Regarding RFRA By State Representative Gail RieckenÂ
This week, the members of the Evansville City Council took a huge step forward in the fight for equality for all Hoosiers. For that, they deserve our thanks.
However, I feel compelled to offer a word of caution before we wave the checkered flag on this fight, because Ordinance G-2016-05 will not protect every citizen.
The fact is that the effectiveness of any ordinance adopted locally in the State of Indiana depends entirely on the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, more commonly known as RFRA.
And that law expands the opportunities for prejudice and inequality in our state, particularly through the definition of who can claim to be burdened under the provisions of RFRA.
Indiana’s RFRA includes for-profit corporations and other businesses and entities to the definition of a “person†who can assert that religious beliefs are being burdened by the law.
I consider myself among the numbers of lawmakers who consider Indiana’s RFRA a step back in equal protection for all our citizens.
When this bill was discussed during the 2015 session of the Indiana General Assembly, several of us attempted amendments that would have provided clear civil rights protections. State Rep. Ed DeLaney (D-Indianapolis) sought to make sure the bill wouldn’t create any unintended consequences, situations of racial discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual orientation. I tried to make sure there were protections to cover situations where the health, welfare, and safety of children could be compromised. These efforts failed.
But certain questions remain.
Could a lesbian couple or African American or Latino or any race male/female couple be denied a place for their infant in a child care facility operated by a religious institution? How about a child care facility owned by a religious facility? Or a child care facility supported financially by a religious organization?
Could a child care facility, owned by a religious institution or for-profit religious entity, legally argue under RFRA that a child care health and safety regulation is too costly and be exempted from that regulation because of the undue burden?
I believe our state’s RFRA will help to cause these types of quagmires. They will remain until all Hoosiers have true civil rights protections.
I join those who applaud our City Council for taking a stand.
But please understand the fight is not over. It will take state lawmakers and a governor to provide civil rights in Indiana.
Sincerely,
Gail Riecken
State Representative
Indiana House District 77 |
Our city council was wrong on this vote,,,,majority of council members said most constituents were against it ,yet they voted for it ,,,,in our society majority has always ruled ,
I agree that the yare wrong, but not because of majority rule. Majority rule is democracy, mob rule, we are a constitutional republic, so it by rule of the constitution not the majority.
The United States is a republic. It is not and never has been a democracy. The founding fathers set,it up,that way to prevent mob rule which is essentially what democracy is. We have rule of law. That is what protects all human beings as equal under the law as opposed to the capricious and unstable option of equal in the eyes of an uneducated, homophobic, xenophobic majority.
Sooty to sound so harsh but the rule of law protects you from the whims of an emotional majority just as much as it protects members of the LGBT community. Rejoice, our system is better than the sum of our parts.
What has caused the quagmire are non-discrimination laws which have pitted one group’s protections against another group’s. These ordinances have resulted in severe loss, including huge fines and seizures of assets, for the violation of declining a contractual service of providing pastries. Furthermore, they have elevated the right to these pastries over the constitutional right to religious expression.
When caring people like representative Reiken disregards the federal and state constitution securing religious freedom, the quagmire is created. No RFRA has ever resulted in the rampant discrimination the RFRA opponents fear This fact, that no RFRA law has resulted in anyone being denied common public services, is run over by those pushing an agenda over the constitution. In fact, the only local wholesale discrimination was when Christians were denied the right granted to other organizations in erecting static displays on Riverside even while religion was supposedly protected by our nondiscrimination ordinance.
Locally, I have been taken aback by several of councilman McGuinn’s comments on this issue. Most recently he publically stated that anyone could make up a religious conviction. While that is true, when did it become the City Council’s job to decide whose religious convictions are genuine or not? McGuinn has also stated that the law trumps religion. The law answers to the constitution and religious expression is protected by both our national and state constitutions. The law does not trump the constitution.
Nevertheless, this issue is not even a religious issue. There is no constitutional protection against being offended, but likewise there is no constitutional right of one to offend another. When we begin attempting to create these laws on equality, they become unfair. Our republic’s constitution recognizes the tension between majority and minority interests and deals with this tension not by making them equal but by making fair constitutional laws. No minority nor majority is allowed to force their will on another. But this offense has been common with nondiscrimination laws and absent in RFRA laws.
It would seem to me that the most reasonable action for the state would be to define what denotes common services and contractual services. No one is truly offended by serving a hamburger or cupcake across the counter in a store open to the public. However, when there are special contractual services where the customer is denoting the terms and message of the service, then the contractor should have a right to decline these specific services at his or her discretion without suffering the loss of livelihood and home. It would seem that this approach would be a more expedient resolution than the current misrepresentation and fear mongering against the RFRA.
Gail-I applaud you again for your enduring efforts to always consider the effect on children. Cheers-Stuart
Comments are closed.