Do We Really Need RFRA? At the end of the day,
I think there is one principle that stands above others when considering Religious
Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA). That one is the fact that you cannot, and
should not, legislate morality. Does
anyone out there really believe that our Congress or Executive branches (or state governments) have a sufficient
moral compass to set the headings for all society? Does anyone out there really have sufficient
faith in our Judiciary to think that they can rule in a reasonable, consistent,
and non-biased manner when RFRA cases come before them dealing with religious
and moral behavior? In either case, I do
not. If I have learned nothing else in
my lifetime, I have learned that in most cases…less government is better. The LGBT community cannot use the law or the
courts to validate or gain cultural approval of their morality. By the same token, people cannot use the law
to publicly condemn moral behavior they do not approve of. If a patron at a business behaves in a civil
manner, in accordance with public law, they should be served. If they do not behave in such a manner, they
should be booted out. The fact that a
waiter serves a meal to a gay couple does not mean that either the waiter or
the establishment that employs the waiter condones the gay lifestyle. If a caterer serves a gay wedding, it does not
mean that he/she condones the gay lifestyle; he/she is not administering the
wedding vows. If a member of the LGBT
community chooses to engage in unorthodox or uncivil behavior in an effort to
foist their lifestyle in the face of a business, demanding special service in
spite, they should be turned away in a fashion no different than if a straight
individual acted the same way.
In
the case of Indiana’s RFRA law, as I understand it, the determining authority
in any case where a business refuses to serve individuals on the basis of religious
beliefs is the court. When I consider
some of the court rulings that have come to pass over the past decade or so,
there is no way in hell that I want these people, these megalomaniacs in black
robes, passing judgment on who deserves service and who does not on the basis of
religious beliefs or morality. There is
a popular (in some quarters) saying
that goes “government is best that governs least”. In the case of RFRA law, I think this saying
is quite appropriate. Societal tolerance
demands that each of us respect the basic rights and beliefs of others as long
as their exercise of those rights or
beliefs do not infringe on our rights
or beliefs. The fundamental delivery of
a service or product by a business is not an infringement on that business; it
is, in fact, what they are in business to do. And if you as an individual expect to receive
that service or product, it is incumbent on you to behave in a civil fashion
and not demand special treatment. The far
right cannot expect everyone to adhere to their personal beliefs, but they have
every right to pass personal judgment on what they see and experience. The far left can demand the right to practice any
lifestyle they might prefer, be it civil and legal; but they cannot demand that
everyone else approve of or condone that lifestyle. Tolerance demands rights; but does not demand allegiance
or respect.
This
nation has fallen into a dangerous habit of using our government and the courts
to further personal agendas. I believe the
current dispute over religious freedoms is such as example of the far left and the
far right trying to accomplish through law what they have been unable to accomplish
in the court of public opinion. In the
case of RFRA law, the best course of action is no action.
