RE: Makes you wonder if the Abolitionist movement could have been stymied if the Confederacy had made a “religious right to own slaves” argument.
_________________________________
Implicit in the above “wondering” of yours, is the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights for ethnic minorities.
But we are not talking about civil rights here. Gays ALREADY do have civil rights. What we’re talking about is participating in a ceremony that one’s religion (like Christianity, Islam, etc. ) teaches is sinful.
Racial discrimination was eventually deemed irrational because one’s physical appearance is irrelevant to one’s behavior and moral character. However, sexual PRACTICE, or sexual lifestyle, by definition has everything to do with one’s behavior — and that we do have a right to judge.
Our society has laws against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. Institutions have policies against intimacy between superiors and subordinates.
And if a corporate executive embarrasses a company because of a sex scandal, he may be fired. These examples demonstrate the necessity of discriminating against sexual behavior deemed harmful, perverted or immoral.
The RFRA is simply an attempt to PREVENT people from FORCING a religious person from participating in a ceremony he deems immoral. That’s all.
All sarcasm aside, where the law is going to be challenged is the commerce angle. No one has to participate in a gay ceremony or ritual, that part of the law is air tight and is an extension of the law signed by Clinton. But, commerce is regulated by the Congress per the Constitution and that is where this lawe is likely to be attacked. No one can force me to participate in a ceremony, but at the same time, when I choose to enter into the stream of congress I volunteer to be regulated by the federal government. If I don’t want to serve gays, or blacks or Protestants, or redheads, I don’t go into business, not go into business and then discriminate. Eventually this law will be tweaked per a Constitutional challenge.