Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000282A
|
00:16 Welcome to the "Liberty Insider."
00:18 This is a program bringing you news, views, discussion, 00:21 up-to-date information 00:22 and analysis of religious liberty events 00:25 in the United States and around the world. 00:26 My name Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty Magazine 00:30 and my guest Greg Hamilton, 00:32 president of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association 00:36 and graduate of the J. M. Dawson, 00:40 I got to get my initials right, 00:42 J. M. Dawson School of Church-State 00:44 Studies of Baylor University. 00:47 And all round expert and raconteur and-- 00:51 Thanks for having me. 00:52 And associate of mine too. 00:53 We've worked together for many years. 00:55 Let's talk about something that's become front 00:57 and center on almost any discussion of religious liberty 01:01 in the United States one way or another 01:04 a good percentage of the discussion centers 01:06 around gay marriage and its affect 01:08 on so called religious freedom 01:10 or so called affect on religious freedom. 01:13 What's your take on this? 01:14 Where are we now? 01:15 Where is it heading and why is there such a nexus 01:18 between gay right and religious liberty? 01:21 Well, for me and the thing 01:24 I'm gonna just share with you right now, 01:25 I'm not an expert in this area 01:27 but I will share with you my opinion. 01:29 There are others who are far more expert 01:31 at this and I could name names but I won't. 01:34 But I think that we as a church 01:37 have to protect our religious institutions. 01:40 It's mission, it's mission integrity 01:43 and to be very strong about that 01:45 in making sure policies are showed up 01:48 like at the North Pacific Union Conference 01:49 or Family Life Committee that's put together. 01:51 Now you are the director of religious liberty 01:53 for that quadrant of North America for the-- 01:56 Yes, states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, 01:59 Washington but our Family Life Committee 02:01 which I serve on the board there we were directed 02:05 or tasked to write up a preamble so to speak 02:10 and later to draft policy regarding hiring practices 02:16 and hiring policies making sure 02:18 that our institutions are well protected 02:20 from claims of discrimination per se. 02:24 So that's where we largely want to go 02:28 as far as the whole gay marriage debate 02:31 Todd McFarlane and General 02:32 Conference's Litigation Committee got together-- 02:35 Do you say our General Conference. 02:36 Headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist church in. 02:38 And Todd McFarlane's General Council there, 02:41 they came together and they drafted a statement 02:44 that got published by the Adventist Review 02:46 and Herald and said very clearly 02:49 we are going to remain neutral on this issue 02:53 in terms of making a stand at the Supreme Court. 02:57 But raising in our brief religious liberty concerns 03:03 that could impact the church in regard 03:05 to whatever decision is made by the US Supreme Court. 03:09 So that is I think worthy and I think 03:13 taking a neutral stand on this issue 03:16 I think it's worthy, because-- 03:18 Politically neutral but we're not morally neutral. 03:20 No, we're not morally neutral 03:21 because our church has very clear statements 03:23 and that's very needed and that's why we have, 03:26 you know, drafting policies to speak 03:28 at the North Pacific Union Conference. 03:30 Morally speaking in terms of particular institutions 03:33 as well as making public statements 03:35 about what we view concerning the lifestyle to be wrong 03:39 and sinful according to the Bible, 03:41 we are very clear about. 03:42 But when it comes to being involved politically 03:45 or when it comes to going down the road of bigotry 03:51 so to speak and going too far 03:54 in trying to stamp out gay right 03:58 or anything like that our church is not involved in-- 04:01 in my opinion it should not be involved. 04:03 No. 04:04 You know, when we talk about this it's very often 04:07 what comes to my mind is the story 04:09 Jesus told about the Pharisees. 04:11 Remember he stood up in the public place. 04:13 I thank the Lord, I'm not as other men. Yeah. 04:15 We can't afford to be like that. No. 04:18 Christians have a moral compass and a moral constrain 04:23 but we can never afford to look at other people's-- 04:27 particularly those outside the community 04:29 that have made this commitment 04:31 to a certain behavioral norm, biblical norm. 04:35 You can't condemn them. They have every right 04:38 within their society to do it. 04:40 They want every right within God's construct 04:42 to even destroy themselves, right. 04:44 Yes, indeed. 04:45 Jesus mingled with drunks, 04:48 another word for that in the Bible winebibbers, 04:50 all right, whores, tax collectors you name it. 04:54 And the Pharisees took the road of saying 04:58 that He was complicit through association 05:00 that He was guilty by association 05:03 when in fact, He was not. 05:05 He showed them the right way, 05:06 He led them to the way of righteousness 05:08 and He didn't compromise. 05:10 And that is the role of the Christian. 05:11 The role of the Christian is having the spirit of the law 05:14 and exercising the spirit of the law and yes, 05:18 upholding the letter of the law 05:20 but not just upholding letter of law 05:23 not applying the spirit of law. 05:25 And I see the same thing with the whole gay 05:26 marriage issue especially in regard 05:29 to state religious freedom acts before legislatures. 05:33 Right now there is this effort 05:35 to create freedom conscience bills 05:38 or what I call 05:39 State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on steroids. 05:42 That is they go to the extreme. 05:45 They try to give certain benefits 05:50 and protections to business owners, 05:53 to refuse services to gay couples seeking wedding 05:57 services whether it be a camera services, 06:00 florist services or baking cake services. 06:04 I know which is really just indulging 06:05 a private prejudice in some ways, isn't it? 06:07 Well, what could-- 06:08 What's the difference between 06:10 that and saying using conscience 06:13 and religion of white southerners 06:17 during a Jim Crow era 06:19 and prior to the Civil Rights era 06:21 using religion and conscience to refuse services to black 06:24 and thus perpetuating segregation. 06:25 Absolutely. So that is problematic. 06:27 In fact, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th 06:30 Amendment of the constitution, there is no way we're gonna win 06:34 that battle in terms of preventing 06:37 gay marriage from being law. 06:39 As we are doing this program 06:41 there is a lot of news nationally about Indiana and-- 06:45 Couple of reports. 06:46 Yeah, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 06:50 that they pass there which I read it 06:52 actually before our discussion, it is slightly different 06:56 from the-- the form 06:57 that it was passed in other states. 06:59 It's widely different not slightly. 07:01 For example it holds-- it would hold 07:03 the business owner harmless against civil suit. 07:05 Yes. 07:06 So it's not upholding just-- 07:08 It's not even handed. Yeah. 07:09 So it's exactly what you are saying 07:11 that they could indulge in prejudice 07:13 and then not be accountable for it 07:15 even by the individual quite apart 07:17 from what the government requires on non discrimination. 07:19 Yours truly who initiated and worked with former 07:24 now retired Idaho State Senator Grant Ipsen 07:28 initiated and passed Idaho's Free 07:30 Exercise of Religion Act of 2000. 07:32 That was a big deal for us. 07:34 And then last year there was an effort 07:36 to amend our law, our statute to then put it 07:43 into a form of religious freedom act on steroids. 07:46 And we just said no, because for several reasons. 07:50 When a business owner seeks to run a business in a city 07:54 or county, he has to sign on the bottom line 07:56 that he will uphold antidiscrimination laws 07:59 or the civil rights code and in all their aspects. 08:04 Whether it be race, religion, gender, age, disabilities 08:11 and now in most cities and counties 08:13 across United States sex orientation 08:15 and gender identity which I'm not sure 08:18 you can define gender identity 08:19 and sex orientation that becomes more problematic. 08:22 In fact I even testified at the Idaho Legislature 08:26 this year against adding that to the states civil rights code 08:30 only as a means of prevention. 08:32 Obviously they are gonna go down that road eventually 08:34 but nevertheless to hold it off as long as we can. 08:38 But in the mean time they tried to amend our law, 08:43 our Idaho Religious Freedom Act of 2000-- 08:47 So you saw that they were trying 08:48 to take it to this next step. 08:49 The advance "Christian" agenda 08:53 rather than seek protection for faith, right? 08:56 Well, but as James Nelson stated after my testimony 09:00 in Montana just last week for in reference 09:04 to their State Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 09:07 I just testified last week and I said that we were neutral 09:10 to semi-supportive if they accept the amendments 09:14 that I propose to the bill which would have made it 09:17 a generic religious freedom act that harmonized 09:21 with 1983 a federal Religious Restoration Act 09:27 and also Montana's state Supreme Court rulings 09:32 which clearly upheld 09:33 which takes more time to explain 09:35 but upheld the compelling state interest 09:38 on this restricted means test 09:39 that we seek to restore and nothing more. 09:43 And Phil, our viewers are on something. 09:44 I know the answer but I want to ask you. 09:47 If this was passed on the federal level 09:49 why are we doing this state by state? 09:54 Mainly because it's good for states to come up 09:57 with their own statements. 