Respect would aid debate on our freedoms

Excited protests against Indiana’s recently passed religious freedom law have highlighted both America’s growing support for same-sex marriage and our apparent incapacity to entertain more than one idea at a time.

The law in question is a version of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) signed by then-President Clinton. Nineteen states have versions of the law and another 11 have interpreted their state constitutions as already providing these protections. Without diving into the weeds, RFRA aims to protect religious freedom against government action that abridges deeply held convictions.

Indiana’s law isn’t exactly the same as the federal version — or of some other state laws — and it isn’t clear whether these distinctions constitute a difference justifying the current level of outrage. They include extending protection to corporations as well as individuals; expanding protections against government actions that are “likely” to be substantially burdensome; and, perhaps most problematic, allowing claims of religious-freedom infringement even if the government isn’t involved.

Nevertheless, after a difficult week of criticism and protests aimed at Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence announced Tuesday that he would push his state’s Assembly to pass legislation stating that the new law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.

This may be exactly so, but it wouldn’t necessarily preclude individuals or corporations from denying services to same-sex couples and then defending themselves on religious principle.

Based on what Pence said, it would merely make clear that the state doesn’t authorize or condone such refusal of services or any other discriminatory action.

But discrimination remains a personal choice, which can be defended in individual cases under RFRA. Does anyone really object to this option? Isn’t it fair to allow religious people a framework for seeking recourse through the courts?

Refusing services because of a religious belief doesn’t lend solace to those who are seeking complete equality without exception. (For the record, I am solidly in this camp, but I do have compassion for those whose religious convictions make compromise impossible.)

As Clinton said at the time of the federal law’s passage, freedom of religion is “perhaps the most precious of all American liberties.” Though the First Amendment was intended to protect citizens from religious persecution and the imposition of a state religion, inferentially, it also has protected religious believers from being forced by government fiat to renounce their belief in attendance to some government action.

The most familiar recent case involved a baker who didn’t want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The question is whether he has the right, owing to his religious beliefs, to refuse to bake the cake. If you think this is silly, consider that RFRA first came about to protect the rights of Native Americans to consume peyote in religious ceremonies.

The theoretical abuses on both sides can be endlessly entertaining. Should we also allow the slaughter of pets as sacrifices to someone’s God? Even Abraham believed that God required he slay his own son. Abraham almost did, too, before God intervened, satisfied that Abraham sufficiently feared him, whereupon a ram materialized on his own very worst day.

But we’re not talking about silly or extreme exceptions.

If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.

This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “we should give them [religious believers] space.”

Such as by, say, going to another bakery?

The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few state boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.

As Indiana moves to clarify its intent, the perception of discrimination will persist until RFRA laws are eliminated. This is the goal of many activists. But discrimination is a two-way street and tolerance should apply equally to sexual orientation as well as to religious belief.

There’s plenty of cake to go around.

Kathleen Parker’s email address is

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Biden's Fiddle, President Joe R. Biden, Debit Ceiling, Federal Debt Limit, suspend, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, economic catastrophe, default, compromise bill, bipartisan vote
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, June 3

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Lummi Tribal members Ellie Kinley, left, and Raynell Morris, president and vice president of the non-profit Sacred Lands Conservancy known as Sacred Sea, lead a prayer for the repatriation of southern resident orca Sk’aliCh’elh-tenaut — who has lived and performed at the Miami Seaquarium for over 50 years — to her home waters of the Salish Sea at a gathering Sunday, March 20, 2022, at the sacred site of Cherry Point in Whatcom County, Wash.

The Bellingham Herald
Editorial: What it will require to bring Tokitae home

Bringing home the last captive orca requires expanded efforts to restore the killer whales’ habitat.

Comment: What capital gains tax’s court win means for so many

The state Supreme Court’s decision makes the state’s taxes more fair and provides revenue to aid many.

Comment: State’s high court ignores precedent in writing its rules

In seeking to end ‘systemic racial injustice,’ court’s justices ignore constitutional constraints.

Comment: Public safety lost ground in this year’s Legislature

Legislation that would have better addressed racism’s effects on communities was not adopted by lawmakers.

Kathy Solberg. (Kevin Clark / The Herald)
Forum: Confronting our loneliness to build a Common Good

Familiar themes in a 32-year-old article provoke thoughts about how we can cultivate relationships.

Forum: Government needs to get out of the way of business

Regulations and high taxes are preventing business from providing the goods and services we need.

Editorial cartoons for Friday, June 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A map of the I-5/SR 529 Interchange project on Tuesday, May 23, 2023 in Marysville, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Set your muscle memory for work zone speed cameras

Starting next summer, not slowing down in highway work zones can result in a $500 fine.

Most Read