US Opinion and Commentary

“VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.” — VOA Charter

Religious Freedom

Posted March 31st, 2015 at 2:02 pm (UTC-4)
Comments are closed

When Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a “religious freedom” bill, a legislative battle between religious freedom and gay rights was once again front and center, sparking an intense and divisive debate, particularly among gays and lesbians, who fear the law will allow discrimination.

Gov. Pence, Fix ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Now

The Editorial Board for The Indianapolis Star

We are at a critical moment in Indiana’s history. And much is at stake.

Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract talented workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers.

All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future … Only bold action — action that sends an unmistakable message to the world that our state will not tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens — will be enough to reverse the damage. Gov. Mike Pence and the General Assembly need to enact a state law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Those protections and RFRA can co-exist. They do elsewhere.

Others found aspects of the law harmless — and legal, based on a long history of exempting religious practices from following the letter of the law.

Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law

Douglas Laycock – The Weekly Standard

The issue with respect to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) is whether people should be allowed to practice their religion, even when their acts would otherwise be illegal, if they are not doing any real harm. The American tradition of religious liberty has exempted religious practices since the seventeenth century. Quakers in colonial times didn’t have to swear oaths, or serve in the militia.

Sometimes this is entirely uncontroversial. It is illegal to give alcohol to minors, but no one thinks that law should be applied to communion wine, or seder wine at the Jewish Passover … State RFRAs have not produced very many cases. But those cases are deeply important to the people affected …[like] the remarkable story of Mary Stinemetz, who died for her faith for lack of a state RFRA. Fortunately, that doesn’t happen very often. But that’s a real case. None of the incredible denunciations of the Indiana RFRA are based on a real case; they are all talking about things that have never actually happened.

Comments are closed.