EDITORIAL: Freedom for one, discrimination for another
Religious Freedom acts cannot be allowed to progress unaltered.
A nation-wide conversation about implications of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act has spread to Michigan, following the passing of the law in Indiana last week.
RFRA was a federal bill signed into law in 1993 by Bill Clinton, intended to block a law's ability to burden a person's exercise of religion, unless it is acting on a "compelling government interest." Supporters of the law say this protects people and businesses from engaging in things against their religion, and Indiana became the 31st state to pass a version of the bill.
We believe this law provides the opportunity for businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community.
Along with us, more than half of the student fans at the NCAA Final Four Championship held in Indianapolis over the weekend wore rainbow flags to show solidarity with the LGBT community.
Should similar legislation be passed in Michigan, Mount Pleasant residents would be protected by an amendment to the city code made in 2012. The ordinance protects sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and the enforcement of law. While those in Mount Pleasant would be protected against a law similar to RFRA, this would not be the case for all of Michigan.
Gov. Rick Snyder has said he would veto RFRA legislation without first adapting the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status" to be more inclusive. We urge Michigan lawmakers to expand the act if they are serious about bringing RFRA to our state.
While interacting with members of the LGBT community may make those of certain religions uncomfortable, it will not compare to the adversity LGBT people have to experience in their lives, in a society that forces humans to fit into a specific criteria to be fully accepted. Freedom of religion is included in the first amendment, but not the freedom to legally oppress marginalized groups. That is not the kind of freedom lawmakers should be aiming for.
To deny a person housing, employment or service in a restaurant based on sexual orientation conjures segregationist logic. The Civil Rights Movement may have happened 50 years ago, but the progression of religious freedom legislation shows is it is far from over.
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate, and it's time for lawmakers to get on the right side of history.
