New
York Times March 31, 2015
Last week Governor Mike Pence signed a new provision of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was adapted
to protect members of vulnerable religious minorities from punishment for the
exercise of their beliefs. Mr. Clinton signed the federal law in 1993 at a time
when the concept had strong support, and was perceived as a way to prevent
unjustified oppression of religious minorities. The federal legislation was set
off by a case in which two followers of the Native American church were fired
and denied unemployment benefits because they took part in ceremonies with
peyote, an illegal drug. The United States Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s decision
not to pay benefits, provoking a bipartisan drive in Congress to pass a law
that would deter government actions that impinge upon religious beliefs. Twenty
states, including Indiana last week, have since passed their own versions of
religious freedom laws. These laws were designed to protect individuals from
harm by preventing the government from forcing people to violate their beliefs
unless there was a sound reason and no good alternative. For example, this
year, the Supreme Court said that federal officials could not prevent a Muslim
prisoner from wearing a short beard, since the ban did not serve any overriding
governmental interest. However, Indiana law includes new provisions that could
broaden its reach, possibly enabling corporations to deflect antidiscrimination
rules and providing religious believers with a possible weapon in private
suits.
Religious conservatives say that if same-sex marriage must exist, those
who find it sinful should not be forced to participate in any way. Under laws like
the one in Indiana, they say, vendors such as florists, bakers and
photographers should be able to refuse to sell their services for same-sex
wedding celebrations. Many of those who pushed for Indiana’s law have
explicitly said that they hope it will protect vendors who refuse to
participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies, helping them avoid actions that
according to their beliefs are onerous and sinful. Less clear is how often that
might occur, and how often those vendors might win in court.
Civil rights advocates argue that many of these laws are increasingly
used not to protect vulnerable religious minorities but to allow some religious
groups to impose their views on others. Supporters have argued that reliance on
these laws is not an imposition, but rather a form of protection so that
religious individuals are not forced to act in ways that violate their beliefs.
According to civil rights advocates, “religious freedom,” is code for simple
discrimination and would not only inconvenience gay and lesbian couples, but
also would relegate them to a form of second-class status. Those selling to the
public should not be able to turn away customers because of their own private
beliefs, these advocates say; the vendor is, after all, selling flowers, and is
not required to embrace the beliefs of the customers.
In respond to all the controversy and protest, Indian Governor promise
to “fix” the law. Below is a link about Governor Pence plans to fix the law. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/politics/indiana-governor-mike-pence-feeling-backlash-from-religious-laws-opponents-promises-a-fix.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
What are your thought? Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
allowing individual and business to discriminate against LGBT community or is
it protecting members of minority religious groups from punishment for the
exercise of their beliefs?
Please note that this is a developing story, therefore the story is
constantly being updated. Some of
the information in this might be outdated by the time you read this blog. The
Washington Post and New York Times is reporting updates daily. If you find any
updated information please link it to the blog to provide addition
conversation. Thank you in advance.
References
Eckholm,
E., (2015, March 31) Context for the Debate on ‘Religious Freedom’ Measures
in Indiana and Arkansas. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
