In spite of nearly half of the states in the union having a law to protect one’s religious rights, Indiana got enough attention to make one think that this kind of law was the first of its kind and hated by everyone. All the attention made me curious if the law was any different from other religious freedom acts, so I compared Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to that of Connecticut, since Connecticut has recently declared a statewide boycott of its fellow state. Though I lack a law degree, I could make general sense of these laws, and they are relatively similar in the idea of protecting individuals’ rights to exercise freely in their religious beliefs. But the similarities stop there: Indiana goes much further.

While Connecticut emphasizes the protection of the individual from the government, Indiana expands that application to include businesses, organizations, trusts — basically, any entity that could be sued (Sec. 7). Indiana’s law also says that if the person/entity feels like they have been “substantially burdened” they may make a legal claim, whether the accused aggressor is a government entity or not. And if the government is not the offender, it has the “unconditional right” to intervene on behalf of the burdened entity (Sec. 9). In other words, in a vacuum, the government rushes to the aid of the victim, that is whoever’s religious freedom is being burdened. Section 10 of the law goes on to explain that this law can aid the plaintiff in a civil suit and be used to determine what damages, if any, are merited. To reiterate, Connecticut’s law states that the government cannot burden the religious freedom of a person, and the person reserves the right to challenge the government’s actions.

Yes, on paper, this law is about religious freedom, so, rhetorically, why all the controversy? Of course, timing is everything. As of March 2015, thirty-seven states permit same-sex unions, determined either by referendum or by court-mandate. I am sure Indiana and twelve other states recognize that their resistance to same-sex marriages is coming to a close. For many in these states and others, this is an issue deeply grounded in faith and religious convictions. The situation could be compared to taking some really bad medicine–that this is happening against their will, and they are being forced to tolerate or accept foreign values. For others, this is a rights issue. A group of people are not being treated equally, and are being singled out for having a preference that strays from tradition. They see this as a civil rights issue.

Don’t be offended if I oversimplified or overlooked your point of view, but this distinction is important. I don’t doubt that many legislators in Indiana felt that the same-sex marriage wave would soon hit their state, and either wanted to or felt a legal obligation to protect those who are morally opposed to same-sex marriage. This law could protect the shop-owner who doesn’t want to endorse what they perceive as immorality by providing a service to a gay wedding; it could also protect ministers and perhaps even justices of the peace (conjecture) from conducting a same-sex marriage.

Again, though, we must ask, if you are trying to protect a minority, then why the controversy? I can see several reasons that all point at double standards and an abuse of legal privilege.

First, the common example to challenge the would-be discriminators is the florist who sells flowers to the adulterer or the justice/minister marrying a divorcee but not wanting to provide services for a same-sex couple. But of course, the counter argument is that if you don’t know those details you’re not endorsing anything (Well, that’s not how righteous judgement works). Second, there is an argument that this is not about discrimination but about religious freedom; however discrimination based on sexual orientation is not illegal in Indiana. This could have been addressed along with the bill. The governor emphasized that that was not at issue here, but clearly it has become the issue. Also, Section 11 of Indiana’s law has some vague language about this law not intending to create a claim or “cause of action” by an employee against an employer. This could in fact, protect an employer from discrimination suits. So again, one must ask, is this really about religious freedom?

I do think it has everything to do with religious convictions, but not in freedom to exercise a religion. In fact, as a Christian, I find it uncomfortable when we make laws that require or allow individuals and especially corporations to impose their beliefs on others. A key part of Christianity is the freedom to choose to be a Christian or not. So it seems that Christian legalism is being given freedom to govern in this situation. A rather dangerous and unconstitutional position for an organized religious system.

Yes, there is a side of this debate that addresses the need of a group’s religious values to be protected, but in this case, I would argue that beliefs do not need to be protected to the extent that they are done here, where there is a slightest chance that it would allow someone to infringe upon another’s rights. To extend protection to interactions between individuals and entities gets almost too broad and impractical to govern. To what extent is an individual protected to carry out his beliefs? And what are we protecting here? The right to deny another individual’s rights? I would hope not.

Indiana’s governor has said he wants legislation this week that would clarify that services cannot be denied, though there will be nothing to address civil rights. I’m relieved that they could be willing to put their pens where their mouths are and clarify that this law is not meant to discriminate, but the far reaches of this law to protect a business at the cost of the individual strikes the same nerve that was unsettled with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The right to infringe on another’s right on religious grounds doesn’t sit well with me. That’s not what faith is all about.