Controversy continues over religious freedom bill

After Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the controversial Senate Bill 101, opponents both locally and nationally continue to voice concerns about the law, including the owner of Scotty's Brewhouse.

The law is based on last year’s Supreme Court decision that family-owned businesses would not have to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees if it conflicted with the owner’s beliefs.

The goal of the law is to give people legal protection to practice their religion.

However, Pence said in an interview with the Indianapolis Star Saturday that after talking to legislative leaders, he expects a clarification bill this coming week.

While the language of the law does not state anywhere that businesses would be able to discriminate, companies such as Gen Con LLC., Angie's List, National Collegiate Athletic Association, Salesforce and Disciples of Christ have all voiced their opposition to the law and have spoken about withdrawing business in Indiana.

Locally, Scotty’s Brewhouse owner Scott Wise posted his opinion on the restaurant’s website.

“I employ over 1,300 people in the state of Indiana,” it reads. “Several of my employees are openly gay, proud and happy which include hourly, employees, management and corporate executives. Most importantly, I consider all of them my colleagues and even more so, my friends.”

Wise said he doesn’t know how many people he employs or serves are gay. The only thing he asks from guests are that they treat the restaurant and staff with respect, and treat each other as human beings.

“I sure hope that fellow business owners understand that just because they ‘CAN’ [discriminate] doesn’t mean they ‘SHOULD,’” Wise said in his post. “And, I hope that the Gen Con organizers and others around the U.S. understand that this policy will never sway the business owners in the city of Indianapolis from continuing to offer genuine Hoosier Hospitality to everyone that enters our businesses, equally, fairly, justly and lovingly.”

Nance Buchert, the executive director of the Muncie YWCA, said the YWCA locally and nationally stands for freedom, justice and dignity for all, and they “absolutely wouldn’t be” using the law.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard posted a statement and said he hoped the Statehouse wouldn’t vote for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“I don't believe this legislation truly represents our state or our capital city,” Ballard said in his statement. “Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents. We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here. RFRA sends the wrong signal."

RFRA was passed in 1993 by Bill Clinton, and in 1997, Congress ruled that the act exceeded the powers of Congress. It also ruled that while it could be used concerning federal issues, it could not be applied to the states, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Since then, 19 other states, including Illinois and Kentucky, have adopted legislation mimicking RFRA.

But although SB 101 is similar to RFRA, the wording is not exact. Hilary Clinton tweeted her disapproval about the law Thursday night, saying “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc [sic] of who they love #LGBT.”

Joseph Marchal, a Ball State associate professor of religious studies, said in an email that as the law is currently framed, it is just as likely to violate people’s religious freedoms as it is to protect them.

“There are just as many, perhaps more, reasons to oppose this bill on the basis of Jewish, Christian, or Muslim principles, as to support it,” Marchal said.

He also said it contradicts the ‘Hoosier hospitality’ and also the prominent and biblical ethic of hospitality.

“In both the Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible, protection of, solidarity with and hospitality for the stranger, the foreigner and the one with whom you disagree are stressed,” Marchal said. “Throughout the rest of the Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible, one of the main lessons of this story are the importance of hospitality to strangers … and the problem with ignoring the poor, the vulnerable and the needy.”

Marchal said in some senses, the people advocating for the law are engaging in what the biblical texts define as the sin of Sodom.

“In short, they are ‘Statehouse Sodomites,’” Marchal said.

But supporters of the law said the bill will not lead to discrimination.

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement Thursday. “This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.”

Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said the law protects first amendment liberties in a way that other states do, but Indiana did not.

“This law will help stop government overreaching and harming people,” Clark said. “Nowhere in 22 years in any state or any federal case of RFRA has it ever been used for discrimination.”

Clark said the words homosexual or sexuality are never mentioned in the law.

“It is about governmental reach and limiting people’s first amendment religious freedoms,” he said.

Clark said people don’t understand what this law is actually about. He cited an example of a Jewish athlete not allowed to wear a Yamaka because the team has to wear their uniforms. Not allowing him to wear it would be a violation of his religious practices.

“When it comes to denying service to a homosexual or to an African American or something like that, RFRA has never been used for that, never,” Clark said. “This law is an effort for the courts, when the government takes action in a case, it must consider the religious liberties of people.” 

Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...