The Disingenuous Religious Liberty Argument

photo credit Unsplash

Religious liberty is not a license to discriminate with impunity. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing the government from establishing a religion (thus ensuring that no particular religion is preferred over others by the government) as well as preventing it from interfering with the practice of religion by individuals (thus ensuring people can freely choose to practice whichever religious beliefs they want without fear of governmental retribution). Unfortunately, this idea of religious freedom is being distorted in such a way that instead of protecting individual religious beliefs from governmental influence, it is being used to justify the government’s establishment of Christian-backed discrimination. When the government allows and/or advocates for discrimination based upon religious beliefs, then it is purposefully breaking the religious liberty rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The government cannot establish a religion. This was and is a fundamental principle to ensure the government cannot be used to discriminate against people with different religious beliefs by establishing a preferred religion. The government’s duty is to all of its people regardless of what God or Gods the people believe in or don’t believe in. In this way the country is fair and just and allows for all to be treated equally under the law. Yet, if the government begins to allow one religion to freely discriminate under the basis of religious liberty, then it is establishing a de facto religion and thus breaking the First Amendment’s protection against the government establishing a religion.

The government cannot interfere with any individual’s religious practices. This again guarantees that the government cannot be used to discriminate against people of different religious beliefs or no religious beliefs by requiring certain religious practices and/or banning others. Instead individuals are allowed to practice their religion as they see fit without undue governmental influence. However, if the government allows one religion to freely discriminate, then it is permitting the religious practices of one religion to outweigh the beliefs/practices of others, and again creating a de facto government sponsored religion, contrary to the protections of the First Amendment.

The pro-religious liberty argument is tricky and designed specifically to mislead people into believing that to have one’s religious liberty protected, one must also be guaranteed the ability to use their religion to discriminate against others. This is false. Religious liberty is in fact the guaranteed protection of one’s beliefs FROM discrimination, it is NOT a guaranteed right to discriminate. The First Amendment is designed to keep the rights of the people protected, specifically to prevent discrimination of those with different religious beliefs. If the government allows certain religions the ability to openly discriminate with no repercussions, then what good is the First Amendment’s protections?

It is argued that one’s religious beliefs should justify that individual’s ability to reject certain conditions, specifically in the employment arena. For example, a pharmacist refusing to fill a medication request based upon the pharmacist’s religious beliefs. In this example, the pharmacist (in a position of power) can use his/her religious beliefs to discriminate and potentially harm a customer. The government has a duty to protect all of its people. If the medication is legal and the customer has a valid prescription, it should not be within the pharmacist’s power to deny the request. The government should be on the side of protecting the customer from discrimination, not aiding in the discrimination. Now it may be argued that this is unfair to the pharmacist; that the pharmacist is being forced by the government to go against strongly held religious beliefs in order to help the customer. But this is a faulty argument. The government did not force the person to become a pharmacist. And as a pharmacist, the person should be aware of the legality of medicines. If the person objects to the use of certain medicines, then they should find a different career that does not require them to go against their convictions. It is not the government that is forcing them to go against their strongly held beliefs, it is solely themselves and at that point there is no one else to blame, but themselves. To be clear, the religious liberty of the pharmacist is protected by the fact that the pharmacist can freely find another job that does not require him/her to go against his/her religious beliefs and the religious liberty of the customer is protected by allowing them to buy legally prescribed medication without fear or humiliation. When the government aids the pharmacist in denying legal medication because of the pharmacist’s religious beliefs, then the government is promoting certain religious beliefs while penalising the customer that does not hold those same beliefs. This is contrary to the First Amendment.

One’s liberty does not and should not hinge upon the ability to discriminate. Religious freedom gives you the ability to practice your religion without governmental influence or retribution, it does not give you the right to force your beliefs onto others. If you are employed in a job that requires you to go against your beliefs, then you should find another job, you should not be given the right to discriminate. The government has a duty to protect all of its people, but if it allows certain religions the ability to freely discriminate, then it is breaking the First Amendment.