ShareThis Page
Gay rights, religious freedom & Pat Toomey |
Featured Commentary

Gay rights, religious freedom & Pat Toomey

Paul Kengor
| Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:00 p.m

All over the country, liberals are busy suing florists, bakers and photographers who decline to provide services to same-sex ceremonies.

In Ocean Grove, N.J., a Methodist association lost its tax-exempt status for declining use of its wedding pavilion to two lesbians. In Massachusetts and Illinois, Catholic Charities, one of America’s oldest adoption agencies, has been forced to cease services for not providing adoptive children to gay couples.

All such cases involve believers invoking their sacred First Amendment religious rights, and, each time, the apostles of diversity and tolerance reject those rights. You are not free to disagree with liberals on this issue. They won’t permit you.

That brings me to what has happened in the U.S. Senate.

The Senate voted on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA forbids discrimination against employees based on sexual preference, identity, or conduct. Again, on the surface, that sounds fine. The problem, however, is that some employers—especially religious ones—prefer not to hire an open homosexual because it violates their teachings or mission.

Sen. Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania Democrat, was a co-sponsor of ENDA. He joined every Democrat in supporting the bill. No surprise. I’m much more surprised, however, by Pat Toomey, a conservative Republican, also of Pennsylvania. Toomey joined a handful of Republicans in voting for ENDA.

Notably, both senators happen to be Roman Catholic, and the Catholic bishops have spoken against ENDA, saying it equates sexual orientation with race, undermines marriage and threatens religious liberty. The bishops would know. Their church is embroiled in a culture war with the state.

To that end, Toomey offered an amendment providing a religious exemption to ENDA — the kind of exemption that liberals have repeatedly refused. Toomey introduced the amendment on Nov. 6. It was rejected the next day. Of course it was.

Even then, Toomey voted for ENDA after his amendment was rejected. He hopes an amendment will be accepted in the House version of the bill.

Toomey’s supporters are furious. His Facebook page is full of conservatives insisting they will not vote to re-elect him — and thrilled liberals who also won’t vote for him. His supporters vow not to forget. Some might shrug that off as momentary anger. I wouldn’t be so dismissive.

Recall 2006, when Rick Santorum lost his Senate seat. Among the reasons was anger by Pennsylvania conservatives over Santorum backing Arlen Specter. They never forgave him.

Will we witness a repeat of this scenario with Toomey? Is his ENDA vote a re-election killer?

Paul Kengor’s most recent book is “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His column appears the first Sunday of every month.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.