Religious freedom is an important American right. Many people, including my Lutheran ancestors, came to America fleeing religious persecution. However, the latest incarnation of religious freedom laws, such as the controversial measure in Indiana, are not about protecting the right of people to practice —or not practice— the religion of their choice. Instead, they legalize discrimination under the guise of religion.
Joseph Silk, a state senator from Oklahoma, recently said that members of the LGBTQ community “don’t have the right to be served in every single store” and that “people need to have the ability to refuse service if it violates their religious convictions.” This animus is the motivating factor behind the proposed RFRA laws.
In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in places of public accommodation. This law was not enforced without a struggle. Maurice Bessinger was a segregationist who owned a restaurant chain which did not permit black people as customers. When he was sued for violating the Civil Rights Act, he argued that it violated his religious freedom because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” The Supreme Court was unconvinced, ruling unanimously against him. Black people do have the right to full access to any place of business and any service offered to the public. Business transactions are not in all cases “mutually voluntary,” as Ziyi Mai erroneously asserts.
Providing a service to people is not equivalent to forced agreement with any viewpoint. It is instead about providing all people the freedom to engage equally with American society, and that is what Ziyi Mai and others miss. Equal protection is as fundamental to the American system as religious liberty. It’s not hard to see how this helps society. If I’m going out to lunch with my coworkers, we don’t have to worry that restaurants will be closed to us because some group members are Chinese or Iranian. My neighbors’ kids can’t be turned away from school because they’re black. My classmates aren’t denied an education if they happen to be Catholic. On this campus, I can’t be denied a research position because I’m gay. Giving all people access to society helps this country.
But perhaps I’m overreacting. I’m wondering if I could be advised as to when I’m just too queer to participate in American life. I certainly don’t want to trample on business owners’ precious freedoms. I assume I can go to a restaurant by myself, but could I go with my boyfriend? What if we’re holding hands—is that too obvious? While I’m not the marrying type, if I was, could I rent a hotel ballroom for the wedding or arrange for catering? If we move, could we find an apartment that would rent to us? What if it’s in a small town and most businesses won’t serve us? Are we just out of luck? Do we have to move again? Or what if I’m traveling? Should I develop an app that lets me know where I can eat or stay? It’ll be like Grindr, but for hotels, restaurants and gas stations— so far less fun than the actual version.
It’s depressing that these arguments have gone on for so long. To again correct Ziyi Mai’s assertions, there is nothing in U.S. federal law or Indiana state law that specifically protects queer people from being denied employment protection, access to housing and other public accommodations, or other civil rights that straight people take for granted. Laws like Indiana’s RFRA have worsened this by creating an explicit protection for people who cite religion as their basis for discrimination. This is wrong. Businesses in America should be open to serving and hiring all people without exception. Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression should be added to the protected classes of the Civil Rights Act.
This is not a diatribe against religion. The majority of the country, including most Christians, oppose RFRA and other discriminatory laws. This is about our life together in a pluralistic society. Religious diversity and freedom are good things. People should— and do— have the freedom to practice or not practice any religion that they want. However, religious beliefs cannot be a cudgel to harm others. The religious rights of all people, including secular people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and so on, should be protected against the whims of religious extremists who want to use their religion as an exclusionary weapon.
Jonathan Otten is the President of the Secular Student Alliance, a student organization that promotes scientific and critical inquiry, democracy, secularism, and human-based ethics, and a first-year student in the College of Engineering
