Augusta - ME -- Remember that so called "religious freedom" bill that resulted in a vocal and stern opposition when Governor Mike Pence signed it into law in Indiana a few weeks ago? Yes, the same bill that was criticized by Apple CEO Tim Cook, beloved Wal-Mart leadership, and Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay to name literally just a few. Well, despite the documented business opposition and public dismay over the Indiana law, Maine State Senator David Burns (R-Whiting) moved forward with similar legislation. Just two weeks ago, Sen. Burns told the Portland Press Herald, “I put it in last year, and I thought it should have passed last year. I think it’s reasonable and I think it’s needed. Historically, as you’ve been hearing over and over again, there has not been any bad ramifications because of it (the federal act) in 20 years. I don’t know what the hoopla is all about. Well, I suspect I do.”
It was only yesterday that Republican leadership in the State Senate decided to co-sponsor the legislation. Majority Leader Senator Andre Cushing told the Portland Press Herald, “We are in danger of losing more freedoms if we continue to try to regulate how people think and act." Fast forward less than 24 hours: Sen. Burns has withdrawn the legislation as reported by the Portland Press Herald.
Of course, Sen. Burns did not cite the actual motivations for this legislation or its impending consequences if passed. Instead, he told the Portland Press Herald via a statement, “Opponents of this bill and some in the media have poisoned the well of public discussion. They have been guided by an unwillingness to discuss factual information and inaccurate comparisons to the events in Indiana.”
The sudden introduction of this legislation is not happen stance. 31 states have have heightened protections for the exercise of religion. 18 of which passed state laws based on the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Guess which state is included in that 18? Bingo. Maine.
Read Washington Post article on 31 states
So, if Maine already has legislation that heightens protections for the exercise of religion, why was this legislation necessary? The answer is simple: Sen. Burn's bill had nothing to do with protecting religious freedom. It had everything to do with providing legal grounds for discrimination. I should note these grounds would have been quite unstable since the Maine Human Rights Act would not suddenly become null and void. So, in other words, the legislation would have resulted in a legal mess.
Perhaps, I should have mentioned this earlier, in full disclosure: I am gay. Beyond the legal implications of this legislation, I know what it means for young LGBT people when those they expect to have their backs propose laws or rules that undercut their very being. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, LGB youth are 4 times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely, to attempt suicide as their straight peers (read more here). If our lawmakers, celebrities, and heroes continue to press vehicles for intolerance, be it legislation, public statements, sermons, tweets, song lyrics, and other means, the isolation experienced by LGBT youth will not be defeated. Suicide will not become alien to the next generation. I know we can do better.
With this being said, I am also Catholic. Last May, I graduated from The Catholic University of America, the official university of the Catholic Church in the U.S., with a degree in political science and a minor in theology and religious studies. I am all for religious freedom. In fact, this discourse brings back vivid memories from a course I took called, "Religion & Public Policy." The significant consideration throughout the course was the United States Constitution. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is an elementary lesson, but it bears repeating: the U.S. Constitution offers us the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." If someone decides to open a business that operates in the public square, should he or she be able to deny service or fire an employee based on his or her religious beliefs as the owner? I answer this question by considering what it means to exercise one's religion. If seeing a gay couple hold hands as they order a pizza from your shop constitutes an infringement of religious exercise, it suggests that the actions of other persons can somehow dismantle your religious convictions just by seeing it. I do not think anyone becomes any less religious or unable to commit to their religious convictions by serving a gay couple a slice of dough and cheese. In fact, this sort of issue came to the forefront during my time at CUA. A lawsuit was filed suggesting that crucifixes on the walls of classrooms violated the religious freedom of Muslim students who used the rooms for prayer on occasion. Did the presence of the crucifix infringe upon religious exercise? A Muslim student Reef Al Shabnan said she saw signs of Catholicism all over campus: bells from the Basilica, priests, and Catholic references in class. The presence of these Catholic elements did not infringe upon Al Shabnan's exercise of her own religious convictions.
To press this point a bit more, consider the parables we learned about Jesus Christ. First, let me be perfectly clear, I do not think those working hard at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect taxes or gay persons are sinners, but we have to use the text as written. Luke 15 states:
"Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
Jesus did more than exchange money for a box of pizza. He welcomed "sinners" to his kitchen table. Being in the presence of "sinners" and breaking bread with them did not dismantle Jesus' convictions or moral standing. In the simplest way I can put it: Religion is not a license for discrimination. How many times has that been repeated throughout history? I know our brothers and sisters in the African-American community can testify to emphasizing this very point time and time again.
Let me just be completely upfront with those concerned with their ability to exercise religion if a gay couple happens to walk into their restaurant, print shop, convenience store, etc.
1. I do not care to turn you gay or change your convictions.
2. I am going to pay you money if you deliver on what your business was opened to do by way of serving the public.
3. I sit in a pew in a Catholic Church on Sunday. Father has never asked me to leave. He has never expressed that my "gay presence" disrupts or nullifies the religious exercise of all those also under God's House. Therefore, with all due respect, I think your pizza house is going to be just fine.
The bottom line is this: the "religious freedom" bill had little to do with religion. This now withdrawn bill in Maine and versions similar to it have everything to do with making a last ditch effort at undermining values which more and more people are adopting. Our neighbors are overwhelming convinced that all persons have inherent dignity, no matter their faith, sexual orientation, gender, age, race, color, physical or mental disability, or national origin.
I'm on the side of embracing dignity for all persons. Whether in church or in a pizza shop, let me repeat, I am on the side of embracing dignity for all persons. By withdrawing this legislation, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are beginning to embrace this notion as well. I would be happy to have a slice of pizza with Sen. Burns and I'll even pick up the tab.
Ryan Michael Fecteau is a Democratic member of the Maine House of Representatives. He represents District 11 which comprises a portion of the city of Biddeford in Southern Maine. Fecteau is the second youngest member of the legislature and the youngest openly gay state representative in the United States