Indiana's Religious Freedom Law. What Problem Does It Actually Fix?

As a born and raised resident of the first state in the union to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, I totally get it Indiana.

Some of what makes America so incredibly special is the fact that we are 50 separate but United States of America.  Whatever laws govern the environment within that state create the environment within that state.  For years now, despite the abject failure of America's attempt to prohibit alcohol sales and consumption, certain cities (usually down South) still maintain dry county status- in that you are expected to leave the city to purchase and consume alcohol.  In such places, most people quietly circumvent the rules, but undoubtedly there are local residents who remain happy residents of communities that have decided against alcohol as a vice.

Does the decision to become a dry county also come with the revelation that revenues typically generated from the consumption of alcohol are secondary to the health and social benefit of banning this mind altering elixir?  I would certainly hope so.  Nationwide, even in dry counties, our war over booze has made it abundantly clear that America loves its liquor and is willing to fight for the right to have it, so the value of being dry is more moral than tangible.



Nationwide, America has also taken bold stands on the issue of marriage.  From city to city, marriage equality has moved like a wildfire threatening to bring equality to a city near you even though many people still view homosexuality as a abomination.  What some of those same people have come to accept is that ALL sin is an abomination to God who doesn't isolate sexual sinners from murderers, at least not in Christian doctrine.  Even if our previously devout strain of homophobia is losing some panache, several unnamed faces are trying their best to keep gay bashing cool.  I call them unnamed faces because no one seems bold enough anymore to simply say they hate gay people and despise their lifestyle.  Instead, they create laws that allow for religious freedom (wink wink).  Indirectly, the message of this new law becomes one that says the ultra religious can now move to a place where they can vote to be a dry county for sin.

Inside of a dry county, revenue is sacrificed in the name of righteousness and righteous living. Indiana's new religious freedom law now allows any 'for profit' business owner to withhold their services from certain people for certain reason's and Indiana will protect this behavior as a religious freedom.  What that means in practice is anybody's guess since the law just got signed and the governor is begging to change it already.  In a detailed op-ed piece that Pence wrote to clarify the message of this law that he signed into existence, he admitted that he would probably not do business with  people that he saw refusing service to a gay couple.  In other words, governor Pence agrees with this portion of America. What he doesn't believe is that he just signed a law that legalizes the refusal of business to a gay couple, or black couple, or homeless couple or whatever justifies religious freedom for bigoted people. So what does this law do then?

Alcohol, tobacco and marijuana restrictions may be rooted in a moral component, but they are social vices- and banning them has always been an attempt to curb the use of these vices.  It doesn't work but there is no question what problem these approaches attempt to fix.

What Problem Did Indiana Fix?

The problem with this new law is that it totally begs the question of what problem needed fixing in the first place?  Were Indiana state legislators being overwhelmed with requests from their constituents that insisted something be done about the problem of gay people not staying over on the gay side of town or eating too much food at heterosexual restaurants?  What vision of accomplishment did the founder who wrote this law and the legislators who fought for it imagine themselves having once the ink was dry?  Would thousands of people rush from surrounding states to sit down in an eating establishment full of obviously straight folks?  Would restaurateurs warn out of state visitors that straight only eating establishments are only allowed in Indiana, so taking photos of straight people while eating is not allowed, especially if you are going to take the evidence back to your more liberal cities?

Indiana has employed dry county politics upon religion and have the nerve to call it freedom.  Even at the risk of losing the atheist and agnostic of Indiana, Pence signed the bill that he could hardly defend when challenged on national television. Pence clearly felt the pressure from conservative leanings, but the pressure to defend it will be stronger than the ink that created it.  Across the world, protests of all sorts have surfaced against the actions of Indiana and its governing body.  The final outcome of this debate remains murky.  The problem that it now creates for Indiana is not.  Indiana is not unique in religious freedom legislation but they are unique in extending it to businesses that make a profit. Much like Indiana's neighboring states with dry counties that happily shun the revenues of debauchery, Indiana will now have to decide if the lost revenue that will certainly come as a result of this lone wolf stand is worth being isolated from the pack.

Over and over, governor Pence keeps insisting that Indiana is not a bigoted state and this law was NOT intended to discriminate against anyone.  What he- nor his legislators that sent the bill to him have cleared up is exactly the reason they needed to add language unique to this old legislation.  Advocates will tell you some weird story about people who work in the wedding industry being forced to do gay weddings despite religious opinions, but you really have to press them on the question just to get this gay wedding example which ultimately admits to the gay bias. Governor Pence already wants legislators to modify the bill to insure that Indiana doesn't lose business from the assumption that this bill was targeted at freedom from servicing gay people.

If legislators add the language to un-address exactly what this law addresses. then what value remains in the original bill.

Pence and his peeps keep trying to convince us that this law fixes a problem by reaffirming what it does not do. So once and for all Pence. What did Indiana actually fix with this law?  I keep getting confused.