09:59 The federal one only applies to federal law, 10:02 it doesn't apply to the states so that's why states are-- 10:03 But it was restrictedly, 10:05 it was felt to be unconstitutional 10:07 to apply it beyond the limited powers of certain-- 10:12 And that's what-- 10:14 Was it interstate commerce between-- 10:15 Yes, and that's-- 10:16 Which is regular threat 10:18 but that's what US supreme pass general laws to the state. 10:20 Yes. 10:21 That's what the US Supreme Court ruled 10:22 in a case called Boerne versus Flores Texas in 1997. 10:30 They said that the inter-- 10:32 the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act 10:35 does not apply at the state level, 10:37 it applies only at the federal level 10:39 dealing with federal law. 10:41 So the Hobby-Lobby decision-- 10:42 That's what I was about to say. 10:43 Just-- 10:44 That was totally argued on the federal level. 10:46 Isn't it? Yes. 10:47 So it doesn't apply to state level 10:48 so it's now states are trying to now hyper energize 10:53 and create a new standard beyond 10:55 the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act Movement 10:59 in the state legislator's years ago. 11:02 And they want to include the rights of business owners 11:06 to refuse anybody they want. 11:08 And the problem with that is James Nelson 11:10 pointed out in Montana is former Supreme Court justice 11:13 in Montana who testified just after me, 11:15 in fact he cited me twice very favorably. 11:17 He said that was a first to me, 11:19 I never had that happen so that was a thrill for me actually. 11:23 He said that when you go down the road of citing 11:27 conscience for anything for refusal anything, 11:29 anytime you are opening up 11:31 a whole plethora of cases even anarchy. 11:34 Now I know some people would disagree with that 11:37 but if you can refuse service for anything, 11:40 anytime what it does it allows business owners, 11:43 employers to say to-- let's say 11:46 a Sabbath keeper comes up to them and say, 11:48 hey, I want the Sabbath off. 11:50 I want an accommodation, okay. 11:52 And they said well, that doesn't agree with my religion 11:56 and so since my religion doesn't agree with yours 11:58 I'm a Baptist, I'm a Catholic, I'm Pentecostal, 12:02 I won't have to accommodate you. 12:04 I don't have to recognize title seven of the Civil Rights Act 12:07 regarding religious discrimination in workplace. 12:09 Yeah. You know, it does open a whole open doors. 12:12 And by the way people say that that's not, 12:14 that's not gonna happen because judges and courts, 12:18 you know, balance those rights out 12:20 but I think in the end 12:22 religious freedom suffers for it 12:24 and in the end I think 12:26 that certain classes of people suffer for that 12:29 because when you look at the Civil Rights Act 12:31 with gender and now sex orientation, 12:34 gender identity if let's say Supreme Court passes 12:37 the gay marriage this coming summer 12:41 what it will do is essentially create a competing right 12:48 with the religious freedom component 12:52 or classification of rights protected. 12:56 So you have this clash, 12:57 all the others gender, race-- 13:00 Why would it be a competing with that? 13:01 Well, because gender and race all the other classes 13:05 in the civil rights code do not compete 13:08 with the religious freedom, one. 13:09 Okay, and they don't compete, they never, 13:11 they never have a problem. 13:12 Now with the inclusion of gay rights as a protective class 13:18 or gay marriage specifically it creates a clash directly 13:24 because of the moral component 13:25 of what people of faith see as their religious convictions 13:29 and rights to be accommodated and exempted 13:32 in certain circumstances in the workplace 13:36 and especially in the business arena. 13:38 I think it can, it can we know that 13:41 it can create a conflict 13:42 but it doesn't have to automatically. 13:44 It creates a conflict when someone 13:46 I think misapplies their religious faith, 13:49 applies it in a way that advances perhaps 13:53 the narrow view of another human being. 13:56 When have you known the courts to apply 13:59 everything evenly across the states? 14:02 That's why I always 14:03 makes up the food changes of Supreme Court. 14:04 And you might not know the answer to this, 14:06 but this discussion of course 14:08 with variations has been going on for several years 14:10 as we've seen the whole gay rights moment 14:13 and at workplace religious freedom act 14:15 is being stole for the same reason. 14:16 But I go into a lot of shops mostly restaurants 14:19 where I see a sign that says 14:21 "the management reserves the right 14:23 to refuse service to anyone" 14:25 and I wonder about this. 14:26 Under civil rights code it's usually 14:28 if you are underdressed or lewd, 14:32 lewdness and that sort of thing. 14:33 So there are causes. 14:35 We'll be back after a short break 14:36 to continue this discussion. 14:38 Stay with us. |
Revised 2015-06-11