The Atlantic makes clear:
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.The Atlantic article continues:
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”Essentially the law is both providing free license to discriminate and legitimizing the personhood of corporations vis-a-vis religious belief. Corporate entities such as Hobby Lobby now believe in God.
How does a corporation believe in God? I once worked, a million years ago, as a delivery driver for a restaurant owned by a devout Korean woman. She eventually had to fire me because I drive like a normal person: "I was too slow" She said to me, as close to verbatim as I can remember, "I believe in Jesus Christ, but I have to protect my business." Sorry, Jesus. You just got knocked down a peg by the Almighty Dollar. We are a monotheistic society, but you are not its deity.
It is impossible, because survival and profit against all are paramount, for any business to hold any sort of authentic ethical or religious concern as long as the conflict of interest between doing what is profitable and doing what is morally good exists. True belief of any kind relies upon placing one's self at risk in order to do what is right. Businesses will never choose to put themselves at risk for any ethical cause unless they are sure that doing so will pay off as good PR and recoup whatever costs through their image as an "ethical" company. Any claim by a business enterprise to hold a religious belief can only be met with laughter and derision.
There is another, more pressing concern with this RFRA, however. The law allows the current power structure to take priority in disputes. More profoundly, it removes the burden of moral actions from the Christians it protects. It protects the people who believe my title.
These people don't need to be protected. Being a Christian is the most pedestrian thing a person can be in a country--nay, a world--that is 70-80% Christian. Christians, as the majority of the United States, do not comprise a protected class because being Christian (especially if you're a white Christian: that certainly helps) is basically doing what everyone else is doing. Do you know who needs to be protected? Gay people. Transgendered people. Transsexual people. Muslims. African-Americans. Women. People who do not identify with or fit into the greater power structure (specifically, the power structure that sent this law to Mike Pence's desk).
Gays, transsexuals, transgendered people, Muslims, African-Americans, and women need legal protection because they not only have experienced historical discrimination by such private entities, but in many cases, that same discrimination by private parties continues to the moment you read this sentence. Mike Pence's RFRA protects not the rights of victims of discrimination, but rather the supposed right of the power structure to discriminate. Except that the power to discriminate is not a right!
The entire spirit of the law up to the 21st century was built on citizens' autonomy from negative pressure by the church of England, by the King, and even--potentially--the power of domestic tyrants. The idea that individual human beings could be free to pursue their own "[lives], liberty, and...happiness" precludes any codification of discrimination of any kind! There is absolutely no right to discriminate against any group of people whatever, especially if that target is a minority.
There is one consolation to this RFRA: It reveals which group really is in control, particularly in the South and Midwest, where the Bible Belt is still a thing. It shows us just how far we still have to go to bump Jerry Falwell's ghost from power.
I will say that I don't quite blame Mike Pence. Mike Pence is just an idiot, he is the Adolf Eichmann in the whole thing: Just doing his job, just following orders. Nobody told him what it was that landed on his desk, because the only people who had access to him were the Evangelical groups who wanted it passed. I would imagine that the discussion went like this:
Pence (P): "Should I sign this?"
Evangelicals (E): "Yes! Sign it. Gay people are gross."
*Pence does what he's told, word gets out that the RFRA is now law. A media firestorm against Indiana and Mike Pence now ensues*
P: "WHOA WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SIGN!? THEY TOLD ME TO!"
Mike Pence is right now begging the legislature to "fix" the law because it wasn't until it was too late that he realized what he did. He cannot go on TV and defend the law to the public. He is getting absolutely annihilated because he signed a law that he didn't read to the benefit of the Evangelical base and to the detriment of everyone else. I predict, at this moment, that the Evangelicals throw Pence to the lions and do nothing.
