Shallow support: Anti-discriminatory backing only goes so deep

In light of a press conference last Tuesday, the tug of war between the conservative Mormon church and marginalized groups — namely the LGBTQ community — has seemingly ceased, except for one glaring exception.

The Mormon church recently announced support for expanding Salt Lake City’s four-year-old non-discrimination laws for all of Utah’s LGBTQ residents. However, this support is contingent on the laws also protecting the church from religious discrimination, an additive they’d like to see in the statute. The Salt Lake City legislature approved the laws in 2009 as part of the Utah Labor Code to prohibit discharging individuals within the city because of sexual preferences. 

Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said the Church views its support of anti-discriminatory laws as a check against religious freedom. Oaks’ agenda, then, is to balance the weight of anti-discriminatory rights and religious freedom rights, not merely highlight the former. So, this isn’t really progress, given that the easiest way to overlook  discriminating against LGBTQ groups is to provide religious reasons for doing so, especially when it comes to employment or housing. So, in this instance, instead of refusing to hire a person because they are LGBTQ, Mormon employers just have to say that they cannot hire him or her because their religion prohibits them from doing so. 

This legislative additive would allow the Church to retain its view on LGBT groups while using pseudo-support to gain popular opinion. This is not the first time the Church did this, either. Incidents involving the Boy Scouts and California’s Proposition 8 shows their resistance to change. 

Essentially, these “non-discrimination” laws have the exact opposite effect. In typical discourse, non-discrimination laws applied to the LGBTQ community mean that employers cannot fire or refuse service to people because of their gender or sexuality alone. This new spin allows the church to do just that. The church has “supported” the law in efforts to look more tolerant and liberal. The church doesn’t really want to change policy, though.

In the press conference, Oaks described discrimination faced by religious groups and compared it to the hardship individuals face on the premise of gender. 

“When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss … our democracy is the loser,” Oaks said. 

He continued to expand this idea to LGBTQ discrimination, but never with the same ardor used to discuss religious freedom. It is hard to know the extent of discrimination the church could potentially allow, though, because the standards are so far-reaching.

On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Oaks spoke about what these laws will mean. When he was asked if doctors who perform artificial inseminations will be able to refuse service to LGBTQ patients based on their religion, Oaks avoided the topic, claiming that he was unable to “predict what position [the church] would take in legislation.” 

Oaks said “one of today’s great ironies is that some people who have fought so hard for LGBTQ rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals.” This statement shows a lack of real sentiment for LGBTQ rights when the religious emphasis is so selfishly brazen.

The Mormon church, like most churches, has a complicated relationship with LGBTQ issues. On one hand, it tries to keep a civil face toward LGBTQ people to avoid an a label like discriminatory through actions such as the endorsement of the Boy Scouts’ decision to allow gay scouts in May 2013.

However, its stance on marriage equality seems unchanging. During California’s 2008 Proposition 8 debate that determined whether or not marriage equality would be secured in California, the Mormon church took a definite stance against marriage equality. It backed a referendum for Prop 8 that was eventually shot down in court in 2010. Its backing represented a clear stance on the issue. 

During Prop 8, gay marriage was the church’s primary focus. The Church made up almost 90 percent of door-to-door petitioners in favor of Prop 8 and half of the campaign’s funds came from the Mormon church. 

There is also a dark history of reparative therapy in the Mormon church. It still views homosexuality as a curable condition, even while accepting that LGBTQ sexual orientations are not by simple choice. 

Various church leaders make it clear that this support of non-discrimination does not change their stances on homosexuality. For example, Sister Neill Marriott, originally from Louisiana, claimed that these unions are eternally contrary to God and that “his commandment and doctrine comes from sacred scripture and we are not at liberty to change it.” 

Given the ongoing tension between LGBTQ people and the church, non-discrimination against LGBTQ people  doesn’t seem to be their first priority, gaining a right to discriminate on religious grounds is the real focus. It is possible they have to cloak their support of religious non-discrimination laws under an LGBTQ pretense because they think it will have a better chance of passing, seeming less selfish.

The Mormon church may realize cultural acceptance of homosexuality is consistently increasing and that adaptation is becoming a requirement for all modern religious. 

Whatever the reasoning, though, it is important not to divvy out progress where it is undue. Celebrating acceptance when it is just oppression disguised as acceptance only further perpetuates oppression. 

Adrianne Glenn primarily writes about social and cultural issues for The Pitt News. 

Write to Adrianne at adg79@pitt.edu.