This paper examines the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence, analyzing the debate surrounding religious freedom versus anti-discrimination protections. The author argues that religious freedom is a foundational American liberty under threat and defends RFRA as necessary protection for conscience-based business decisions. The paper reviews real-world cases, such as the florist controversy, and critiques political compromise on the issue, calling for unwavering commitment to religious liberty rights.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), he hailed religious liberty as "the most precious of all American liberties." Religious freedom was one of the primary ideals upon which our nation was founded and remains a key foundation and cornerstone of our societal structure today. This freedom, which so many Americans hold dear, is now under attack. We face the threat of losing the liberty to practice our religion and conduct business according to our beliefs, instead becoming slaves to conformity and political correctness.
Early this week, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pence was implementing a law already prevalent in 30 other states through similar legislation and mandates, as well as at the federal level. Pence stated that the law is not about discrimination and claimed he would have vetoed the bill if he believed it was. The left and the LGBT community rose in opposition, claiming that the law is anti-gay and allows for discrimination. From Pence's perspective, the law allows Indiana courts to "balance the interest of the citizens" and does not permit businesses to deny services based on protected characteristics.
During a live Fox News interview Tuesday morning, The National Review's Jonah Goldberg asserted that Pence was caught in the political crossfire of trying to please both sides: right-wing Christian conservatives and the political left. While we should acknowledge his attempt at bipartisanship, attempting to take compatible pieces from views that are too drastic to compromise and presenting them to the public as unproblematic is where Pence needs to acknowledge his error.
When I think of religious freedom, I believe that I am free to worship my Creator according to my conscience and to serve Him in accordance with my beliefs. No state, no other religion, nor any other ideology should deter or condemn my practice. If I choose to do so, that is my decision, not theirs. I firmly assert that many other Americans agree: if an American citizen is told by the state to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, that constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
A florist in Washington was sued because she refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. The left and the LGBT community labeled this action as hate toward the homosexual community. What the media did not emphasize was that they were loyal customers of the shop for years before their marriage. The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, stated that because of her Christian convictions, she could not contribute to their wedding. She was sued for "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." However, she did not discriminate—she held to a conviction from which she would not break.
Her case is not the only one relating to the gray area between religious freedom and discrimination, and many more will come. Pence's presentation of this newest piece of religious freedom legislation has not strengthened the cause of true religious liberty. He must acknowledge his mistake and choose to stand firmly on one side of the issue or the other. Meandering around the middle will not advance this heated debate positively.
"Call to action for unwavering commitment to religious rights"
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.