You might have wondered why liberals who supported a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act more than 20 years ago are now attacking similar legislation now. Andrew Evans explains in a column for The Federalist website why the apparently contradictory stances are actually ideologically consistent.
So why are progressives in such a tizzy about these states’ RFRAs? Aren’t they being inconsistent and hypocritical? How could such progressives as Kennedy support RFRA then but progressives now so vehemently oppose it?
Progressives aren’t exactly being inconsistent or thoughtless reactionaries here. Instead, they are acting on one of the deepest impulses in their ideology: the pursuit of complete individual autonomy and self-realization. …
… The circumstances of the 1993 federal RFRA are essential for understanding why progressives (and indeed, nearly everybody) supported it then: At issue was the freedom of a small and historically repressed group (think the Trail of Tears) to practice their idiosyncratic religion. Native Americans had no great sway over the broader culture, and they did not have a sufficient mass to compel others to follow the dictates of their religion. At issue was simply the ability of few people to live how they wanted to live—to realize their lives according to the dictates of their conscience. The government was making it harder for them to live as they wanted to live, so the people, through Congress, rose up and defended this freedom. …
… The victims of “religious tyranny” then were a very sympathetic group: powerless Native Americans, humbly seeking to live out their faith. Everybody (except those three obstinate senators) could and did rally around them. But the context today is radically different.
The immediate context for RFRAs now is the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, which was decided only last year. The victim in that case of government oppression was not such a sympathetic group; instead, it was a huge chain store that employs more than 20,000 employees and brings in billions of dollars in revenue a year. Its owners are quite rich—and they happen to be evangelical Christians. …
… Gay-rights activists have a great concern with RFRAs like the ones passed in Arkansas and Indiana: They are worried the law could be used as a shield to protect evangelicals when they discriminate against gay couples. A Christian florist, baker, or even a pizza maker could refuse to offer his or her services at a gay wedding simply because the couple marrying is of the same gender, and the state RFRA could be used to protect the Christian business even as it discriminates.