Or more accurately, the real trouble with laws designed to protect “religious freedom.”
The past couple of weeks have had some troubling laws passed. Of particular note, Mississippi passed a law that prevents the state punishing people for refusing to provide services “because of a religious objection to same-sex marriage, extra-marital sex or transgender people.”
What other religious objections should be available? I’m 15 pounds overweight so should I be denied service because I’m a gluttonous sinner? Or more to the point, as someone born with a cleft lip and palate, should I be denied service because I have a defect? Please see Leviticus 21 about this (though this applies to temple priests but if we’re going to misapply scripture this doesn’t seem like such a stretch, does it?)
I’m not keen on government telling businesses what they can and cannot do but businesses continue to prove that unless they have to they won’t provide services to certain classes of people. It wasn’t so long ago that race could legally be used to provide or deny services.
I have a suspicion that many in favor of these kinds of ‘religious freedom’ laws are the same people who are concerned about Islamic sharia law being giving protected status. And now can we see the problem looming? It’s all well and comfortable to have our favorite religion protected but as a matter of law if one religion has the benefit of “religious freedom” laws then what stops another religion from availing themselves of that same law? That’s a place we just simply don’t want to go.
I don’t think people wanting a government issued ID get to wear head gear that covers up their face even if it is on the grounds of “religious freedom.” In the same way, if a same-sex couple comes in and wants a cake, bake the damn cake. You don’t have to go to the wedding and eat it. Though ironically I’m pretty sure Jesus would have done just that. So bake the thing and move on. And keep “religious freedom” out of the law. For all of our sakes.