In any event, I wrote a short piece intended as a Letter to the Editor of the Journal & Courier, but it was rejected for length. I posted it on Facebook, with much positive feedback (that's what friends are for), and was asked by several students to post it here since I won't Facebook befriend students. (Ask again on graduation day.)
Again, this is solely my view as a private person (albeit one with a law degree). I will not discuss this during class time, but would be happy to do so outside of class. And--outside of class, unless it's relevant to what we're doing that day--I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
In the early 1990s, several Native
Americans were fired from their jobs for using peyote. Peyote is used
in religious rituals among some Native Americans. These same people
were then denied unemployment benefits by the government because
their termination was determined to be “for cause.” They
appealed, and pursued that appeal all the way to the Supreme Court,
which ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that even though their use of peyote was part
of their religious practice, their termination was, indeed, for
cause, and they could be denied unemployment benefits.
Religious groups of all stripes
throughout the country were troubled by the implications of this
ruling, and justifiably so. The idea that people could have their
government benefits stripped from them as a result of their private
religious practices was chilling.
In
response to that ruling, a broad federation of religious groups,
breathtaking in scope, worked together to craft the federal Religious
Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.
In
2015, Indiana was faced with the prospect that same-sex marriage
would be legalized. In response to that, the idea was floated that
incorporating the language of the federal RFRA into Indiana's state
laws would somehow allow people with religious objections to avoid
doing business with others based on the content of the private
lives—actual or assumed—of those others. The idea was trumpeted
loudly and often to a narrow band of religions who object to
homosexuality on religious grounds. No effort was made to include
other views, or to inquire whether language that reacted to one
situation 22 years ago might sound different when it was used to
react to a very different situation today.
Yes,
it is essentially the same language. But it is not the same law.
And
it is jaw-droppingly disingenuous for our governor and
representatives to declare that they had no idea that anyone would
take passage of the state RFRA as an attempt to legalize
discrimination. It is an insult to our collective intelligence.
And
yet, what else would we expect in a state that registered the lowest
rate of voter participation in the country in last year's mid-term
elections? Where was all of the energy and the anger and the ideas
about how this state should be run on election day? Where?
So
now Indiana stands in the cross-hairs of numerous business,
religious, and political groups, and all we can think of to do is to
point fingers at one another, or offer weak and disingenuous excuses
for our actions.
Shame
on all of you. Shame on all of us.
