In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The RFRA was written to protect the rights of religious individuals and organizations. It was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling against two people from a Native American church who were fired as drug counselors and denied unemployment benefits because they had used peyote in a religious ceremony, which was banned in their state.
For more than two decades, the RFRA enjoyed support from rights groups across the ideological spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
But last week the ACLU formally withdrew its support of the RFRA. In a Washington Post op-ed announcing the reversal, Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, wrote that the group still supports the application of the RFRA under some circumstances. For example, Melling calls a federal court ruling in favor of a Sikh man serving in the military who wants to grow a beard for religious reasons “a victory for religious freedom.”
But she also argues that the ACLU can no longer support the RFRA when it is “used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people.” In short, it’s fine for anyone who isn’t Christian.
According to Melling, in the latter case, “accommodating his faith doesn’t hurt anyone else.” But for Christians who have deeply-held religious beliefs against paying for their employees’ contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, the principle of religious freedom is trumped by the principle of free birth control.
When the RFRA was being applied to defend individuals who observed exotic religions against conservative institutions like the military and prison system, the ACLU was all for it. Now that it’s being used mainly to defend conservative Christians’ ability to conduct their personal affairs without government intrusion, the ACLU sees no problem abandoning it.
The ACLU is calling on Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used for “discrimination.” I have a better suggestion. How about the ACLU amend its mission statement to reflect its new policy of defending and preserving the individual rights of only those whose views it considers acceptable?
Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner
