Indiana Bill is a wake up call, equality must prevail

One of the most controversial news stories in this past week was Indiana Governor Mike Pence's decision to sign into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which enables individuals or corporations to cite serving LGBTQ* individuals as damaging to their religious freedom and essentially deny them service based on their sexual orientation. This news has garnered many thought-provoking, even heartbreaking responses, and rightly so -- at the heart of the matter lies a deep question, a conflict between two inalienable rights: the right to religious freedom, and the right to live free from discrimination of sexual orientation.

The United States government prides itself in operating under a secular system. The separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of our government. Yet the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and several other recent incidents reveal how religious lobbies can twist and turn religious expression into something that is inherently discriminatory and immoral. Just last year, the Supreme Court a the precedent for family-owned corporations when Hobby Lobby was allowed to bypass federal laws that required it to provide contraception to its employees because it violated their religious freedom. 

Of course, religious freedom is essential, enshrined by U.S. culture and the First Amendment.

But while religious freedom is one of the founding principles of the United States, this does not mean that it should be used as an argument to invalidate other essential human rights. While LGBTQ* rights are not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, they are undoubtedly as essential, and their preservation as precious, as any other protection granted by the Bill of Rights. The way religious freedom is invoked in legislation such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has become quite discriminatory. Religious freedom is the ability to express a religion or religious belief without the threat of persecution. When freedom of religious expression is manipulated to lead to even more persecution, and then that persecution is enshrined by the law, something has gone wrong. (Not to mention, it makes little sense why this law inherently favors some beliefs, while certain religious groups in the United States remain actively threatened.) When allowed, institutions and individuals will interpret their own freedoms as broadly as possible, but can it be that one person's expression of freedom, unchecked, may lead to the persecution of another? Yes. Simply put, no essential right should be used as an excuse to invalidate another.

This conclusion, however, is far from universally acknowledged. As the 2012 Chick-fil-A controversy (which arose after it came to the public's attention that the chain's profits were being managed by the family owners to oppose LGBTQ* rights) and the contentious decision to disband Tufts Christian Fellowship prove, tension exists -- even here inside the so-called "Tufts Bubble" -- about the relative expression of human rights.

The fight against discrimination never truly ends. Yes, there are victories, and they should never be understated or ignored, but winning a battle is far from winning a war, and we must acknowledge the prejudice which still exists, in order to fight it.