|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Religious
Intolerance
By Kate Burch
The uproar following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
by the Indiana legislature and its signing by Republican Governor Mike
Pence may be making you shake your head. Wasn’t the United States
of America founded on principles of liberty and God-given human
rights? Doesn’t this law, which is simply the state version of
the federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, simply afford citizens
full protection under the law?
Actually, yes. This assertion that this law represents a “license
to discriminate” is largely political, and represents an opening salvo
in the 2016-election-related drive to paint all Republicans as driven
by hatred and compelled to discriminate against homosexuals, those who
do not hold to traditional sexual mores, and those in currently favored
groups, such as Muslims.
Do not be fooled. The RFRA merely reasserts and makes explicit
longstanding First Amendment protections in and for the state of
Indiana. It does not give anyone the right to “discriminate” or
deny service to anyone else. All it does is ensure that religious
freedom is one factor to be weighed when making court decisions about
the common good. Under the law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that
their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the
government, in its turn, must show that its actions represent the
“least restrictive” means to achieve a “compelling” state
interest.
The cases that have been widely and hysterically reported, such as a
baker refusing to make a cake for a homosexual wedding and a
photographer refusing to provide service at another homosexual
ceremony, have been ruled against the baker and the photographer.
Existing public accommodation laws present an impossibly high hurdle
for the rare individual who might wish to deny a hotel room or
restaurant service to a member of a particular group. Tougher
cases involve pharmacists being required to dispense abortifacients
against their religious beliefs or risk losing their jobs, and
employers being required to provide coverage for abortions. Those
of us who worry about this fear the day that physicians will be
required to perform abortions or euthanize terminally ill patients.
(This is already happening in Canada, I read.)
The truth here, it seems to me, is that the current brouhaha displays
the extreme intolerance of the people on the left who want everyone to
endorse their anti-Christian, sexually libertine, and anti-life
views. And the cry for tolerance certainly does not cut both
ways. Imagine, if you will, suing an establishment that keeps to
strict Muslim dietary restrictions for refusing to cater your party
with alcohol and pulled pork sandwiches. Zero chance that such a
suit would prevail.
Twenty years after the federal RFRA was passed with strong Democrat
support, the Left’s renunciation of the same law can be explained only
as a sign of intolerance and cultural warfare.
|
|
|
|
