmakers are pushing for SB 368. This controversial bill will limit the ability of Oklahoma to respond to emergencies by declaring religious institutions to be essential, like hospitals and shelters, and prohibit closures for public health. However, the simple fact is this: churches are not the same as hospitals and shelters. You can worship wherever you want; you don’t have to be in church. Matthew 6:6 even tells people to pray privately at home. What’s more, congregations can meet virtually by livestreaming their services. Surgeries and hooking you up to ventilators, on the other hand, have to be done in-person. You can’t livestream that. SB 368 is also being called Oklahoma’s superspreader bill, and there’s a reason for that. The most vulnerable members of our community to COVID-19 are older people or those with preexisting medical conditions. The average churchgoer is 65 and older. There is singing and people tend to be close together, creating a prime environment for disease to spread not only to the attendees, but through them to the broader community. There are countless examples and CDC studies showing that these gatherings are especially likely to spread disease to local communities, resulting in hospitalizations and deaths. Sadly, many of these communities and families will never recover. In fact, SB 368 would only make the pandemic worse. This harmful bill would endanger communities by allowing outlier churches to be exempt from restrictions and strip the Oklahoma government of its ability to protect its citizens. SB 368 is equivalent to a broadsword when a scalpel is needed. It appears even handed but, in reality, it is giving privilege to religious organizations while endangering others. The language of the bill would effectively make public health officials unable to impose restrictions that conflict with a person’s religious beliefs. Broad rules like this are a recipe for disaster. These provisions endanger both congregations and the citizens of Oklahoma. Not only is this bill dangerous now, it is dangerous for the future. The provisions apply not only to the current pandemic but to any state of emergency. We cannot predict what emergencies will come in the future, and SB 368 will tie our state’s hands by leaving our government officials with fewer options to protect all Oklahomans. I’m asking churches, their congregations, and all Oklahomans to reach out to their legislators to oppose SB 368. Tim Ward is the Oklahoma State Director for American Atheists.

The post Oklahoma’s Church Superspreader Bill is a Recipe for Disaster appeared first on American Atheists.

Recent Supreme Court Cases Do Not Prevent COVID-19 Restrictions that Affect Churches

Caroline Mala Corbin — Tue, 09 Feb 2021 18:13:05 +0000

What do the Supreme Court’s Decisions in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo and South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom Require? Guest piece by Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar at University of Miami School of Law. In two orders, one in November 2020 and one in February 2021, the Supreme Court held that state regulations meant to curtail the spread of the coronavirus most likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment – the clause that protects people’s right to practice their religion. However, there has uncertainty as to exactly what these rulings mean. This short memo attempts to clear up some confusion on what these decisions require for the future. In November, at the start of the latest surge of coronavirus cases, the Supreme Court ruled that New York City’s temporary pandemic restrictions likely violated the Free Exercise Clause. New York had imposed mass gathering limits in zones that were particularly hard hit by the virus. In red zones, although ‘nonessential gatherings of any size” were prohibited, houses of worship were allowed to remain open, up to a maximum of ten people. In yellow zones, houses of worship were limited to gatherings of 25 people. Meanwhile, essential businesses, which ranged from supermarkets to transportation facilities, were not so severely limited. Two houses of worship, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, sued. In November, the Supreme Court held in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo that the restrictions probably violated the Free Exercise Clause. Specifically, New York “single[d] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” because it imposed strict limits on houses of worship while allowing essential businesses to remain open without those same limits. Meanwhile, in California, the Governor had imposed restrictions keyed to the severity of the outbreak. In the hardest hit Tier 1 counties, all large indoor gatherings were prohibited, including those congregating for worship. The orders also banned indoor singing and chanting because of those activities’ high risk of transmitting the virus. The orders allowed essential businesses and shops in Tier 1 counties to remain open, although subject to significant capacity limits. In February 2021, the Supreme Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newson said California must temporarily halt its ban on indoor worship services. At the same time, the Court held that California could impose a 25% capacity limit on worship services in Tier 1 counties and could prohibit singing and chanting at those services. The decisions are not final decisions on the merits. The parties did not fully brief and argue these cases before the Supreme Court. Instead, the houses of worships won emergency injunctions. That is, the New York congregations asked the Supreme Court to stop implementation of the Governor’s orders until the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had a chance to hear the case. In California, the church sought an injunction until the Supreme Court decided whether it wanted to grant certiorari to the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Thus, neither was a final decision on the merits, but an interim decision that the restrictions should not apply for […]

The post Recent Supreme Court Cases Do Not Prevent COVID-19 Restrictions that Affect Churches appeared first on American Atheists.

