Recent Articles
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
- 0 Comments
A Sikh college student named Harsimran Singh in California was denied access to an Amtrak bus due to wearing his kirpan, or religious sword, that Sikhs wear as a symbol to protect the weak and promote justice. The Sikh faith requires the “Five Ks” which include Kesh, Kangha, Kara, Kachera, and Kirpan, are five articles worn for the Sikh to show his or her faith. Kesh is uncut hair, which is kept wrapped in a turban. A Kangha is a small wooden comb that is used twice a day to comb clean the hair of tangles. A Kara is an iron bangle that symbolizes life as never ending and a symbol connecting the Sikh to the community by the bangle being a link in the Sikh change. A Kachera is a piece of clothing that is similar to a pair of boxers, or shorts, and symbolizes self-respect and control over lust. Finally, the Kirpan is a short dagger that is supposed to be kept on the person at all times and is not allowed to be used unless in self-defense of one’s self or another.
The Kirpan being held by Harsimran was over his shirt but under his jacket. The bus driver noticed it and told Harsimran that he would need to remove it and put it in his bag, which would have to be put in the luggage compartment in order to ride the bus. The bus driver then called the police, who told Harsimran the same thing causing Harsimran to not ride the bus due to refusing to compromise his religious beliefs. Harsimran tried to show the police the Kesh while trying to explain what it was and was told to keep his hands away from the “weapon.” Harsimran claimed he was very confused by what was happening not because of what was being said but because he had ridden the same bus, along with Amtrak trains, before with no problems. The company claimed that the driver is responsible for the safety of all its passengers and therefore made the correct decision to not allow the “weapon” to be on person while Harsimran was riding.
I do not agree with the driver’s decision, especially if Harsimran explained to him what the Kesh was and the religious importance and rules regarding it. I thought it was extremely insensitive for the driver to disregard what Harsimran said and call the police. I also found the police response unfair due to their lack of listening to Harsimran’s explanation of religious meaning behind the Kesh. On top of the insensitivity shown in this case, it is hard to believe that the bus driver had not heard about the Sikh faith when there have been several attacks on Sikh’s due to the turbans they wear and people being ignorant and mistaking them not only for Muslims but accusing them of being terrorists. I cannot believe that Amtrak would be able to do anything but inform their drivers to be aware that a Sikh passenger may be carrying a Kesh and that this should be permitted due to religious reasons not only behind the Kesh but also how it is handled.
What do you think about how he was treated by both the driver and the police?
"Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you G-d?"
Anyone testifying in a court of law in the United States hears this phrase, or a very similar variation, and agrees to the statement. This is customary in many judiciary systems, as it is important to affirm the validity of the statements which one makes in a court of law. The controversy comes, however, when attempting to define the proper oath, and what to swear on. Britain is currently debating the oath on the Bible before testifying in court. This could set an important precedent for many other countries in the global system, including the United States where such an issue is already extremely controversial.Recently, a Bristol Magistrate, Ian Abrahams, proposed the radical notion of doing away with all religiously affiliated oaths in court. Instead of swearing on any religious book, witnesses and defendants would take a secular pledge that would allow them to better understand the consequences of their testimony. It would also apply to everyone more equitably. The new oath would read something to this effect: "I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I understand that if I fail to do so I will be committing an offense for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison". Groups such as the National Secular Society embrace the change, but others such as the Revd. Arun Arora of the Church of England disagree, believing the change to be political correctness taken too far. While the Ministry of Justice declares that it is not planning on changing the oath anytime soon, the matter is still a contentious issue within current society.
Many previous posts have discussed such intertwining of state and religion, with issues like "in G-d we Trust" on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance, and as our national motto. This time, the focus is on the Bible being used for oaths such as before testimony in court and even being sworn into the Presidency. Should we be using religious texts for these events when we've been told our Constitution intends for a wall of separation between the church and the state? To be clear, in US courts you have not had to swear on the Bible since the 60s - the issue is whether to ban taking oaths on any religious books whatsoever.
As we grow ever more concerned about religious diversity we begin to see common practices that may have been rooted in religious traditions as establishment of that original religion - the historical/traditional argument. Yes, the United States is overwhelmingly a Christian nation and Presidents have been swearing on the Bible since George Washington himself, but as a modern country we recognize that there are many people of very differing religious faiths as well as those who choose not to worship at all. Not only was the Constitution written to protect minorities, it explicitly prevents an establishment of religion by the state. In the world we live in, we can no longer excuse the practices we engage in to religious tradition or majority.
Some would even argue that people swearing on the Bible could be degrading to Christianity. The practice of taking an oath with the Bible was instituted when most, if not all people, were G-d fearing. This meant that they understood the consequences of the oath they were taking, and knew that if they lied, they were to be judged by their G-d. Today, however, many people do not think twice about the oath they're taking and its relation to G-d's judgement. Because of this, the new proposed oath suggests mentioning that the swearer will be punished with prison for lying to the court. This change would make the oath more realistic, and might convince people to think twice before committing perjury.
And this applies to other religious texts as well. Let's discuss the prospect of swearing on any holy book. Today, people are allowed to take an oath on their preferred religious scripture, but where do we draw the line? As with all church/state discussions, we come to the dreaded 'slippery slope'. Many people argue that the courts cannot judge the sincerity of a religion, so how does the court decide which books are acceptable to swear upon. What if you belong to the Church of Deathly Hallows? Besides, allowing everyone to use their own religious text is great, until it leads to prejudice and discrimination. There is no way to dissuade someone's biases, and if that juror sees the defendant taking an oath on the Qur'an he may be immediately prejudiced.
Additionally, it may be argued that getting rid of religious texts in oath taking situations would be considered favoring atheism, but preferenciating non-religion over religion might not be such a bad idea in this case.
Overall, I believe that we should change the oath, as well as remove religious texts from our courts.
How do you feel? Are you worried about people not truly understanding the consequences of lying in court? Should there be a high and impenetrable wall of separation here, or is banning religious books taking it too far? If so, what regulations would be made to decide which books are acceptable?
On Thursday, October 17th, Yosef Kolko, a former Orthodox Jewish counselor at a camp in Lakewood was given a 15-year prison sentence for child molestation. Before this decision was handed down, the 16-year old victim and his family were ostracized by Lakewood’s Orthodox community for violating the religious tradition of having rabbis handle these types of situations, when instead they decided to bring the child’s claims to secular authorities.
Kolko initially pleaded guilty on May 13th during his trial to “aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and endangering the welfare of a child.” But at this most recent hearing Alan Zegas, Kolko’s attorney, argued that multiple members of the Orthodox community coerced Kolko into pleading guilty because they didn’t want the bad publicity. Because of this “constant pressure,” Zegas claimed that Kolko should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
Judge Hodgson ruled on this case and rejected Zegas’ argument claiming that he didn’t find any coercion. He did acknowledge that there may have been some “gentle persuasion by friends.” But ultimately, he claimed that Kolko was out to “game the system” when he pleaded guilty. This was after six witnesses testified that there was an effort by many members of the community to convince him to plead guilty. One coworker at the school Kolko also teaches at testified that a member of the community offered Kolko $100,000 and a job once he got out of jail if he pleaded guilty. Another witness also testified that five men came to Kolko’s home around 1:30 AM on the morning he ultimately did plead guilty in an effort to make him do so. Additionally, a therapist from Lakewood spoke with Kolko and explained to him what prison would be like – how much bigger, tougher men would most likely attack him – and advised him to “play ball.” It seems like Kolko did maintain his innocence for a period of time after hearing this.
But on the other hand, a therapist from Lakewood spoke with Kolko and explained to him what prison would be like – how much bigger men would most likely attack him – and advised him to “play ball” and plead innocent. This same therapist also testified that he saw Kolko’s defense mechanism wearing down and explained that Kolko was “more receptive to the cost-benefit analysis we were presenting.” Additionally, there were other factors playing against Kolko’s apparent coercion by the Orthodox community. Kolko’s previous attorney was also a witness at the trial and testified that there was no coercion and that Kolko never indicated to him that he was being/feeling pressured by the community. A final factor to consider is that Kolko’s decision to plead guilty also coincided with two more victims coming forward. Up until that point, he fervently maintained his innocence.
This case presents the issue of religious concerns conflicting with the process of carrying out and maintaining justice. The pressure from Lakewood, this very religious Orthodox Jewish community, supposedly forced this man to plead guilty and spend 15 years of his life in jail. Whether or not Yosef Kolko committed this crime, I think it’s important to address the fact that the religious beliefs of this community conflicted with both the actions of members in that community and with the court’s ability to rule impartially on the case. There is the issue of the ostracized family, but given all of the recent rape cases in which victim’s houses are burned down and those families are forced to move away, it is difficult to tell or claim that this community’s motivation for ostracizing that family was purely religious.
As far as determining whether or not Kolko truly was guilty of molesting this boy, it is clear that the interests of the religious community conflict with Kolko’s supposed innocence. It’s significant to note that the people who live in these types of religious communities may be afraid of being honest – and are often bullied into lying about their culpability – due to their own and to their community’s desire to maintain the reputation and sanctity of their religion. Additionally, people like Kolko may also be afraid of offending a higher power (which perhaps is more severe than going to jail in that particular religion). This interferes with the justice system from properly carrying out its role in placing people who are actually guilty of committing a crime in prison versus placing people who are prioritizing their devotion to religion over their innocence and the course of their own lives.
.jpg)
In this particular case, I don’t think Kolko was viciously coerced into pleading guilty when he was innocent. Given the testimonies from his previous attorney and the therapist, and the timing of his admission of guilt, it is difficult for me to believe that this man was innocent of molesting that boy. But what concerns me is how often this may happen: are people who are actually innocent of committing a crime forced into a false guilty admission because of the pressures from their religious community? Is there anything we as a society can do about this?
I think this is very difficult issue to address because to interfere with various religions on individual cases is definitely an unnecessary entanglement of the government with religious practices, and would violate the Lemon Test (even though this isn’t technically a part of the Constitution, I believe this is a good test to go by). But if I were a deeply religious person and lived in a very religious community, I think I would probably do the same as Kolko: the priorities of the majority of that community could definitely intimidate and possibly force me into an admission of guilt, even if I was innocent. But should the government do anything about this? I do not think it’s the government’s place to deal with the workings of any communities, but especially religious ones. The entanglement of the government in their interests would lead to accusations of prioritizing one religion of all other religion/no religion at all and would probably result in much more controversy. But what do you think – should the government interfere in these types of situations?
I think this is very difficult issue to address because to interfere with various religions on individual cases is definitely an unnecessary entanglement of the government with religious practices, and would violate the Lemon Test (even though this isn’t technically a part of the Constitution, I believe this is a good test to go by). But if I were a deeply religious person and lived in a very religious community, I think I would probably do the same as Kolko: the priorities of the majority of that community could definitely intimidate and possibly force me into an admission of guilt, even if I was innocent. But should the government do anything about this? I do not think it’s the government’s place to deal with the workings of any communities, but especially religious ones. The entanglement of the government in their interests would lead to accusations of prioritizing one religion of all other religion/no religion at all and would probably result in much more controversy. But what do you think – should the government interfere in these types of situations?
At the start of this fall semester, Troy University, a public institution in Alabama opened a new resident dorm named The Newman Center. On the school’s website, the new facility is described as housing 376 students who have the following qualifications:
Persons applying for this type of living must meet and be willing to maintain the following requirements:
1. Must have and maintain a minimum 2.50 grade point average overall and each semester. High school GPA will be considered for incoming freshmen.
2. Must be respectful of diversity.
3. Must refrain from the use of alcohol or illegal drugs while in the facility.
4. Must maintain the standards of the “Trojan Way”. http://www.troy.edu/on-campus-students/parents.html
5. Must be engaged in some type of community service or service learning project at least semi-annually.
What the website does not state is that the Newman Center was originally advertised as a pro-faith dorm, where the majority of residents hold high religious values. When the dorm officially opened on August 9th, the website did include language that preferred religious students to non-religious students during the application process to this dorm. In addition, the billing for students that resided in the Newman Center dorms listed the dorm as faith-based housing.Senior Vice Chancellor for Advancement and External Relations at Troy, John Schmidt originally said the dorms would give preference to students of Christian faiths as applicants. A university spokesman later said no preference would be given to Christians over any other religions. Since then, the public university has made statements declaring that they do not prefer religious students to non-religious students during the housing application process, but they have yet to declare the dorm as completely secular.
The decision was made to build this faith-based dorm after a poll among students reflected a heightened level of religiosity at Troy University( 70-75% of students valued faith in their lives). Therefore, officials claim that the dorm was a result of a growing demand and is not a constitutional violation. There has been a growing demand for more public religious organizations on campuses across the country, but a faith-based dorm is different than a kosher cafeteria or Campus ministry organization.
The Newman Center is part of a national network of Catholic student ministries that promotes campus ministries. President and CEO of the Newman Student Housing Fund, Matt Zerrusen stated that, “The faith-based housing community at Troy is one of only four nationwide in the network of more than 500 Newman Center” and that he does not know of any other faith-based dorms at public universities in the United States. While the dorm represents a national organization that promotes catholic ministries, it is not that shocking that public universities steer away from establishing this type of facility.
