Mike Pence Fix
Mike Pence Fix, Mike Pence announced that he will seek a “fix” to Indiana’s recently-passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act to clarify that the law “does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone” — presumably including members of the LGBT community.
While he refused to elaborate on what the language of the fix will look like, that’s still a significant walkback from his Sunday appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where Pence insisted that he would not seek changes to the law.
Pressure from corporate America, fueled by shifting public opinion, played a major role in Pence’s decision to seek a fix to the bill. It’s no coincidence that he asked Indiana’s legislature to act by the end of the week: NCAA Basketball’s Final Four tips off in Indianapolis on Saturday, and the organization’s President, Mark Emmert, has come out against the RFRA .
In between Sunday’s interview and yesterday’s press conference, Governor Pence has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into agreeing with the basic outline of the First Amendment to our Constitution:But don’t tell that to the the conservatives who are itching to codify religious privileges. To The National Review‘s Quin Hillyer, Pence’s nominal reaffirmation of the First Amendment constituted “craven capitulation” that would make him “unworthy of the presidency” if decided to throw his hat in the 2016 GOP primary.
What seems to have been lost in the debate over Indiana’s — and now Arkansas’ — Religious Freedom “Restoration” Acts is that religious freedom in America isn’t under attack, and doesn’t need to be “restored.” Proponents such as Pence and Jeb Bush claim that all Indiana’s RFRA does is ensure that the state cannot unnecessarily infringe on the free exercise of religion because, according to them, it currently can. On this point, they’re simply wrong: Those protections have existed on the federal level for centuries.
If all a law does is restate the First Amendment, then it adds nothing to the First Amendment. If a law is seeking religious privileges that go beyond the First Amendment, then chances are it violates the First Amendment.
Religious conservatives seem to have confused an erosion of religious privilege with an assault on religious freedom. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page argued on Monday, without Indiana’s law:
Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.
Legally reaffirming private religious freedom changes none of these outcomes. Despite whatever religious beliefs they may (deeply) hold, the Amish still need to stop at stop signs, food kitchens still need to wash their dishes and religious colleges can’t use taxpayer money to hire based on the religion of their applicants.
Exemptions from these regulations aren’t “freedoms” that have been taken away and need to be restored; they are religious expressions that infringe on public, secular interests. They do not deserve special protections, and any law designed to carve out space for religious privilege is patently unconstitutional.But it isn’t really about what the letter of the law says. What religious conservatives are really worried about is the fact that their social privilege is waning, regardless as to whatever political privilege they think they deserve. And on this point, they may be on to something, but they aren’t making the point they think they’re making. As Josh Marshall noted last night:
Apologists for the Indiana law are out guffawing and saying how Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and half the states in the country and even the federal government all supported or have the same laws (largely false) and that it’s a pure calumny to claim the law is intended or can make it possible to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But this is winning by losing. Because every restatement of this argument – even if it’s largely bogus – drives home the argument that any form of discrimination against gays and lesbians is literally indefensible, even allowing people with socially conservative social values to discriminate because of “religious liberty.” Even claiming anyone thinks that is apparently now an affront. In other words, even the tactical wordplay and verbal jujitsu amounts to conceding a major strategic defeat.
The gay culture war in America is ending, and conservatives are losing. When large, conservative corporations from Angie’s List to Wal-Mart recognize that not only is discrimination bad business, but that anti-discrimination is great PR, it’s a clear sign that it’s time for religious conservatives to pack up their Bibles and practice their faith in the privacy of their own homes. They won’t have to worry about the rest of us keeping them from doing so.
America was founded on the basis of protecting religious belief, but to the extent that religious belief comes into conflict with civil society — and it often does — civil society has to maintain priority. As Jefferson understood centuries ago, that’s the only way to guarantee religious freedom for everyone, as opposed to whichever sect was the loudest or most powerful.
While he refused to elaborate on what the language of the fix will look like, that’s still a significant walkback from his Sunday appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where Pence insisted that he would not seek changes to the law.
Pressure from corporate America, fueled by shifting public opinion, played a major role in Pence’s decision to seek a fix to the bill. It’s no coincidence that he asked Indiana’s legislature to act by the end of the week: NCAA Basketball’s Final Four tips off in Indianapolis on Saturday, and the organization’s President, Mark Emmert, has come out against the RFRA .
In between Sunday’s interview and yesterday’s press conference, Governor Pence has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into agreeing with the basic outline of the First Amendment to our Constitution:But don’t tell that to the the conservatives who are itching to codify religious privileges. To The National Review‘s Quin Hillyer, Pence’s nominal reaffirmation of the First Amendment constituted “craven capitulation” that would make him “unworthy of the presidency” if decided to throw his hat in the 2016 GOP primary.
What seems to have been lost in the debate over Indiana’s — and now Arkansas’ — Religious Freedom “Restoration” Acts is that religious freedom in America isn’t under attack, and doesn’t need to be “restored.” Proponents such as Pence and Jeb Bush claim that all Indiana’s RFRA does is ensure that the state cannot unnecessarily infringe on the free exercise of religion because, according to them, it currently can. On this point, they’re simply wrong: Those protections have existed on the federal level for centuries.
If all a law does is restate the First Amendment, then it adds nothing to the First Amendment. If a law is seeking religious privileges that go beyond the First Amendment, then chances are it violates the First Amendment.
Religious conservatives seem to have confused an erosion of religious privilege with an assault on religious freedom. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page argued on Monday, without Indiana’s law:
Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.
Legally reaffirming private religious freedom changes none of these outcomes. Despite whatever religious beliefs they may (deeply) hold, the Amish still need to stop at stop signs, food kitchens still need to wash their dishes and religious colleges can’t use taxpayer money to hire based on the religion of their applicants.
Exemptions from these regulations aren’t “freedoms” that have been taken away and need to be restored; they are religious expressions that infringe on public, secular interests. They do not deserve special protections, and any law designed to carve out space for religious privilege is patently unconstitutional.But it isn’t really about what the letter of the law says. What religious conservatives are really worried about is the fact that their social privilege is waning, regardless as to whatever political privilege they think they deserve. And on this point, they may be on to something, but they aren’t making the point they think they’re making. As Josh Marshall noted last night:
Apologists for the Indiana law are out guffawing and saying how Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and half the states in the country and even the federal government all supported or have the same laws (largely false) and that it’s a pure calumny to claim the law is intended or can make it possible to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But this is winning by losing. Because every restatement of this argument – even if it’s largely bogus – drives home the argument that any form of discrimination against gays and lesbians is literally indefensible, even allowing people with socially conservative social values to discriminate because of “religious liberty.” Even claiming anyone thinks that is apparently now an affront. In other words, even the tactical wordplay and verbal jujitsu amounts to conceding a major strategic defeat.
The gay culture war in America is ending, and conservatives are losing. When large, conservative corporations from Angie’s List to Wal-Mart recognize that not only is discrimination bad business, but that anti-discrimination is great PR, it’s a clear sign that it’s time for religious conservatives to pack up their Bibles and practice their faith in the privacy of their own homes. They won’t have to worry about the rest of us keeping them from doing so.
America was founded on the basis of protecting religious belief, but to the extent that religious belief comes into conflict with civil society — and it often does — civil society has to maintain priority. As Jefferson understood centuries ago, that’s the only way to guarantee religious freedom for everyone, as opposed to whichever sect was the loudest or most powerful.
Categories:
Mike Pence Fix
0 comments:
Post a Comment