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/
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?
ReplyDeleteThank you Dorothy for this wonderfully written post. I have mulled over my thoughts on the issue and finally came to the conclusion that my personal response to this question is both. The act protects members of minority religious groups and in turn ostracizes the LGBT community. The grey area necessary to ensure we are all able to exercise our beliefs infringes upon the rights of LGBT community members to have equal access to services. The claim here is not that a religious individual is being forced to do something that violates his religion, such as shaving his beard; it is that he must be free from endorsing or enabling the behavior of others who are engaging in what he sees as sinful behavior. My primary concern is how the policy surrounding this issue may impact other areas of life. The objections run beyond the LGBT community accessing the wedding industry in full. A much broader set of goods and services, including healthcare and employment benefits are potentially going to be impacted my these policy issues. For instance, I take birth control to manage a medical condition not related whatsoever to sexual activity. As a social worker, I must enter the workforce knowing that some employers may fight to block my access to a required medication based on their religious beliefs. I believe in as little regulation as possible. I do not know what that should look like or how to protect personal autonomy without infringing upon the exact same right of others.
The Religious Freedom Act should protect individuals not businesses or entities; it should not legally justify someone’s discrimination. If a business chooses not to provide services to a homosexual couple, that should be their choice, yes, but I do not believe that it should be a law to encourage discrimination. There are far too many marginalized groups that can be discriminated against in addition to the LGBTQ community and justified by this law. I think that this is a slippery slope and I think that the law should be repealed.
ReplyDeleteI like the quote Dorothy mentioned in her post that "those selling to the public should not be able to turn away customers because of their own private beliefs... the vendor is, after all, selling flowers, and is not required to embrace the beliefs of the customers." The same way that we have separated church and state, church and business should be separated as well. A person trying to purchase from a business is not trying to impose their beliefs on the business, therefore a business should not try to impose its beliefs onto the consumer. Furthermore, big businesses have more power to protect themselves, while the individual consumers do not.
In the case of Chick-Fil-A, the company has expressed that they do not support homosexuality, but has not purposefully denied the service to homosexual customers. Businesses should be allowed to express how they feel and let the free market decide what to do with that information. In this example regarding Chick-Fil-A, I know someone whose personal beliefs contradict those of Chick-Fil-A, but eats there several times a week without either party imposing their belief system on one another. It is kept purely a business transaction.
Dorothy - thank you for this well thought out blog post on this really tough topic! I hate that The Religious Freedom Act has a name that makes it sound like it is a positive thing when in actuality it promotes discrimination. Recently a small, independently owned business that I have supported through orders openly discriminated against a customer because he mentioned that he had a husband in a posting on the company's Facebook page. Many, including myself, were outraged. I was upset that I had financially supported discrimination without knowing it. Maybe the owners have the right to censor in this manner - I don't know. But what I do know is that it felt yucky. And it certainly lead to me deleting my account, positive reviews, and committing to never spend another dollar with this company. In my opinion, there is no place for discrimination of any kind.
ReplyDeleteI think the florist, bakers, and photographers are discriminating against the LGBT community by not selling a service that they provide to all others in the community. I think the religious freedom act should be used to protect physicians that don't want to directly perform abortions, or priests that practice a religion that doesn't believe in same sex marriages- not vendors selling products. Where would you draw the line? Next restaurants will be refusing to sell based on sexual orientation. It is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI agree that business owners should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone. As a business owner, you should know that you will be serving a variety of people for lack of a better term. Why would you turn away profit because you do not believe in the views of the LGBT community? Personally, the latter does not seem rational.
ReplyDeleteUgh. This whole situation makes me ill. I feel as if we are going backwards in society by allowing this form of discrimination to take place. As a lesbian who is married and has two children I am outraged at the potential of my family and I being turned away from a place of business based on who I am as a person. I agree with above statements in that if we allow this form of discrimination to take place we are allowing space for more forms to take place....hospitals? what happens if my partner and I are on a road trip with our sons and we get into a car accident? Are hospitals/physicians able to refuse care due to our sexual orientation? Are my children not going to be allowed to go to their school of choice due to their mothers sexual orientation? It is disgusting to me the thought is even being put into practice at all. To quote Jenn, "there is no place for discrimination of any kind."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chatonia.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am aware, religious freedom has not at any point been under attack, and individuals are free to practice their religion, but one person's rights end where another's begin. I hesitate to think of the possibilities of what such a loosely worded bill could lead to. I can imagine it could go far beyond the discrimination of LGBT individuals in cake shops and pizza places and into places like hospitals, pharmacies, banks, insurance companies, etc. that could very much impact the ability of those who are being discriminated against to get very necessary products and services. People would also be able to claim that it is their deeply held religious belief to discriminate against all kinds of people- unwed mothers, divorced people, muslims, etc. It would be so easy for this to get out of hand.
ReplyDelete