• Fri. Mar 29th, 2024

The Official Student Paper of Riverside Poly High School

Just Bear It: Restaurant Refutation

Apr 23, 2015

DISCRIMINATION: Critics of Indiana’s recently-passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act fail to realize that the true purpose of the bill is to protect businesses’ constitutional rights, not discriminate against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

By Valeria Carrillo, Opinions Editor

It is our constitutional right to speak our thoughts and protect our religious beliefs, but at what cost? Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, gained (and is continuing to gain) both supporters and critics because of their opinions regarding gay rights. “If a gay couple was to come and they wanted us to bring pizzas to their wedding, we’d have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor, the co-owner of the family-run business told WBND-TV (BC-affiliated television station located in South Bend Indiana). Although the O’Connor family later commented that they would serve gay couples at the restaurant instead of catering their wedding events, gay rights activists disregarded this statement and wrote threatening and negative comments towards the business and boycotted the pizzeria. Others have donated thousands of dollars and praised them for their courage to stand up for their Christian beliefs. Either way, the choice not to serve gay couples is rightfully legal because of Indiana’s most recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

According to Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who approved the bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “ensures that Indiana law will respect religious freedom and apply the highest level of scrutiny to any state or local governmental action that infringes on people’s religious liberty.” Governor Pence is well aware of the bill’s reputation portrayed by the national media, who claim it is a “license to discriminate.” Pence states that the bill is modeled after President Bill Clinton’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 that limits federal government action that would invade religion significantly enough to burden its free exercise. Although 19 other states have adopted similar RFRAs, Indiana is the first to pass the law after the recent wave of gay rights activism.

The bill is despised by a majority of the LGBT community, who is outraged that such a law would be passed in two-fifths of the country. What they fail to realize is that the United States runs a free-market economy. In this type of economy, consumers have the choice to shop and pay for their services wherever they would like. For example, if a certain pizzeria refuses to serve food to a Mormon couple because of the business’s religious beliefs, it’s the business’s right to do so. Likewise, it’s the Mormon couple’s right to no longer buy food there due to the business’s policies against the Mormon religion; therefore, the couple may take their money to another pizzeria down the street. The situation would be no different if an animal rights activist or atheist was refused the same right. The same ideology applies to the residency of a state. If LGBT activists and members of its community detest Indiana’s RFRA, they are not slaves to the state and can move to another state that has not passed a similar law.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Governor Pence was approved to protect businesses’ rights according to their beliefs and to provide guidance to courts by “directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard,” according to Professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. Regardless of the state of Indiana’s revision to the RFRA to ensure that the law is not discriminating against the LGBT community, some activists and community members continue to rally and to try to add heat to a fire without any embers. Even though the LGBT activists are fighting for tolerance, serious threats directed toward that business and its owners are counterproductive. Therefore, the most peaceful and effective way to express their beliefs would be to take their money elsewhere.

Translate »