I'm Not Gay!

Last week, I was at a conference related to my job. One of the workshops I attended was about bias, diversity, and cultural intelligence. During this workshop, there was an exercise, designed to get people thinking introspectively about their biases.

There were various labels printed on signs which were hanging around the room. The object of the exercise was to select one of the labels and stand under the corresponding sign. For example, if one most closely identified as a Christian, they wold stand beneath a sign which said "Christian."

It was a simple exercise, the point of which was to demonstrate how difficult it is to select one aspect of your identity as your defining characteristic. People struggled to choose a sign to stand under, either because they identified with more than one label or because none of the labels adequately captured them as a person. That was the intended message of the exercise, but I noticed another dynamic.

Interestingly, one of the signs said, "Transgender." No one stood under this sign.

The first idea that struck me during this exercise was that any transgender persons in the room might not feel comfortable outing themselves in such a direct way among a room full of strangers. So, perhaps there were transgender people in attendance and perhaps there were not. But this was not the dynamic I noticed.

I noticed that people were going out of their way to NOT stand beneath the transgender sign. The signs were posted along the wall. In many areas, it became unclear which sign people had chosen, because the signs were closely grouped together. In other words, once a group had assembled beneath one sign, it was sometimes difficult to tell which one they had selected without an explanation.

Not so with the transgender sign. People were leaving such a wide berth under that sign, there was no question whether or not anyone had selected it. Not only were people not choosing the transgender sign, but they were also going out of their way to make it obvious they were not standing under that sign.

I happened to select the sign directly next to the transgender sign. I found myself standing directly between the two labels, which was not terribly troubling to me, although it resulted in those nearest me not being certain which label I had chosen. I noticed that the others who had selected the same label as me were taking great pains to distance themselves from the transgender label.

"I'm under this sign, NOT that sign."

They stood awkwardly to one side, ensuring that no one would mistakenly associate them with the wrong label. I did not notice these great pains being taken to avoid any of the other labels.

This got me thinking about a particular dynamic I sometimes see among allies, and there is a bit of nuance involved, so bear with me.

First, I have to be clear on something I am NOT saying. I would never for an instant suggest that straight cis-gender people should appropriate the experience of LGBTQ people. At no time should an ally come swaggering into the room, claiming to identify with the experience of an LGBTQ person. I'd never suggest that allies should align themselves with an experience they have never had, nor should they erase the differences in experience related to sexuality and gender. It is insulting and inappropriate for a majority culture person to pretend to fully understand the experience of a historically marginalized people group.

So, an ally should never say, "Yeah, I get it! My experience is the same!"

After that disclaimer, the dynamic I'd like to talk about is fear of being mistakenly identified as an LGBTQ person. 

 

Here is an example. Sometimes, people want to disclose they are an ally to the LGBTQ community. Instead of simply offering their support or voicing their perspective, they express their position like this:

"I'm not gay, but I am supportive."

Or, "Don't get me wrong, I am not a lesbian, but I support marriage equality."

Or, "Don't mistake me for transgender. I am not transgender, but I am opposed to the bathroom bill."

The tendency I am getting at here is the apparent perceived need to assert the non-LGBTQ aspect of one's identity prior to expressing a viewpoint.

Some more nuance here. Sometimes, it is perfectly acceptable to clarify gender identity or sexual orientation. So I would never suggest a person should never distinguish their heterosexuality or cis-gender identity. In many cases, it may be helpful to offer full disclosure and offer insight into who you are.

But, I'll also note that if you begin every supportive statement by distancing yourself from LGBTQ people, it may have a detrimental effect on your relationships. It's perfectly acceptable to be open about your straightness or cis-gendernesss, but this does not need to be a disclaimer which is constantly placed on the forefront.

It's great to express your support for LGBTQ people, but if you preface every statement of support with a disclaimer that you yourself are not LGBTQ, it can come across as demeaning. 

It may seem like you are worried about being mistaken for an LGBTQ person. Or, it may seem like you are insecure about your own identity, so much so that you feel the need to constantly remind people you are not gay.  

