Posted on 03/27/2015 6:40:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
INDIANAPOLIS The governor of Indiana signed the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law on Thursday, resisting critics who asserted that the legislation would allow people of faith to discriminate against homosexuals.
Gov. Mike Pence signed SB 101 into law in a closed ceremony, with an estimated 70 t0 80 invited guests attending the event.
Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith, he said in a statement. The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.
The bill mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in the 1990s by then-President Bill Clinton. The legislation prohibits the government from substantially burden[ing] a persons exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means is used in furthering the interest.
Pence noted that while the federal government provides religious freedom protections, some states do not.
(Excerpt) Read more at christiannews.net ...
BTW, Indiana is not the first state to have a law like this.
States that have preceded Indiana in passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act include Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois and Connecticut.
I believe Connecticut recognizes gay marriage. I don’t believe gays who get “married” ( note the quotes ) in that state will find any shortage of bakers or photographers who will service them.
Homosexuals used to be content to live and let live. Now they want to force you to participate in their perverted weddings or punish you for not celebrating it.
It used to be that the First Amendment was all you needed.
This was all brought about by the flawed, unconstitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the whole idea of “public accommodations,” which was invented to justify it. Business owners should always have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
It’s funny to me that almost no one would think a thing about a Christian baker refuses to make a cake for a divorce party or for a wedding where a man is marrying 3 women. But mention the word “gay” and they go into total meltdown.
It’s one thing to refuse to sell someone a doughnut and even though I think people should have that right, it’s something that is certainly worthy of debate. But the inability to see the difference between this and forced participation is disingenuous at the least.
From a local Indianapolis WISH-TV article I read this morning, 19 other states also have passed this law.
Wait...what?
Hey, I'm sorry...it's just that these homo threads have so many double entendres in them that I'm sometimes confused as to who is doing what to whom.
Are Indiana taxpayer still forced to fund the Kinsey sex research library?
Can they opt out of it now?
A lawyer who supports same sex marriage cannot be forced to litigate on behalf of legislation opposed to it. He or she can consider to take a case or client.
Publishers used to be able to reject works they found objectionable (you couldn’t force a printer or record label to produce copies of your obscene or objectionable works).
Now the sodomites are litigating when a t-shirt printer refuses to print gay pride shirts or pro-same sex marriage rally shirts.
Freedom of speech is dead.
Most of today's conservatives never get to the heart of the matter--protecting property rights, and the corresponding right to do business and contract with those of your choosing--since they think an exception can be carved out of the law on the basis of religious liberty. It's just so mean-spirited, politically incorrect, racist even, to believe an ordinary American should have the right to "discriminate." So rather than go full-tilt against the state's invasion of individual freedom and suffer the name-calling that inevitably follows, they settle for the "I strongly believe" exemption.
Aside from Sen. Rand Paul, who has no doubt backed off from his earlier criticism of it by now, is there even one sitting politician who shares your opinion on the flawed Civil Rights Act of 1964? They all know the consequences of touching that third rail.
This is how far we've progressed in 50 years, from forced racial segregation to forced same-sex cake-baking. When will the American public realize that using the force of government to achieve some social goal is not good for society?
Or for no reason at all.
It's THEIR business.
That was exactly what I was thinking.
Since taqiyya, submission or murder of Infidels and martyrdom, cornerstones of Islam, are compelling government interests, Islam should be recognized not to be a religion and banned.
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.