When did the fight about religious liberty change from
protecting the right to practice in private to asserting a right to impose a
religious practice on a public space?
It’s a rhetorical question, because history tells us that for
at least 200 years the religious rightwing has always wanted to impose Christianity
on American society, just like radical Muslims want to impose a conservative
version of Islam on civil societies across the Middle East. We know that the America’s religious rightwing
has become more pushy over the past 35 years as it has become more politically
powerful—thanks to a deal to join forces with those who support the economic
interests of the wealthy. The campaign against the war on Christmas, the many
state laws trying to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights, the demands that
the state pay for religious education through voucher programs, the demonizing
of Michael Schiavo and passage of “Terri Schiavo” laws—these are some of the
steps that the Christian right has taken to impose its religious values on the
rest of the country.
But we do live in a secular society and sometimes the
religious right pushes too far.
The mainstream of business leaders, pundits, politicians and
media have joined progressives in believing the new Indiana Religious Freedom
Restoration Act allows business to discriminate against LGBT individuals and
couples. Indiana Governor Mike Pence and other conservative supporters of the
new law believe that it merely protects religious people and the organizations
they control from having to take actions against their religious beliefs.
It sounds like a face-off between two rights, each with
equal standing, but it’s really not. There is no right to refuse to sell goods
or services to anyone because you don’t approve of their private actions. Many people who support the law—Pence, the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush—insist
that it won’t enable discrimination against LGBT, although the comments of Marco
Rubio, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker all suggest that they don’t care about gay
rights as long as religious rights are preserved.
An analysis of what the law means on the level of day-to-day
actions reveals that at its heart, it represents an imposition of religion on
civil society. Let’s start by all the real-world actions that the law might
protect: Private worship in the home? Other laws protect that. The right to
display religious imagery on one’s own property? Other laws protect that. The
right to gather with others of like mind and pray or philosophize together?
Other laws protect that. So why did we need this law if not to enable
individuals and corporations to act out their beliefs in ways that do impinge
on others?
Supporters of the law have yet to name one additional action
not allowed previously that religious individuals and the organizations they
control will now be able because of the new law.
Keep in mind that many businesses can quietly refuse to
serve anyone, although as the recent case of Macy’s discriminating against
blacks in New York City, you have to be pretty subtle about it. Take everyone’s
favorite example of the florist or photographer who doesn’t want to work a
same-sex wedding. A vendor can claim to be “too busy, jack up the price or
market the business solely through religious vehicles such as the local
Christian business directories. As long as no one discovers a pattern of
discrimination, the vendor—be it florist, landlord or adoption agency—could
always get away with it. If the
interpretation of most in the mainstream and on the left is correct—and I think
it is—the new law would enable these vendors to take their discriminatory
attitudes out of the closet and explicitly tell LGBT people why they won’t
serve them.
Thus, when we reduce the lofty words about religious freedom
to specific actions, we can only conclude that either the law is unnecessary or
that those supporting it do want to give people and corporations the right to
refuse service to others because of a difference in religious practice.
Even as the Indiana governor and legislators raise a hue and
cry about the hue and cry everyone else has raised about this ill-conceived
law, they are nevertheless acting swiftly to amend it to make certain that no
one can hide behind it to discriminate.
The reason for this rear guard action is money: They fear
that businesses will take theirs away from the state. In the few days since the
Indiana legislature passed and Pence signed the law, large employers in Indiana
and all over the country have protested loudly. Indianapolis-based Angie’s List
has canceled a $40 million office expansion. The Gap, Apple and Levi Strauss
have all come out against the law, as have the administrations of Indiana and
Butler Universities. So has the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which
is holding its basketball finals in Indianapolis and has an extensive operation
in Indianapolis. Several smaller organizations have already canceled
conventions planned for Indiana’s largest city.
Those who believe that the United States is a secular nation
should naturally rejoice that the Indiana state legislature is going to fix the
new law to make certain no one can use it to discriminate against others in the
marketplace. But we should mourn the fact that Indiana’s elected officials are
not acting from a sense of right and wrong, but rather reacting to what the moneyed
interests want. It reflects the hypocrisy of many of the politicians who follow
the classic demagogue playbook in upholding the views of the religious right.
Their support is not sincere, but part of a snow job to gain support for economic
programs and policy that hurt 99% of the country but help their real
employers—the super wealthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment