Toe the Line: Penn Democrats | Personal freedoms, public conciliations and discrimination

Debating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

By Allison Schwartz 04/14/15 9:55pm

When the federal government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, the LGBTQ rights movement had hardly begun. The Defense of Marriage Act had not even been passed (1996), and same-sex marriage would not be legalized anywhere in the U.S. until 2004 in Massachusetts. Just four years later, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that applying RFRA to state governments overstepped Congress’ enforcement powers, and many states began drafting their own religious freedom acts. A few weeks ago, Indiana became the 20th state to pass such a law.

Over time, the interpretation of these laws has shifted towards discrimination. Such laws are no longer used to protect minorities from discrimination, but to allow lawful prejudice against women, LGBTQ people and others. People — and in Indiana’s case, for-profit companies — are able to challenge any actions that conflict with their faith. Indiana’s law even states specifically that someone can claim religious freedom, “[...] regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” This results in a slippery slope of judgment calls without any government oversight.

For example, a pizzeria in Indiana has already said it will refuse to cater a same-sex couple’s wedding, claiming that doing so would infringe upon the owners’ Christian beliefs. The language in Indiana’s legislation allows for this, imbuing religious meaning on what should be a public, secular service. Florists, photographers and bakers across the country have made similar claims.

It is possible, and even likely, that many RFRA laws are established with good intentions. Ideally, these laws work to protect religious groups from being persecuted themselves, such as being forbidden to wear head coverings at work or being required to work on certain holy days. In Minnesota, RFRA allowed Amish families to light their buggies with reflective tape and lanterns instead of electric lights.

Yet, tension arises when the actions being “protected” harm or disadvantage others who do not share the same beliefs. Vague language now allows anyone in Indiana to claim religious freedom as valid justification for refusing service, association or proper care.

Religion and society have often been at odds, but we must acknowledge the subtle differences between private observance and public infliction. One’s religious beliefs should never dominate someone else’s. Whether or not RFRA laws are established with religious sincerity, we must recognize and restore possible loopholes so that every group, religious or not, is protected against discrimination.

— Allison Schwartz

E‘18

Penn Democrats representative

Toe the Line examines issues from two different sides. Click here to view the College Republicans side. 

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.