The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was originally a federal law that was passed in order to protect the rights and rituals of different religious groups. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the national act could only to be applied to the federal government, which put the power back into the hands of the state government. There are currently 21 states that have an RFRA, including the newest, Indiana.
When the act was originally signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, it was widely accepted. However, the intricacies of the RFRA of Indiana caused a major national debate.
Supporters of the law argue that the similar titles reflect the similar goals between the federal and state RFRA. However, a look at the tedious state statutes reveals how significantly different the Indiana “religious freedom” law is. Not only has this law evolved since 1993, but the times have changed and gay and lesbian society is currently fighting for their rights.
Margaret Van der Bie, a former student of Azusa Pacific and co-leader of Haven, is with the unofficial LGBTQ group on campus.
“Politically, what is really interesting is this whole idea of separation of church and state, which was originally intended to keep the government from imposing religion on its people,” Van der Bie said. “Now, every time we talk about religious freedom, we are not talking about our rights to practice our religion without being attacked, because it has become this tool to oppress and discriminate against people.”
Indiana is taking advantage of religious freedom in order to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, mainly because the Indiana law applies to for-profit businesses. Not only does the federal law not include for-profit business, but there is language in Louisiana and Pennsylvania’s RFRAs that explicitly excludes them from protections. The only other state that allows for-profit businesses this freedom is South Carolina.
Opponents of this act argue that if a business is for the purpose of the public with a goal to turn a profit, then it should not be allowed to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. They believe that if you are going to make the decision to own and run a business, then you have to be prepared to serve everyone, even those who oppose your religious ideologies. The idea behind this argument is that the pain that is inflicted on victims of discrimination is far greater than the discomfort one might feel in serving someone where their faith is compromised.
However, supporters in Indiana argue that the government should not be able to force citizens under any circumstance to serve someone that would burden their religious convictions; to do so would infringe on the rights they were given as Americans under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Indiana’s bill also looks different in the courtroom. The digest of Indiana’s Senate Bill No. 101 “specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law.” This means that a for-profit business can utilize their right to exercise religion as a defense against a private lawsuit by another person and not just against the government.
New Mexico forbids discrimination against sexual orientation in public accommodations, so when Elaine Photography denied its services to a same-sex couple, the company was brought to court. The owners of Elaine Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, claimed that the RFRA forbiade the suit from going any further. However, the Supreme Court held that because it was an individual and not a government party who was involved, the RFRA did not apply. Elaine Photography, therefore, was found guilty of sexual-orientation discrimination.
When informed of the decision made in the Elaine Photography v. Willock case, freshman allied health major Talia Barraza said: “On one hand, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do something that compromises their morals or their beliefs. However, on the other hand it, is not right to discriminate. Discrimination is not only wrong, it is dehumanizing. I honestly can’t make up my mind on this issue.”
Taking one side is near to impossible in this situation. While it seems wrong for the government to have the power to force people to do something that they don’t want to do because it compromises their beliefs, it also seems wrong that the government would be be tolerant of intolerance. With that said, I do believe that the government should intervene when beliefs start to turn into discriminatory actions that are socially and economically detrimental to society.
After signing the RFRA, according to Bellwether Research, Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s popularity rating went down from 62 percent to 45 percent. People protested and celebrities tweeted, bringing national criticism to an overwhelming high. Due to the fuss, the law was amended to keep business owners from refusing service based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex or military service.
Although the law was clarified, tensions were not and the divide has only become clearer. The LGBTQ community feels appalled for having to fight for its rights in order to not be discriminated against, while religious people, specifically Christian business owners in Indiana, feel they’re being forced to compromise their faith.
“In the same way that it is crazy to my Christian friend that I am gay, it is crazy to my LGBTQ activist friends that I am Christian,” Van der Bie said.
Something is terribly wrong with this picture. Is this how Christians should be treating the LGBTQ community?
There are a few passages in the Bible that Christians use to clobber the LGBTQ community. The number pales in comparison to the number of verses in the New Testament that insist upon fairness, equality, love and rejection of legalism over compassion.
If Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexuality, how much greater is their obligation to look to Scripture to discern the sinfulness of their behavior toward the gay community?
“People try to find biblical reasons to justify treating minorities the way that they do, but it is not biblical,” freshman psychology major Justine Fanget said in response to how Christians are to treat the LGBTQ community. “I believe our philosophy as Christians should revolve around loving our neighbors as ourselves.”
Regardless of your stance on homosexuality, if you are going to claim Christianity, then you must commit to love.