But that’s not what this policy debate is about. In the United States of America, people who identify as LGBT are free to live as they want. But SOGI laws, including Fairness for All, are not about freedom—they are about coercion. SOGI and Fairness for All are about forcing all Americans to embrace—and live out—certain beliefs about human sexuality. They are not about protecting the freedom of people to live as LGBT, but about coercing everyone else to support, facilitate, and endorse such actions.

News item: Two major evangelical organizations have formally endorsed principles that would add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to federal nondiscrimination law. The boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) quietly passed similar motions in recent months, advancing a multiyear effort they say is necessary to preserve religious freedom. 

Does the golden rule ever require bad public policy? That’s the implication of what some political strategists are proposing in the name of fairness.

At issue is a proposal among some Christian leaders to strike a compromise with some LGBT activists to balance “LGBT rights” with religious liberty. The proposal would elevate “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to protected classes in federal law in exchange for certain exemptions for religious colleges and institutions. They call this approach “Fairness for All.”

Compromises can be good, but this particular one is bad. As I explain in a recent issue brief, such proposals would not result in actual fairness for all. Instead, they would penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other. They would violate the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, and the free speech and religious liberty rights of countless professionals who find themselves outside the select group of institutions who are exempted.

Establishing bad public policy for everyone and then exempting select religious institutions is not acting for the common good—and is certainly not fair for all. And there are better ways forward for those who seek compromise.

Yet some are now claiming that this bad public policy is required by the golden rule.

Rod Dreher reports on a conversation he had with “a prominent conservative Evangelical political strategist” who requested to remain anonymous. Dreher writes: “He simply believes that ethically and politically, this is the right thing to do. In Smith’s view, in a pluralistic society like America 2018, do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good rule for religious liberty advocates and gay rights supporters alike.”

The golden rule is always a good rule for all people. But the public policy being proposed doesn’t embody the golden rule. Making “gender identity” a protected class in federal policy, for example, could impose a nationwide transgender bathroom policy, a nationwide pronoun policy, and a nationwide sex-reassignment health care mandate.

This is anything but the golden rule. And imposing bad law on everyone else while exempting yourself is the exact opposite of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The anonymous political insider Dreher talked with also seems confused about pluralism:

If pluralism is about accommodating deep difference—if conservative Evangelicals are going to ask for accommodation of difference, then they can’t turn around and say in every single case when they are asked to accommodate sexual minorities, ‘No, we will fight to the death.’ That’s not pluralism if all you’re doing is protecting your own rights and saying error has no rights when it comes to you. Pluralism has to be seen by others who disagree with you as fair.

It’s rather remarkable to think that accommodating deep difference requires passing laws that impose orthodoxy. But that’s what SOGI laws do, including Fairness for All.

Dreher summarizes the anonymous insider’s perspective: “He said there really is a question of justice within a pluralistic society that conservative Christians have to face. We may sincerely believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, but at what point does the common good require that we agree that gay people have a right to be wrong?”

But that’s not what this policy debate is about. In the United States of America, people who identify as LGBT are free to live as they want. But SOGI laws, including Fairness for All, are not about freedom—they are about coercion. SOGI and Fairness for All are about forcing all Americans to embrace—and live out—certain beliefs about human sexuality. They are not about protecting the freedom of people to live as LGBT, but about coercing everyone else to support, facilitate, and endorse such actions.

This is one fundamental problem in equating coercive antidiscrimination laws with permissive religious freedom laws. And imposing a bad coercive policy on everyone while exempting select faith-based institutions is anything but fairness for all.

Read More

Another commentary on this topic from Dr. Robert. A. J. Gagnon (from his Facebook page):

When we say that the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) sold out Christians by endorsing a “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” federal discrimination law in exchange for limited (and temporary) exemptions for their “bigotry” within the walls of their religious institutions, we mean not all the members of the CCCU but only the Board of Directors. (Note: I say “discrimination” rather than “antidiscrimination” because it ends up discriminating against all persons who do not celebrate homosexual practice and transgenderism.) Curiously, I can find no mention of a vote on the CCCU site, odd indeed given the magnitude of the vote. Is the secrecy designed to deflect criticism? Where is the necessary transparency? To my knowledge, we do not know whether the vote was unanimous or only a bare majority. Some of the Board members may have voted against it. I’m curious what the vote was. Was it a secret vote? There are only 17 persons on the Board of Directors, 11 of whom are presidents of Evangelical colleges. The most prominent member of the Board is Phil Ryken, President of Wheaton.

Shirley V. Hoogstra, J.D., President of CCCU (Ex-Officio)

James H. Barnes, III, President, Bethel University (CCCU Chair)

Shirley A. Mullen, President, Houghton College (CCCU Vice Chair; she wrote a paper supporting the “Fairness for All” move)

Philip Graham Ryken, President, Wheaton College

David Wright, President, Indiana Wesleyan University

Robin E. Baker, President, George Fox University

Charles W. Pollard, President, John Brown University (CCCU Immediate Past Chair)

Lowell Haines, President, Taylor University

Derek Halvorson, President, Covenant College

Randolph Lowry III, President, Lipscomb University

Carol Taylor, President, Evangel University

Evans P. Whitaker, President, Anderson University

Claude O. Pressnell Jr., Ed.D., President, Tennessee Independent Colleges & Universities Association

Bishop Claude Alexander, Jr., Senior Pastor, The Park Church

Peggy S. Campbell, President, Ambassador Advertising Agency

Andy Crouch, M.Div., Partner for Theology and Culture, Praxis

Sidney J. Jansma Jr., M.B.A., Chair of the Board, Wolverine Gas and Oil Corporation