Despite the steps that the university has taken to announce the dorm as non -religiously affiliated, are they abiding by the First amendment of the constitution? Organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation think so. The WWFR is dedicated to preserving the separation between church and state and attorney Andrew Seidel believes more changes need to be implemented at Troy to have this dorm on campus without legal consequences. He notes that even though minority religions are accepted and live in the Newman Center, the dorm remains predominantly Christian with the presence of a ministry and three Baptist RA’s. The university has yet to respond with an official statement that proves the Newman Center coincides with the separation of church and state and does not violate fair housing laws.
The primary purpose of building this dorm for students was to provide a pro-faith space for students to live in. Right of the bat, this establishes religion over non-religion because of the preference given to religious students in this space. As a public university, Troy does not have the right to establish any religion regardless of whether or not it is only for one facility on a campus of 7,000 students. Even though they changed the original requirements of resident applicants and removed the pro-faith message of the dorm, the religious foundation will always remain because of the cause that the Newman Center Student Housing Foundations stands for.
Nicholas Cervera, an attorney for the school, said in September there are no requirements that students wishing to live in the dorms practice any particular faith, including atheists.
"An atheist has faith. That faith is that there is no supreme being," he said. "It's as much of a faith as Catholicism or Southern Baptist." What Cervera fails to clarify is the difference between faith and belief, a distinction that continues to cause confusion as to whether or not this dorm is legal. Charles C. Haynes, the director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum and a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington said, “If you set it up as a faith-based dorm and you expand it to include all faiths, you are still making a constitutional mistake.” Moreover, the dorm is so closely tied to religious values in general and it is unclear as to whether the original purpose of the Newman Center establishes religion over neutrality.
There have been no protests on campus and for the most part the residents that live in the Newman Center embrace the space they have for sharing beliefs of all types, not solely beliefs stemming from religion. I think that the fact that this dorm was originally built to promote evangelization (in a sense) cannot be ignored because it was built on a public university’s campus. Even though the rules have changed and more applicants are being accepted, it is still a housing selection process that is based on faith and is inherently discriminatory. While the university definitely violated the Establishment Clause in the beginning of the Newman Center’s residential existence, they claim that the changes they have made are neutral enough.
What do you think? Does the Newman Center favor religion over non-religion? Have their policy changes for the dorm exempt effectively promoted religious neutrality?
Monday, October 14, 2013
Monday, October 14, 2013
- 0 Comments
Middle School Speech
I remember my middle school graduation as if it was yesterday, the parents in the auditorium cheering for their children. The thing that got students excited was the speech given by the top student in the class. It felt good watching a fellow classmate talk about the school year and what waits for us in high school. Recently at a middle school in Craryville , New York
The student known as A.M., in court papers, was giving the opportunity to give a speech at her middle school “Moving up Ceremony”. A.M. asked her English teacher to help her in revising her proposed speech. The final sentence on the speech said,” As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I say to you, may the LORD bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.” This decision could not been made on the teacher so the teacher told A.M. to consult with the principal. Principal Neil Howard allegedly told A.M. that the last line “sounded too religious” and should be omitted. A.M.’s mother requested that Superintendent Mark Sposato review the matter. Sposato agreed with Howard. The superintendent said the religious message delivered by A.M. could violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Under the establishment clause, government bodies, including public schools, are barred from promoting religion. A.M. delivered her message on her graduation date as planned with the last line of her speech omitted.
Soon after A.M. speech, A.M.’s mother sued the school district contending that they violated her free-speech rights. Specifically, she alleged that they discriminated against her on the basis of her religious viewpoint. A.M. argued that the standard in the U.S. Supreme Court’s student-speech decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District , a court case in 1969 which 16 students planned to wear black armbands to school in an attempt to protest the war on Vietnam , should control the analysis of the case. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case the principal of the school found out about the students plan and mad e a ban on the arm bands and those who wore it would not be permitted into the school. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district’s actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline.