The term homophobic has a wide range of meaning, and a wide range of usage, but in essence, this sort of disclaimer can be at the heart of the meaning.

If you are afraid of being mistaken for an LGBTQ person, ask yourself why. Feeling this way does not make you a terrible person, but it may indicate that you have some assumptions or biases to consider.

Are you worried that someone might think you're gay? Would you be offended if someone mistook you for a transgender person? Would you take offense if you attended a party with a member of the same sex and people assumed you were dating?

Just something to think about.

One small way I've resisted this in my life. I am a member of Equality Springfield, a local group which seeks equality for all people, especially LGBTQ people. When I am disclosing to others for the first time that I am a member of this group, I am cautious not to lead with the phrase, "I not gay, but..."

I was once in a group of people I had never met, and we were all discussing various community efforts we were involved in. As soon as I made mention of my involvement with Equality Springfield, some people in the room assumed that I must be gay. After all, why else would I be involved in the local "gay group."

I experienced a similar incident once, at a local event where Equality Springfield had a table set up. I stood near the rainbow banner on display while chatting with some local church folks, who did not know I was active with the group. The sentiment they expressed? That it was humorous for me to stand next to the banner because people might think I was gay.

"Jack! You're near the rainbow banner. People might get the wrong idea."

They did not mean any harm, but their observation highlighted their inner homophobia: their inner fear of being associated with something gay.

Again, it is not necessary for me to appropriate the culture of another or pretend to be a gay man. I do not need to give the appearance of being LGBTQ to be supportive. But, I also did not stumble over myself in explanation, nor did I need to rush to clear up the misconception. I made an intentional effort to not make any denials.

When I met the new group of people and mentioned my involvement with Equality Springfield, some in the group wondered if I was gay. Later in the conversation, I mentioned my wife by name, and the group realized I was not in a same sex relationship. So, they figured out I was an ally. But, I did not go out of my way to "correct" the people who wondered if I was gay based on my involvement with a group. And I did not rush to distance myself from others or put myself in a separate category.

In other words, as they got to know me more, their assumptions were challenged.

For an ally, I'd never suggest using deception or intentionally being unclear about who you are. But, I'd also suggest it is okay to stand under an LGBTQ sign, or to hold up a banner, without being afraid of someone mistaking you for an LGBTQ person. You don't have pretend to be gay; but you also don't have to get defensive or go out of your way to clarify you aren't gay.

Even during goofy team-building exercises, you don't have to bend in weird directions or contort your body to be sure no one thinks you're standing under the transgender sign. It will be alright. The labels are inadequate, and that is kind of the point of the exercise.

No Gays Allowed: The Problem with Religious Freedom Acts

"No Gays Allowed."

This was the sign Jeff Amyx displayed prominently on the front door of his hardware store in Washburn, TN back in 2015.

Amyx is a Baptist minister and hardware store owner. He went on to sell hats, bumper stickers, and other items with anti-gay messages such as "No Gays Allowed" and "Choose God or Gays."

If you think this story is old news, here is a recent picture from the front of the store, which is currently posted on the store's Facebook page:

What would Leviticus have to say about mixing paint, I wonder?

Also in 2015, shortly after posting the sign, something interesting happened. Amyx removed the "No Gays Allowed" message and replaced it with this one:

I highlight this specific story because it demonstrates an interesting pattern which has emerged time and again. First, a business owner overtly states his refusal to offer services to gay people. Then, in response to the outcry, the business owner invokes his rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion to justify his position.

"No Gays Allowed," sounds targeted and cruel. But, "I am invoking my religious rights," sounds downright patriotic.

A Little Background

Jeff Amyx posted his signs in 2015, right around the time that Mike Pence (then Governor of Indiana) signed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pence and his supporters claimed that this law was identical to the 1993 federal law of the same name, but the Indiana version had 2 key differences.

First, the 2015 law signed by Pence explicitly allowed for-profit businesses to assert their right to the free exercise of religion. In other words, not only can individuals invoke their right to free speech and religion, but businesses and corporations could do so as well.

