RFRA Why?

I don’t often write about politics, religion or current events.  I promised that at the beginning, and while I think of it as more of a guideline than a rule, I do try to stick to it for the most part.  There’re a few reasons for that.  First, I don’t get posts up frequently enough to really address current events while they’re, well, current.  Second, I don’t really want to alienate half my (potential) readerbase, or I’d at least like to get you hooked before I start with stuff you might vehemently disagree with.  (Although getting you hooked probably requires more frequent posting, too.)

The third reason, though (and some of you just thought I’d used “a few” for two things, didn’t you?), is that every time I try, I start experiencing massive scope creep, because of course things like that aren’t isolated, they’re part of a more systemic whole, and if I want to be thorough, then of course I have to address all of the connections, except you can’t really do that because all the things.

And I have tried.  I have two partially completed drafts (one that I started over half a year ago) sitting in my list of posts that may just never see the light of day because it’s impossible to say everything I want to say on certain topics in a reasonably sized post.  Or, if they do, it’ll be as part of a massive posting of about 25 entries, where I just go on Facebook and say, “Here, go read this book I wrote.  It’s called ‘How the World Should Be’, by me.”

But of course, having not been granted powers by Morgan Freeman, gained absolute control over the spice supply, or escaped the closure of the universe, I don’t have the ability to make people do what I tell them to.  (Heck, it’s hit-or-miss with my four-year-old.)  So writing all that much on how I think things should be, while perhaps cathartic, would be a bit pointless.  (Even though I’d be right, natch.)

But I think I’ve finally found a topic that I can keep contained and write about in a semi-timely fashion!  So be warned, politics and religion lie ahead!  (And long reads, but that should pretty much go without saying at this point…)

Can someone please explain to me why “religious liberty” is a thing?

Seriously, why should your (often conveniently buffet-style) religious beliefs let you be a dick?

What prompts this, of course, is the recent hullabaloo in Indiana (and Arkansas, although they fixed things in time to avoid Indiana's fate) regarding their passage of the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  In case you’ve been living under a rock, this act would prohibit government from “substantially burdening” citizens from expressing their religious convictions, barring a compelling state interest or a lack of less-restrictive solutions.  (The federal version of this law is what allowed the Hobby Lobby decision, incidentally.) 

The fear, of course, is that this act will be used to discriminate against gays, lesbians and other people of questionable character and morals (he says tongue-firmly-in-cheek).  Despite protests by the bill’s proponents, the ability of for-profit businesses to take advantage of this law, as well as the law’s provision to apply to situations where the government is not involved (i.e., in situations involving just people and/or businesses), sure make it look appear as though discrimination was the actual intent of the bill.  The Onion, as usual, is on it.

But why is this even a question?  Why should religious convictions get you exemptions from civilized behavior in a way that other things don’t?

Let’s start with some history.  One of America’s founding principles was that of religious liberty; after all, the Pilgrims came here to escape religious oppression, right?  And then there’s always the First Amendment.

Of course, all rights are subject to limits.  For example, “free exercise of religion” wouldn’t allow you to freely exercise a religion involving human sacrifice.  Once everyone agrees on that general principle (which I think most people do), then we’re just, as the expression goes, haggling over the price.  “Your rights end where mine begin” (or, more graphically, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”) is fine as a slogan and general descriptor, but actual scenarios require an examination of the rights in question, the relative importance of each, etc.  Healthy debate on such a topic is good.

Also, this is probably a good place for me to note that my general philosophy doesn't look kindly on "personal liberty" as a valuable end unto itself.  It's nice work if you can get it, and it's worth trying for as one of many goals, but it often seems as though "personal liberty" is used as an excuse to take advantage of society's benefits without having to alter your own behavior to actually make society work.  Hey, did I just make "personal liberty" sound a big like "religious liberty"?  Look at that.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, while acknowledging that government might have some interest in restricting certain expressions of religion (like, say, human sacrifice), instructs the government to try to find the least-burdensome way to enforce that interest.  The Act was originally (at least superficially) intended to actually protect minority religions, driven by examples like Native Americans using peyote as part of their religious rituals and then getting fired for illegal drug use.

