Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Implementing Compromise
|
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Implementing Compromise
Guest Blogger For the symposium on Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs Religious Liberty? The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Douglas
Laycock
1.
Religious minorities and sexual minorities make essentially parallel claims on
the larger society. They each say that some aspects of human identity are so
important to each individual that government should not interfere without the
most compelling reason. They might have been allies in the political and legal
battle against enforced conformity. Instead, they have been locked in mortal
combat, each loudly proclaiming its own right to liberty while repudiating or
minimizing liberty for those they oppose.
Andrew
Koppelman is one of a handful of commentators who understands this, and he
understood it from the beginning. He has long argued for the rights of the LGBT
community and for religious exemptions for conscientious objectors. He has long
recognized that in most cases, we can protect the rights of both groups, and
that, as the subtitle of his book says, this long-running conflict is largely
unnecessary.
Not
that it has made a bit of difference. Too many of the activists on each side
vigorously oppose any proposal for compromise. Each side wants a total win in
which it gets everything it claims as its rights, and in which the other side
is crushed, getting essentially no rights at all. There are men and women of
good will on both sides, working to change this dynamic, but they have always
taken steady fire from both directions.
Koppelman’s
book goes beyond legal doctrine, logic, and appeals to fairness, to consider
some of the practical costs of this conflict and the practical risks of
compromise, risks which are rather modest for both sides. It is written in an
accessible, non-technical style and aspires to reach the grass roots, although
the odds of actually reaching them are long. It is a voice of common sense and
peace making in the face of intractable conflict.
2.
For most legislative purposes, the book is too late. For years, there was an
obvious deal to be done in Congress and in red states: pass a strong gay-rights
law with strong but bounded religious exemptions. The problem has been that
most Republicans don’t want the gay-rights law, and most Democrats don’t want
the religious exemptions. Koppelman explains why both sides should reconsider.
But
the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County largely takes
that deal off the table. Federal law now bans discrimination in employment on
the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, in red states as well as
blue. Bostock’s reasoning will easily be extended to every federal law
that prohibits sex discrimination. The lower courts can be expected to do that
work quickly, and cert denied. With respect to all these many statutes, LGBT
advocates who resisted religious exemptions before have little reason to agree
to any new or more specific exemptions now. Bostock gives them what they
need, with no concessions.
Claims
to religious exemptions from these laws will be fought out under existing
protections for religious liberty—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act with
respect to federal law, the ministerial exception in the minority of cases
where it applies, state constitutions, state RFRAs, and the Free Exercise
Clause if the Court limits or overrules Employment Division v. Smith. It
has granted cert on that question in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
Koppelman’s appeal for compromise is unlikely to influence the litigators on
either side of these cases.
But
two legislative areas remain for Koppelman’s proposed compromise. One is
employers with fewer than fifteen employees, who are not subject to Title VII
and thus not subject to Bostock. We still need gay-rights laws in red
states to protect these workers, and that will not happen without religious
exemptions.
And
there is public accommodations. As it happens, and fortunately for the book,
public accommodations is Koppelman’s principal example and focus throughout. Title II, the federal public-accommodations
law, was enacted in 1964 amid debates about the reach of the commerce power. It
applies only to hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and entertainment venues. It
does not apply to most retail; it does not apply to wedding vendors. Even more
important, it does not prohibit sex discrimination, so Bostock’s
reasoning does not apply.
Because Bostock
does not apply, there is no federal protection for the LGBT community in public
accommodations. And there is no state-law protection in most red states. Here
too, unless the Democrats take the Senate and abolish the filibuster, there is
no prospect of gay-rights legislation without religious exemptions. With
respect to public accommodations, Koppelman’s appeal for moderation and
compromise remains highly relevant.