The school district argued that this case proper analysis should come from the student-press decision Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, a court cased in which a school overridden a school newspaper of two articles that the school felt inappropriate. In this case the court ordered that the school officials can censor school-sponsored student expression if they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so. A.M. tried to counter this argument by portraying that the school event was sponsored by the student council. This argument became invalid because the court was told the event was funded by the school. Along with this the school district had a legitimate educational reason for not allowing the sentence to be said at the ceremony. Sharpe noted that the school district had received complaints about a Christmas tree from the parents of a Jewish student and complaints from the parents of a Jehovah’s Witness student regarding the school’s Halloween activities. “Given the past complaints Taconic received from the parents of the Jewish and Jehovah’s Witness students, and their desire to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, its decision to edit the last sentence of A.M.’s speech was reasonable,” he wrote. After this argument the court dismissed the case and confirmed that the School District acted appropriately and in accordance with the requirements of the First Amendment with respect to this matter at all times.
The factor that helped the school district win this case was exactly what the court said as the school district acted and respected the First Amendment. “The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” The education system is apart of the government and must withhold to the Constitution for being a public institution of the government. The school provided the evidence that they have not place one religion over another. The school district portrayed they was neutral in the situation. But, does this trump the beliefs of a citizen? The school stopped A.M. from practicing her religion in a speech the school has asked her to write. The school has done what the government has tried to protect in the majority over the minority.
I would have to agree with the court on this decision with omitting the sentence out of the speech. I believe the school has to be neutral in this situation and appeal to entire school. The ceremony was a school based event and should appeal to the whole audience. By allowing the student to express her religion at this event would put the school in a tight spot of them praising one religion over another.. But who am I tell to tell that student that she can’t express her religious belief to her fellow classmates? Even though the government must be neutral but must protect the minority over the majority.
According to the Washington Post, 28 year old Lamont Butler, like any other new home owner, recently invited friends over to show off his new home; he was especially eager considering his new digs in Bethesda, MD consisted of 12 bedroom, 6 kitchen adorned with imported marble. The home hosted a number pivotal political gatherings during the Clinton campaign, and Al Gore planted a number of trees that are growing in the back yard. All is seemingly normal, until it is revealed that the home actually does not belong to Mr. Butler, but rather he broke in, and deemed the home his own. Mr. Butler claimed that the house belonged to him because he is Moorish.
The Moorish Science Temple of America was founded in 1913 by a man named Timothy Drew, who later proclaimed himself the as Prophet Noble Drew Ali. The Moorish Science Temple of America is considered a sect of Islam, and is also a compilation of Buddhism, Christianity, Freemansonry, Gnosticism, and Taoism. It is a divine national movement thats purpose is to teach its people what is necessary to become "better citizens, how to obey the law, and to not use any confusion to over thrown the laws of the said government but to obey herby." Additionally the Moorish faith teaches its people about their "nationality, the divine creed of Moorish Americans, birthrights, to love instead of hate, and that they are part and partial of the said government and must live the life accordingly."
In an recent NPR transcript, radio host Melissa Block speaks with assistant professor of religious studies, Spencer Dew, at the Centenary College of Louisiana regarding the Moorish Science. Block starts off the show introducing the Washington Post article regarding Mr. Butler from afore mentioned. Apparently, Mr. Butler believe that he was not breaking and entering simply because he is a Moorish American, therefore he is a sovereign citizen and is not subject to federal and state laws. According to Dew, this is part of a growing trend of Moorish Americans- this idea that they are exempt from US law. One of the majors doctrines in the Moorish Science Temple is the belief that African-Americans are of 'Moorish' decent (specifically from Morocco) so because it is associated with Africa, is is also a religion that is associated with dark-skinned people. Additionally, it is associated with social respectability and elite status. Furthermore, Dew claims that the creation of this religious movement at the time was an attempt to trace out a scared history for those that would have otherwise just been considered 'Negros'.
According to the radio transcript, as of 2013, there is still a growing number of self-described Moorish Americans that continue to claim properties as their own, who additionally interpret national laws however they deem appropriate. For example, is has been reported that some Moorish Americans have claimed that they do not need a drivers license, license plate, and that they are exempt from paying taxes. Additionally, Chicago police have reported incidences of Moorish Americans who do not stop at traffic lights, make and use homemade passports, and claim that they have diplomatic immunity. They claim that "we are Moors, and therefore, we're not American citizens. We're not subject to your American laws." Further, a woman in Connecticut claimed that her home was no longer part of the United States because it seceded the Union.
