The first day of April is almost here. Already, however, Indiana conservatives have taken up the fool’s mantle.
Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law on Thursday of last week. It has been nothing but backlash and disingenuous defense since then.
In his efforts to dismiss wave after wave of criticism, the Republican governor insisted the law prevented government actions that might infringe on a person’s religious beliefs. The commentary was similar to choruses of “government overreach” we hear any time local, state or national elected officials dare utter a word like “regulation.”
Proponents of the State of Jefferson mention smaller government and greater personal freedom in their literature. Some who backed Measure P during last fall’s election hoped to strip limits on “gardening,” which most voters in opposition read as “growing marijuana.”
So were is the line between proper regulation and overreach? Was it wrong for governments to step in with rules governing pollutants after fish turned belly up by the tens of thousands or bodies of water reportedly caught fire? Was it wrong for governments to point out the moral and legal faults in the segregation of schools, water fountains, toilets, lunch counters and so on?
OK — those are obvious. How governing bodies portion out groundwater may be a little more difficult to define, for example. A well or other source may serve one ranch, yet its depletion could have impact far beyond property lines. Although the city of Clearlake bungled by banning all marijuana plants within city limits — an ordinance that punishes those acting legally for medicinal purposes only — concerns over problems caused by the plant are justified. State officials say that three northern California streams dried up last summer because of the diversion of water to illegal grows. And in a drought stricken area, limits on something requiring 6 gallons of water per plant per day are perhaps necessary.
If it were possible to regulate illegal operations, that is.
But Indiana’s law clearly crosses the line. Yeah, I know defenders suggest it strays little, if at all, from the federal government’s 1993 act and laws passed by 19 other state governments after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal measure did not apply to states.
The law passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton so long ago addressed federal interference with a person’s right to, say, the religious practice of wearing a beard. Indiana’s law departs from the other religious freedom standards in a couple of important points: It follows the ‘corporations are people, too’ folly by providing for-profit businesses the right to free exercise of religion. In other words, a company, shop, partnership or whatever can hold a religious belief. It further states that “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, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”
This essentially means people — including for-profit entities — can claim religious freedom rights in defense, even if a government body is not party in a legal case.
No big deal? Well, remember when a same-sex couple in New Mexico took a photography studio to court after the owner of the studio refused to photograph the wedding? The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the studio, noting that religious freedom rights did not apply to the case, as the government was not a party.
So the Indiana law gives individuals and businesses the right to deny service to others on religious grounds. A restaurant may refuse to seat homosexual customers, say, because it violates religious beliefs.
Hmm.
Well, now I’m curious about a different issue. At what point did Jesus turn to his disciples and say ‘discriminate against those you deem sinful’? I’m almost certain he instead welcomed all to his company, visiting with tax collectors, aiding a centurion of the enemy Roman army, explaining that whatever actions one takes against the least of these, one take against Jesus himself, advising that one must remove the log from one’s own eye before picking the speck from another’s, demanding that he who is without sin alone may cast stones.
The only group that aroused his ire, it seems, were the merchants and money lenders turning the temple into a “den of thieves.”
I’m certain Jesus would take the wedding pictures, serve the same-sex couple dinner. An intolerant person might not. What, then, does restoring religious freedom mean in this country, especially to politicians on one side of the aisle?
That’s a question for Easter, which is almost here.
