This week’s topic takes a break from studying US foreign policy in order to address US policy here at home. This week I will examine the Indiana religious freedom law that has caused such a great controversy since the week it has been past.
According to USA Today “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says the government cannot “substantially burden” a person’s ability to follow their religious beliefs, unless it can prove a compelling interest in imposing that burden or do so in the least restrictive way.” [1] However because of the vague wording of the law there is a great divide over the exact interpretation of the law. Liberals see this law as a way to discriminate against the gay and lesbian population others who tend to be more conservative see this law as protection of religious freedom.
Whatever the exact purpose protests have erupted across the country as businesses and organizations threaten to pull out of the state. Companies such as Apple, Angie’s List [2]have threaten to boycott the state, while organizations such as the NCAA have threatened to change the place of the March Madness Basketball tournament, both of these actions would mean a serious loss of jobs and revenue for the state. The backlash experienced in Indiana has stopped other states such as Arkansas to put similar legislation on hold.
Today, conservative legislatures from Indiana have put forward changes to the law, which was quickly sign by the governor, who according to CNN said, “I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.” The new law has changes to the language to include, preventing businesses as using this law as protection, if they fail “to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing” to any customers based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” While the new changes help protect the LGBT community, many feel that just changing the wording isn’t enough, leaving many protestors want more. The LGBT community in Indiana is currently not protected under the anti-discrimination laws of the state, and that is the real change people want to see.[3]
While I feel that this law was not meant to discriminate against any one group, it is naïve to believe that there are not people who would take advantage of people if given the chance. It is 2015 and everyone should be free of discrimination, live in a place that is welcoming, where they are protected. Could this law just be one of the biggest misunderstandings of the year, or were there other motives?
Works Cited
Bradner, Eric. “Indiana Lawmakers Moving to ‘fix’ Religious Freedom Law – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
Network, Mary Bowerman. “What You Need to Know about Indiana’s ‘religious Freedom’ Law.” USA Today. Gannett, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
Semler, Ashley. “Indiana Lawmakers Unveil Proposed Changes to Religious Law.” BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
[1] Network, Mary Bowerman. “What You Need to Know about Indiana’s ‘religious Freedom’ Law.” USA Today. Gannett, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
[2] Semler, Ashley. “Indiana Lawmakers Unveil Proposed Changes to Religious Law.” BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
[3] Bradner, Eric. “Indiana Lawmakers Moving to ‘fix’ Religious Freedom Law – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
I think it’s really unfortunate that in 2015 such a bill could even get through the state legislature. While I do believe in state rights, I think this law is a hit to the reputation of the United States and a detraction from all the civil rights progress our nation has made in the past 60 years. Even if these companies did not rightfully put pressure on Indiana to change this law, the state’s economy would still be negatively affected because the entire population cannot fairly and completely participate within the economy.
Oh, and Morgan agrees with me.
After listening to Fox News Radio for the past week, I obviously have a strong grasp on the issue. The right-wing would like to believe that this issue is only one of LGBT rights. However, the problem is in the context of the language of the proposed bill. The bill states not that an individual has a right to discriminate against others based on their strong religious convictions, but that individuals have a right to discuss this conflict within a court. While I can clearly see this bill’s intentions, which I agree with, there is a really difficult line that must be drawn. Is it a burden on my religious convictions or is it just a belief? Blah, what I am trying to say is that an individual’s religious beliefs are not grounds for discrimination, but they are grounds to refuse participation in blatantly counter-active entities. For example, this law would make perfect sense in its application to Catholic ministries. These ministries do not have to provide birth control to their employees because it is fundamentally and drastically contrary to their beliefs. Should they provide this, it undermines their beliefs. However, for a religion, like Christianity, to refuse a proverbially wedding cake to a gay couple is blatant discrimination. There is nothing Christian about this.