Amid Coronavirus, Governor Whitmer Must Close Dangerous House of Worship Loophole

Nick Fish — Fri, 03 Apr 2020 18:17:39 +0000

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s leadership throughout the ongoing public health emergency has been an exemplar of competence and responsiveness. Her actions have given me confidence that my family and loved ones are in good hands. This is perhaps why her decision to exempt houses of worship from her March 16 and March 23 executive orders limiting gatherings struck such a discordant note. There is no constitutional obligation to exempt religious groups from public health and safety regulations, particularly when lives are on the line. It isn’t required by the Michigan Constitution, nor by the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It’s not just legally unnecessary—it’s bad policy, and could prove deadly. In Washington, D.C., hundreds of people were exposed to the coronavirus after a rector tested positive for COVID-19. In New York, hundreds of members of the Orthodox Jewish and Hasidic community have tested positive after ignoring social distancing guidelines. In Florida and Louisiana, churches are flaunting guidance from the CDC and local health officials and encouraging congregants to shake hands, potentially exposing hundreds more to this deadly virus. And in Arkansas, one pastor said “half of his church is ready to lick the floor, to prove there’s no actual virus.” This worryingly indifferent attitude amongst too many of our community members is being fed by those who would minimize the threat of the virus for political ends, but also by relaxed enforcement and loopholes within the stay-at-home guidelines from government officials. We need decisive and clear guidance from our leaders. Conflicting directives or those undermined by exemptions and loopholes can cost lives. Listen to the advice of medical professionals—prohibit all large gatherings, including those at houses of worship. Gov. Whitmer has the authority under the Constitution to do so. Public health experts and religious liberty advocates, including those with expansive views of religious exemptions, agree: our government has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of our fellow community members and can limit in-person gatherings, even at churches. The U.S. Supreme Court has been crystal clear on balancing religious liberty with public health, saying in the 1944 case Prince v. Massachusetts, “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community…to communicable disease.” This isn’t a partisan issue. Governors across the country, including in Indiana, Washington, Maryland, and New Jersey, have not exempted religious gatherings from their bans on large group gatherings. While I understand Gov. Whitmer’s desire to not infringe on religious freedom, this virus does not care what religion you follow or which God you worship. It is just as easily spread in movie theaters as it is in church pews. And that spread will only continue unless we act now. The directive that we all practice social distancing and minimize the opportunity for this virus to spread among our community requires that we’re all on the same page. Creating carve-outs and exemptions for any type of gathering will cost lives. If we take seriously our obligation to one another as human beings sharing this world and in this fight together, we must follow the best practices advised by health officials to […]

The post Amid Coronavirus, Governor Whitmer Must Close Dangerous House of Worship Loophole appeared first on American Atheists.

Let’s Not Forget the Trump Administration Has Spent Years Attacking Public Health in the Name of Religion

Alison Gill — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:57:27 +0000

Last week, Donald Trump announced his intention to reopen the United States by Easter despite health experts’ warnings (although he’s since walked back his comments). “It’s such an important day for other reasons,” Trump said in an attempt to ingratiate himself further with his evangelical base, imbuing this deadly decision with religious significance. “I just think it would be a beautiful timeline.” And it’s no coincidence that the President’s religious extremist supporters echoed this anti-science position. R.R. Reno, editor of the influential religious magazine, First Things, advocated for pulling the plug on life-saving coronavirus safety measures. “There is a demonic side to the sentimentalism of saving lives at any cost,” he wrote in a recent opinion column. “There are many things more precious than life.” Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of one of the largest evangelical universities in the world, demanded that Liberty University students return to campus, endangering their lives, as multiple students have either been quarantined or tested positive for COVID-19. And then there are defiant churches in Louisiana, Colorado, and elsewhere that are openly bucking public health recommendations, as they purposefully draw in large crowds with the promise of healing. The White House has shown support for these efforts through Tony Perkins, head of the Christian nationalist group Family Research Council. In this light, Trump’s statement that “it’ll be a beautiful time [to] have packed churches all over our country” makes perfect sense. But this is not the first time President Trump has undermined public health to win approval from his religious extremist backers. We must not forget that Trump and his appointees have spent the last three years doing everything they can to attack our national health care. For example, just within the last year: In March 2019, HHS issued a final rule giving preference to religious organizations to receive funding for Title X family planning programs. This program is a vital source of health care for low-income, rural, and minority women, and the new rules have pushed out important providers like Planned Parenthood in favor of so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.” These fake health centers are more interested in advancing their religous, anti-abortion agenda than serving the health needs of women. In May 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finalized a rule to let health care providers and institutions deny care to patients based on religious beliefs. Later vacated by a federal court after legal challenge, this rule threatened the health, safety, and well-being of millions of Americans, as it would have allowed discrimination against vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ people, people with HIV, women, and elderly people. In June 2019, HHS proposed a rule to strip protections for trans people from the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination regulations. Then in November, HHS simply decided to stop enforcement of critical civil rights protections in grant programs allowing organizations receiving health and human services grants—totalling more than $500 billion annually—to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, and religion. In December 2019, HHS published a final rule that requires health insurance offered through a state exchange to separately bill any costs relating […]

