First, one thing to note is that the law is not something new or unusual – it is based on the Religious Freedom Act signed by President Clinton in 1993 which has been essentially duplicated in 20 other states.  So the first question we should ask is why there is such focus on this version of the law now.

One possible reason for the particular focus and notice of this specific version of the law is that, in general, we as a society have become more accepting of government (and the force that comes with it) being the solution to our problems.   By protesting this law we are essentially saying that we would prefer government to use violence (threat of jail or arrest) to punish those who discriminate rather than us as citizens using peaceful means such as boycotts against those who discriminate.   

When we ask government to enforce something we are, at the end of the day, condoning violent and coercive action by the government for this is the primary tool government has.   (This isn’t meant as hyperbole but a real point….think about it, if someone refuses to follow a government law repeatedly, ultimately it always and only ends in violence.). This has led to an increase in police militarization and government force and things like police abuse.  The more power we give government, the more we see the types of violence and abuse we have seen lately.  It also costs us money and in many cases has a different effect than what the laws intended.

Without a doubt, discrimination is a terrible thing — but many have recently taken it as a given that because it is bad, that government is the best solution to resolve it.  Not all bad things are best solved by government.   Let’s all reconsider whether government is our best tool for addressing discrimination.

One humble suggestion:  The huge backlash against Indiana shows there is a lot of people with a lot of passion about this– this energy might be better directed to boycotting people or businesses who ACTUALLY discriminate rather than a law that ALLOWS people to discriminate.   

If there is a business who is discriminating against people based on being gay or based on a certain race or religion I will gladly join a boycott of that business.  

As for the law, you CAN be against discrimination but ALSO in favor of the freedom for people to have the RIGHT to discriminate.  Just as you can be against certain opinions but in favor of free speech.  Should we as a free society allow bigots, jerks, fools, neo-nazis and klansmen to exist?  Should we allow them to have freedom to speak their ideas?  Most people, most civil rights activists and the Supreme Court agree we should.  We should allow them, despite being reprehensible because it is part of what being in a free society means.   It doesn’t mean we support them or agree with them.   So should we also allow people and businesses to discriminate or freely associate with who they wish?  If we don’t, at what point does government have the right to do harm against a peaceful (albeit offensive person)?

We’ve come a long way as a society.  The massive public protests and social media backlash against Indiana show that people do not support discrimination.   In this case the heart of those protesting is in the right place but wishing for government to be the enforcer of our desires for a discrimination free society is misguided.  Let’s instead allow freedom, encourage government to leave non violent people alone no matter how foolish, bigoted or misguided they are and focus that energy on boycotting those who actually discriminate and educating those who do about a better and more peaceful alternative.

I really care very deeply about fighting and stoping discrimination.  I also care deeply about reducing opportunity for government abuse and for increasing freedom…even the freedom for someone to be a bad person.   I care so much about so many people who are passionate about this issue and my intent isn’t to offend anyone — just to provide some food for thought.