Privileging prejudice: the threat and opportunity posed by the movement for 'religious freedom'

In the traditional Enlightenment sense "religious freedom" meant not being disadvantaged because of one's faith: Think of how Catholics or Jews where once excluded from particular professions or clubs but are no longer.

Now "religious freedom" has come to mean the opposite; the legal right to disadvantage LGBTI people in the name of religion.

Under this new twisted definition of "religious freedom", the license to discriminate is only available to people who have a religious or conscientious objection to the requirements of anti-discrimination law. The rest of us still have to abide by that law.

There are often no objective tests for what a religious objection might be. The basis for claiming an exemption from anti-discrimination law is defined by the person claiming it, not the state or society and sometimes not even established denominations.

In almost every case, the act of discrimination, the refusal of services, the hate speech, or whatever sin is committed in the name of "religious freedom", is directed against LGBTI people.

There are some exceptions. In the US, "religious freedom" has been used to justify denying women termination services and in some states there is a debate about whether religious freedom laws allow discrimination against interracial couples.

But nowhere has a special claim for "religious freedom" been made by people advocating for refugees, defending the poor, or in any way helping others.

To all intents and purposes, "religion freedom" is not about religion or freedom. It is about giving special legal privileges to prejudice.

The term mocks all those defenders of genuine freedom who believe in democracy rather than theocracy.

It particularly mocks those people of faith for whom religion means love for others, not power over them.

Christians "thrown to the lawyers"