The post Let’s Not Forget the Trump Administration Has Spent Years Attacking Public Health in the Name of Religion appeared first on American Atheists.

Coming Out as LGBTQ, Coming Out as Atheists

American Atheists — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:09:38 +0000

This blog post was written by Nick Fish and Alison Gill in celebration of the 30th Annual National Coming Out Day. “Oh, I’m an atheist, too. I just never talk about it.” Nearly half of all LGBTQ people are religiously unaffiliated, and yet we’ve lost count of how many times we have heard those words—or similar ones—at LGBTQ community events or from staff members of LGBTQ organizations. The stark contrast in hearing this language from leaders who are powerful and visible advocates for LGBTQ equality serves to frame the difference in the political power and achievements of the LGBTQ and Secular Movements. The LGBTQ Movement has a long and impressive history of encouraging people to come out and celebrate their identities. Pioneers like Harvey Milk have paved the way for occasions like pride parades to become annual events in hundreds of cities and towns throughout the nation. Coming Out Day is another event that serves to normalize LGBTQ people and to provide role models for young people grappling with their identity. The Secular Movement has been led by some extraordinary figures, and we at American Atheists are proud to be continuing the work of our founder, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. But in general, there hasn’t been much work done to help closeted atheists come out. Although about a quarter of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, the visibility of atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious Americans lags far behind that of the LGBTQ community. Outspoken atheists are the exception rather than the rule, and while there are 75 million non-religious Americans, very few of them are open about their lack of religious belief. And who can blame them? Being openly atheist can be difficult. In the more religious areas of our nation, coming out as an atheist can result in discrimination, harassment, family rejection, loss of friends, and even violence. Even in more cosmopolitan areas of the country, where being an atheist can seem almost commonplace, many are still reluctant to discuss their beliefs. But while it can be risky to come out, it’s also essential to normalizing our identity, which allows others recognize our shared humanity. According to the Pew Forum, 87% of adults in America know someone who is gay or lesbian, and 30% know someone who is trans. Pew’s research also shows that among those who have become more accepting of LGBTQ people, most say that they have LGBTQ friends or family members. Despite the fact that there are at least twice as many atheists in the US than there are LGBTQ people, only 60% of adults say that they know someone who is atheist. Pew also reports that people who know at least one atheist feel much warmer about our community than those who do not. Whether one is LGBTQ, atheist, or both, being visible as a community is essential to build our political power, to advocate for our rights, to humanize us in the eyes of the public, to oppose stigma, and to provide role models for our youth. Coming out makes a powerful statement that we will not sit idly by while religious supremacist politicians and religious leaders […]

The post Coming Out as LGBTQ, Coming Out as Atheists appeared first on American Atheists.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Was a Strike Against Religious Equality and Free Speech

American Atheists — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:54:18 +0000

