Connect with us

The Religious Right Operative Who Helped Write Utah’s Nondiscrimination Law

Published

on

Was the nondiscrimination/religious freedom law in Utah really the “historic compromise” it’s being touted as, or a Trojan Horse for the Religious Right’s agenda? There now seems to be little doubt with the discovery that one of the law’s authors has spent years working with the country’s most prominent Religious Right leaders and groups to advance right-to-discriminate laws across the country.

After my article last week asserted that the much-hailed Utah LGBTQ rights law was really an attempt by the national Religious Right to gain legitimacy for their agenda to redefine religious liberty as a religious license to legally discriminate, many have begun looking into how the bill actually came into existence.

As Queer Nation recently pointed out, Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois, has a long history of seeking to develop loopholes in civil rights laws. In 2014, as the proposed RFRA in Arizona was causing national headlines for its provisions allowing both private and government individuals to opt-out of civil rights and public accommodation laws if done so for religious beliefs, Wilson and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) teamed up to send a letter to Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, claiming the law was being “egregiously misrepresented.” ADF (formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund back when it was working as part of the legal team defending California’s Prop 8, which stripped marriage rights from same-sex couples), was one of the authors of the Arizona bill. Following massive protests and national outcry, that bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Brewer, but less than a month later a nearly identical bill became law in Mississippi and ADF has worked to pass similar legislation in over a dozen states since.

In 2008, Wilson teamed up with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—the group behind the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby case—to co-edit their book Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, where she claimed states must proactively pass “conscience clauses” for religious freedom—the right for individuals, business owners, and government employees to use their religious opinions to legally discriminate against others.[1]

Wilson was more explicit in an op-ed to The New York Times, following the state legislature’s passage of same-sex marriage in 2011. “Without such [individual religious exemptions],” Wilson argues, “groups that hew to their religious beliefs about marriage would be at risk of losing government contracts and benefits and would be subject to lawsuits from private citizens.” She goes on to claim that organizations receiving government funding should never be in danger of losing those tax dollars just because they discriminate against LGBTQ people.

In 2010, Wilson authored a paper in the Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy titled Insubstantial Burdens: The Case for Government Employee Exemptions to Same-Sex Marriage Laws, in which she lamented that (at that point) “not a single state has shielded the government employee at the front line of same-sex marriage, such as the marriage registrar who, if she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, will almost certainly face a test of conscience.” She concludes with what she believes to be a fair scenario: “Same-sex marriage applications comprise a miniscule part of the overall workload in the local marriage registrar’s office. If that office is staffed by three clerks, Faith, Hope, and Charity, and only Faith has a religious objection to assisting with same-sex marriage applications, allowing Faith to step aside when no hardship will result for same-sex couples is costless.” This, of course, ignores the vast implications of allowing a publicly-funded government employee to deny civil rights to citizens—not to mention the real threat of “Hope” and “Charity” following “Faith’s” lead. Wilson also took it a step further in her 2014 paper, Marriage of Necessity: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Protections, where she advocates for the Religious Right to focus on inserting its corrupted view of religious freedom into state laws.

Wilson is also famous for co-writing an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2014 with Bradford Wilcox, claiming that if women want to stop being sexually abused, they should just get married. Co-author Bradford Wilcox is currently the head of the Religious Right’s “National Marriage Project.” But until 2012 he was a director at the Witherspoon Institute, where he played an integral role in the creation of the thoroughly-debunked study by Mark Regnerus, which claimed that children of same-sex parents turn out much worse than children of opposite-sex parents. Wilcox not only acted as an advisor on the project, but was a paid consultant.

And speaking specifically about the Utah law she helped write, Wilson went so far as to lay out that “if the religious right does not believe that they are going to have those [religious exemption] protections, it cannot push forward the other rights.”

Wilson’s true motives in writing Utah’s “compromise” SB296 law are clear.

LGBTQ supporters of the law are arguing that the religious exemptions in SB296 do not undermine the workplace/housing protections for LGBTQ people. But that misses the entire point of the critique of the bill. It didn’t matter what legalese actually went into the law. In fact, it behooved Wilson, the Mormon Church, ADF, and the other Religious Right actors to make the bill appear favorable to LGBTQ people who desperately need workplace and housing protections.

No, the real agenda was to obtain the endorsement of LGBTQ groups. The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts currently being pushed through state legislatures, particularly in the South, are vulnerable to court challenges. But now that the Religious Right has high-profile endorsements of their false framework of religious freedom and LGBTQ rights being opposed to each other, unfortunately, the ability of LGBTQ activists and organizations to oppose RFRAs and other efforts to codify discrimination—all dressed up in the language of “religious freedom”—has been curtailed.

 

Eric Ethington is a journalist, activist, and researcher. Originally from Utah, he now works in Boston for a social justice think tank. His writing, advocacy work, and research have been featured on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, the New York Times, The Guardian, and The Public Eye magazine. Follow him on Twitter @EricEthington.

**Cross-posted with permission from Political Research Associates

[1] Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008.

 

Image via YouTube

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Will Trump Testify at Trial? ‘Absolutely’ Is Now a ‘No Decision’ Yet

Published

45 mins ago

on

May 16, 2024

By

The State of New York’s prosecution of Donald Trump is nearing it end, as Judge Juan Merchan announced late Thursday afternoon final arguments could begin on Tuesday. But one question remains: Will the ex-president who is facing 34 felony charges in the election interference, falsification of business records, and hush money cover-up case, testify in his defense?

Just over one month ago Trump was asked that question. He quickly responded, “Yeah I would testify, absolutely.”

Trump appeared resolved.

