Abogado Aly Religious Freedom LawThe quest for agreement in the socio-political realm is hard to take on, and often leads to unsettling discord that calls for a compromise from all sides in argument. When issues of political reform are up in the air, advocates from both sides come into the forefront and offer their unabating, often conflicting perspectives. In Texas, however, the merging of two ideas which have historically caused disgruntled unrest passed with relative ease and is inspiring residents of the state to push neighbors to come to a similar understanding.
The law passed in Texas under then-Governor George Bush in 1999, peacefully bridged the gaps between a strong religious community and equally strong proponents of civil rights who wanted to secure anti-discrimination laws. Fifteen years later, Texas still shows a strong balance between the freedom of religious practices and the protection of civil rights. The members of the state, however, worry about the slowed resolutions in Indiana and Arkansas whose laws for religious freedom leave out important language explicitly protecting against discrimination of individuals, for example gays and lesbians, who pose a threat to the liberty of following religious tenets. That is, the freedom of religious practice granted under their laws may leave questions of bias unanswered. Indiana’s Governor Pence assures nobody will have the right to discriminate and deny someone an opportunity based on personal principles. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act takes effect July 1 and “would prohibit laws that ‘substantially burden’ a person’s freedom of religion” unless the government has more compelling reasons for doing so.2
In 1997 the Supreme Court overruled a 1993 decision saying laws that apply generally on a federal level do not apply to state laws, urging states to draft their own responses to growing questions and concerns over civil liberties. Today, Texan Republicans aim to add an abridged version of the law to the constitution solidifying its legitimacy for future rulings. More than anything, civil rights groups are worried the freedoms of practicing religion granted under law will be enough to reinterpret the protections guaranteed to groups facing discrimination. Still, lines are not evenly split as many churches, religious groups, businesses and civil groups are coming together with intentions to craft the fairest legislation that denies none his unalienable rights.