A reporter with Crain’s Chicago
Business posed this scenario to me today:
Citing religious beliefs, a printer
declined to print a brochure for LGBT Community Fund, one of six "identity
funds," focused on a specific population, housed at Chicago Community
Trust. The LGBT Community Fund is filing a complaint with the Illinois Department
of Human Rights this coming week.
Here is what happened: About two
weeks ago the creative director at the marketing communications firm hired to
design the brochure sent the files for the brochure to the print shop. The
project was ready to go, and the owner of the shop had quoted the price and put
the job on the shop's schedule.
After the designer sent him the files to
print, the owner called her and said he could not do the job based on his
religious beliefs.
The owner found the designer another print
shop, which matched the price and completed the job on time.
The owner says that he is a Christian
and his beliefs in Scripture caused him to turn down the job. It is a
family-owned business.
Again, he was asked only to print the
brochure. He did not design or create it. And, just for the record: The
designer of the brochure is not gay or lesbian.
***
Here is my answer:
If the printer is relying
on the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cake Shop, he will be
disappointed that the ruling does not protect his religious beliefs in this
instance. The Court’s ruling was narrow, relying heavily on the fact that the
Commissioners expressed hostility to religion in ruling against the cake maker. As long as Illinois officials handle the LGBTQ group’s complaint without
voicing religious antipathy, they will be free to enforce its very broad
no-discrimination policy.
The other aspect to note is that these
religious freedom cases are narrowly focused on wedding ceremonies. They
involve cake makers, photographers, and wedding venues. Because marriage and
weddings are so closely identified with religious beliefs, some courts side
with the purveyors of services.
The printer in this case seems to be saying,
essentially, that he has a religious right to avoid doing business with all
people of the LGBTQ community. No court has come close to defining religious
freedom so expansively.
***
Coincidentally, I
received this note via email today. It speaks for itself:
Hello Michael ,
I saw that you
mentioned nclrights.org here in http://profleroy.blogspot.com/2015/07/can-state-outlaw-city-ordinance.html
and I wanted to share my gratitude for your work on the promotion of
LGBTQ-related issues.
I’d like to suggest
that you also share an important LGBTQ online safety guide which came out
recently. Did you know that 73% of LGBTQs have been harassed online due to
sexual orientation or gender identity? This guide aims to empower them and give
them the tools to protect themselves online.
I like how they give a
few tips and practical suggestions for each situation.
Thanks for helping
protect LGBTQs online.
No comments:
Post a Comment