Much controversy has been stirred up with the new religious freedom laws passed in Indiana and Arkansas. From the left, we hear a cry of discrimination, and from the right, we hear a heralding of religious protection. But what exactly is the big deal, and what does the passage of these bills mean? 

The laws essentially are a copy of the similar federal and state Religious Freedom and Restoration Acts (RFRA) with some major added provisions. The non-controversial part of the laws mirror RFRA protections from government interference on religious practice and its establishment of standard legal procedures for deciding whether or not the government has done so. In other words, someone could legally refuse to obey an Indiana or Arkansas law that has not been narrowly tailored for a substantial government interest if it violates his or her religion. The chief difference between Arkansas and Indiana’s legislation, is it also provides religious protection in private dealings or civil lawsuits. This key provision is what has people up in arms.  A service provider could refuse services to a consumer for religious reasons. 

Many people see this as an attack on the LGBT community claiming the law would allow businesses to refuse to serve LGBT consumers. Because of this, Indiana has been given a lot of ridicule despite the fact that this most likely was not the law’s primary intent and despite the recent revision of the law. The law’s primary purpose was most likely to further cement the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision on a state level (i.e. to prevent the government from forcing businesses to pay for healthcare contrary to their beliefs), shattering any idea this law was passed with the express intent to discriminate. In addition, both laws have undergone significant revision. The Indiana law in particular now explicitly says the law can’t be construed to discriminate based on sexual orientation (which passed with a sizable majority). Pairing an anti-discrimination clause with their RFRA, Indiana may have found a solution to a divisive debate.

For the past few years, the US has seen several court cases in which Christian bakers or photographers have been sued and lost their businesses because they refused to provide services at a number of same-sex weddingsdue to the apparent “discrimination based on sexual orientation.” A couple in Oregon has recently been ordered to pay $150,000 for refusing service citing their religious beliefs. In cases like this, it is important to distinguish “discrimination” from refusing to do something contrary to your morals. For example, would it be discrimination based on religion for a Muslim artist to refuse to create an inappropriate sculpture of Muhammad for an anti-Islamic faith organization? Or would it be discrimination based on race for an African-American chef to refuse to provide services for an all-white KKK meeting? No, not at all. Now, would it be discrimination based on sexual orientation for a Christian mechanic to refuse to service to an LGBT customer? Or would it be discrimination for a lawyer to refuse to represent a Latin American in court? Yes, of course. The difference is subtle, yet important. In one case, the refusal is based on the service they are refusing (making a cake celebrating something contrary to your values, sculpting something personally offensive, or catering a racist event) and in the other it is based on the traits of the person served (being gay or Hispanic). Most Americans can agree that actual discrimination is wrong, and most can also agree that the freedom of conscientious objection is important. Why can’t they coexist?

I applaud Indiana for putting these two provisions together. Maybe, just maybe, after this law has withstood the test of the courts, it will be the first state in the union to be on the path to protecting our nation’s gay citizens from discrimination while simultaneously protecting its citizens’ right to religious objection. Instead of punishing Indiana, other states and cities should be looking to it as an example of not only moderate policies but also fair and just ones. Indiana hopefully can show these two American values — equality and the freedom of speech/religion — can still stand strong together, instead of getting caught up in either side of the aisle’s narrow-mindedness.