HAC feels that the current Religious Freedom and Restoration
Acts are unnecessary and fundamentally flawed as they specifically and
intentionally allow discrimination against members of the LGBT community.
The argument is often put forward that these laws are similar to the original RFRA. They are similar, but not equivalent. The original RFRA allowed people to worship as they pleased without fear of government censure. So, for example, if your religion allows you to wear eagle feathers, the government could not prosecute you for wearing the feathers of an endangered species.
The original RFRA dealt specifically with protecting aspects of private worship. The act did not address expanding those religious rights to dealings with other people. The current RFRAs, however, do attempt to add that expansion. They significantly change both the meaning and spirit of the original law by saying that someone is (or should be) allowed to offer their goods or services to whomever they choose. This is by definition discriminatory.
The argument is often put forward that these laws are similar to the original RFRA. They are similar, but not equivalent. The original RFRA allowed people to worship as they pleased without fear of government censure. So, for example, if your religion allows you to wear eagle feathers, the government could not prosecute you for wearing the feathers of an endangered species.
The original RFRA dealt specifically with protecting aspects of private worship. The act did not address expanding those religious rights to dealings with other people. The current RFRAs, however, do attempt to add that expansion. They significantly change both the meaning and spirit of the original law by saying that someone is (or should be) allowed to offer their goods or services to whomever they choose. This is by definition discriminatory.
The government cannot force a kosher butcher to sell non-kosher meats because someone feels they should be able to purchase
pork wherever they wish. A kosher
butcher is not discriminating against pork eaters. He is simply limiting the items he carries in
his shop. If he is willing to let
anyone buy his kosher meats, he is not discriminating. Discrimination would only
comes into play if he offered to sell his meats to one one group but not
another. Allowing this discrimination is
the expressed purpose of the new RFRA bills.
Printers cannot be forced to print flyers stating "no same-sex marriages" since doing so would be participating in an act of discrimination. On the other hand, these same printers cannot refuse to make a sign that says "God does not exist" simply because they might not agree with the sentiment. Such a sign is not derogatory to any group and refusing to print it would be discriminatory.
The ALEC-inspired RFRA laws exist and are being proposed for one reason and
one reason only …to allow businesses to discriminate against gays. The attempts to cast them as anything else
is disingenuous at best. When Governor Pence signed the Indiana RFRA law,
he was surrounded by anti-LGBT activists.
When he was asked later whether the law would allow discrimination against
gays, he dissembled and simply refused to answer the question. The “clarification” that was later signed did
indeed remove the ability to discriminate out of the law. Doing so made the law more in keeping with
the goals of the original RFRA.
Such a clarification is needed because the Supreme Court declared the original RFRA unconstitutional with regards to the states. This prompted many states to pass their own
version of the RFRA so that the religious protections afforded by the original
law could be lawfully applied to them. HAC endorses any RFRA that restore a state's religious rights established by the original RFRA. But it does not condone or support a RFRA that expands those rights to allow any sort of discrimination.
