The (Lone) Conservative Voice: Defense of Freedom or Denial of Rights?

Today, I’d like to touch on an issue that’s pretty close to home for me and undoubtedly for many of my readers. Last month, a bill was introduced in the Kansas legislature stating that “no individual, religious entity or government official had to provide any service if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender.” Obviously, Kansas is a very conservative state, but unfortunately this bill is indicative of a larger legislative trend sweeping the nation.

Since Jan. 1, at least 15 states other than Kansas have proposed similar legislation that would allow individuals and business to deny service based on strongly held religious beliefs. Ostensibly, these bills are designed to safeguard the religious freedom of citizens and business establishments. In reality, however, they simply make it easier for businesses to deny service to individuals they would prefer not to serve. Essentially, many state legislatures are attempting to legalize discrimination under the auspices of defending religious freedom.

Let me be clear: I stand wholeheartedly behind the legitimate defense of religious freedom. For example, I consider the Birth Control Mandate in the Affordable Care Act to be a violation of religious freedom. An issue like that, however, is wholly separate from the recent bills proposed in many state legislatures. Regardless of whether or not a place of business condones the lifestyle choices of its patrons, it is ludicrous that any refusal of service should be allowed based on these premises. The law serves to provide equal protection for all people, not allow the “rights” of one group to trump those of another.

Furthermore, I wish that state legislatures were spending their time on more significant issues. State governments can be a tremendous force for good across the nation, but only when they choose to deal with issues relevant to improving the lives of citizens. States should be doing what they can to ensure that most government is dealt with on a local level, not engaging in unnecessary and offensive rhetoric about the rights of one person offending the religious freedoms of another. Religious freedom is a serious issue and should be vigilantly guarded, but it and the freedom to refuse service to certain individuals are two very different things. An individual’s right to religious expression is protected under the Constitution; an individual’s right to disparage the choices of others is not.

Lastly, it pains me to see some of my fellow conservatives speak out in favor of this proposed legislation. To me, conservatism is about protecting the rights of all people and creating an environment in which citizens are free to pursue happiness as they so choose with minimal government interference. Much of this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against individuals whose sexual orientation offends the sensibilities of many Republicans. It is high time conservatives stop being intolerant and start practicing what they preach, the defense of the rights of all people.

Leave a Reply