Politics & Policy

Indiana’s RFRA: Eight Theses

Protesting Indiana’s RFRA law in Indianapolis.
On “discrimination,” Jim Crow, etc.

Pertaining to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a few things that are not being said that need to be said:

1. There is no good reason for any business, let’s say a hamburger stand for example, to deny a gay man or a gay couple the right to patronize the establishment. Let’s be clear: If there’s evidence of this — of a business owner denying someone service based on his being and not his conduct — the owner of said business should be held liable.

2. A wedding vendor who chooses not to service a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against a person’s being. Instead, the vendor believes that material cooperation in a particular event encroaches on his conscience.

3. To allege that RFRA incites rampant discrimination on the level of Jim Crow–era segregation ignores a fundamental distinction: Jim Crow segregation was state-sponsored discrimination. Regardless of what opinion a shopkeeper or a business owner had toward racial minorities, the law required him to discriminate. To give relief to a particular wedding vendor who feels uncomfortable servicing a gay wedding isn’t in any way comparable to state-sponsored discrimination.

RELATED: Is Indiana Protecting Discrimination?

4. The gay community needs to realize that, despite its current gains and likely future gains, not everyone in America — such as evangelical Christians — is equally basking in the glories of the gay marriage. Millions of Americans believe that redefining marriage will have real and negative consequences down the road. Give dissenters space to dissent, because . . . that’s American.

5. It’s rather sad that the LGBT community has worked itself up into a fit while overlooking two important facts: 1) It was already hypothetically legal to discriminate in these jurisdictions even before RFRA was passed; and 2) little if any such discrimination actually occurred. And regarding that, see thesis #1.

6. To require a wedding vendor to service a same-sex wedding is not eliminating discrimination against the gay couple. It’s coercing the wedding vendor. Think of an alternative situation where a gay baker is required to bake dessert cakes for a pro-marriage rally sponsored by a conservative group. Surely we should acknowledge that a person should not be required to provide a good or service for an event premised on views that the baker finds objectionable. Do you really want to live in a country where supposedly free businesses are required to use their goods and services against their will?

EDITORIAL: Liberals Against Religious Liberty in Indiana

7. It’s rather sad that we’ve become so litigious over the issue of gay rights that we can’t recognize a viable alternative to the hysterics brought on by the stupefying aura of liberalism: If a wedding vendor doesn’t feel comfortable providing a good or service for your gay wedding, be an adult and let the glories of free enterprise allow you to take your money elsewhere.

8. Realize that RFRA is just a balancing test. It provides no sure footing for religion to do whatever religion wants. The government should and forever must strike the right balance between compelling governmental interests and religious freedom.

Take a deep breath, America. Everything will be okay.

— Andrew T. Walker works for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

editor’s noteThis article has been amended since its initial publication.

Most Popular


G-File Mailbag: The Results of a Bad Idea

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Including those of you just standing there eating Zarg nuts), I had a bad idea. It wasn’t a terrible idea, like asking a meth addict ... Read More
Politics & Policy

How Democrats Can Blow It in 2020

Donald Trump probably can’t win the 2020 presidential election, but the Democrats can lose it. What I mean is that in a contest between Trump and a generic Democrat, Trump would almost surely lose if the current political climate holds through 2020. According to a Fox News poll this week, 38 percent of ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Collusion Scenario

It has become an article of faith in some quarters on the right -- well, most -- that the Mueller investigation has found no evidence of collusion with Russia and has accordingly shifted gears to process crimes like lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice. Having decided that this must be true, many have ... Read More

Democrats’ Border-Barrier Flip-Flop

Is steel more moral than concrete? House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said last week that she and other Democrats consider a border wall “immoral.” But some of the same Democrats who decry President Donald J. Trump’s proposed concrete wall as a 30-foot-tall human-rights violation actually ... Read More