The Eclipse of Religious Liberty

American Conservative ^ | April 2, 2015 | Rod Dreher

[C19fan]

A week ago today, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a minor-league religious liberty law, one very close to the federal RFRA model, offering what, should it ever be appealed to in gay rights cases, would offer a small modicum of protection (the right to a hearing) to religious conservatives. And then the world came crashing down, with much of the American Establishment — business, entertainment, news media, Democratic politicians — coming down hysterically hard on the state. Then it happened in Arkansas, whose governor quickly backed away from a bill he had previously supported after Wal-mart cleared its corporate throat and gave him the stink-eye. And here we are.

It seems to me that the real and lasting meaning of what has happened here is how, in the court of public opinion (at least the public opinion that matters as to how the country is run), we now see that religious liberty, a First Amendment freedom, is something contemptible when it clashes with gay rights. Not only something unimportant, but something despicable.

[C19fan]

By the time the Left is done freedom of religion will mean you get to do whatever ritual your religion requires on the mandated day. Outside of that the state is omnipotent.

[fruser1]

Here’s one solution for bakers and photographers:

Accept the work order but then “fail” by saying you inadvertently put the wrong date down or something.

Photographer: “Oops, I had you down for April 24, not 14. I already have something scheduled on the 14th so can’t make your event. Sorry, here’s your refund.”

[vpintheak]

Sunshine soldiers and fair weather patriots backed this law. Then when there was a little trouble, they didnt even try to defend it, and wilted like the bloviating sissies they are.
These people make me sick, even worse than leftists. At least you know where a leftist stands.

[henkster]

Your take is correct. We have freedom of religion; we can attend the properly licensed church led by a licensed pastor of our choice, so long as we only express our beliefs within the confines of the approved church building during authorized church hours. Oh, and those beliefs must also be officially approved as well.

This is the same freedom of religion that existed in the USSR.

Of course these restrictions don’t apply to Moselms, who would actually kill you if you tried to impose any of them.

[oldbrowser]

in the court of public opinion (at least the public opinion that matters as to how the country is run), we now see that religious liberty, a First Amendment freedom, is something contemptible when it clashes with gay rights.

Haven't we learned anything from the Marxists? Public opinion is irrelevant. Take it to federal court. Fight it in the legislatures, fight it in the streets, fight it in the business world. Be outraged in the media.

Don't give an inch to the anti-Christian zealots.

[MrB]

Brought up on Rush yesterday.

Legalistas shot it down by citing some civil rights law/decision that said there were no limitations on liability in civil rights violation cases,

which is what they claim.

[MrB]

Step 1 -

POINT THE FINGER
and identify them AS “Anti-Christian Zealots”.

They’re hiding behind “civil rights activists” for now.

[tumblindice]

You didn't build that! Just pay your taxes, peasants, then shut up and fist your forehead to your homosexual Overlords.

[MrB]

these restrictions don’t apply to Moselms, who would actually kill you if you tried to impose any of them

---

The restriction wouldn’t apply to muslims for the same reason that the left doesn’t go after muslims for being “anti-gay”. “Pro Gay” is not the point, “anti-Christian” is the point.

[fruser1]

I didn’t hear that so take your word for it. I figured they’d at least have to PROVE that it was a civil rights violation. Missing an appointment is not in and of itself such a thing.

[all the best]

There is no more fundamental human right than the right to freely choose with whom we will associate. The freedom to choose with whom we will deal and trade. If we are not free to freely choose with whom we associate, then there is no freedom. Yes, we have the right to discriminate based on race, color, creed, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual proclivity, political persuasion, looks, astrological sign or whatever.
What kind of person would want others to be forced under penalty of law to deal with them? If anybody chooses not to associate for me socially or commercially I respect their decision. It is their right. No hard feeling, no animosity, hatred or ill will.
The only way that a large and increasingly diverse nation can survive is for people to be free to associate as they choose. Coercing people to associate against their will only lead to resentment, animosity and increased friction between groups. Force is an ugly and destructive thing. Peace and social harmony can only come from respecting the rights of others.
If we have to always resort to “religious freedom”, then we won’t even have that much longer. So small and cowardly. What makes anybody think that this one, lone right will be respected when every other fundamental right has been eroded away? Religious rights will become the obvious target. We need to stand up for our rights and for freedom. If people are not free to choose with whom they will associate and trade, why should they be free to worship as they choose?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very strong article by Rod Dreher.

Do we realize what actually happened here?

Are we ready to fight?

[CharlesOConnell]

“Peoples selling themselves into slavery and marching back out again…” GK Chesterton, Everlasting Man. We long ago sold out our religious freedom when we accepted population-control against African-Americans, when Nixon refrained from execising his constitutional authority to refuse to enforce judicial fiat in Roe and Doe, 1973, because abortion worked against “miscegeny”.

[Biggirl]

Going to disregard that!