READ MORE: Ex-Florida GOP Chair’s Efforts to Recruit 3-Way Partners for Anti-LGBTQ Wife Revealed: Report

“I’m testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there is no case,” he said, as NBC News reported.

NBC added last week that Trump “told Newsmax two weeks ago that he would testify ‘if necessary,’ and on Tuesday he said in an interview with Spectrum News 1 Wisconsin that he would ‘probably’ take the stand, adding that he ‘would like to.'”

But when Judge Merchan asked Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, on Thursday, the answer was very different.

“That’s another decision that we need to think through,” he said, according to the Associated Press.

But Politico’s Erica Orden reported, “Blanche says Trump hasn’t made a final decision about whether to testify.”

Last week, as the question of Trump’s testifying loomed large, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) insisted he would not.

“It’s over. Donald Trump has a right to not testify. Yet he PROMISED he would. Now it’s clear he won’t. The jury can’t consider this. But you can. He is chickenshit and you should conclude he’s guilty as hell.”

On Wednesday, attorney George Conway addressed the topic, saying, “If he doesn’t testify, it’s because he’s scared.”

He also said, “in a million years, I would never tell him to testify. I would tell him not to testify.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Wails His Judge Was Appointed by ‘Democrat Politicians’ – That’s False

 

Continue Reading

News

Ex-Florida GOP Chair’s Efforts to Recruit 3-Way Partners for Anti-LGBTQ Wife Revealed: Report

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 16, 2024

By

A stunning police report reveals how Christian Ziegler, the now-ousted Florida Republican Party chair, would head out to bars to scope out and recruit women as possible three-way sex partners for himself and his stridently anti-LGBTQ wife, Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler.

The disgraced Florida power couple’s ménage à trois sex scandal made national headlines after an accusation of rape against Christian Ziegler came from one of their three-way sexual partners, an allegation he denied. After an investigation no charges were filed.

Christian Ziegler lost his high-paying job as the Florida GOP chairman, but his wife Bridget has refused to resign from her elected position on a school board, as well as from her position on the state board that now oversees the Walt Disney World special district. Bridget Ziegler, who is seen as an architect of Governor Ron DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law, reportedly is best friends with Florida First Lady Casey DeSantis, and was appointed to the special district role by the Florida GOP governor.

The Sarasota Police Dept. report, according to the Florida Trident, “recounts how Christian Ziegler went ‘on the prowl’ in bars for women to bring home to Bridget, a Sarasota County School Board member who has backed a number of anti-LGBTQ measures at both the state and local level, for threesome encounters. While at the bars, Christian would surreptitiously photograph prospective women and text the photos to Bridget for approval, according to the report.”

READ MORE: ‘Mouths of Sauron’: Critics Blast ‘Mobster Tactic’ of Trump Surrogates ‘Violating’ Gag Order

Some of the details are salacious.

“There were numerous text messages between Bridget and Christian where they are on the prowl for a female and Bridget is directing him to numerous different bars in search of a female that they are both interested in,” the report reads, according to The Trident. “During these conversations Christian is secretly taking photographs of women in the bars and sending them to Bridget asking her if she wants this one or that one. Bridget is telling him to pretend to take pictures of his beer, so they don’t see him taking pictures of them. She tells him ‘Don’t come home until your dick is wet.’”

The Zieglers are in court trying to block the release of the text messages and other media, alleging in a lawsuit against the Sarasota Police Dept. and the State Attorney’s Office that “release of those records would cause ‘great humiliation and harm to their individual reputations’ if released and therefore should be destroyed.”

“The suit specifically addresses the contents of Christian Ziegler’s cell phone, his social media accounts, web browsing history, and the video he made of the sexual encounter with the alleged rape victim,” the Trident reports.

Meanwhile, despite her own actions and after months of laying low, Bridget Ziegler is back on her anti-LGBTQ crusade.

“At last week’s school board meeting, Ziegler introduced a highly contentious resolution to ignore protections for LGBTQ students afforded by a new federal Title IX rule,” the Trident also reports. “The resolution, which followed a DeSantis legal challenge to Title IX at the state level, claims the new rule would cause ‘disastrous impacts to girls and women’s safety in restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.’ It passed by a 4-1 vote despite the fact it could lead to a federal investigation, expensive litigation, and the loss to the school district of roughly $50 million in federal funds.”

READ MORE: Trump Appears to Violate Gag Order After Judge Threatened ‘Incarceration’

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Appears to Violate Gag Order After Judge Threatened ‘Incarceration’

Published

5 hours ago

on

May 16, 2024

By

Despite New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan explicitly warning Donald Trump last week that any future violations of his gag order could result in jail time, the ex-president appears to have done so directly on Thursday.

“A lead person from the DOJ is running the trial,” Trump claimed, obviously referring to prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, as Law & Crime reports.

“So Biden’s office is running this trial. This trial is a scam and it’s a sham and it shouldn’t happen,” Trump told reporters outside the courtroom.

Judge Merchan’s gag order specifically prohibits trump from attacking anyone in District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, except for the D.A. himself.

“Colangelo, a lead prosecutor in the case, was criticized one day earlier by Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, largely raising the same complaints that Trump repeated outside of court,” Law & Crime noted.

READ MORE: ‘Ready to Start Another Insurrection’: Gaetz Support for Trump Echoes Proud Boys Order

The gag order explicitly states Trump is “directed to refrain from”:

“Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding; Making or directing others to make public statements” about attorneys “in the case other than the District Attorney,” “members of the court’s staff and the District Attorney’s staff, or the family members of any counsel or staff member” or “any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.”

Ten days ago Merchan wrote in his order: “Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration.”

Watch below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.