Following the Supreme Court’s
 redefinition of marriage in
Obergefell v. Hodges, the
 American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) has declared that it will
 no longer support the federal
 Religious Freedom Restoration
 Act (RFRA) or state analogues.
This is a stunning reversal,
 considering Religious Freedom
 Restoration Acts’ history.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced in 1993 by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and (then) Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced
 in 1993 by none other than
 Sen.
 Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and
 (then) Rep. Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y., as a direct response to
the watering down of existing
 Free Exercise protections
through Employment Division
v. Smith, a 1990 Supreme Court decision. With the ACLU’s help,
the Religious Freedom
 Restoration Act was signed
 into law by President Bill Clinton.


Fast-
forward
 to today. The ACLU now says
that the many liberals who
supported the Religious
 Freedom Restoration Act,
including the ACLU itself, had
in fact created a license to 
discriminate against LGBT
persons “in virtually all
 aspects of their lives.”
But, as explained by the
Heritage Foundation’s Sarah
 Torre, Religious Freedom
 Restoration Acts do not
 guarantee that religious
 believers will win in every case.
Rather, a person or institution
of faith must first prove to a
judge that a government action
results in a substantial burden
 on his or its religious exercise,
 and the government is then given the
 opportunity to show a compelling
 justification for its actions. The
 ACLU had argued for the
passage of the Religious Freedom
 Restoration Act precisely because
 it struck the right balance, so it is
 more than ironic to now see the
 ACLU leading the charge
 against state religious freedom
bills that are effectively identical
 to the federal law it once
championed.
Since it is labeling these laws
 hate legislation, you would
think the ACLU had purged
 itself of all association with
these supposedly bigoted laws
 long ago. But you would be
 wrong.
In 2014, the ACLU filed a
 lawsuit against the U.S. Army.
 The Army had refused to allow
 a Sikh college student, Iknoor
 Singh, to enlist in ROTC
 (Reserve Officers’ Training
 Corps) unless he followed
Army grooming and uniform
regulations. This would have
required him to shave his beard,
 remove his turban, and cut his
 hair. Because his religious
 beliefs required him not to do
 these things, Singh requested
a religious accommodation.
When the Army denied this
request, the ACLU argued for
 Singh’s rights, quoting the
 Religious Freedom Restoration
 Act in his defense.
According to the ACLU’s 
complaint, the Army’s refusal
 to accommodate Singh violated
 the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which protects
 “fundamental religious-exercise
 rights.” The ACLU and Singh
won the case because of the
existence of the federal
 Religious Freedom Restoration
 Act.
The ACLU filed a similar lawsuit
in Texas in 2007 against a judge
 who demanded that a Sikh man
 remove his turban in a courtroom.
This turban was worn because of
 religious beliefs—according to
 the former Texas ACLU legal
director, “the turban signifies
 devotion to God, and is an
 integral part of a Sikh’s identity.”
The ACLU used the Texas state
 Religious Freedom Restoration
Act to argue that the judge
 violated the man’s freedom of
religious exercise by asking him
 to remove his turban. An ACLU
 volunteer attorney working on
 the case stated, “We believe
 RFRA’s prohibition on
substantially burdening a
person’s free exercise of
religion clearly applies to the
 judge in this case.” Once
 more, the ACLU’s use of the
Religious Freedom Restoration
 Act resulted in the protection
 of sincerely held religious beliefs.
In 2009, the American Civil
 Liberties Union defended a
Quaker in a lawsuitagainst the
 federal government, asking
 it to recognize conscientious
 objectors when men register
for the draft. Tobin Jacobrown,
 a Quaker, did not fill out the
 Selective Service forms since
there was no option on the
form acknowledging
conscientious objectors.
For Quakers, pacifism has long
been a significant religious
 principle, and they are not
supposed to participate in any
 institution they feel violates that
 belief. Jacobrown did not
 register for the draft because
 of his religious belief as a
Quaker. The ACLU’s lawsuit
on behalf of Jacobrown cited
the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act to ask that
 the government recognize
conscientious objectors when
 men register for the draft.
The ACLU has also used
Religious Freedom Restoration
 Act protections to fight for
the religious freedom rights
of Muslims. In 2005, the ACLU
 filed a suit on behalf Americans
 who were returning to the
 country after attending a
 conference on Islam. Because
 of a special terrorism
screening policy, the Department
of Homeland Security detained
 numerous conference
attendees at the U.S.-Canadian
 border upon returning to the
 United States. In the lawsuit,
 the ACLU said the policy
 implemented by the
Department of Homeland
Security violated the rights of
 conference attendees under
the federal Religious Freedom
 Restoration Act.
These are a few of the many cases
 in which the ACLU has defended
religious freedom under the
 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
So what can possibly explain the
ACLU’s change of heart when it
 used to rely so heavily, and so
 recently, on state and federal
 Religious Freedom Restoration
 Acts?

Unlike the ACLU of the past, the ACLU of the present believes that only certain religious beliefs are worthy of protection and that others should be suppressed.
Simple. Unlike the ACLU of the past, the ACLU of the present believes that only certain religious beliefs are worthy of protection and that others should be suppressed.
The beliefs on the current banish list include the convictions:
  • that marriage is the union of one man and one woman (i.e., the belief President Obama held until he “evolved” on the issue in 2012),
  • that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage,
  • that religious institutions and
  •  business owners should not
  •  be required to assist in the
  •  provision of contraceptives 
  • and abortifacients to their 
  • employees,
  • that male and female are
  •  based on objective biological 
  • realities meriting respect and 
  • affirmation, not repudiation, and
  • that boys and men shouldn’t
  •  have unfettered access to girls’
  • and women’s bathrooms, lockers
  • , and showers (and vice versa).
The common thread here is that the
ACLU wants to shunt religious beliefs
 that in any way conflict with the current
 liberal orthodoxy on human sexuality—
even if those religious beliefs are rooted
in reasoned arguments and are shared
 by mainstream Christians, Muslims,
Jews, and others.
Where the ACLU once defended
sincerely held religious beliefs that
 were unpopular, it now sacrifices the
 religious liberty rights of millions of
 good-faith Americans before the altar
of sexual politics. What a shame.