What’s next for California?
by Charles Cherry
My prediction, if Judge Walker’s ruling is allowed to stand, is that California will make it illegal for Churches and religious organizations to “discriminate” against homosexuals by not hiring them to work on staff, etc.
Then they will make it illegal to “discriminate” against homosexuals by making religious claims about homosexuality – i.e., that homosexual acts are sinful, that they are repugnant to God, and that homosexuals cannot be in the Kingdom of God.
It is already illegal in Canada and many European countries to speak against homosexuality, and even talking against it on the street can get you arrested. It will soon be that way in California, and then the rest of the USA.
R.R. Reno writes about the coming intimidation and eventual persecution of religious belief as it pertains to homosexuality in Here Come The Thought Police.
Scribblings 
It depends on how you are defining “speaking against homosexuality” in Canada. The law forbids incitement to hatred, ie: implicitly or explicitly advocating violence against an identifiable group. As such, it wouldn’t be illegal to “discriminate” against homosexuals by quoting scripture, such as suggesting they won’t get into Heaven. It might be illegal to suggest that the congregation do whatever they can to make sure that homosexuals get into Hell sooner rather than later.
On the same basis, it is also illegal in Canada to incite hate against religious groups. Nevertheless, it remains perfectly legal to advocate for your religion and to suggest that others are wrong.
However, I do think it would be implausible for California congregations to refuse to hire homosexuals because they are homosexual. There are many homosexuals within Christian communities. Some are ordained. Based on this, a court would conclude there is nothing about a homosexual person that makes them unable to do the job, since it’s unlikely that heterosexual intercourse or romance is some responsibility of the job.
The problem with laws like Canada’s “hate speech” law is that they are entirely subjective. One person’s hate speech is another person’s sermon against homosexuality.
Your judgment is that it would not be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals by quoting Scripture and suggesting that they wouldn’t get into heaven. But isn’t that just your judgment, and perhaps the current mood in the legislature? What happens when the mood changes? There is nothing in the law, that I know of, that prevents law enforcement and the courts from trying and convicting someone for quoting Scripture, if doing so in their minds constitutes “hate speech.”
Isn’t quoting Scripture exactly what got the British street preacher arrested? He was released soon after he was arrested, thank God, but who knows what will happen in the same situation next year, or in ten years?
As soon as the ruling authorities subjectively decide that quoting Scripture constitutes “hate speech,” then it becomes a crime for which one can be arrested. Without the protections of the First Amendment, all bets are off when it comes to the definition of “hate speech.” The way things are going in this country, it won’t be long until even the First Amendment will provide no protection against “hate speech.”
As for your point about homosexuals being in the church, I think you are confused about who and what the Church is. Just because there may be homosexuals who claim to be Christians, and who “go to church” on Sunday or whenever, does not mean they are actually Christian and are actually “in the Church.”
The Church is made up of people who are spiritually in the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. There is an old saying that “going to church no more makes one a Christian than standing in a garage makes one an automobile.” If the Holy Scriptures say that a person who practices homosexuality cannot be in God’s Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9 and elsewhere), then a person who is a practicing homosexual is not a Christian.
Of course, people who formerly practiced homosexuality can be in the Church, just as can be former adulterers, former liars, former thieves, former murderers, etc. This, too, is plainly taught in the same passage as above.
I admit that it would impossible for the State to make such a discrimination between real Christians and false Christians; that is a very good reason why the State needs to keep its nose (and its policies) out of the Church.
There’s quite a bit going on in your reply. Let me see if I can break it down.
1) There is no way to *absolutely* tie the hands of future governments. A future government could, theoretically, overturn any law or constitutional document. That’s the way it works. But in practice, established laws have a weight and a momentum that make it tremendously difficult to alter dramatically.
2) I am not a fan of hate speech laws. I’d like them removed. Nevertheless, I don’t overly fear them either, because they are not completely subjective, as you suggest. There is a *set of criteria* that establishes whether or not something is inciting hatred. And that criteria has been defined and clarified by legal precedents. There may be a grey area, but it is smaller than you imagine. Nor can a changing “mood” change that criteria very much.
3) Plus any hate law is subordinate to the Constitution – Canada’s as well as the United States’ (Britain is different, because it has no written constitution, and is in a troubling legal situation vis a vis the EU’s Constitution), and freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both protected under these constitutions.
4) Nor is quoting scripture “discrimination”. It may “offend” or spark disagreement, but it can’t – on its own – discriminate. Discrimination is an action, it may accompany words, but it goes beyond words. Simply quoting from Mein Kampf, for example, is not discrimination, nor is it hate speech. There is more to it than that.
5) Of course, there are some religious people, not just Christians, who do want to discriminate against homosexuals. Not only that, but kill them too. And who seek to use Scripture to mobilize and endorse those aims. I suggest that it is just and sensible for the State to outlaw this.
6) I’m not familiar with the UK Preacher case, but if he wasn’t charged then he could probably make a false arrest legal suit. Police officers can make mistakes, just like anyone else.
7) As you say: “it would impossible for the State to make such a discrimination between real Christians and false Christian,” as only God can make that determination with any accuracy.
8) But contrary to your concluding remarks, the State does keep its nose out of Theology. But if a Church wishes to exist as a legal entity for whatever reason (perhaps to benefit from protection from certain taxation, or to enjoy the benefits that other private organizations do?), they must abide the laws of that State. That’s not interference.
-R
I wish I were as optimistic as you are about the future of free speech when it comes to liberal sacred cows like homosexuality. I’m not, however.
Also, I was using the word “discrimination” in a popular sense [a word which has very negative connotations in popular-speak], which is why I originally had the word in quotes. I can see how that did not come across clearly, and I apologize for the lack of clarity.
Finally, just a note about your comment regarding the state and the Church. Regardless of whether a Church exists as a legal entity, there is a long established history, dating to long before the writing of the Constitution, that puts the Church above the state (or at least out of the realm of its authority) when it comes to things like taxation. Tax exemption, and other such “benefits” are not really benefits at all. A benefit is something given – i.e., a benefactor gives a gift to someone in a weaker position.
In the case of the Church in America, though, property tax exemption and other so-called “benefits” were historically just a recognition that the state had no authority to tax the Church; the Church was in effect at least equal to, if not higher than, the state. Just because the Church is not taxed does not put it on an equal footing with other non-profits, and it does not mean that the government is “doing the church a favor” by “extending benefits.” Benefits [usually] always come with strings attached, and the line of reasoning in your final comment shows this out. “If the government is doing the church a favor by not taxing them, then the church ultimately has to do what the government says when it comes to hiring and firing, paying wages and benefits, etc., etc.”
For a quick historical overview of church/state relations regarding taxation in particular, see “Of Church, State, and Taxes” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2002/may17.html)
I don’t believe that article supports your argument that the Church is somehow equal to or higher than the State. For instance, these quotes: “Apparently, treating churches more like schools than like factories still makes sense to lawmakers,” and “the exemptions have been reaffirmed unanimously by both houses of Congress as well.”
The secular subservience on temporal matters of the Church to the State was established long ago. Possibly most dramatically illustrated in the iconoclastic reforms of Henry VII.