Even if they abolish the filibuster, both sides might be better off with carefully negotiated and specifically bounded statutory exemptions than with litigating for years under the far more broadly and vaguely worded protections of RFRAs and free-exercise clauses. As Koppelman says, legislated rule-like exemptions are generally better than standards-based exemptions. Clearly legislated rules enable both sides to know what they are agreeing to. If the proposed deal is too one sided, clear rules make that apparent to both sides too. Any deal has to protect the core interests of both sides. 3. Koppelman’s proposed implementation of compromise with respect to public accommodations is badly flawed. It is excessively generous to conscientious objectors in some ways, but completely unworkable for them in one important way. He would let businesses refuse to serve same-sex weddings—and unless I missed it somewhere, refuse to serve gays at all—without regard to the size of the business, without regard to whether similar goods and services are readily available elsewhere, and without anyone having the right to challenge or authority to review the sincerity of the objection, or even whether it is rooted in religion. Koppelman would limit abusive and excessive claims in a different way: any business that claims an exemption must publicly announce that it does not do same-sex weddings, or that it does not serve the LGBT community, or whatever the limits of its refusal to serve are. This requirement will limit conscientious objection to the most committed and most sincere. It will deter conscientious-objection claims because the public announcement will invite retaliation of all kinds. Based on the actual experience of wedding vendors who have been sued for not assisting with a same-sex wedding, conscientious objectors who go public can expect boycotts, defamatory reviews on consumer websites, vandalism, and death threats. Koppelman does not endorse these responses; he would much prefer moderate and restrained responses. But he does expect that making a public announcement will be costly in some way, and some sort of consumer reaction is the obvious and principal cost. He relies on that cost to deter most vendors from making the announcement or acting on their conscience. This requirement is a mistake. Requiring a public announcement accelerates and aggravates social conflict instead of resolving it. Instead of quietly and politely dealing with one same-sex couple at a time, if and when they request goods or services, every conscientious objector must announce his stance to the world and invite responses and attacks from the population at large. Some customers referred elsewhere will be tolerant and take no action; tolerance is what Koppelman says he wants. Some may not even realize why they were referred elsewhere. But a public announcement goes to the tolerant and intolerant alike, and it guarantees the reactions of the most intolerant among us. Koppelman thinks that these serious costs are justified by the need to spare same-sex couples the pain of occasionally being declined service and the uncertainty of not knowing when or where that might happen. These harms are undoubtedly real; they are also easy to exaggerate. There is much less reason to take the conscientious objector’s reaction personally if we accept the rest of Koppelman’s book—if we once acknowledge that there is a religious minority with a different worldview and a countervailing set of rights, and that both sides have to live together in the same society. Neither the LGBT community nor the conservative religious community likes important parts of what the other is doing, but as Koppelman argues, both sides would do well to tolerate the other side’s offensive behavior. However great or small the harm of being turned away or referred elsewhere, there is a much better and less costly way to avert that harm. Gay-friendly businesses should simply advertise as such. Many of them already do, and LGBT-rights groups can encourage more of them to do so. Instead of publicly labeling the conscientious objectors, outing this small number and exposing them to all sorts of retaliation, we can label the larger number of businesses that are open to all, either out of sympathy with the LGBT community or simply because they want to maximize revenue with as many customers as possible. Same-sex couples who fear being refused service can play it safe and patronize the vendors who affirmatively seek their business. Reciprocal moral disapproval is a condition of living in a pluralistic society with deep and persistent disagreements over certain moral issues. Neither side can be protected from occasional encounters with the other side’s moral disapproval. The moral charge against religious conservatives—that they are hateful and bigoted—carries more stigma in most quarters today than the moral charge against the LGBT community—that they flout traditional rules of sexual morality. There is dignitary harm on all sides, and sometimes physical harm on all sides too. Of course we should see to minimize these harms. But we must minimize them for both sides. We cannot seek to eliminate all harm to one side by greatly aggravating harm to the other side. No compromise worthy of the name puts all the risk on one side and most of the benefit on the other. Koppelman’s case for compromise and greater mutual tolerance is powerful. His proposed implementation is flawed. Instead of requiring wedding vendors to advertise invitations for conflict, we should encourage them to advertise tolerance and good will toward all
Douglas Laycock is the Robert
E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Religious Studies at
the University of Virginia, and the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law
Emeritus at the University of Texas. He can be reached at
dlaycock@virginia.edu.
Posted 9:30 AM by Guest Blogger [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |