Conscience Rules for Caterers?

With passage of a law legalizing same-sex marriage in New York, we are beginning to see “second day” stories about the decision and its impact.  One of the more curious arguments being hashed out in the media is whether wedding vendors who are opposed to same-sex marriage should be able to discriminate in providing services.  In short, should caterers have a conscience rule that protects them if they don’t want to provide pigs-in-a-blanket at a wedding between two women.

USA Today’s Cathy Grossman does a nice job in her Faith and Reason column looking at the coverage and suggesting some shortcomings in how the issue is being examined.

The Boston Globe, looking at the battle in New York last week as the religious exemption was hashed out, talked to New Yorkers in the wedding and marriage services industry and found some nervous people:

Bill Banuchi, who provides Christian marriage and family counseling and seminars through his Marriage and Family Savers Institute in Newburgh, N.Y., said he wouldn’t be protected by any religious exemptions because his business is considered a tax-exempt, not-for-profit educational charity, not a religious institution.

“We have certain principles and ethical guidelines we’d have to compromise,” Banuchi said Wednesday. “We would be in violation of the law and open to being sued for discrimination, and we could lose our tax-exempt status if we refused to counsel couples according to their value system. Our value system is that the only authentic marriage is between a male and a female.”

But the Globe hit a point that seems to have been lost in all of this discussion. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is already against the law in New York., says Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

Grossman hits on an important point that is essential for journalists to keep in mind in exploring these arguments. There is already an existing set of laws–the predate same-sex marriage–and those laws already deal with discrimination and a possible religious exemption. Interviewing experts on religious liberty who can talk about the law in this area, and not just talking-point, is a helpful approach to looking at the issue.

In her piece, Grossman highlighted a critique at the conservative media watchdog website GetReligion where pundit Mollie Hemingway said the press had failed to explain how individual believers are effected by the changes and will be forced to comply with non-discrimination laws.  Here’s what she said in the comments to her post.

And there is so much epistemic closure among adherents of this view, that these media figures would probably come off like idiots if they even tried to broach the topic. Which, for the most part, they’ve avoided simply by not broaching the topic.

I’m shocked at how unable many reporters are to consider unintended consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, or, you know, just when I ask them to define marriage and ask some probing questions about their definition.

It’s unbelievable how uninformed and unthoughtful many reporters are when it comes to these things. And it shows in their coverage. And I say that as someone who doesn’t even believe the marriage can or should define or redefine marriage! Imagine how actual proponents of traditional marriage laws might feel about the coverage.

There’s no question that orthodox Muslims, Jews and Christians (not to mention those freethinkers who simply recognize marriage as a heterosexual institution) will be treated like racists when it comes to same-sex marriage. I had a reporter who covers this issue at one of the largest papers in the country tell me that this is what they are just this past week.

I’d agree that the press hasn’t done a good job covering this issue–and Grossman’s column and the AP story are a good start–and a good place to start would be examining talking-points like this and helping readers, viewers, and listeners understand the law and how it balances competing rights. High-octane rhetoric like this needs to be put into context and grounded in the law and policy.


4 Responses

  1. I simply love the juxtaposition of the pigs in a blanket and the mention of a wedding between two women. Who says journalists have no sense of humor?

  2. I would not take anything seriously said by the bigots at Mollie Hemingway is the loony who got all upset by a feature story in the NYT about entertainment on Rosie O’Donnell’s family cruises because it didn’t say anything anti-gay. You should also be pointing out that is funded by anti-gay “philanthropist” Howard Ahmanson, Jr., the largest contributor to the Prop 8 campaign and a man who in the past has called for the death penalty for homosexual acts. See “Confessions of a Blog Addict. Or Why I Love to Hate and Family” at Here is the url:

  3. I think it is outrageous that you give any credence to the people at GetReligion. They don’t even have the journalistic virtue of openness. They try to hide the fact that they are funded by Howard Ahmanson by crediting “Roberta Green” as their “angel,” instead of referring to her as “Roberta Green Ahmanson.” The people at GetReligion are little better than a hate group. Why would you quote them? You ought to be doing an expose of them.

  4. […] effort, using town clerks as exhibit number one in this victimhood. Given the full-funded effort to fight the religious liberty wars, journalists now have a new […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: