Ethics, Laws, and Religious Freedom

Last week Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It created an immediate firestorm, not because it was a law intended to protect religious freedoms, but because many saw it as a guise for discrimination. The Republican supporters of this law claim that it is not a law of exclusivity, but one to protect the rights of everyone. The law reads:

"a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding."1

While the law makes no mention of discrimination, it was brought to the Indiana legislature by those who have been vocally opposed to the allowance of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Indiana. Thus, many see the RFRA as a way for conservative Christians to 'refuse' service to the LGBTQ community.

As the law currently stands, a person of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, otherwise) could be protected by Indiana law if their personal beliefs are infringed upon by the carrying out of their business services.

An example might help here. Suppose a baker doesn't want to create a cake for the wedding of a same-sex couple, due to the baker's religious beliefs being "substantially burdened." That baker could be sued by the couple for discrimination. Under this new RFRA law, the baker might find protection under the law and, thus, not get sued.

Blurry, messy ethical dilemmas.

So the real question here is this. What constitutes a person's exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened"? Baking a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding? Serving a meal to a Muslim person? Designing a brochure for a Hindu temple? Catering a meal for a mixed-race family? And if one answers 'yes' to those questions, then that person might also need to ask if they are comfortable being served by a waiter/waitress who is homosexual. They might need to ask if investing in the stock market in any way violates their religious beliefs. They might begin to examine every store they purchase clothes from (and the working conditions of the suppliers that ship those clothes to the U.S.). It is indeed a slippery slope to go down.

What also makes this slope extra slick is that the RFRA could be used in preposterous ways to foster discrimination. A restaurant owner could believe gluttony to be sinful, and therefore refuse to serve any obese customer. A pharmacy clerk could refuse to sell contraceptives...or alcohol...or any medication, for that matter. And do I dare mention health care? Could a nurse or doctor elect not to care for a person using the claim of "burdened" religious beliefs? While all of this may sound excessive, the reality is that just about anything could be found to "substantially burden" one's exercise of religion. Putting into law these types of measures feels oddly like giving permission to openly oppose and refuse service to those with whom a person disagrees. This law, in particular, seems prone to easy manipulation, allowing all forms of discrimination to be protected. Our country has come too far to allow that.

With the backlash to the RFRA law from many businesses and leaders around the country, Mike Pence and Indiana's government are now revising the law to include anti-discrimination safeguards. So though the revised law may protect against discrimination, how will these revises still allow for 'freedom of religion' in the workplace?

As a country with many different people of many different faiths and beliefs, the only way to live as a civil society is to have laws that protect against discrimination. The quandary comes in how we're able to live and to work... If I'm being asked to perform a job in a way that burdens my religious beliefs, do I have to perform that job?

There is no easy answer when it comes to religious freedom and protection of that freedom in the public sphere. Perhaps, though, tolerance and unity should prevail -- even over religious practice. Or, if one finds a particular job to be violating of their religious beliefs, the answer might be to quit that job.

Bottom line: There will always be disagreements between people over various beliefs and value systems. To allow those disagreements to determine if a person can be served by a business is to take our country down a very divisive and hate-fueled path. America has been down that path before. And it always ends with violence---which, ironically, is a violation of almost every religious belief.

1  https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197