The reintroduction in Maine of a religious objections bill, hot on the heels of a controversy about a similar bill in Indiana, raises a number of questions: Why now, so long after a court ruling exempted states from the federal version of the law? And why here, in Maine, where infringement on religious freedom has hardly been a problem.

To the latter question, there is no good answer, as there is no good reason.

To the former, the answer is clear, but you won’t hear it from the bill’s proponents.

That’s because the bill, and others like it, are more than just a way to extend the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the states, as made necessary by a 1997 court ruling.

Instead, the bills are an end-run around the victories that have bolstered equal rights for LGBT Americans, as well as a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling, expected this year, ending same-sex marriage bans in the states where they have not yet been killed by vote or lawsuit.

On these issues, anti-gay rights factions have lost, and so-called “religious freedom” bills are their answer. The bill’s backers in Maine may not see it that way, but the broad use of the legislation, and its support from anti-gay rights groups, reveals it is an attempt to codify discrimination under the banner of worship.

Advertisement

In addition to Maine, 16 states have introduced religious freedom legislation this year. The bills are among more than 85 pieces of anti-gay legislation that have been introduced across 28 states this year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Most of the bills concern “religious freedom,” and would at least provide an opening for businesses and individuals to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The language of the Maine bill has not been released yet, but the sponsor, Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, said it is identical to the one that he proposed, and the Legislature rejected, last session.

The bill would give recourse to Mainers who feel a law is in any way burdening the practice of their religion. It would force the state in those cases to prove that it has a “compelling” public interest, such as safety or health, to impose that burden, and that the burden is the least restrictive way to meet that interest.

That would put Maine law in line with the federal standard. But it also would seem to allow a landlord to refuse on religious grounds renting an apartment to a same-sex couple, or a caterer to refuse to work a same-sex wedding.

However, that would be a violation of the Maine Human Rights Act, and it is not clear how those opposing views within the law would be reconciled.

Advertisement

That by itself is enough to doom the bill.

But there is also a complete lack of evidence that Maine law as it now stands is putting anyone’s religious freedom at risk.

The law has to balance a person’s right to practice religion with the state’s interest in protecting people from discrimination. Maine is getting that balance right.

There’s no reason to open the way for discrimination in order to solve a problem no one is having.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: