A judge who works for the Social
Security Administration was told, along with all other employees, to
watch a 17 minute video on LGBT diversity training – basically how
to treat LGBT folks with respect, and understand the diverse and
inclusive society SSA is to serve. This judge, Gary Suttles,
refused, on the basis that, “this type of government indoctrination
training does not comport with my religious views and I object on
that basis as well.”
He requested a religious accommodation
to exempt him from said training video, and was denied, because by
not undergoing the training, Suttles would leave the SSA open to
various liabilities. He has since asked a district judge to block
the SSA both from making him watch the video, and from imposing
further disciplinary actions against him.
The question, unanswered by either
Suttles or his lawyer, is what, exactly, is objectionable in simply
watching a video about
diversity training. They haven't stated how it violates his
religious freedom, and they can't, at least probably not in a way
that would stand up in court. Because what it comes down to is the
Christian Right wants the freedom to openly discriminate against
sinners.
After
all, simply learning about
treating LGBT people with respect does not in any way violate Suttles'
First Amendment rights, unless you want those rights to mean that you
don't have to
acknowledge that we live in a diverse society. And perhaps the
objection goes beyond that: if the SSA wants their staff to watch
diversity-training videos, they probably also expect their staff to
actually comport themselves with the general public in a similar
manner. Instead of paying lip-service to that old saw, “love the
sinner, hate the sin,” the Christian Right just want to skip the
platitudes and hate the sinner. This is the end-goal that some among
the Christian Right hoped to get out of the Hobby Lobby
decision: the legal right to refuse legal rights to members of any
group of “sinners.” This would be the ultimate “religious liberty” for the Christian Right, the freedom not
to serve any member of any group, if serving that group can be
defined as violating sincerely-held religious beliefs.
By not
being required to serve a diverse society, by being able to actively
suppress any sort of government or economic support for members of
diverse social groups, they can dismantle diversity itself. So far
this sort of attack hasn't been able to survive judicial review.
So far.
So far.
