Religious freedom for who?

With the growing, positive momentum in different facets of human rights including LGBT equality and women’s reproductive rights, we have seen a growing number of “religious freedom” laws pop up. 

For example, in June of 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc., allowing for-profit corporations to not have to provide contraceptives at no cost following the Affordable Care Act based on their religious beliefs, claiming that it defies the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And one year later in Indiana, the state legislature passed in Governor Pence signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing businesses to discriminate against customers based on their religious beliefs without fear of repercussions.

Although these laws pride themselves on the “freedom of religion,” the primary question remains the same: freedom for which religions?

One of the more recent cases that tackles the supposed “religious freedom acts” is in Missouri, where a female member of the Satanic Temple is suing Governor Jay Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster of Missouri because of the 72 hour waiting period she was required to have before having an abortion, stating that the waiting period was against her religious beliefs. During Missouri’s veto session in 2014, the state legislature overrode Governor Nixon’s veto, passing a law that required women seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours following a visit to an abortion provider. The Satanic Temple does not believe that life begins at conception nor that an abortion is morally wrong.

And with the comments that include…

• Satanism is NOT a religion. it is hate speech against religion; realize this.
• Murder is not an acceptable religious tenant in the US, so this lawsuit should be thrown out immediately.

…It is clear that freedom of religion continues to be given to “white-centric, mainstream” religions.

Though this is one of many potential examples, the main theme highlighted is that bills that state, “religious freedom” need to be critically analyzed. Bills that directly target and discriminate against individuals because of how they identify, how they look or what they believe in is not religious freedom if it takes rights away and hinders someone’s well-being. From what I believe, that’s the opposite of what freedom represents.