Posted on 04/01/2015 4:34:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
When President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, the law had broad support in both major political parties and was widely perceived as an expression of a pluralistic society's tolerance. When Gov. Mike Pence signed Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act last week, the law became a bitterly partisan issue, denounced by Democrats across the country as an instrument of bigotry.
This dramatic shift in attitudes has less to do with the substance of the statute, which is similar to the federal version that has been around for more than two decades, than with the perceived motives of the law's supporters. Progressives who used to defend religious freedom have turned against it because they see it as a cover for conservative causes.
Indiana's RFRA, like the federal version, says the government "may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it can show that the imposition is "the least restrictive means" of serving "a compelling governmental interest." That is the test the Supreme Court applied under the First Amendment until 1990, when it changed course and ruled that neutral, generally applicable laws are constitutional even if they make it difficult or impossible for someone to practice his religion.
The 1990 case involved two Oregon members of the Native American Church who were fired from their jobs as drug counselors and denied unemployment benefits because they consumed peyote cactus buttons, which contain the psychedelic mescaline. At the time, the church's ceremonial use of peyote was exempted from the federal ban on peyote, but not Oregon's.
The idea that the government can prohibit an essential religious practice without violating the First Amendment provoked dismay across the political spectrum. That reaction was reflected in nearly unanimous congressional support for RFRA, which was approved by a voice vote in the House and passed the Senate with just three dissenters.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that RFRA cannot constitutionally be applied to state or local governments, state legislatures began passing their own versions of the law. Twenty states, including Indiana, now have them; in 11 more, state constitutions have been interpreted to impose similar restrictions.
For years, the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-leaning organizations supported these laws, which have been used to protect minority religious practices involving animal sacrifices, eagle feathers, long hair, symbolic daggers and the psychedelic tea ayahuasca, among other things. But last year, when the Supreme Court said the federal RFRA requires exceptions to Obamacare's contraceptive mandate, the ACLU declared that free birth control takes precedence over religious freedom.
Similarly, social conservatives who supported Indiana's RFRA portrayed it as a shield for bakers, florists, photographers and other business owners who face discrimination complaints because they decline to participate in gay weddings. Indiana's RFRA explicitly applies to judicial or administrative proceedings in which the government is not a party, which would include discrimination complaints.
Despite the national uproar provoked by the terrifying prospect that the law would help people who balk at baking gay wedding cakes or photographing gay weddings, that possibility remains speculative. University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious liberty who supports gay marriage but is sympathetic to the claims of conscientious objectors who do not want to facilitate it, notes that "nobody has ever won a religious exemption from a discrimination law under an RFRA standard."
RFRA's impact on such cases would be relevant only in Indianapolis, Bloomington and South Bend, which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana law does not, which means the "license to discriminate" that worries RFRA opponents already exists in most of the state.
On Tuesday, while promising an amendment to clarify that the new law "does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples," Pence lamented that the RFRA controversy has unfairly sullied Hoosiers' reputation for hospitality. Rather more troubling is the damage that such overheated arguments have done to bipartisan respect for religious freedom.
The whole point here is that the government or the courts should NOT interfere with a Christian business owner’s right to refuse business to anyone or any organization based on his or her deeply-held religious convictions!
What I’ve thought about this legislation, all along, is that it’s the “gay issue” that brought it out ... BUT ... it’s not JUST about gays, but preventing Christian business owners from being forced into do several things that they consider to be VIOLATIONS of deeply-held religious convictions!
I posted elsewhere ...
— — —
To me, this kind of legislation seems to have a lot more to do with OTHER THINGS, other than gays. It seems that the “gay issue” is driving the discussion, but to me, that “gay issue” seems to be a minor point, as compared to ALL of what legislation guaranteeing “Christian Conscience” in business is about.
Unless I’m mistaken about what this kind of bill means, I see this bill as preserving the “conscience” of a Christian owner of a business from serving or doing business with a person who violates that “religious conscience” by who they are or what they represent or what they stand for. SO, in that sense, it is NOT TARGETED at gays, but all sorts of other things that would violate the “Christian’s conscience”!
A sampling of some other things I can think of, in which one would DENY SERVICE to people, would be a group coming in for Pizza who supports ABORTION! That would really violate a Christian’s conscience.
Or, if a Mormon church group came in and had an “after church Pizza gathering” some Sunday afternoon. I would DENY THEM SERVICE as they are one of the largest CULT GROUPS in America ... and as far as I’m concerned Mormons shouldn’t get service from ANY CHRISTIAN BUSINESS WHATSOEVER, ANYWHERE!!
If Mitt Romney were to come in to that Pizza place he SHOULD BE DENIED SERVICE because of clearly being a Mormon!
I would DENY SERVICE to GLENN BECK, too, for his Mormonism!
SO ... it doesn’t appear to be a “gay issue” but a VERY REAL “Religious Conscience” issue and opens the door to CHRISTIAN BUSINESS to serving Christians and not VIOLATING their religious conscience!
The “Liberal Left” is becoming more fascist each day. According to the Liberal Left, homosexual rights trump any freedom of religion now. So the “New State Religion” is becoming Homosexuality. So where do regular straight heterosexual Christian and Jewish people go to have their religious freedoms now?
The issue is pretty simple. I have very strong belief in the “word of God” and especially Leviticus and God’s directive toward the abomination of homosexual acts and His directives relating there to. I want the state to allow me to practice my beliefs and I want to defend them with RFRA. These people are attacking my freedom of belief. The Arkansas Governor will now be kicked out. The Indiana governor makes me puke.
LGBT MAFIA CONTINUES TO TERRORIZE ELDERLY FEMALE CHRISTIAN FLOWER SHOP OWNER
EDITOR’S NOTE: For Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman, and hundreds of others like her, it is a scary time to be a small business owner if you’re a follower of Jesus Christ. The LGBT Mafia does not want toleration, acceptance or even equality. No. What they want is complete and total dominance to their radical agenda.
In February, I wrote an article about a 70 year-old Christian florist in Washington State named Barronelle Stutzman, who was being sued by a sodomite couple because she had politely turned down their request to furnish flowers for their so-called ‘nuptials.’ Ms. Stutzman had gladly served the homosexual pair, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, for years with no problem at all.
However, when they approached her to arrange the flowers for their “wedding,” she sweetly told them that she couldn’t do that because homosexual marriage goes against what the Bible says and because she is a Christian, she could not be a part of their ceremony. She offered to refer them to another florist, but they declined.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=32130
What the queer mafia is doing to this woman is unconscionable. I hope they get what is coming to them. I find it disgusting that a Christian can be abused like this and she is made to look like the bad guy. Sick to death of these bullies and their supporters.
When they use courts to bring suit against the Muslim Butcher who won’t sell pork, then this might be more than Bull S—t of the Left.
Matthew 5:10-12 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
I guess I need to be reminded of the end game. Thanks.
Of course a nationwide democrat smear campaign isn’t a nationwide democrat smear campaign until that greasy dwarf George Stephanopolous kicks things off on the charade of his on ABC.
How RFRA Became Controversial:
People the left hates started using it.
I agree with you, Skeeter.
The whole thing is a charade by the Leftwing Media to drive the 2016 election.
In 2012 we had the “Republican War on Women.”
In 2016 it will be called the “Republican Law Allowing Bigotry.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.