Second, the law allowed businesses or corporations to use their "free exercise" of religion as a defense in a litigation.

In short, the 2015 Indiana law said that businesses and corporations have rights matching those of individuals and churches, and that if complaints or lawsuits arise when a business denies services to someone, the business can use their "religious freedom" as a defense against discrimination claims.

So by this reasoning, a business can discriminate against people as long as they cite "religious freedom" as the reason. To apply the law in relation to the above example, Jeff Amyx can refuse to sell hardware to gay people as long as the sign on his door says it is for religious reasons.

Now, there are rumors that Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order tomorrow which closely resembles Pence's earlier work in Indiana. The proposed order could provide sweeping legal protections for businesses who claim religious exemptions.

But, Religious Freedom is a Good Thing, Right? 

To many people, this executive order sounds like a good thing. Some Evangelical Christians are celebrating the idea that President Trump would sign such an order. (The proposed timing of the order coincides with the National Day of Prayer).

What, then, is the problem?

First, religious freedom is already protected in the Constitution. Despite appearances, this measure and others like it do nothing to increase liberties of our citizens. It may be spun as a victory, as if Donald Trump is granting additional religious liberties to his constituents, but this measure does nothing to increase, reinforce, or otherwise change existing liberty protections.

Not only does the US Constitution grant religious liberty, but there are state-level protections too. For example, Article I of Ohio's Constitution offers the religious liberty protections. Trump's potential order, or Pence's earlier law, are not an "increase" of religious liberty... those protections already exist.

The measure is superfluous at best, comically theatrical, unnecessary, and pandering at worst.

If these protections already exist, why must we "restore" them? Why do we need an executive order (or a state law like Ohio's proposed Pastor Protection Act) if ample protection already exists?

Because we need a basis to shield those who would discriminate. 

This is not about extending additional freedom to people; this is about providing cover for those who would actively discriminate against individuals and groups.

This measure does not say, "And now we will enhance and magnify the religious liberty we already have." This measure says, "Now we will permit for-profit business to deny goods and services to others if they invoke religious beliefs as the reason."

This measure does not say, "We affirm EVERY person's right to free exercise of religion." This measure says, "Now businesses have legal footing to exclude anyone they want."

Religious Freedom does not mean we get to discriminate against others, and it does not mean we get to impose our beliefs on others. Jeff Amyx in Tennessee argued that others could buy tools from his hardware store if they did not impose their beliefs on him. Doesn't his store policy impose his beliefs on others?

Some would argue that religious freedom acts protect churches from being forced to perform weddings that conflict with their religious convictions. I'll point out that clergy already have these rights under the First Amendment of our United States Constitution and Article I of Ohio’s Constitution. For example, a pastor can choose not to legally marry a couple because they are not members of his congregation, or because they have not attended approved counseling, or because his religious convictions prohibit him from endorsing the union.

I'll further point out that, as a Christian, I am grateful to live in a country that offers protections related to religious liberty, but I do not make the mistake of assuming that this right has been "given to me" or granted by the government.

I am grateful my government acknowledges my personal rights, but these rights are not theirs to give, take, or alter. I don't need Donald Trump to sign an order endorsing my right to practice my faith, or my neighbor's right not to. 

I am a Christian who stands in opposition to the proposed executive order. I stand in opposition to religious freedom acts which do nothing but echo existing protections, and I stand opposed to those measures which would provide a basis for discrimination. I hold that each individual has the right to freely exercise the faith of their choosing, or no faith at all.

Corporations, however, are not people. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of religious observance are not "open to the public" in the sense that they have membership guidelines, doctrinal and belief statements, and governing structures. These groups have protection to practice as they wish. But businesses are different. Businesses are places of public accommodation and are subject to zoning regulations, license requirements, accessibility requirements, and other regulations. 

Some would make the case that the free market will settle this issue... that businesses with hateful or discriminatory policies will get what they deserve when customers stop patronizing these establishments. This may be true. Still, we don't need the government sanctioning such behavior with a flourish and the stroke of a pen.