“A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened […] may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding." (in.gov) – Senate Bill 101
By now you've probably heard of what has come to be known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Claims that this bill, signed into law on March 26, would promote and legalize intolerance have struck a chord with thousands nationwide. Opponents of the so-called RFRA have been quick to respond by making their voices heard. However, supporters of the bill have been just as vocal and refuse to remain silent in what they see as a fight for religious freedom in America.
Interestingly enough, this law is not the first of its kind. Roughly two decades ago, senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy proposed the federal version of the RFRA. However, there are major differences between that law, which passed in 1993, and this new law which came into being just weeks ago. It's precisely over these differences which the majority of the conflict has arisen. The first of these deals with how a person is defined by law. As far as this bill is concerned, a person is no longer just a person. Rather, they can be “an organization, a religious society, […] a corporation, […] or another entity that: exercises practices that are compelled […] by a system of religious belief," (in.gov).
What's more is that no distinction is made between for-profit and non-profit organizations. The second difference concerns the extension of religious freedom to people as an acceptable defense in legal proceedings. The quote that began this article is what many cite as the most significant change that the legislation makes. As compared to the federal law, this one broadens the range to which the term 'religious freedom' applies.
Throughout all of the conflict, perhaps one of the better known stories is that of the O'Connor family. Until recently, they ran Memories Pizzeria in Walkerton, IN. However, following a controversial TV interview, in which the daughter's owner stated “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no," they felt it best to close their doors for a while. Yet despite what so many called 'hate speech,' the family received much more than just hate mail and death threats. Much to many people's surprise, in only 2 days, over $800,000 was raised by supporters around the nation to benefit the infamous pizza shop. And the daughter, Crystal O'Connor, even appeared on Fox News' talk show "Cavuto" to relieve her 'traumatizing' experiences post-interview.While both sides make compelling arguments, there are some statements which simply aren't true. Many claim that the bill will provide a legal foundation upon which businesses can discriminate against homosexuals and other minority groups. However, there has been no evidence of this. Aside from the fact that the bill doesn't even take effect until July 1, 2015, there is absolutely no guarantee that the courts will uphold claims for religious freedom in cases of blatant discrimination.
I find it difficult to believe that if Memories Pizzeria was to be sued, over refusing to cater a homosexual wedding, a court would find in favor of the O'Connor family. Although on the other hand, all of this begs the question: is this law even necessary and if so then why? It seems highly unlikely that a rash of cases have been occurring in which the state of Indiana, or individuals, are intentionally infringing upon the religious freedoms of businesses. But whether you're for or against this law, one thing remains important. If you feel strongly about an issue then you should voice your opinion because you never know who might be there to support you.