The Act wasn’t really intended to protect Christians from the dreaded Social Justice Warriors, but we Christians are really good at appropriating things intended for other people and making them our own (just look at the history of the holiday we just celebrated a few weeks ago!).  So, it should come as no surprise that many public-figure Christians, feeling as oppressed as if the early Roman days had returned, have seized on state-level versions of the RFRA as a way to continue allowing bigotry in the name of religion.  (Sorry, I started editorializing earlier than I meant to.)

The vast majority of people clamoring for these sorts of laws are Christian.  One of the most famous stories about Christ ends in the line “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”  (Your translation may differ, of course.)  (And of course, that doesn’t actually END the story, but I’m trying to make a point here.)  This is generally accepted to mean that being religious doesn’t mean you just get to ignore legal authority; you still have to follow the law.  (Paul goes farther, to suggest there’s a religious duty to follow legal authorities, but I’m not really a fan of Paul despite him supporting my argument here, so I think we’ll all agree to brush right by that.)  So, again, why do so many Christians think that they shouldn’t be bound by non-discrimination laws?

And, for that matter, what exactly constitutes discrimination?  Let’s take a look at a few cases to make sure we’re on the same page, because there's often a remarkable amount of confusion and straw men in this area:

No shirt, no shoes, no service

Scenario: Pretty self-explanatory, as everyone’s seen this sign before.

Is this discriminatory: No

Why?:  Two reasons.  First of all, there are compelling health reasons for such a rule in a restaurant, or even other places.  Second, and more germane to our discussion here, this rule applies to everyone, and is based on a choice that they’ve made, rather than who they are.  It’s not an issue of protected classes or religious principles; it’s simply that no one gets service under those circumstances, period.

The Friendship Moving Service

Scenario: The traditional help-your-friends-move-in-exchange-for-pizza-and-beer.  However, you don’t agree to help everyone who offers you pizza and beer move.

Is this discrimination: No

Why?: You could try to argue that since you’re accepting payment for a service, you’re running a business.  It’s a (huge) stretch, but let’s accept the premise for the sake of argument.  (I like arguments.)  It’s certainly not a public business that you’re running; you’re not offering a service to everyone who walks in your front door, because your business doesn't even have a "front door".  Turning down some random person who wants you to help them move in exchange for foodstuffs is hardly discriminatory, especially if you know nothing about them.  You're not turning them down because of who they are, aside from that they're not your friend.

The Wedding Flowers

Scenario: A florist sells flowers for a variety of occasions, including weddings.  However, she refuses to provide flowers for a wedding involving two gay men, despite providing them flowers on multiple occasions in the past, based on her religious convictions.

Is this discrimination: Yes

Why?: The florist is refusing to provide a service nominally available to everyone to certain individuals, based solely on an immutable characteristic that she doesn’t approve of.  This is literally a dictionary definition of discrimination.

How could discrimination have been avoided here (aside from just providing the flowers, obviously)?  Well, not providing wedding flowers at all, to anyone, means that it’s no longer discrimination, just a service that you don’t provide.  (This might go for wedding pizzas, too, on a variety of levels…)  This is the same reason why you couldn’t go to, say, Cupcake Royale and demand they make you a tiered wedding cake on pain of being sued for discrimination.  They don’t make that for anyone (I’m assuming), so it’s not discriminatory if they don’t make it for you.

The Hate Speech Cake

Scenario: Someone orders a cake in the shape of a Bible, and requests anti-gay decorations (Bible verses, “God hates gays”, X’ed out groomsmen, etc.) on the cake.  The baker refuses to decorate the cake in such a fashion, but offers to make a blank cake and provide frosting to decorate the cake later.

Is this discrimination: No

Why?:  As you can see, this was an actual case tpo, and the link above explains why this is not discrimination: As the baker would have refused to put such derogatory decorations on cakes for anyone, it’s not discriminatory.  When you treat everyone the same, there’s no possibility for discrimination.

How might this apply to, say, wedding cakes?  There’s perhaps an argument to be made that forcing the baker to write “Congratulations [gender-matching names]”, put two groomsmen on a cake, etc., might be an infringement on free speech.  However, refusing to make even a generic wedding cake is clearly out.

Okay, so now that we’re (hopefully) on the same page, let’s get back to the original topic.

