The following letter, published in the Orlando Sentinel in April 2015, was written by a friend of ours, a good man with whom we seriously disagreed on several issues. Those were the days when being on opposite sides of heated battles did not spill over into personal life. I discovered a copy of the ten year old letter when cleaning up files, and decided it needs wider circulation.
The inspiration for the letter was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that had been recently passed by the state of Indiana, but the sentiment is as applicable, and essential, today.
Religious belief is among the most personal of human attributes, and deals with the spiritual and the infinite. Governments are, rather, an expression of general agreement in things secular. In theory, these philosophical areas should complement each other; however, in practice the boundaries frequently conflict.
Thus, one person's faith becomes another person's bigotry.
So it is with the Hoosier State, which, like many states before it, has passed its own RFRA.
When is a business acting on its sincerely held religious beliefs, and when is it merely denying services to people unjustly and hypocritically using religion as a cover?
Discriminating against people because of who they are is categorically wrong. But when a customer demands, under penalty of law or litigation, that I render a product or service, which, according to my religious belief, constitutes the facilitating of sin, I must draw the line—a line protected by the RFRA. So, the baker, florist or photographer should, in good conscience, sell their wares to all comers, but they should also have the option not to be a part of events that they believe are proscribed by their faith.
My favorite sandwich place is closed on Sunday. My favorite Florida chicken restaurant is closed on Saturday—both for religious reasons. A local obstetrician/gynecologist believes abortion to be infanticide. Shall I compel their cooperation?
This is ultimately an issue of fairness and tolerance for both sides. Acceptance should be optional, but tolerance, caring and respect are essential to the human conversation.
James xxxxxxx Apopka
[I doubt our friend would mind my using his full name, since it was published in the paper, but just in case, I have redacted it.]
It's hard to believe that I'm looking back at 2015 as an era of civility, but relatively speaking....
