Editorials

Lotsa heat, little light

What this House Bill 1228 says, and doesn’t

"What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work."

--President Bill Clinton, on signing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, November 16th, 1993

Can we please put the silliness aside for a moment? Nobody's going to die--or even lose a driver's license--if the governor of this state signs House Bill 1228. Our suggestion: Some folks might want to switch to decaf.

Arkansas made the national news again this week, along with another state, namely Indiana, for proposing bills in their statehouses that would protect citizens who'd like to exercise their freedom of religion when it comes to doing business. Which is an all-American, red-white-and-blue wish. Then you pick up the newspaper and somebody's yelling that if this bill becomes law, then, say, a lesbian might not be able to get a driver's license or a homosexual might not qualify for the financial aid he needs to attend college. Then there are always those lawheads/rabble-rousers/just panicky types. One of them was quoted in the paper as saying, get this:

"A UAMS doctor can refuse life saving care and have a defense under HB1228. It can go on and on. Basically, there's no limitations."

Funny, but in the case of at least 20 other states that have passed measures like the one being proposed in Arkansas--HB1228--not once have we read a story about somebody in any of those states being denied a driver's license or college aid or maybe CPR because of those awful religious-freedom laws.

It might help to actually read the bill in order to understand why some folks think it's needed, and to respect the folks who might disagree one way or another without accusing them of wanting folks to die as doctors look on with hands clasped behind their backs.

Way back in 1993, in response to court rulings, Congress decided to pass something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevented laws that "substantially burden" an American citizen's exercise of his religion. That law was introduced by a congressman from New York by the name of Chuck Schumer and signed into law by a president from Arkansas named Bill Clinton. Democrats both.

But the nation's highest court--yes, the Supremes--decided that this Religious Freedom Restoration Act applied only on the federal level. And if the states wanted those religious-freedom protections, they'd have to pass their own laws. Which many began to do. Including those terrible Tea-Party red states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois (where a young state legislator named Barack Obama voted for it) . . . . Plus your usual suspects in Texas, Tennessee, and the like.

So now Arkansas and Indiana plan to join the club.

It helps to read the bill before commenting on it. And anybody can pull up a copy at the state's outstanding and convenient website at www.arkleg.state.ar.us

The bill says--in the lawyerese favored by those trying to be legal, not necessarily understood--that the state can't make an American violate his religious beliefs without good reason. In the language of the law, that good reason is known as a Compelling Interest, and the state must have one to infringe on an American's right to religious freedom under the First Amendment.

There have been cases in other states in which a baker or photographer wouldn't offer their services as part of a homosexual wedding, and were sued. A bill like Arkansas HB1228, should it become law, would protect such people and businesses. Unless the state has a Compelling Interest to infringe on their free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, like opening public accommodations to all.

That's the key phrase--compelling interest--and Arkansas relies on it in defense of HB1228. As this state has every right, and duty, to do. Of course no overwrought ideologue on either side of this issue is going to be swayed by mere reason, but, hey, let's try to shed a little perspective on an issue that has become much too freighted with volatile emotions stoked by social media.

Editorial on 04/02/2015

Upcoming Events