Posted on 04/03/2015 7:54:40 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, a consultant of the National Rifle Association, discusses the findings and recommendations of the National School Shield Program at the National Press Club in Washington in this April 2, 2013, file photo. Republican Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson rejected a religion bill he had said he would sign into law, reversing course after a firestorm of criticism assailing such legislation as discriminating against gays and lesbians, on April 1, 2015.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Indiana and Arkansas revised on Thursday new religious freedom acts that had drawn criticism from rights groups and U.S. companies that assailed them as discriminatory against gays.
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, signed his state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law minutes after it passed in the statehouse.
Indiana Governor Mike Pence, also a Republican, signed a revised religious freedom law that amended one he signed last week. The original measure catapulted the state into a firestorm because it lacked specific provisions to prevent denial of services and other discrimination against gays.
The state drew the ire of companies like Apple Inc, boycotts of official travel by the states of New York and Connecticut, and protests by civil liberties groups and individuals from around the country.
Some local politicians and the state's largest newspaper, the Indianapolis Star, called for an immediate fix to the bill, fearing it would pummel the state's economy and create the perception that Indiana was intolerant of certain groups.
"In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation," Pence said in a statement.
Pence did not mention gender identity or sexual orientation in the statement.
As pressure built against Indiana, legislators in Arkansas prepared to vote on that state's RFRA, and Hutchinson came under pressure from Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the world's largest retailer, concerned the bill would send the wrong message about the state. Wal-Mart is headquartered in Arkansas.
Hutchinson said the state had crafted an "Arkansas solution" meant to make the state's religious freedom law more closely mirror a federal law that had been signed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
"It recognizes the diversity and culture of our workforce and protects religious freedom," Hutchinson said.
Critics have said the measures were part of a broader effort in socially conservative states to push back against a series of U.S. court decisions allowing same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up the issue this month.
Supporters have said the laws do not allow for discrimination and are needed to protect religious freedom.
Twenty U.S. states and the federal government have RFRAs, which allow individuals to sue the government if they believe their First Amendment religious rights have been violated.
The original measures in Indiana and Arkansas go further than all but that of Texas, allowing lawsuits between private parties. The Texas law also includes provisions that it cannot be used to violate civil rights.
That raised the possibility of businesses using the law as a defense if they are sued, such as realtors for refusing to show homes to a member of the LGBT community or caterers if they rejected a request to provide for a same-sex wedding.
In Indiana, lawmakers flanked by gay-rights activists unveiled changes to protect civil liberties. Thursday's news conference was a dramatic turnaround from Pence's signing act, which was attended by some religious activists who decried homosexuality as a mortal sin.
The rewritten Indiana proposal specifies that it does not authorize a provider to refuse to do business with anyone on the basis of "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service."
However, churches and religious organizations are exempt, which could allow them to use the law as a defense if they were sued by an individual claiming discrimination.
Gutless, mealy-mouthed, panty-waist, hand-wringing bed-wetters.
We have a perfect right to be for or against any law whether the politicians and liberals like it or not.
In other words, it is worthless.
I am sure once again that teligious liberty has been sacrificed on the altar of sexual excess.
So now are the liberals happy, and will this story go away as quickly as the liberals forced it into the national news???
I think it is high time for straight people to dump Apple products.
> I think it is high time for straight people to dump Apple
> products.
I would if I could, but I’ve always avoided them.
Overpriced.
Smarmy.
Elitist.
And now, Gay.
As I posted in another thread, a bit earlier:
Let me point out something that is obvious, yet virtually overlooked in this latest example of Leftist bully tactics.
Most Conservative spokesmen today--most Conservative organizations in America today--take an approach to the battle which basically concedes what the Left has already accomplished in its assault on personal responsibility & individual liberty. Most only seek to hold a line that yields no more.
Thus only a few of us still insist that the whole fabric of legislation that forbids discrimination against various protected classifications by private individuals & private businesses is wrong; fundamentally wrong in denying people the freedom to use their own property for what were always legal purposes in the past. We after all, as free people, have always claimed the right to make our own decisions--that is to discriminate in our personal choices. It is not something aimed against any group; rather a right that all free men & women have in common.
When Conservative spokesmen concede the past campaigns ever broadening the list of protected categories--broadening the limitations on other peoples' choices; they create a situation where the Left can only continue--successfully continue--to ever more aggressively push the envelope. Their strategy--those who supposedly speak for us--gurantees defeat. It surrenders a major part of the primary argument on our side, i.e. personal freedom in one's own choices, while allowing the foe to pick targets one at a time, while citing the previous now conceded triumphs in restricting the rest of us, as a precedent.
Can anyone imagine fighting a war, where every bit of territory previously gained by the foe, is forever conceded to the foe? How long would it be, with such a method of engagement, before the result was total conquest of the idiots employing that methodology?
Instead, please consider adopting this approach: "Civil Rights" Or Personal Freedom.
Another obvious advantage of a realistic counter-attack that concedes nothing, is that it avoids the necessity of appearing as anti-anyone--something that much of the youth has been conditioned to reject without analysis.
William Flax
Well said!
Passive resistance measures could be the key - if I was forced by the state gesappo to bake a cake for a couple of swishers, I couldn't guarantee that it would be up to the quality standards for heterosexuals, nor could I guarantee that perhaps I didn't mistake Ex-Lax for chocolate. Just saying.
> Ex-Lax for chocolate
Given their proclivities, it would probably be the equivalent of a honeymoon aphrodisiac.
It’s times like these when I wish that we could tar and feather...
Whoever advised Pence for this part of his PRESIDENTIAL campaign and advised him to do this after he’s got talk show host, after talk show host, sticking up and defending him. But because they didn’t expect this backlash WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED .Have Pence turn around after those talkys did a great job of getting his name out there. Then makes them look like a bunch of jerks !Every advisor Should be fired !
No matter what he does or says the Left isn’t going to be satisfied. Walmart could have been defused by explaining their pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control pills. The big mouth from computers shooting his mouth off should have been asked about their markets in Iran and other Islamic societies and Sharia law. Basketball twits like Barkley should have gotten portrayed as a mindless political correctness dribblers totally ignorant of what that law is about. Foaming at the mouth with anti Christian/ religion drivel which is a disguised war on religion that’s using the device of “political correctness” Which once firmly emplanted we all do the goose step to.
Pence and what’s his name from Arkansas should have stood their ground. This has nothing to do with their gubnatorial re-elections. Both have been a good governors and should be re-elected. But neither are presidential material. Their both Betty Boop “I wanna be loved by you” candidates.
Not tough love daddys.
Correction
But neither are presidential material. They’re both Betty Boop “I wanna be loved by you” candidates.
Not tough love daddys.
Personal responsibility. Each person is responsible for his or her life and all income. No more welfare. We have almost 100 million sitting on ass. Yes, unemployment is about 1/3 -not 5.5 %.
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.