<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Jayne: Turning the tables on ‘religious freedom’ law supporters

By , Columbian Opinion Page Editor
Published:

“You know what this does?” Biff asked, sipping his beer and waiting with quiet anticipation.

“What’s that?” Bubba replied, taking the bait like a famished chinook.

“It paves the way for Sharia Law.”

“Huh? What?”

“It paves the way for Sharia Law, right here in the United States,” Biff continued, setting the hook. “Right here in the land of religious freedom and the Bill of Rights and the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

“What does? What in the world are you talking about?”

“That new law in Indiana, the one called the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ that the governor signed Thursday.”

“Sharia Law? The Indiana law has nothing to do with rule by Muslim dictate. It simply allows individuals or corporations to cite their religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party.”

“Isn’t that the same thing?”

“No. This is about a bunch of Christians who believe that religious freedom is under attack.”

“So, allowing businesses to practice bigotry will preserve religious freedom?”

“It’s not about bigotry. It’s about allowing, say, the Christian owner of a bakery to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding if that goes against their beliefs. It’s about allowing a photographer to decline to work at a wedding solely because the participants are gay.”

“Even though gay marriage is legal in Indiana?”

“Sure.”

“What about an interracial wedding?” Biff asked, reeling in his prey. “What about a wedding between people who have been divorced? What about a marriage between idolators or fornicators? Aren’t those against some people’s religious beliefs?”

“I suppose.”

“So, if somebody has deeply held religious beliefs, they can discriminate against a marriage between fornicators?”

“Yes. No. I don’t know. Why are we talking about this anyway?”

“Well, it just seems as though divorced people have been getting remarried for a long time. And it seems as though the whole religious freedom thing didn’t come up until we started talking about gay marriage. And it seems as though it’s state-sponsored discrimination.”

“We don’t have to worry about that in our liberal neck of the woods.”

“Oh really?”

“Uh-oh. What?”

“In 2013 and 2014 there was a bill in the Washington Legislature similar to the one in Indiana. The text specified a ‘right to deny services,’ and it was co-sponsored by two of our state senators — Ann Rivers and Don Benton. It didn’t go anywhere, but apparently you can always find somebody to support discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.”

Equality equals progress

“Wait a minute. Shouldn’t people have the right to maintain their religious beliefs even if they are a baker or a photographer?”

“Of course they should. Nobody is saying they can’t. They can be as religious as they choose to be, but if they work in a profession that caters to the public, they should serve all customers who are engaging in a legal activity.”

“That might be hard for some people.”

“Could be. But if you ask me, these laws typically are vague in their wording and represent a step backwards. If somebody can bring their deeply held religious views into the workplace, could they fire somebody simply for being gay?”

“But what about the ‘gay agenda?’ Isn’t that being forced upon people against their will?”

“I would think that treating people equally could be called ‘progress.’ “

“OK, OK, so what’s with this Sharia Law thing? How does that relate to any of this?”

“Tell me this: How would the people who support ‘religious freedom’ laws feel if Muslims were the majority in this country? How would they react if a Muslim baker refused to cater a Christian wedding because of their deeply held religious beliefs?”

“That would be ridiculous.”

“Exactly.”

Loading...