Thoughts on RFRA

Recently a whole lot of hot air and much cyberspace has been dominated here in the Hoosier State by discussion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), including by yours truly. I’ve had a few days to reflect on the law since it was signed into law by our governor, and I’m finding my views becoming a bit more nuanced than hyperbolic.

First and foremost, let me be clear. Discrimination of any kind, be it real or implied, is as wrong as it gets. Nobody should be denied service anywhere because of their race, gender, age or, yes, sexual orientation. Not only is discrimination wrong on a personal level, it’s also not the least bit Christians. Jesus, after all, was all about inclusion. If I learned a business was denying service to anyone based on race or anything else, they’d no longer get my business either.

After reading the digest of the actual law and reading many opinions on both sides of the issue, I’m developing the opinion that this law is, at its core, little more than political theater dressed up as legislation. The Supreme Court has sent signals that they might rule same-sex marriage constitutional this summer, which would make it legal everywhere. This has had the seeming effect of sending many right-wing lawmakers into a blind panic. Last month we saw Alabama channel their pre-Civil Rights era mojo in basically annulling a federal district court judge’s ruling that same-sex marriage was constitutional in the state. Now Indiana, along with other state legislatures, are scrambling to, at the very least, try and put their pinky finger in the dike. Ultimately it’s entirely possible that the RFRA will turn out to be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The state legislature can point to it as something they attempted to do to stem the tide of progress. What they actually did was open the door, at least a crack, to the potential of discrimination. However, even if discrimination happens, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where any court will uphold it. This, too, shall pass, and a few years down the road all this will be nothing more than an unpleasant memory and same-sex marriage will have passed into normalcy. Now, I realize that notion fills at least some of you reading this with some level of trepidation, but the way I see it same-sex marriage does not diminish any other type of marriage in the slightest. In fact, it’s really hard for me to find fault with an extension of personal commitment. We have so many things dividing up as a society. Marriage is, by definition, the uniting of two people. It seems to me we could use as much of that uniting spirit as we can get. I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I don’t have to. Heck, there are some things other heterosexual couples do I don’t agree with, but that’s no more my business than what goes on in a same-sex marriage household. There has been so much bloviation during almost my entire adult lifetime about the so-called homosexual agenda. Well, perhaps they do have an agenda. It happens to be the same as my agenda, and most everyone else’s: They just want to be able to live their lives. They are not mutants from another realm. They are people just the same as anyone, with pinky toes that really hurt when you stub them, noses of all sizes and shapes, beating hearts, and feelings. Maybe, just maybe, if people spent less energy on fearing them and trying to ostracize them, and more energy in bridging the divide, it might turn out that there are more similarities than differences. And, in that world, there would be no need for an RFRA. Think on that one.

About the Author
Latest Posts

About Kevin LaRose

cat daddy extraordinaire, creator of mouthwatering dishes, able to teach a language geek enough history and politics that she removes her head from the language books for at least an hour a day...