In case you needed more proof that the recent backlash against religious freedom laws is grounded in pure ignorance, look no further than Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy. Malloy, a Democrat, just announced on Twitter that he plans to sign an executive order banning state travel to Indiana due to the midwestern state’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
I don’t know how many staffers, lawyers, and advisers currently work for Malloy, but it’s a real shame that not a single one of them told the governor that Connecticut has had an expansive RFRA on the books for over two decades. That’s right: Connecticut passed its own RFRA law on June 29, 1993. You can read the law for yourself here. The inanity of Malloy’s move doesn’t stop there, though. What makes his grandstanding particularly absurd is the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA provides far greater religious liberty protections than Indiana’s or even the federal government’s.
Connecticut's RFRA grants me, an ordained priest, the right to participate on boards and committees of the local government, allows Jewish delis and Muslim restaurants not to have to serve pork, and permits the indoor burning of sage or even the consumption of peyote by members of the state's American Indian tribes. Yeah, I can see why this is troubling to politicians, Hollywood people, and software billionaires.
More to the point, Connecticut's RFRA gives us the freedom to ring our church bells on Sunday mornings and construct a nativity scene on our lawn.
Related: Flashback! When religious freedom didn't have scare quotes in The New York Times
Also related: All snarking aside, this refusal to engage people with different moral perspectives in exactly the kind of thing that Brian Doherty and I warned would be bad for social progress in a classically liberal cosmopolitan society.
More related: Indiana has focused attention on RFRA laws, but it’s stupid to focus on Indiana. These laws are all over the place. Understand them. Understand how they apply in many different scenarios and how they are limited by courts in their application. Understand that if we’re going to relieve religious believers of the burdens of generally applicable laws, courts are going to have to avoid preferring one religion over another. You can’t accommodate the religions you agree with or think are sweet and fuzzy and say no to the ones who seem mean or ugly. We need to figure that out. If, in the end, you think the Indiana RFRA is a bad idea, check that map and see if your state has RFRA (or a RFRA-like state constitutional provision) and push for repeal in your state. And get after Congress. Congress started it. Unless you’re Hoosier, leave Indiana alone. Stop otherizing Indiana. AND: I had to wonder What does Garrett Epps think about this? Because Garrett Epps wrote a whole book about how terrible it was for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny special exceptions to religious believers, especially in that case where Native Americans wanted the freedom to use peyote. As I predicted, Epps is otherizing Indiana.”
Of course, the question I'm left with is: Why do we need special "freedom laws" in the United States when the overriding document of our nation already guarantees such?