Do We Really Need RFRA?

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.