I don’t think there’s actually any disagreement that the third case is actually discrimination.  The question is whether or not it should be allowable just because of religious convictions.

First of all, let’s agree that no one really wants the government to get into the business of deciding what true religious convictions are, let alone if they’re consistent with the supposed driving faith.  I honestly don’t believe that refusing to provide services to marriages between gay people is in line with Christianity, but plenty of other people do, and either way, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let the government arbitrate that.

Second, are there justifiable reasons for the government to prohibit discrimination?  This is where the usual argument of “Do you really want someone to bake your wedding cake under protest?” comes in.  But in general, of course the government has justifiable reasons to prohibit discrimination, and that question is rather beside the point.

As a starting point, imagine a small town, where there’s one gas station, one grocery store, etc.  If the owners of those stores were allowed to discriminate, sorry, “refuse to provide services based on religious convictions”, what happens to those they refuse to serve?  Do they have to drive 30 miles to the next town to get gas and groceries?  Do they have to move?  Why should religious convictions be allowed to significantly disrupt someone else’s life in such a manner?  It’s a simplistic case, sure, but that’s the general idea.  For a straightforward extension on this idea, look up “sundown towns”.

Third, there’s a difference between personal actions and business actions.  Well, maybe not entirely, according to Hobby Lobby, but I’ve got the Notorious R.B.G. on my side on this one, so I’m feeling pretty good about my position.  (Plus, allowing a company to be an extension of the stockholders’ personal beliefs could have some nasty side effects down the road; Hobby Lobby could wind up, on a number of fronts, being a case of “Be careful what you wish for”.)

If you want to be a jerk and refuse to be friends with, or even interact with, certain kinds of people in your personal life, then whatever, that’s on you.

But if you’re running a business, that’s not “you” any more, that’s a legal entity, subject to laws and regulations, and with certain advantages, such as decreased personal liability should the business fail.  Unless you’re an explicitly religious organization, then “your” religious convictions only matter insofar as how you decide to run your business within the applicable laws and regulations.  If you choose to run your business as an extension of your religious values, that’s your call, and who am I to say no?  But your legally-not-you legal construct still has to follow the laws governing its creation.

Ultimately, though, this is all beside the point.  What gain comes to people attempting to assert their religious convictions through their business?  What’s the argument for doing this?  Why would you even go into a business where you might be expected to do things you find morally distasteful?  (As you might guess, I don’t think much of moral objections by pharmacists, either.)

So you don’t want to provide flowers for two guys getting married, because you think “non-traditional marriage” is a sin.  There’s a theological argument to be made, sure, that participating in the ceremony, even to the limited extent of making and delivering a cake, means that you are participating in the sin, as well.  Two problems with this, though:

First, from a legal standpoint, your business is not you, and your business is subject to restrictions.  You may not agree with them personally, but a business has no opinion.  You may think that’s semantics, but it can also fall under the “render unto Caesar” argument I mentioned (way, way) above.  You may not like Caesar’s law, but if you’re part of his system, then you live by them.

And second, the ceremony itself isn’t the sin.  Odds are it’s only legal, not religious (although that’s slowly changing), and the real issue is the relationship itself, anyways.  If you’re truly concerned about the sin involved, have you done anything to try to fix that underlying issue?  Or have you just refused to “take part” in the ceremony and washed your hands of the whole deal?  Does that really absolve you of everything?

I really don’t have much else to say on this, I guess.  (Roughly 2500 words will do that.)  At this point, my emotional intensity on this topic is spent.  I’m just honestly baffled by the concept, because I really don’t understand why people feel they’re justified in using their business to inflict their religious views on others.  And no, other people aren’t inflicting their religious views on the business; when you open up a business to the public, you offer a service and don’t generally get to make distinctions like that.

I’m especially fed up with the Christians who would use these laws to their advantage, but scream bloody murder if some other religion (say, oh, I don’t know, Islam) tried to use them too.  If you’ll pardon the pun, this whole thing reeks of trying have their cake and eat it too.

So, in conclusion, I have two parting thoughts.  The first is how my “How the World Should Be” posts always seem to wind up, which is: “Being part of a society means you don’t always get your way.  Deal with it.”  And the second is the immortal words of Wil Wheaton: “Don’t be a dick.”