Since its issuance on June 4, there has been much focus on the scope and meaning of the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While we won’t exhaustively discuss the details of the case or the court’s decision (you can get that here), we’d like to examine a few parts of the decision of particular relevance to atheists and nonbelievers. This case, despite it having an LGBTQ framing in the media and involving LGBTQ people as parties, is not simply an LGBTQ issue, but an atheist issue at its core. It is about our freedom to tell the truth about religion. The decision was a disappointment for civil rights advocates, who sought a simple recognition that freedom of speech does not allow a business to discriminate against its customers, a proposition supported by decades of legal precedent. Instead, the court ruled in favor of the baker who engaged in discrimination against Davids Mullins and Charlie Craig on the narrow grounds that the baker faced anti-religious animus in the consideration of the case by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Supreme Court ruled this way to avoid the case’s harder questions regarding discrimination against LGBTQ people. And now, with the Court sending the Arlene’s Flowers case back to the Washington State courts for further review, the Christian supremacists behind the Masterpiece Cakeshop case are already drawing battle lines around the “anti-religious animus” issue. Now, lawyers at ADF are elaborating on this same point, saying AG Ferguson "demeaned her faith. He has compared her religious beliefs about marriage—which the Supreme Court said are ‘decent and honorable’—to racial discrimination." There's more here: pic.twitter.com/FJJytKRB3R — Dominic Holden (@dominicholden) June 5, 2018 In the Masterpiece decision, while the court did not overturn civil rights protections for LGBTQ people, nor create broad exemptions from public accommodation laws on the basis of religion, religious extremists will certainly portray this decision as if it did. For example, Ralph Reed—best known as the founding executive director of the Christian Coalition—declared that the court “has reaffirmed that the Constitution protects freedom of speech, including speech of a religious content, and the state cannot compel speech against the will of the individual.” This is plainly false—the court’s decision did not involve compelled speech. Presumably, Christian nationalists like Reed think that if they lie often enough, and with enough volume, their hateful rhetoric will shape the legal debate. American Atheists will work with other civil rights organizations to counter this narrative and to assure the public that nondiscrimination laws, including those protecting LGBTQ people, atheists and religious minorities, racial minorities, and others, are still in place and effective. But let us return to the idea of animus, which is where the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision takes on an even greater importance for atheists and nonbelievers. The Supreme Court ruled that the baker faced inappropriate religious animus (or bias) based primarily on a statement made by one of the Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners. So, let’s examine what the commissioner actually said—here is the quote in its entirety (note that the last sentence was removed by the Supreme Court): “I would also like to reiterate what we […]

The post The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Was a Strike Against Religious Equality and Free Speech appeared first on American Atheists.

American Atheists Intern Amanda Scott Helped Protect Atheists, Church-State Separation Over the Summer

Amanda Scott — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:55:19 +0000

Six years ago I read a local news story about a police department in my home state of Alabama proposing a program that would allow first-time offenders to attend church in lieu of serving a full jail sentence. I saw how people in my community were applauding this decision for “bringing people back to God.” I wondered what about non-Christians? Where are they supposed to go? I didn’t know then that would be a defining moment for me in deciding what I wanted to do with my life, but it was. Now I know I want to be a civil rights attorney who defends people who are targets for discrimination, especially atheists who have been traditionally underrepresented. So when I saw that American Atheists was looking for a summer legal and policy intern in their Washington, DC office, I knew I had found the perfect opportunity. I would get to spend my summer working at the nation’s oldest and largest organization for atheists. Over the past few months I’ve gotten to work on many important issues here at the American Atheists Legal Center. One of the major, long-term legal projects I worked on was a memo addressing the rights of atheists in child custody battles. Atheist parents frequently report being denied custody or visitation rights to their children in court because of the prevailing idea that religion is linked to morality and atheists are inherently less moral than religious people. Judges have on more than one occasion ruled in favor of a religious parent over an atheist parent because the religious parent was better able to provide for “the well-being of the child” by taking the child to worship services. I did research on state laws and cases to help the Legal Center be better able to advise atheist parents of their parental rights. Another legal project I worked on was our lawsuit in Ohio alleging that a child with developmental disabilities was baptized by a minister and a court-approved mentor against the expressed wishes of his parents. In the case, I conducted research about what constitutes a “state actor” for the purpose of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and which individuals could be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of the child and the family. On the public policy side, I participated in the annual Secular Lobby Day held by the Secular Coalition of America—of which American Atheists is a member—and drafted and edited a section in the Secular Model Policy Guide calling for the repeal of state laws allowing religious parents to refuse to provide medical treatment based on religious objections. Currently 38 states carve out a religious exemption in their state’s law on child neglect and abuse to protect religious parents who choose to pray for their children instead of seeking medical help. At the annual Secular Lobby Day I joined American Atheists in advocating against the repeal of the ban on church politicking. President Trump, in an attempt to appease his supporters on the Religious Right, vowed to repeal the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the federal tax code that prohibits religious institutions […]

The post American Atheists Intern Amanda Scott Helped Protect Atheists, Church-State Separation Over the Summer appeared first on American Atheists.

