John Burris: Common Sense, Not Emotion, Needed In Religious Freedom Debate

Truth is void of emotion. The debate over HB1228, or the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA), is mostly void of common sense and level heads. Emotion is abundant.

The past week we’ve seen hyperbolic outrage erupt over this bill, which prohibits the government from placing a substantial burden on an individual’s practice of religion, absent a compelling state interest.

There have been emergency meetings called to plot protests. Friends of mine have declared their shame on social media. West Coast CEO’s have announced their boycotts. Apple will boycott Indiana, but not China. What an example of moral courage.

I still haven’t figured out why. I read the bill, and then read it again. It mirrors a federal law championed by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and signed by President Bill Clinton. A law like this exists in 19 other states.

So why the outrage now?

Some proponents of the legislation have made the debate into a righteous crusade in defense of Christian bakers everywhere. That is an oversimplification, but good for their fundraising.

A Virginia law professor provides a great summary of the entire issue, as well as some more practical examples of religious protections.

The opponents of the measure view it as an unhelpful precedent that impedes their goal of equality – as defined by them – for the LGBT community. They’re hyper-focused and overly sensitive to the politics of the policy. I probably would be too. But when you’re a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail, even when it’s not.

Emotion has completely consumed the debate. It’s been frustrating to watch. I find myself somewhere on the confused periphery.

Our country has protected classes of people under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, and others. Sexual orientation is not included. That means a business owner can refuse service to someone for being gay, or for being straight, or for being from Arkansas.

I wouldn’t suggest doing that. It’s pointless and hateful. Bake the cake and take their money. It’s commerce, not condoning. Use the devil’s money to do the Lord’s work, if that’s how you view it.

But does the business owner have the right to decide to whom they will provide their services? Of course they do, within the guidelines of the existing law. The owner is responsible for the decision, financially and otherwise. I don’t have to agree with it to accept that they have the right to do it.

Regardless, HB1228 only limits what the state government can infringe upon. It does not address in any way what individuals can and cannot do. It’s not about how businesses treat customers. It’s about how government limits individuals. It’s about placing a burden before action, and providing balance that’s needed.

There’s no reason why Arkansas shouldn’t pass a bill that says our state won’t substantially burden the practicing of religion, absent a compelling state interest. That’s much broader than the debate over gay rights. Practical examples exist, typically in defense of religious minorities.

There are some valid arguments against HB1228. Some would say it’s a solution looking for a problem. Or, that the unintended consequences far outweigh any problem it could potentially solve. In Arkansas, we tend to think religion is synonymous with Christianity. Some view religion differently, like the Westboro Baptist Church or Muslims who practice Sharia Law. I guess we’ll take the risk.

Meanwhile, advocates could advocate that Arkansas add sexual orientation as a protected class, going further than the Federal Title VII. Some states do. That’s the appropriate focus for this fight. Fighting all religious protection is not.

The national debate over gay rights won’t go away, at least not in the near future. On the battlefront of government-recognized same-sex marriage, advocates will almost certainly be successful.

It’s an emotional debate because it’s an emotional topic. But HB1228 has nothing to do with it. It’s possible to be for equality and against the government’s improper burdening of an individual’s religious belief.

I’m not smarter than the CEO of Apple. I just think the emotion should matter less than the fair application of the rights given to all of us, not just a vocal subset, even when those rights are exercised in a manner with which I disagree.

I can buy my cake from somewhere else. Or not. My choice.

It’s America. We all get the basics. The rest is complicated.