The Corner

Religion

A New York Times Op-Ed Is Very Wrong About Religious Liberty

A man prays during Ash Wedneday services at St. Andrew’s in New York City, 2014. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

Until I read Ramesh’s post below, I hadn’t seen Margaret Renkl’s fundamentally misguided op-ed about religious liberty in today’s New York Times. Like me, Renkl writes from Tennessee (she’s in Nashville; I’m in Franklin), and she uses a recent Tennessee incident where a Dickson County baker refused to design and bake a cake for a gay wedding as a launching pad for an attack on America’s most fundamental First Amendment freedoms. Unfortunately, she makes two important legal errors.

First, she gets the primacy of American law exactly backwards. She formulates religious liberty like this: In this country, citing religious or spiritual convictions is often a surefire way to get out of doing something you’re required by law to do. This is a common framing on the left. Essentially, it’s an argument that religious freedom is an intrusion into the law and that religious people are engaged in a form of special pleading — seeking rights and exemptions unavailable to other Americans.

In reality, the First Amendment is supreme, and when states seek to intrude on religious liberty, they’re trying to get out of something they’re required by law to do. Respecting the First Amendment is the default obligation of the federal government and every state and local government in the United States. When people of faith appeal to the First Amendment, they’re appealing to America’s highest law, and while Employment Division v. Smith weakened the Free Exercise Clause, multiple subsequent cases have restored at least some of its vitality, and most religious freedom claims are also grounded in the very robust free speech clause of the First Amendment.

And this brings us to Renkl’s second error — false equivalence. She compares religious objections to vaccine laws with religious objections to designing a cake for a gay wedding. No, really:

The Constitution protects my right to believe whatever I want to believe, including my right to shun science and modern medicine. It does not give me the right to expose innocent people to unnecessary suffering. Because there are people who cannot be vaccinated against deadly communicable diseases — infants, people with compromised immune systems, etc. — the decision not to vaccinate should come with some conditions. If you decide not to vaccinate your children, then they should not be allowed to take public transportation or go to public school.

Likewise, if you’re a baker whose religious convictions prevent you from baking a wedding cake for a gay couple, then you need to find a line of work that doesn’t involve selling wedding cakes from a public storefront. (Emphasis added.)

There is no likewise between exposing a person to a deadly disease and asking someone to go to one of dozens of other bakers who’d be happy to bake your cake. There is no likewise between potentially fatal harm and short-term hurt feelings. And thus there is no equivalence between the state interests as it seeks to intrude upon the First Amendment. In one case, the state’s interest is either at its apex or its near-apex. In the other case, a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence indicates that conscripting a person into an expressive act (and using your artistic talent to celebrate an event you object to is expressive) is among the worst violations of a person’s individual liberty.

The First Amendment is too often treated as an annoyance, a speed bump on the road to social justice. One valid limitation on free speech and religious liberty is used to justify the next encroachment — even when the situations are dramatically different in degree and kind. Yet America’s founding documents and founding principles are clear — protecting individual liberty is the prime purpose of American government. Those who seek to restrict that liberty are the ones who seek exemptions from the supreme law of the land.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Trolling America in HBO’s Euphoria

Of HBO’s new series Euphoria, its creator and writer Sam Levinson says, “There are going to be parents who are going to be totally f***ing freaked out.” There is no “but” coming. The freak-out is the point, at least if the premiere episode is to be believed. HBO needs a zeitgeist-capturing successor to ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Kamala Harris’s Dreadful DA Record

In 2005, the sharp-elbowed, ambitious district attorney of San Francisco had the opportunity to correct an all-too-common prosecutorial violation of duty that the leading expert on prosecutorial misconduct found “accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other type of malpractice.” Rather than seize ... Read More
Film & TV

In Toy Story 4, the Franchise Shows Its Age

For a film franchise, 24 years is middle-aged, bordering on elderly. Nearly a quarter-century after the first Toy Story, the fourth installment, which hits theaters later this week, feels a bit tired. If earlier films in the franchise were about loss and abandonment and saying goodbye to childhood, this one is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Case against Reparations

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published on May 24, 2014. Ta-Nehisi Coates has done a public service with his essay “The Case for Reparations,” and the service he has done is to show that there is not much of a case for reparations. Mr. Coates’s beautifully written monograph is intelligent ... Read More
Politics & Policy

FBI Lovebirds Is D.C. Satire at Its Best

What do you get when you take Dean Cain, an actor famous for playing Superman on TV, and Kristy Swanson, the actress who was the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and give them the chance to play a couple of adulterous, wildly partisan FBI agents working at the highest levels of the Mueller Russiagate ... Read More