By Libby Sternberg
(Note: You must read to the end of this story for an
important update.)
In what civil rights
activists are calling a “stunning slap in the face” to local devout Muslims,
the town of Gallate, TX (pop: 13,000) has passed an ordinance that forces local
food vendors that provide catering services to any public event to include
“among the proteins offered, at least one pork item.”
Mohammed al Ibrahim, the
owner of Specialty Foods in Gallate, operates a food catering business that,
until the ordinance, regularly landed local town food contracts and took part
in public events. Now, Al Ibrahim will have to consider going against his faith
and handling pork products or pulling out of the events and contracts
altogether.
“A good portion of my
business is taken away with this,” he said, standing outside his facility,
which also includes a popular local restaurant offering Middle Eastern and
Mediterranean fare. “I cannot continue to operate successfully in Gallate with
this law.”
A town council member,
speaking anonymously, said she understood Al Ibrahim’s point of view, but
believes the town’s common good comes first.
“The pork business is our
heart and soul. It puts us on the map. We can’t be offering contracts and
opportunities to a group that deliberately excludes our economic interest from
its offerings.”
One council member, Jean
Sherwood, suggested that the new ordinance was about promoting Gallate and its
main business, not in restricting anyone. “If Specialty Foods wants to operate
without including pork products in their menus, we don’t have a problem with
that.”
Several civil liberty groups
have offered to challenge the Gallate ordinance in court, but the Al Ibrahims
have not decided whether they’ll sue. A
local lawyer suggested the Al Ibrahim family has a good case.
“On the merits, this is one
of the most straightforward violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
a court is likely to see,” Wayne Martin said. “The family’s religious beliefs
prohibit them from providing food services in Gallate under these
circumstances. The council mandate at issue here cripples them.”
***
April Fool’s. This story is NOT TRUE. So don’t
start sending it around the interwebz as an example of hick Southwesterners
going after Muslims. In fact, the “lawyer” quote at the end of the story is
actually a paraphrasing of the opening paragraph of Hobby Lobby’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That was the reason I wrote
this tale: to illustrate, for many of my liberal friends, some principles at
play in the Hobby Lobby case. If you found yourself sympathizing with the Al
Ibrahim family in this story, then just substitute the Green name (owners of
Hobby Lobby) in the tale. Instead of being forced to offer pork products, slip
in the words “abortifacient contraceptives.” And instead of the fictional town
of Gallate, use “the Affordable Care Act” or “Health and Human Services” or
even, “the United States of America.”
I know this story isn’t an
exact parallel to what has been happening to Hobby Lobby (one could argue that
the ACA contraceptive mandate is far more restrictive of religious rights than
this fictional town ordinance), but the large points are applicable. The
government of the United States is compelling a devout family to offer
something that goes against their religious tenets.
I know my friends mean well
when they offer passionate arguments about the value of contraceptives and why
women should have easy access to them. But, like the Muslim family in this
story, the Greens shouldn’t be compelled to offer products that go against
their religious views to achieve the government’s goal.
I know my friends mean well
when they use glib slogans such as “Keep Bosses Out of My Bedroom,” but that
glibness demonstrates a lack of understanding of the facts of this case, the
principles involved, and any smidgeon of sympathy for the Greens’ predicament.
We don’t know how the U.S.
Supreme Court will rule in the Hobby Lobby case, but I at least hope my liberal
friends can now see that the Greens have a right to their views, and that the
government can achieve its goals—whether those objectives are town promotion or
contraceptive access—without impinging on the religious views of individual citizens.
___
Libby Sternberg is a novelist.
This post also appears at Liberty Unyielding.
No comments:
Post a Comment