“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government. … This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country, where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.” 

– Jeb Bush, New York Times First Draft blog, March 30

Over the past few days, we have heard from many on the conservative end of the spectrum, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, that the recently enacted and signed Indiana religious freedom law is of the utmost importance in protecting religious observance.

We respectfully disagree.

The law, which is both like and unlike a similar federal law enacted in the early 1990s (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA) and a number of state statutes, purports to ensure protection against public incursions into private religious exercise.

However, Gov. Mike Pence and the state have taken huge heat from many individuals and companies that believe the law’s intent and effect is to allow individuals to exercise discrimination in the guise of religious doctrine. Most vocal have been those who interpret the Indiana law to allow businesses to deny serving the LGBT community, whether for same-sex marriages or otherwise.

There are lots of disparate views as to whether the law would enable that result. Pence and legislators deny that intent and indicate that a clarifiying amendment may be coming soon.

Some states that have similar statutes protect against LGBT discrimination in other laws, and the federal government has its own set of protections. It should be noted that Missouri adopted a version of the RFRA statute in 2003, which at the time had some Jewish organizational support. Missouri does not have a law that includes the LGBT community among the groups protected against discrimination. Missouri legislators should take another look at that omission in view of the current, very real controversy.

The federal law was the subject of U.S. Supreme Court deliberation last term, in the much discussed Hobby Lobby decision that, among other things, allowed for-profit corporations to insert a religious defense to certain coverages under the Affordable Care Act.

Just as the court got Hobby Lobby wrong – essentially by ignoring the number of pre-RFRA cases that denied business entities the religious rights afforded individuals – Indiana has gotten this one wrong for two different reasons.

First, there is no compelling set of circumstances or situations requiring the passage of such a law. The claim that all sorts of religious practices or beliefs are being trod upon is a straw man being proffered to support its adoption. This is an effort to protect against a problem that largely doesn’t exist. The Obamacare situation was in no way exemplary of some widespread set of invasive regulations.

Second, unlike other states with RFRA knockoffs, Indiana has no anti-discrimination law preventing LGBTs from being treated differently under the law. Pence’s response that an amendment might be forthcoming seems less driven by intention than by the massive outpouring of criticism, including responses from companies and organizations threatening to sever ties from the state and forego having events there.

This law, not unlike voter ID laws predicated on limited or no evidence of voter fraud, seems more intended to build political support among a particular bloc of voters than it does seem needed to address a true social ill.

What is a social ill that requires significant focus and attention relates to the first part of Bush’s quote, the issue of tolerance or, as we prefer to call it, acceptance. Where are the public resources being dedicated to counter proliferating anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and anti-LGBT behavior in this country? The level of public education about these issues seems scant indeed.

The religious majority in this nation of ours deserves just as much protection as any minority in the practice of its beliefs. This is beyond question. But to use the RFRA laws as a sword to suggest there is substantial intrusion on private religious practice lurking out there is a deceit.

And to do so while a much more serious problem continues to grow – vitriol and violence toward minorities – is a distraction of the highest degree.