Hobby Lobby

Supporters of Indiana’s new law supporting discrimination under the guise of religious liberty are telling opponents that the new law does not stand for what everybody is saying it stands for: “It’s about religious liberty! Not discrimination!”

What these people are failing to recognize is that this law comes on the heels of two revolutionary, unprecedented rulings by the US Supreme Court granting religious rights(Hobby Lobby) and free speech rights to corporations(Citizens United), previously understood to be reserved for human beings. 

The Hobby Lobby ruling granted religious rights to big corporations that are privately held, like…. Koch Industries with 100,000 employees, or Meijer stores with 74,000 employees. Indiana’s new law gives companies like this the green light to discriminate against anything they see fit as long as “religious liberty” is invoked. This law stretches much further than the wedding photographer who refused to shoot a gay wedding. 

Proponents would have you think that the law is only to protect the photographer or a wedding planner from having to serve gay people. What they forget, is that we rely on A LOT of other people to do A LOT of things for us. We rely on each other to come to our rescue when we are injured. We rely on each other to perform medical and legal services. We rely on each other to grow and cook our food. We rely on others to fix our cars and sell us gas. Not just photograph a wedding. 

Imagine an America where you can’t go to a particular grocery store because the owner thinks that all non-Christians should suffer from starvation. Or a Muslim ER doctor refuses to treat a Christian. This is the way we are heading with a backwards law like this.

As for those corporations I mentioned, we rely on them for jobs, property taxes, supplying our food. This law would allow a corporation like that with 100,000 employees to not hire a person on the basis of whatever it’s majority shareholder felt was his religious liberty. It would allow Meijer to refuse shoppers who violate its shareholders’ beliefs.

When starting law school 12 years ago, I couldn’t have imagined that laws reminiscent of Jim Crow would be enacted in the name of religion. Not in today’s age. But what’s funny (not funny at all) is that the same arguments were made by Jim Crow supporters who didn’t want to let blacks eat at their restaurants or go to their schools. At that time, religion was cited to discriminate against blacks. Now, religion is the reason to discriminate against gays or just about anything.

As for Jim Crow supporters, they at least had the convictions to be open about their discrimination. They owned it— “Whites Only” signs on their doors. Indiana’s chief politician signed this travesty at night. No public. No cameras. At night. He tried not to own it. 

The same legislation was recently proposed in Oklahoma until one of its democratic opponents added language to the bill which would have required those invoking religious liberty to put up a sign or public notice as to what religious convictions were being invoked in order to save people the humiliation of being refused service and shown the door. Oklahoma dropped that bill.

Indiana should re-think its law. My convictions find it repugnant to spend money in their state until that law is repealed.

Gabe Cameron