A huge win for the LGBT-plus community

Wyoming Supreme Court ruling in the case of a Pinedale judge has huge implications for nullifying the idea that Christians have a right to discriminate.

By D. Reed Eckhardt

"In addition to protecting religious freedom, our constitution recognizes the importance of equal rights for all. ... we could not read the provisions regarding religious liberty to render those provisions recognizing equal rights and due process to be inoperative or superfluous." -- Wyoming Supreme Court decision censuring Pinedale Judge Ruth Neely for her refusal to marry gay couples.

Members of Wyoming's LGBT-plus community rightly celebrated on March 7 when their state Supreme Court ruled that Pinedale Judge Ruth Neely has only two choices:

Justice Kate Fox wrote the Neely ruling.

 She can marry all couples, or she can marry none. 

Neely cannot, the court ruled, refuse to marry gays while performing ceremonies for straight couples -- despite her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. She is entitled to believe as she wishes, Justice Kate Fox wrote in her majority opinion, but Neely cannot act in ways that discriminate or imply that she is anything but an unbiased actor for the state.

That's a big win for the LGBT-plus community and its supporters as well as for those who believe the courts should be impartial rather than the arm of the fundamentalist church or any religious organization. 

This has been the new ground staked out by fundamentalist Christians since they lost the fight against gay marriage nearly two years ago: that they have a right under the First Amendment to discriminate against the LGBT-plus community if its members  offend their religious beliefs. Neely clearly assumed that position in 2014 when she told a newspaper reporter that she would not perform gay marriages, igniting the case that was decided earlier this month. Neely had been threatened with removal from office by the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, so she appealed to the High Court. She now will retain her position after being censured by the justices, though with a stipulation: Either she marries all or she marries none.

Wyoming's Supreme Court now makes this crystal clear: Religiously motivated actions by public figures who seek to void the rights of others are unconstitutional. Neely may not act on her beliefs in the public arena, no matter how firm her convictions. 

But this ruling also foreshadows bigger things. Christian business people, some church leaders and their supporters have argued in Cheyenne -- and no doubt throughout Wyoming -- that they cannot be forced to violate their beliefs when providing goods and services to members of the LGBT-plus community. They essentially have argued for a right to discriminate, based on the First Amendment, and so they have opposed efforts to pass an anti-bias legislation at the City Council and in the Legislature.

Now comes the ruling in the Neely case. And while some will argue that it applies only in the public arena, there are indications in the opinion itself that is not true. Note the quote at the start of this blog about Wyoming's religious freedom clause not negating the rights and due process of others. Elsewhere in the ruling, the High Court now is on the record as saying that "while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act cannot be." It adds that "the Wyoming Constitution is construed to protect people against legal discrimination more robustly than does the federal constitution."

This means the Neely ruling very well can spread into the private arena. After all, businesses are required to get licenses from the city, and that means they have to abide by the rules of the municipality. If the city cannot discriminate, neither can those businesses. The same holds true, it would appear, in the areas of housing and jobs. No doubt, someone will challenge this, but if it is true that the protections against legal discrimination are higher in Wyoming than in the federal constitution, that person may have a hard time proving his or her case.

It would appear that the Neely ruling is an even bigger victory for the LGBT-plus community than what it seemed on first blush. It appears to set a high standard to discrimination against others based on personal beliefs. That, friends, is just as it should be.

D. Reed Eckhardt is the former executive editor of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.