Constitution has your freedom of religion covered

So, what to make of the flurry of state laws to “protect religious freedom” when, as far as we can tell, no one in Arkansas, Indiana or anywhere else where these laws are about to take effect has been prohibited from worshipping as they please? The Constitution guarantees that. Advocates swear it has nothing to do with protecting one’s right to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Governors and legislators are bending over backward to persuade us that they don’t have a discriminatory bone in their bodies. That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it. Their persistence in the face of criticism from business interests such as the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, Apple, Yelp and the like seems rash.

In Arkansas, legislators who passed this measure even had the glaring example that has been set in Indiana, where the economy is bound to suffer as a result of business and tourism boycotts.

Isn’t that an irrational move on the part of promoters of “religious freedom” laws?

What the controversy has accomplished, however, is that it has given politicians a chance to declare their allegiance to one side or the other in that great American divide between those who believe in a society that is tolerant of alternative lifestyles and those who don’t.

Boycotts, public demonstrations and widespread criticism are no match for the opportunity to make it perfectly clear to anyone who cares where they stand on the issue. Perhaps they feel their chances for re-election depend on it.

In a classic case of producing a cure for a nonexisting ailment, though, supporters of new state “religious freedom” laws simply have not articulated a case for them.

If they are not designed to declare one’s right to discriminate, what are they for?

The argument that these new state laws simply mirror the federal statute passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 omits the distinction that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to private transactions beyond those that involve the federal government.

And if the federal law, which arose from an effort to protect the right to use peyote as part of a Native American religious ritual, is effective, why, then, is a state law needed?

Some credit must go to Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson for calling for changes in the new state statute to assert that it wasn’t “intended” to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.

At least he hasn’t gone to the mat in defense of the measure as vigorously as Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Hutchinson, however, has indicated that he still intends to sign the legislation, involving the state in a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing, unless you count accentuating divisions that inhibit progress as a society.