While America’s religious freedom once attracted millions of oppressed immigrants during the 19th and 20th centuries, the acceptance that once nourished our country’s diversity is now starving it. 

Recent religious freedom laws now protect the rights of companies instead of just individuals. The movement of personal beliefs into the workplace leads to undue discrimination, though. Lawmakers should not extend religious freedom to companies because it gives private entities the ability to discriminate for personal reasons, cloaked by a religious excuse. For this reason, religious freedom laws like Indiana’s 2015 bill should be subject to judicial review.

The 2015 Indiana bill allows both individuals and private companies to resist a law that goes against their religious beliefs.  In 1968. Maurice Bessinger, a self-proclaimed “hard-working, Christian man,” did not want blacks eating at Bessinger’s six Piggie Park barbecue joints, according to The Atlantic. Bessinger maintained that slavery was God’s will and desegregation was Satan’s work. While the Supreme Court threw out the case, noting it was “frivolous,” it may have stood under the new Indiana bill because it states that private companies may resist laws in conflict with their own spiritual convictions . 

A person’s religious opinions are his own and usually pose no legal threat to others. But, when privately owned businesses are concerned, the owner’s beliefs affect everyone involved. In 2006, a photography studio in New Mexico refused to shoot a same-sex wedding because of the owner’s religious beliefs. When the couple sued, the studio did not have a law like Indiana’s for defense. Now, with policies protecting private businesses, these cases could rise in number.

Of course, the problem with religious intolerance is ever-present, especially in a time where society blames terrorist attacks on religions instead of individuals. But the slew of trendy religious freedom bills are not the solution to this problem. When laws intended to promote religious inclusion allow for the opposite, instead, it’s clear we must try something different.

Problematic federal cases concerning religious freedom have made headlines over the past year. Most notably, the Supreme Court’s 2014 controversial Hobby Lobby decision allowed privately owned companies to reject national laws if the owner is religiously opposed. Policymakers are taking this decision further and instituting similar laws — like the 2015 Indiana bill — at the state level. 

 Lawmakers in Indiana are now struggling to fix the public relations mess. Their plan is to include a section within the law saying that it does not apply to intolerance against homosexuals. Meaning, a Catholic doctor could not refuse to operate on someone solely because the patient is homosexual. But, the solution is not so simple. Religious minorities have an equal chance of facing discrimination, but, unfortunately, all groups can not be legally protected in advance with specific sections of legislation 

In a country with such diverse religious beliefs, it is impossible for government policies to satisfy everyone. Even broad laws meant to uphold religious freedoms will fail because what satisfies one religion may offend another.  

Because of religious freedom laws, individuals who are part of a religious minority could be unfairly forced to adhere to the majority’s beliefs, for example, a Christian boss denying prayer breaks to a Muslim employee. The worker would have to choose between his or her job and religious needs, whereas the boss would not have to make that choice. The employee could search for a new job, but why should the law force him or her to do so? It is ultimately the boss who is discriminating against the employee. If legislation protects the boss’s religion, the employee’s should be protected to the same degree.

What many supporters of these “religious freedom” laws overlook is that all Americans can use this policy to their advantage. Supporters might think only of their own beliefs and forget that even those with whom they disagree are protected. CNN recently interviewed Bill Levin — founder of The First Church of Cannabis — to discuss his argument that the religious freedom bill should allow him to smoke marijuana legally. Of course, many Americans would disagree with Levin’s logic, but the state should protect him under the policy. 

We have yet to find a way to protect religious freedom without controversy. One thing is clear, however — owners of private businesses should not discriminate on the basis of religion. Let’s be true to America’s early promise of religious freedom as a matter of liberty, rather than as a method of discrimination.

 

Brianna Roser writes about social issues, politics and current events for The Pitt News.

Write to Brianna at [email protected].