Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner?
“Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
For many decades this simple commandment has provided self-justification to so-called Christians as they discriminate against LGBTQ+ folks. This facile justification was at the center of this week’s Supreme Court case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
(“Love the sinner, hate the sin” is deployed as though it is a message directly from Jesus, which it is not. The phrase is not in the Bible but rather a contemporary construct pieced together from bits of ancient text.)
The case was brought by Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, who refuses to design a wedding website for a same sex couple. That she has never been asked to do so reveals the ravenous appetite the conservative justices have for any case that will allow them to use religious belief as immunity from discrimination charges. Smith brought the action just in the event that she does refuse such service and gets sued under Colorado’s nondiscrimination laws.
Actually, to be more accurate, the case was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right wing organization organized to defend religious freedom. Its CEO argued the case in front of the Court. Their concept of “freedom” is clear enough: they want all women to be “free” from controlling their own bodies; they want all children to be “free” from learning about their own human sexuality; they want all children to be “free” from learning about racism; and they want society to be “free” from the mortal sin of same sex relationships.
ADF is like other conservative organizations that “shop” for plaintiffs whose grievances they can use to race through the judicial system right to the steps of a sympathetic Supreme Court.
As a business providing services to the community, Smith is subject to CO civil rights law that requires public businesses to serve all customers and prohibit denials of service because of a customer’s religion, sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, or other characteristics protected under the law.
Her/ADF argument tries to evade the law’s purpose by claiming that requiring her to “design”such a website would be to “compel” her to express something at odds with her deeply held Christian belief; that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. She claims to be fine with providing service to gay folks, but not this particular service. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
The selective application of this concept is reserved primarily to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people with impunity. This particular use of “love the sinner, hate the sin” is categorically different from all others. For example, a true application of this principle, based on a Christian understanding of Jesus’s unconditional love, would be to condemn the sin of murder, while still loving the murderer as Scripture implores. Segregating the heinous act from the deeply flawed human who committed it, is a powerful notion in which we might find true grace, whether religious or humanist.
But this use of the concept is viciously inappropriate and exposes the bigotry of the conservative justices who are poised to encode homophobia in constitutional law. In their ugly construct, the essential humanity of gay people is denied. I have read employment policies and schools policies that do the same damn thing. They offer that homosexuality will be tolerated, unless the party or parties engage in sex. Then they will hate the sin, fire the employee, and unctuously declare their ‘love” of the sinner.
This intellectually dishonest construct was mouthed with no apparent self-recognition during oral arguments.
“It’s about the message and not about the sexuality of the couple,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested. What nonsense! One cannot conveniently disavow same sex marriage and pretend that it is “not about the sexuality of the couple.” What else is it about then, Justice Coney Barrett? Who, other than gay folks, would participate in a gay marriage?
And Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said there was a difference between discrimination based on race versus sexual orientation.
Justice Alito, informed by his religious bigotry, sees a difference between discrimination based on race versus sexual orientation because he thinks that race is an immutable characteristic - you can’t blame one for being Black - but that homosexuality is not natural. It’s a choice. A sinful choice. This is why many Christians use the phrase “sexual preference” or support conversion therapy, through which the “sinner” can be cured of the “sin.”
For decades, this absurd construction of religious “expression” has been used as a political bludgeon. Somehow, offering contraception through a third party was regarded as violating a religious belief. Now, a graphic designer claims to be an artist and imagines her fragile religious sensibilities will be damaged if a gay couple uses a template she designed for wedding announcements. And conservatives complain about snowflakes!
Perhaps the cruelest irony is to consider this issue in light of the more sordid aspects of the history of the Catholic Church; for example the Vatican’s complicity in the Holocaust, documented here. Or the horrifying record of sexual abuse for which I needn’t offer documentation. I contrast this with the deep and abiding love I have witnessed from so many gay couples. A religion that regards those unions as sinful is spiritually bankrupt.
David D. Cole, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the probable ruling would have devastating consequences.
“If 303 Creative wins here, we will live in a world in which any business that has an expressive service can put up a sign that says ‘Women Not Served, Jews Not Served, Black People Not Served,’ and claim a First Amendment right to do so. I don’t think any of us want to live in that world, and I don’t think the First Amendment requires us to live in that world.”
Not the world I want to live in. Do you?