This topic is one that garners a great deal of publicity, but really has highlighted progress made and progress still yet to be made on several fronts. The core of the conversation, however, really needs to focus on rights: Rights of the people that identify within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (or “Questioning” – both are accepted by the Gaycenter.org definitions) groups, and rights of those who do not identify within those groups.
To delve deeper into this conversation, we remind everyone of a single sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776.
There are two sets of rights to be considered in this conversation: Those that identify within the LGBTQ groups, and those who do not. Both will be briefly discussed within this platform.
Those who identify within these groups: The rights to live their lives the way anyone else has the right to do should not be usurped. This should include the right to marry whomever they choose, the right to extend items such as health benefits to their spouse (regardless of gender), and the right to serve in any capacity in the military that they are qualified to fill. Regardless of any specific set of beliefs or opinions any person or group may have to the contrary, these rights must be upheld.
Some have cited religious reasons to not uphold these rights. We would note the First Amendment to the Constitution that calls for abilities to practice religion unencumbered by the government, and over time this has been interpreted as a separation of Church and State (1947 ruling), however it does not allow the government to use religious arguments as a means to remove (or grant) rights from any individual or group.
Where the Moderate Majority does draw a line of opposition, however, is to those within the LGBTQ community (more specifically the Transgender and Questioning segment) that participate in activities in a way that infringe on the rights of others. The most notable examples have been the recent moves by some “politically correct” school districts, to allow male-born students that identify as female to participate in competitive athletics as their non-birth gender. In one of several cases, 2 male-born athletes were allowed to compete as female in track and field events where they successfully advanced to varsity positions and eliminated female-born athletes. In this case, access to collegiate recruiters and athletic scholarships were eliminated for those females. There have been several examples of this occurring in school districts in recent years.
Considering the need to balance rights across all concerned groups, the Moderate Majority does not support allowing non-birth gender participants in gender-specific pre-collegiate and collegiate sports activities. This does include those individuals that may have undergone procedures and therapies as part of gender reassignments. We recognize that not all sports are gender-specific, and in those cases we do support all groups and genders to participate.
The final area that may be even more questionable is the right to conduct business. As was noted by the 7-2 ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (in favor of the cake shop), the rights of the business owners to select whom they serve based on religious beliefs was not recognized by the State’s obligation to uphold religious neutrality when the State Commission ruled against the shop. This Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, allow businesses in general to discriminate in employment practices, but instead upheld the religious rights of the shop owner in whom he chose to serve. However, it also was a narrow ruling, considering other alternatives for cakes were readily available (and were ultimately used); otherwise, the denial of services to a protected group is not supported. In the Colorado case, the Commission was openly hostile toward the cake shop’s religious beliefs in their ruling, and this was significantly noted in the Supreme Court findings.
This issue is highly complex: The opinion of the Supreme Court supporting the upholding of religious freedoms, the Court’s noted rights for protected groups against discrimination that must be upheld, and the variable of alternative services that may or may not be available to the protected consumer. There is no “one size fits all” argument to be had. This is additionally highlighted by the multitudes of similar cases nationwide that have been ruled upon similarly and differently since the Masterpiece case.
As a result, the position we will take on this topic is more neutral, and best noted in the words of Justice Kennedy in the Masterpiece case: “…these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market”.