President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act on November 16, 1993. This law “ensures that the interests in
religious freedom are protected” and to “provide a claim or defense to persons
whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government”. This law was
enacted in order to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith
where the State denied unemployment benefits to a person who used a drug that
was related to religious practices.
The law
hoped to promote the freedom of religion among people and prevent government
actions that would violate religious freedoms. However, many states have begun
to pass their own versions of the religious liberty law. One state in
particular, Indiana, has had more recent coverage in the news because of the
potential discrimination by businesses based on their “religious freedom”. A
wedding planner refused services to a gay couple based on the premises that it
would violate their faith.
While
businesses do reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, refusing service
based on discriminatory premises not only sparks feelings of anger and hate,
but also divides the community. Gaudium et Spes does promote the “exercise of
civil freedom", however, it also states that this exercise of freedom must be “in
attainment of the common good” (GS 73). It is one thing to not provide a
certain type of service or product due to religion, but to discriminate on who
the service or good is provided too does not promote “growing respect for men
of other opinions or religions” (GS 73).
The
original Religious Freedom Restoration Act had good intentions, and wanted to
promote religious freedoms for all Americans. However, these state level
interpretations are making discrimination the basis for this exercising of
right rather than actual desires for religious freedom. In the future, state
laws should be more carefully enacted in order to promote religious freedoms,
not the freedom to use your faith to discriminate against others by.
For more coverage on the Indiana Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, clink on the video below.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-laws-controversial-cases/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb
http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol9_no2_3/art6.html
You are right that the intention of the Religious Freedom Act was created to be a positive effect; unfortunately people are twisting the act to help them discriminate. The debate over whether or not the woman in charge of the Store should have been allowed to refuse the gay couple has been in the news for some time. If you are choosing to open a business that is for all and not specifically tied to religion, then you have to accept those that may not practice your faith. Yes, you have the right to refuse service, but not if you are refusing based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. That is also part of the law. It is hard to see all sides, but we need to remember that we are not to judge others, but love them.
ReplyDeleteThis post brings up an important debate that is going on in our country today. When in conflict, which takes priority: religious freedom or civil rights? And even further than that, what constitutes our religious freedoms or civil rights? I agree with points from each side of the debate. We can never judge someone based off of their religious beliefs, and everyone must always have the choice to live out what they believe; but at the same time, discrimination of any kind is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that some people have linked their religious beliefs to a form of discrimination because that is not always (and hopefully, someday never!) the case.
ReplyDeleteThe Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its unintended impact on communities is a type of topic that seems to be come increasingly relevant. As time has gone on, more and more laws have been passed to further separate and define religion within the role of the community, this law, and its impact on the community should be cautiously examined, so that divides within the communities do not form.
ReplyDelete