The Religious Right or Religious Rights?

If you have been following the news, you may have seen the uproar over Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Listening to celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Aston Kutcher you might get the idea that Indiana had just signed anti-gay and lesbian laws into effect. Well, that only shows how uninformed and off-the-wall celebrities can be.

While we might be able to overlook knee-jerk reaction by celebrities that have little knowledge of the real world, it is inexcusable for someone like Hillary Clinton to go off half-cocked. After all, it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law in 1993 after 97 of the 100 US Senators voted for it.

Here is the text of the Indiana law: A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Nineteen other states have similar RFRA laws as well. So what makes Indiana’s law so onerous?

According to some wordsmiths, the language in the Indiana law gives broader powers to include corporations and businesses to practice their religious beliefs universally. They carry this idea to mean that businesses and chains can discriminate against the GLBT community through a religious exemption. Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence says it isn’t so.

The Weekly Standard writes,  “Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash.

“It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.”

Frankly, I can’t see why there is such a problem with people practicing their religious beliefs. After all, the First Amendment to the US constitution clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; […].

But what happens when Muslims want to practice Sharia law? Should we allow stoning and forced amputations? Should a woman be stoned to death because she was raped? Should Wiccans be allowed to 'sacrifice' live animals? 

Well, the Indiana law, along with other RFRA laws, provides an out for these radical religious actions. The law allows the government to prohibit religious actions if it harms an individual or is a detriment to government interests.

As for discrimination, every state in the country, including Indiana, has laws against discrimination for any number of reasons including gender preference. I applaud Indiana for joining the ranks of nineteen other states and the US code in reinforcing the rights clearly spelled out in the first Amendment allowing every individual to practice their religious beliefs.

I have to wonder if Democrats had promoted this legislation, would there have been any demonstrations? Well, the answer is probably no since Bill Clinton and Democratic Senators already signed similar legislation, and not a peep was heard. I guess it’s only wrong when it’s Right.