I found this case to be interesting due to its extra-ordinary nature. Similar to my first blog post, I think in the case of the Moorish Science Temple of America, the legitimacy of the religion is relevant, in addition, who is privy to religious exemption? Does the legitimacy or popularity of a religion increase the favorability or likelihood of exemption from the law? For example, the Obama administration made separate accommodations for religious groups regarding their insurance plans, and we have read Supreme Court cases in class that have affirmed religious exemptions. If exemptions are given by the Federal Government for specific situations and certain religious groups, where is the line drawn? I personally think that religious exemptions of any kind are a slippery slope, opening the door for a number of different requests, preference of religion over non-religion, or even religion over religion. Would inhibiting Moorish Americans be a violation of their Free Exercise Clause? In addition, why shouldn't Moors be granted religious exemption since claiming sovereignty seems to be a component of their religious practice?
Personally, I think that breaking the law is breaking the law, but this case is difficult to determine what is right and what is wrong do to religious expression. I know that I do not want to be the person to tell people that they are wrongly expressing their religious beliefs. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong? I do think that breaking and entering, fraudulent passports and drivers licenses are a direct violation of the Federal Law, and that they should be penalized for their actions, but I know there is definitely room for interpretation.
Gortz Haus Gallery is an art gallery owned by a Mennonite couple in Iowa. Just a week ago from today, the couple sued the Iowa Civil Rights Commission because they faced penalty for refusing to host same-sex weddings in the church building that is a part of their facilities. The couple, Betty and Richard Odgaard, claim that same-sex marriage is fundamentally against their religious beliefs as Mennonites and that by complying with the law they are in public violation of those beliefs. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission dictates that "any...proprietor... of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof: (a) [t]o refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity" etc. As far as the state legislature is concerned, the Odgaards are in violation of discrimination. Additionally, it is important to note that the State of Iowa does legally recognize same-sex marriage. The couple was sued prior to their complaint with the ICRC based on a discrimination case after they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony. With the suit, the couple has received countless pieces of hate-mail and threats (included as evidence in the complaint, if interested). Ultimately the Odgaards wish to be exempt from the legislation and for an injunction to be placed on the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
The plaintiffs attempt to establish in their complaint that they have not and do not discriminate in regards to sexual orientation, stating that they have hired and served gays and lesbians in the past. Furthermore they consistently maintain that they do not wish to violate their beliefs and that the space used for the wedding ceremonies is explicitly a church. Thus the couple would feel their beliefs further violated by hosting same-sex ceremonies in such a space. Other employees of the art gallery share in the Mennonite beliefs, and the Odgaards do not want to subject them to violating their own religious beliefs as well.
Some would argue that the Odgaards have clearly discriminated against same-sex couples by refusing to accommodate them. In regards to how the law is stated, they have. We've seen that in past cases, the courts often side in that direction. For example, there was the New Mexico photography company that was found guilty after refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding just this past August. The question becomes then, is there anything different about this specific case?
I do think that the location of these potential services plays a factor in deciding a case like this. If the couple was refusing to host same-sex marriages solely based on their religious beliefs, precedent would show that they would be found guilty. Yet, if they feel as though preforming such a service would desecrate what they consider a place of worship, a sanctuary, are they more validated? Their written complaint does not play this angle as much as I feel it should. Established churches can refuse to preform same-sex marriages, so I feel as though the couple's concerns about the sanctity of the space are honest. Yet at the same time, the opposition could argue that the church is no longer serving its function as a place a worship and exists currently as a business and should be run as one. This is compounded by the fact that Iowa recognizes same-sex marriages. If such a marriage is protected, the argument for a secular business refusing services to a same-sex couple is substantially weakened in that it is almost compulsory that they are recognized as legitimate by the citizens of Iowa.
The complaint further claims that practitioners of the Mennonite faith have historically been persecuted and subsequently protected by the government. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, although dealing with the stricter Amish, the Courts appears to abide by this statement. However, I disagree with this angle. The sect that the couple belongs to has long divulged from its Old Mennonite Roots.To group them in with those persecuted is a small stretch of the truth and to me personally, an invalid argument. Yet, who am I to be that judge?
In the past, I would have quickly sided against the couple. However, I feel slightly different in this case and I am beginning to be a bit more sympathetic to the other side of the argument. This is especially in regards to the hate-mail, which I believe is wildly inappropriate at anytime or from anyone, including the LGBT community. Nonetheless, I find discrimination based on sexual preference to be wrong and prosecutable under the law. Moreover, the current operation of the building is as a business, which in the past I argued must operate secularly, even if religiously themed. Being a former church, this case stretches my willingness to defend that statement steadfast in all situations. However, based on recent precedent, I ultimately believe the court will decide against the couple and uphold the charges against them.
Here is the full complaint.
