Blog | Is the ‘religious freedom’ law in Indiana really anti-gay? I’m not so sure. (South Carolina has similar law.)
Update:
Here’s another view: The LGBT community does have reason to worry
Update: South Carolina one of many states to have similar law
The consensus seems to be that the “religious freedom” bill recently signed into law in Indiana, and being contemplated in other places such as Arkansas, is a slick ploy to roll back gay rights.
Many corporations have said they will be canceling plans to do business in the state. Even sports commentators like Charles Barkley are calling for major action, including either boycotting or moving the Final Four from the state, even though it is less than a week away.
Apple CEO compares Indiana law to ‘Jim Crow’
Here’s someone writing from that view:
In truth, LGBT people in Indiana were already at risk. Until the Supreme Court officially proclaims, on the federal level, that sexual orientation and identity belong firmly to the existing catena of illegal discrimination, LGBT persons are protected only in states that have made explicit legislative or judicial moves to protect them. But with this new legislation the State of Indiana has solidified the rights of a powerful majority to discriminate against a marginal group.
This law doesn’t overturn prior practice; it reinforces practices that are, in Indiana, already common, and in ways that often go unnoted.
A graduate student at Notre Dame, Bridget O’Brien, told us that she had on three separate occasions reported bus drivers in South Bend to the local transit association for harassing riders based on their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. In one case, she saw an African-American trans woman almost thrown off a bus in zero degree weather. Under the new legislation, we may well find that that “almost” becomes a “firmly,” as individuals take advantage of their newly acquired legal protections.
More: Governor surrounded by men who are anti-gay at bill signing
I understand the reflex to stand against any sign of discrimination, particularly against a group that has - and continues to - experience too much of it, even with the progress they’ve made. And history teaches us that laws don’t have to spell out discriminatory intent to be primarily about discrimination. Case in point: Poll taxes, grandfather clauses and literacy tests, on the surface, had nothing to do with discriminating against people based on race. But that’s precisely what they were designed to do.
So taking a legislator’s word about the actual intent of a law is often unwise.
In case anyone’s wondering, I’ve been clear on the issue of gay rights for quite a long time:
Obama’s gay marriage position detracts from other accomplishments
But in the case of the Indiana law, there maybe a major over-reaction and over-correction. Plenty of legal experts and gay rights advocates who have studied the law closely says it does not mean gays will now be unfairly targeted. In fact, some of them have pointed out how the law, similar to ones in 30 other states, may in fact help fight certain kinds of discrimination:
Legal professors gave me examples where these laws had already been used elsewhere in America.
In Texas, for example, a school required all boys to cut their hair short. A Native American boy claimed that violated a religious requirement to let his hair grow. He took the school to court under the religious-freedom law and won.
In Philadelphia, the city tried to stop people handing out food in public parks. A church group that had been giving food to the homeless as part of its mission claimed an objection to the law on religious grounds and won.
A prison in Arkansas demanded prisoners be clean-shaven. A Muslim prisoner claimed the right to grow a short beard on religious grounds. He also won under the freedom of religion statute.
A small religious sect from Brazil uses a hallucinogenic tea in its services, and pleaded for an exemption from anti-drug laws on the grounds of religion. The courts upheld that too.
None of this, I should add, means that the new Indiana law will not be used to justify discrimination against gays in some contexts. No one can prove a negative, and we will have to wait for it to be tried in court.
Despite that, Indiana’s governor backs a plan to ‘clarify’ the intent of the law.
Given the anger over the law, and the threat to the state’s economy, that makes sense - even if reaction to the law might be overblown and misleading.
My only question, though, is a simple one: Why did Indiana feel the need to pass this law now? Were religious rights really at stake?
Or was this more of a political, not anti-gay, move gone wrong?
But more to the point, about morality and how to treat fellow human beings, the one made by the Daily Beast writer at the link above, why would any Christian use her faith to discriminate against gay people? Doesn’t the example of Jesus say they should do precisely the opposite?
On the legal front: Where is the proper line in protecting religious freedom - why, for example, do we allow kids to die from treatable illnesses if their parents object to treatment on religious grounds? - and ensuring that everyone is treated equally? I suspect there is no hard and fast rule, and there will always be disagreement about where that line should be placed.
But I never like the move towards more “freedom” for the majority at the expense of freedom for the minority, especially one that has to fight daily to be treated equally any way.
This story was originally published March 30, 2015 at 10:36 AM with the headline "Blog | Is the ‘religious freedom’ law in Indiana really anti-gay? I’m not so sure. (South Carolina has similar law.)."