No Gays Allowed: The Problem with Religious Freedom Acts

"No Gays Allowed."

This was the sign Jeff Amyx displayed prominently on the front door of his hardware store in Washburn, TN back in 2015.

Amyx is a Baptist minister and hardware store owner. He went on to sell hats, bumper stickers, and other items with anti-gay messages such as "No Gays Allowed" and "Choose God or Gays."

If you think this story is old news, here is a recent picture from the front of the store, which is currently posted on the store's Facebook page:

What would Leviticus have to say about mixing paint, I wonder?

Also in 2015, shortly after posting the sign, something interesting happened. Amyx removed the "No Gays Allowed" message and replaced it with this one:

I highlight this specific story because it demonstrates an interesting pattern which has emerged time and again. First, a business owner overtly states his refusal to offer services to gay people. Then, in response to the outcry, the business owner invokes his rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion to justify his position.

"No Gays Allowed," sounds targeted and cruel. But, "I am invoking my religious rights," sounds downright patriotic.

A Little Background

Jeff Amyx posted his signs in 2015, right around the time that Mike Pence (then Governor of Indiana) signed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pence and his supporters claimed that this law was identical to the 1993 federal law of the same name, but the Indiana version had 2 key differences.

First, the 2015 law signed by Pence explicitly allowed for-profit businesses to assert their right to the free exercise of religion. In other words, not only can individuals invoke their right to free speech and religion, but businesses and corporations could do so as well.

Second, the law allowed businesses or corporations to use their "free exercise" of religion as a defense in a litigation.

In short, the 2015 Indiana law said that businesses and corporations have rights matching those of individuals and churches, and that if complaints or lawsuits arise when a business denies services to someone, the business can use their "religious freedom" as a defense against discrimination claims.

So by this reasoning, a business can discriminate against people as long as they cite "religious freedom" as the reason. To apply the law in relation to the above example, Jeff Amyx can refuse to sell hardware to gay people as long as the sign on his door says it is for religious reasons.

Now, there are rumors that Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order tomorrow which closely resembles Pence's earlier work in Indiana. The proposed order could provide sweeping legal protections for businesses who claim religious exemptions.

But, Religious Freedom is a Good Thing, Right? 

To many people, this executive order sounds like a good thing. Some Evangelical Christians are celebrating the idea that President Trump would sign such an order. (The proposed timing of the order coincides with the National Day of Prayer).

What, then, is the problem?

First, religious freedom is already protected in the Constitution. Despite appearances, this measure and others like it do nothing to increase liberties of our citizens. It may be spun as a victory, as if Donald Trump is granting additional religious liberties to his constituents, but this measure does nothing to increase, reinforce, or otherwise change existing liberty protections.

Not only does the US Constitution grant religious liberty, but there are state-level protections too. For example, Article I of Ohio's Constitution offers the religious liberty protections. Trump's potential order, or Pence's earlier law, are not an "increase" of religious liberty... those protections already exist.

The measure is superfluous at best, comically theatrical, unnecessary, and pandering at worst.

If these protections already exist, why must we "restore" them? Why do we need an executive order (or a state law like Ohio's proposed Pastor Protection Act) if ample protection already exists?

Because we need a basis to shield those who would discriminate. 

This is not about extending additional freedom to people; this is about providing cover for those who would actively discriminate against individuals and groups.

This measure does not say, "And now we will enhance and magnify the religious liberty we already have." This measure says, "Now we will permit for-profit business to deny goods and services to others if they invoke religious beliefs as the reason."

This measure does not say, "We affirm EVERY person's right to free exercise of religion." This measure says, "Now businesses have legal footing to exclude anyone they want."

Religious Freedom does not mean we get to discriminate against others, and it does not mean we get to impose our beliefs on others. Jeff Amyx in Tennessee argued that others could buy tools from his hardware store if they did not impose their beliefs on him. Doesn't his store policy impose his beliefs on others?

Some would argue that religious freedom acts protect churches from being forced to perform weddings that conflict with their religious convictions. I'll point out that clergy already have these rights under the First Amendment of our United States Constitution and Article I of Ohio’s Constitution. For example, a pastor can choose not to legally marry a couple because they are not members of his congregation, or because they have not attended approved counseling, or because his religious convictions prohibit him from endorsing the union.

I'll further point out that, as a Christian, I am grateful to live in a country that offers protections related to religious liberty, but I do not make the mistake of assuming that this right has been "given to me" or granted by the government.

I am grateful my government acknowledges my personal rights, but these rights are not theirs to give, take, or alter. I don't need Donald Trump to sign an order endorsing my right to practice my faith, or my neighbor's right not to. 

I am a Christian who stands in opposition to the proposed executive order. I stand in opposition to religious freedom acts which do nothing but echo existing protections, and I stand opposed to those measures which would provide a basis for discrimination. I hold that each individual has the right to freely exercise the faith of their choosing, or no faith at all.

Corporations, however, are not people. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of religious observance are not "open to the public" in the sense that they have membership guidelines, doctrinal and belief statements, and governing structures. These groups have protection to practice as they wish. But businesses are different. Businesses are places of public accommodation and are subject to zoning regulations, license requirements, accessibility requirements, and other regulations. 

Some would make the case that the free market will settle this issue... that businesses with hateful or discriminatory policies will get what they deserve when customers stop patronizing these establishments. This may be true. Still, we don't need the government sanctioning such behavior with a flourish and the stroke of a pen.