Religious Freedom versus Gay Rights: The Indiana Religious Freedom Law - Coursework Example

Religious Freedom versus Gay Rights: The Indiana Religious Freedom Law Religious Freedom versus Gay Rights: The Indiana Religious Freedom Law One of the most recent events that rocked the headlines of American press is the passage of the controversial Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law where it is met with protests because it raises a heated debate between religious freedom and gay rights. The crux of the debate is basically centered between two opposing perspectives – one that argues that the law would become a legal ground or even a license for businesses to choose which customers to sell or serve and therefore a tool for discrimination. The other may say that it will not make any difference because with or without the law, businesses will always act the way they have been acting and that they are only driven by profit (Cohn, 2015). Another argument given in behalf of the Indiana law is that this Indiana version is similar to other 20 federal states as what had Governor Mike Pence had opined when he approved changes to the law that extended the protection to businesses. The controversial law is actually no longer new. It was a brainchild of President Bill Clinton when he signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 which is the original version of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law. The law unanimously supported by the House of Representatives unanimously as well as the Senate by a vote of 97-3 (The Economist). The original states “Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a persons right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the persons exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest (Senate Bill 568). Simply put, the law provides protection to the person’s right to exercise his or her religion. There is nothing objectionable to it except that in the Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law as approved by Governor Mike two weeks ago, it extended to the protection to the business that would chose to opt out in transactions that involve gays. It may have been “fixed” this week by lawmakers by adding language to it that it could not be used by businesses and similar institutions to deny gays away, it only came after series of protests from people, sports organizations and companies (Somekhekhar, 2015). In a way, the “fix” or “clarification” is already too late because the initial version of the law has already sparked controversy and outrage among the gay communities (Time). It had also sparked outraged and further debate among conservative people in the other side of the argument who believed that the law was appropriate for them to exercise their right to express their religious belief of opting out from homosexual transactions. Now the law has created a touchy debate between religious freedom and gay rights. According to Cohn, the law was hardly inconsequential or different from its 1993 version or Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The law started when the Supreme Court responded to federal court rulings in the 1990s that allowed to infringe on the Indian’s religious practices such as withholding employment benefits from people who used peyote (Cohn, 2015). The Supreme Court clarified then that the law had a neutral language and it was not intentional to affect any particular religion adversely. In response, Congress passed a law to religious freedom and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was enacted by the Senate unanimously 97-3 and signed by then President Bill Clinton to make it a law. Also, when the Supreme Court ruled that Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can only be applied to federal action, it opened to state legislation for them to pass their own version of the law such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law that opened the floodgate of debate between religious freedom and gay rights. Those who favored the initial version of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law argued that they have the right to exercise their belief which may include opting out or refusing to transact with homosexual individual or couples. The first version of the law would “give business owners a stronger legal defense if they refuse to serve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers and want to cite their faith as justification for their actions” (Cohn, 2015). Others may interpret it as discrimination but those who were in favor of the initial version of the Indiana law argued that this is an option available for them as they practice their faith. Of course this argument is vehemently protested by gays, gay supporters, big corporations and sports organizations. Many gays and their supporters swelled the protests in a march and protests against the law that forced Gov. Mike Pence to “fix” or “clarify” the law (Castillo, 2015). The other side of the argument stated that the initial version of the law was discriminatory and that it gives business license to drive away gay customers using faith as an excuse. It could also be used as a basis to deny employment to gay professionals. Many companies also found the law inconsistent with their corporate values and supported those who protested against it by threatening to move out their businesses from Indiana if the original version of the Indiana Religious Freedom Law was pushed through. Others also argued that it is against the principles of equality of which the country was founded as the law discriminates one set of people in the practice of one’s faith. The result was that the Governor and other state officials had to amend the law to quell the public outcry against the law and to stop the exodus of big business from leaving Indiana who threatened to move their businesses somewhere else if the law pushes through (albeit they did not openly admit it). My opinion My personal take on the matter is that the Indiana version of the RFRA law is not consistent with the intent of the law even if Gov. Pence would insist that it just mirrors the law on other 22 federal states. At the onset, the majority of the wordings of the Indiana version of the law may be similar but the additions put to it made the law discriminatory. The Indiana version expanded the reach of the religious protection to include businesses and this has awful implication because the government is not involved. Its implication is basically giving license to business owners and institutions to refuse and deny customer’s service and/or products on the ground that their sexual orientation of being homosexual does not coincide with their religious belief or it offends them. Such, they would not do business with them. The implication of the law is terrible because it meant that restaurants and other business establishments could already drive away or even embarrass gays from their establishments or deny critical service to gay people. I could only imagine other implications of the law such as hospitals denying service to a patient because he is a homosexual thus letting him or her die without medical attention. It may be an exaggeration but a possibility. Or in lesser scale, denying the sale of flowers or ballons to a child’s birthday which spoils its celebration and traumatizing the child just because the parents are homosexuals (they can adopt children legally). Similar incident has already happened where a florist denied a gay marriage on the grounds that it is contradictory to the florists religious belief. It could also be a ground of denying employment to gay person. Imagine having an expert whose expertise is denied just because he or she is gay. In a way, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law is America’s version of religious fundamentalism capitalist style where it gives license to its businesses to coerce another group of people. The law also run counter to America founding principles where its people are supposed to be free whoever they wanted to be as long as they do not harm other people and this include being gay. If I may quote Declaration of Independence, it clearly states that “all men are created equal” (Declaration of Independence, nd). Moreover, the law is also a mark of America’s hypocrisy of preaching to the world religious tolerance when in fact, it has its own version of religious bigotry in its own land. I may not in favor of homosexuality but the more I am not in favor of discrimination against gays either. The world is already conflicted because of intolerance and as civilized human beings, we should no longer add up to the conflict. The world is already moving towards tolerance and this kind of prejudiced policy is already being frowned upon especially that this controversy is in the United States. Tolerance is easier to do than to deal with conflict. Already, gays and their sympathizers are already protesting in Indiana and elsewhere which could potentially escalate to a conflict that would result to injuries, death and damage to properties. So why don’t we just them let them be? It will not hurt nor bother us. All we have to do is not to pass judgment to people who love differently from us and live harmoniously from those who are different from us. References Indiana General Assembly (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568 Christian activists: Indiana law tried to protect businesses that oppose gay marriage. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christian-activists-indiana-law-sought-to-protect-businesses-that-oppose-gay-marriage/2015/04/03/d6826f9c-d944-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html Cohn, J. (n.d.). Why Indianas Religious Freedom Law Is Such A Big Deal. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/indiana-religious-freedom_n_6984156.html Frizell, S. (n.d.). How Gay Rights Won in Indiana. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://time.com/3768334/indiana-gay-rights/ Religious freedom v gay rights. (2015, April 4). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647650-debate-which-both-sides-exaggerate-threats-they-face-religious-freedom-v-gay?zid=315&ah=ee087c5cc3198fc82970cd65083f5281 Somashekhar, S. (n.d.). Christian activists: Indiana law tried to protect businesses that oppose gay marriage. Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christian-activists-indiana-law-sought-to-protect-businesses-that-oppose-gay-marriage/2015/04/03/d6826f9c-d944-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Read More