However well-intentioned, NPRs latest foray into religious freedom falls victim to several false equivalencies and ends up leaving the reader/listener vulnerable to the problematic arguments of those pushing for the right to discriminate againstLGBTQ people.

CorrespondentTom Gjeltenmakes what appears to be an honest, good-faith effort to offer a general backgrounder on the state of religious liberty, but several key omissions and questionable language undercut his effort to providebalance.

First, the good. Gjelten does include a dissenting religious voice, Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry,which challengesthepreferred conservative framing that this issue is being waged betweenreligious individuals andnon-religious individuals.Its true that its almost solelyreligiousinstitutions that have taken up the mantle of opposing LGBTQ equality or womens access to contraception, but there aremany otherswhodisagree.

AndGjelten is, of course, correct in framing both freedom of religion and the pursuit of equality as central tenets of American culture. But as we have documented here atRD, todays religious freedom fighters are waging a very different battle than did this nations Founders when theyconsidered the concept of freedom of religion important enough tobe included in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the confusion begins to mount when Gjelten begins to discuss real-world examples. He writes:

If a football coach is not allowed to lead his team in a public prayer, or a high school valedictorian is not given permission to read a Bible passage for her graduation speech, or the owner of a private chapel is told he cannot refuse to accommodate a same-sex wedding, they might claim their religious freedom has been infringed.

This lack of specificity undermines the whole project to illuminate the reader. Is the football coach at a public or private institution? Is the valedictorian? And the private chapel is a phrasethat may well warrant its ownarticle, as chapel clearly evokesa religious entity or space, though in the eyes of the lawits simply a business like any other.

But even these vague hypotheticals offer a more concrete illustration of potential harms done to those who claim religious freedom than Gjeltens piece provides about the concrete harms done to same-sex couples who are denied service because of someones sincerely held religious belief. The article makes no mention of real-life cases of religiously justified anti-LGBT discrimination,like the 2014 case in Michigan where a pediatrician refused to treat a six-day-old infantbecause the child had two moms. SinceMichigan does not include LGBT people in its nondiscrimination law, the refusal of service, which the doctor reached after much prayer, was entirely legal.

To fairly illustrate the competing claims of discrimination at the heart of this issue, its necessary to illuminate the practical impact of whats at stake for parties on each side of the issue. Its not just about wedding cakes and church services.

Illustrating that point, Gjelten thenfocuses on the 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that embraced marriage equality (using the preferred term of equality opponents, claiming the court redefined marriage), which prompted Catholic Charities to voluntarilycease providing adoption services in the state,citing a sincerely held religious belief that barred the organization from placing foster or adoptive childrenwith same-sex parents.

But here, as in the earlier examples, Gjelten omits a key detail regarding the public/private divide:the reason Catholic Charities (in Massachusetts and other states, like Illinois) was subject to the states nondiscrimination law in the first place is because the agency maintained contracts with the state to provide child welfare services. Adoption isno doubt a worthy cause for a faith community and thestate to engage in, but those two entities have vastly different constitutional responsibilities when it comes to how theytreat citizens hoping to provide loving homes to children.

Catholic Charities has what it perceives to be a divine order to serve and protect the vulnerable, including childrenwhose families of origin cannot care for them. But Catholic doctrine formally denounces same-sex parents, and despite some disagreement among Catholic Charities leadership, the agency determined that such doctrine must dictate policy.

The state, on the other hand, is constitutionally barred from denying access to services (including adoption) based on a persons faithor, in Massachusetts and Illinois, on a persons perceived or actual sexual orientation. By extension, the state cannot formally endorse a particular faith practices understanding of morality or appropriate parental qualities, unless those characteristics happen to align directly with a compelling state interest. (This is precisely the reason why, as Gjelten notes, Mississippis sweeping 2016 religious freedom law earned itself afederalinjunction.)

Buttheres a fairly simpleand reasonablesolution to this wholeconundrum, though it requires the very distinctions between the public and private spaces Gjelten fails delineate. The First Amendments prohibition on state establishment of religion can reasonably be read to mean that government agenciesand, crucially, publicly funded entitiesshould create policy based on the public interest, not on any particular religiousdoctrine.

Look, if Catholic Charities wants to deny me, a queer woman, the opportunity to adopt a child, that is their right. As a religious entity founded on and adherent to Catholic doctrine, I understand that, even if I disagree with the decision, this nations promise of free exercise of religion protects faith-based entities from engaging with those who dont share their beliefs.

Simultaneously, however, as a citizen I enjoy equal protection under the law, which includes access to state-funded agencies that provide social services, including adoption. Im OK with Catholic Charities refusing to serve me because of my identity, but I cannot justify my tax dollars funding an agency that actively discriminates against me.

Yet the reader of this NPR piece might leave with only the vague sense that the government is telling a religious institution what it can and cant believe in or act on. Without mention of the finer distinctions the reader is clearly being done a disservicewhich in this case happens to benefit religious freedom advocates. Or, for those who balk at the use of scare quotes in that phrase, lets call them discriminationists.

Read the rest here:

NPR Largely Misses Critical Distinction on Religious Freedom vs. LGBTQ Rights - Religion Dispatches