Should a member of the Church of Evolutionary Thought, who just happens to own a flower shop, be able to legally refuse to serve an engaged couple who wants to buy wedding flowers? No? What if the couple believes solely in creationism and openly opposes, even campaigns against, evolution? Wouldn’t it be the shop owner’s right of religious freedom not to serve that couple because to do so would be to sanction marriage between two creationists and be directly contrary to the florist’s religious beliefs on evolution?
Should a member of the Church of Chartreuse People, who just happens to own a restaurant, be able to use his religious beliefs to refuse to serve a burger to an Orange Person on the grounds of a church teaching that Chartreuse People must shun all Orange People? Isn’t that the restaurant owner’s religious right?
Should a member of the Church of Straight People, who runs a barber shop, be able to refuse to cut the hair of a member of the Church of the Gay Rainbow because the barber’s church thinks homosexuality is sinful and that she should not sanction such things as same-sex marriage by providing service. Doesn’t the barber have that religious right to refuse service?
Those fanciful situations are not that far from what could happen if a so-called religious freedom restoration bill passes the Indiana House of Representatives, as it did the Indiana Senate (40-10 on party lines), and, as likely would be the case, gains Gov. Mike Pence’s signature. The Republican supermajority at the Statehouse is still smarting from losing its attempt last year to advance a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — an issue the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule upon this spring.
The current bill plays disingenuously to trumped-up fears that religious freedoms are under attack. That might be the case if religious rights were being threatened by attempts to force anti-same-sex churches to let their sanctuaries be used for gay marriages, or for clergy who oppose same-sex marriages to be required to perform those services. But where, other than in the irrational fears of some, are those threats in fact?
If those were real threats, we would be among the first to condemn them. The First Amendment demands freedom of religion for those who choose to believe — and freedom from religion for those who choose not to.
That, to us, means that what is being preached, taught and believed within a church is and should ever be beyond government’s control — as long as physical, sexual or extreme psychological abuse is not involved. In a country that tolerates religious freedoms of others, people within a church must have those rights.
But once a business hangs out an open-for-customers shingle, it becomes a public accommodation, available to all who wish to do business. To deny those public accommodations because of sexual orientation would be reminiscent of the Jim Crow era when African Americans were prevented, because of their race, from using so-called white water fountains, restrooms, restaurants and hotels. It is not legal to reserve the right to deny service, as some still argue. Those were code words for denying service to blacks.
But when the legalisms of the bill (Senate Bill 101) that is advancing in the legislature are stripped away, it is just such an attempt to allow businesses, alleging religious conviction, to reserve the right to deny service.
That is not just a liberal view. Micah Clark, director to the quite-conservative American Family Association of Indiana, admitted as much in an interview with The Indianapolis Star in December, when he told the paper that religious freedom legislation would allow businesses — such as flower shops, restaurants and barbers — to refuse to serve gay couples on the basis of the owner’s religious beliefs.
The bill — backed by thinking Republicans who should know better — is scheduled to come up before the Indiana House Judiciary committee Monday morning. It probably will pass that GOP-dominated committee and, just as probably, gain Pence’s signature.
Our hope would be that such a law would be challenged in the courts, found unconstitutional as it surely appears to be — on the grounds that it discriminately tramples the rights of all citizens.