Walgreens: Prioritizing Dogma Over Healthcare

American Atheists — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:26:48 +0000

After a Walgreens pharmacy in Albuquerque, NM refused to fill a young woman’s prescription for birth control, the ACLU of New Mexico and the Southwest Women’s Law Center filed complaints with the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau, alleging that the refusal was a form of sex discrimination. In a statement, Walgreens said that their policy is to allow pharmacists and other employees to “step away from a transaction to which they may have a moral objection, and requires the pharmacist or other employee to refer the transaction to another employee or manager on duty to complete the customer’s request.” In this case, the pharmacist who objected to filling the prescription for birth control told the woman, a minor, to go to a different pharmacy to fill the prescription. In response, American Atheists’ National Legal Director Amanda Knief sent a letter telling Walgreens that she is taking her business elsewhere as a result of their policy to put the religious dogma of employees above the health of their customers. Her letter is below. June 6, 2017 Stefano Pessina ATTN: Consumer Relations Walgreen Co. 1419 Lake Cook Rd. MS #L390 Deerfield, IL 60015 Dear Mr. Pessina, Yesterday I read a news story about a mother who was refused service by a pharmacist at a Walgreens in New Mexico. One of her daughter’s prescriptions was not filled because of the employee’s personal beliefs. I understand that a lawsuit has been filed against Walgreens over this issue. I became a Walgreens customer more than a decade ago after Walgreens took over Osco Drug in Iowa. I continued to use Walgreens when I lived in New Jersey and do so now in Washington, D.C. I am writing to tell you that I am switching to a different pharmacy company and I will no longer be shopping at any Walgreens. This will cause me inconvenience and money, as the new pharmacy I have chosen is more expensive than Walgreens. However, the actions of the pharmacist and the response of Walgreens have convinced me that my money will be better spent elsewhere. I cannot imagine the anger and frustration of the mother who was refused service by a pharmacist when trying to fill the prescriptions that a doctor prescribed for her daughter. Walgreens operates a business that provides medications that doctors have prescribed for their patients. Why are you giving a third party the right to interfere in the medical treatment of a patient based on personal beliefs? If you employ pharmacists who have personal objections to some prescriptions, they should find work that does not offend their personal beliefs. Your policy of allowing a pharmacist to refuse to provide legal, prescribed medication is unconscionable. Medical treatment can be scary, embarrassing, and worrisome. The last thing I want to have to worry about is whether a pharmacist is going to refuse to fill a prescription because that person objects to the medication or is making judgements about my condition or who I am. I do not want to dread every trip to the pharmacy, but Walgreens’ policy would subject me to exactly that. I now worry that […]

The post Walgreens: Prioritizing Dogma Over Healthcare appeared first on American Atheists.

Bake a Cake—And Be Religious Too!

Amanda Knief — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:50:03 +0000

Apparently, not all bakers want everyone to sample their cakes. There are two high-profile cases in Oregon and Colorado that revolve around cake makers who refused to bake cakes for the weddings of same-sex couples. The bakers in both cases based their refusals on their religious beliefs. I am not going to go into their beliefs because what beliefs these bakers have and why does not matter. What does matter is what the law says about refusing to sell cakes. In the first half of the 20th century, it wasn’t cakes that made the news, it was a hotel where black Americans were being refused service for who-knows-what-racist-and-stupid-reason. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, outlaws public accommodations (businesses where the public is served) from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, and a couple of other things. Some folks resisted and fought this in the ‘60s. But the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the accommodations section under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US in 1964. Since then, many states including Oregon and Colorado, have adopted their own anti-discrimination laws for public accommodations. And some states, including Oregon and Colorado, have added sexual orientation as a protected class in their statutes. This means that if you have a business that serves the public, you cannot legally refuse service because the customer is straight or gay. So, to sum up thus far: If you have a business—including a bakery—in Oregon or Colorado that serves the public, you must serve all straight and gay customers. But wait! These bakers say they refused service because of their religious beliefs. Doesn’t that make a difference? No, it doesn’t. Because it is in the best interest of society to not have to search Yelp for the one bakery that might bake a cake for same-sex couples, and depending on where you live, Yelp isn’t terribly helpful because you only have one bakery to choose from. So these anti-discrimination laws protect the rights of minorities to ensure that public accommodation means exactly that—the whole public is served—in the city and in the country. Now, the baker in Colorado says that he is sincere in his discrimination because he also refuses to make cakes for Halloween and any that are “anti-American.” Here’s the problem with that: Halloween and anti-Americanism are not protected classes of people. The Civil Rights Act and these state laws are to protect people, not ideas. They are intended to correct and prevent decades of discrimination—the kind of discrimination that LGBT people have faced and continue to face. The kind of discrimination that makes these public accommodation laws necessary in the first place. These bakers and others now trying to claim religious protection from equal protection laws think their religion trumps our laws—but it doesn’t. They think their bigotry is somehow made “better” or less awful because they put it in religious terms—but it isn’t. They pass the buck to their god rather than be accountable for their own prejudices. Shame on them. Woe to this baker if a non-patriotic gay Satanist walks into his bakery.

The post Bake a Cake—And Be Religious Too! appeared first on American Atheists.