Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Truly Christian? ^Featured

Arizona lawmakers took a drastic step on February 20, 2014, when they sent The Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Governor Jan Brewer (R) for her approval and signature into law.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was originally a federal act of Congress to protect freedom of religion. Currently, Arizona is seeking to build upon the Act to interpret it in a way it was not originally intended: potentially to allow businesses to refuse to serve members of the gay community.

This was prompted by two major events. Obama’s birth control mandate, in which employers must offer birth control methods within their health plans was the first event. The second was a case in New Mexico in which a photographer refused to work a gay wedding due to her religious beliefs. Because the original RFRA was understood to only apply to cases in which the government is one party in a lawsuit, Arizona has chosen to add some specifics to their State version of the law.

Arizona’s main new provisions to the RFRA would include coverage of “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly, or institution or other business organization.” It also states that a violation of religious freedom can be declared “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.” The last major change proclaims that a violation of religious freedom must be confirmed by three points: “That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief; that the person's religious belief is sincerely held; that the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

The first two provisions appear to be protection of rights of religious freedom from a broad perspective. The third demands “proof” of true violation of a violation of a religious belief.

Now this is where the problems lie: interpretation. There has been much debate over the changes and the discrimination of businesses, particularly recent cases of vendors for wedding services (photographers, bakeries, etc.) invoking RFRA as a reason to deny their services to gay people.

Some say that the new bill will actually make lawsuits more difficult. Others say that it gives businesses freedom to discriminate against homosexuals.

Conservatives may be using this to “shore up” their constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that is being appealed and continuing to be struck down at the federal level. Critics of the bill state that this version of the RFRA would make it easy for businesses to manipulate workplace situations by citing religious reasons. Discrimination could run rampant against more than just gays.

The bigger picture is the separation of church and state. Should the government be deciding that businesses can make decisions based on religious beliefs that knowingly deny basic human rights? Should any human being be denied service by a business because of some perception that by serving them, the businesses’ religious beliefs are being violated?

Other than skin color and the obvious gay couple looking for weddings, will businesses in Arizona now be asking for proof that citizens are not atheists? This bill leaves so many openings for abuse; perhaps more examination is in order by all parties.