The least tolerant city

[Vance R Koven]

The last two paragraphs of Prof. Brownstein's comment state very cogently
the reasons why the court decisions in the Lumpkins case were correct, at
least insofar as the laws that the human rights commission was charged
with enforcing require application to homosexuals.

The first paragraph represents a different matter. Religion is unique, so
far, in the annals of normative US discrimination law (putting aside the
rather different issue of political affiliation in civil service law and
the more general issues of free speech, which fall into a different
category), in that it reflects a matter of conscious choice or attitude
rather than immutable characteristics.

This appears to represent a policy decision on the part of the Founders
that "religion is good" and that *as a social matter* government should
neither establish nor hinder its practice. The same type of consideration
ought logically to permit society to take the position that other kinds of
chosen conduct or attitude are not good and should not be protected
against public and private interference.

Of course, if it turns out that sexual orientation is no more a matter of
choice than whether one is left or right-handed the policy question
becomes much more complicated. For many centuries, of course, left-handed
people were subjected to greater or lesser degrees of physical torture so
that their behavior would conform to social norms. Since the ebbing of
these practices coincided with the more expansive styles of judicial
review, we may never know whether lefties have fundamental rights (ouch)
against discrimination.

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, A.E. Brownstein wrote:

>         There may well be normative differences between discrimination against
> people of color and discrimination against gay people, but surely the fact
> that there are ex-gay people isn't dispositive. There are ex-catholics and
> ex-jews, but that doesn't undermine the immorality of religious
> discrimination and bigotry against either of those groups.
>
>         If someone sincerely believes as a matter of religious conviction that
> catholics and jews are perfidious or abominations in the sight of G-d,
> aren't those beliefs relevant to the person's qualifications for service on
> a human rights commission? Is it illogical to suspect that the belief that
> a group of people are "abominations" might color a person's understanding
> of their rights?
>
>         Forgive my intolerance, but I would prefer to have the rights of jews
> protected by a commission whose members did not believe we were
> "abominations." Since as an ethical matter I think there is much to be said
> for treating one's neighbor as one would like to be treated by others, I
> think it is also forgiveable intolerance for gay people to have similar
> views about the membership of a commission charged with protecting their
> rights.
>
>                                                                                         Alan Brownstein
>                                                                                         UC Davis
>