Indiana, a state known for a famous race track and as the idyllic setting of “Parks and Recreation,” is currently caught up in controversy following the recent passage of a religious freedom law.
The problem: The law doesn’t protect religious freedom so much as it permits discrimination in the name of religion.
The law, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is similar to a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and other state-level versions of it. The original federal law was intended to protect the religious use of a hallucinogenic cactus by Native Americans.
The act includes provisions that would protect businesses from civil lawsuits against them. These new provisions are, in part, inspired by last year’s Hobby Lobby decision, which granted free exercise protection to corporations, people and churches.
Criticism of the law is based in opposition to what many people see as its intent: exempting businesses who would like to deny services to gay couples from civil rights laws. RFRA laws are often used to covertly guarantee the rights of individuals and businesses to this, often in response to stories where bakery owners are sued into submission after refusing to decorate cakes for gay weddings.
In that way, it’s similar to other “religious freedom” laws like one that was passed but vetoed in Arizona last year that legalized discrimination of LGBT people.
Such regressive legislation aimed at maintaining the social and sexual status quo is popping up everywhere. Indiana’s RFRA is one. We have a bill going through our state house that would force trans people to use restrooms according to their legal sex.
The intent of these laws is never stated as such, of course, but after a cursory look at who’s behind them it becomes clear. Present at the signing of Indiana’s RFRA last week were, according to GLAAD, Micah Clark, Curt Smith and Eric Miller — essentially a who’s who of Indiana anti-LGBT activists. Smith helped write the bill.
Saying it’s meant to protect religious freedom is a brilliant rhetorical device on their part, because no one in America and in his or her right mind would argue against freedom of religion.
It’s one of the most sacred principles in American thought; supporting a law meant to protect it should be a no-brainer. But we know why these laws are gaining popularity and who’s writing them. They are a final push from the right in resisting the overwhelming tide of favor for same-sex marriage in this country. In the event of legal same-sex marriage, they’d like to preserve the right of businesses to discriminate.
Personally, we’re against the law and others like it — including the anti-trans bill in our own state. But if these people want to argue for legalized discrimination, they should own up to exactly what it is. Religious freedom is a shoddy excuse.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 4/1/2015 under the headline “Religious freedom not an excuse to discriminate”]
