Posted on 03/29/2015 6:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law is not anti-gay. It is not anti-Black. It is not anti-Semitic. It is, however, pro-religion and pro-freedom and that’s why Leftists hate it.
Let’s read the actual bill and interpret it, then figure out how the crazy Leftists have managed to spin this into the worst thing since New Coke.
The law is explicit. The government cannot substantially burden anyone from exercising one’s religion. If it does so, it must “further a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
This is no different than the laws in 19 other states, and the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed in 1993 – by unanimous vote in the House, 97-3 in the Senate, and signed by the ultra-Right-wing-nutjob Bill Clinton.
So let me explain this to the dumb Liberals out there. Anything involving a public service isn’t going to be denied to a gay person. Furthermore, if a person or a company or religious organization engages in any kind of discrimination for “religious reasons”, the courts apply the test of “strict scrutiny” (the Sherbert Test) to the claim of religious infringement.
So if a group of religious psychopaths decide to throw gay people off buildings, behead Christians, stone women to death, and set heretics on fire, the government isn’t going to exempt this behavior because it’s a religious belief (Strangely, however, Liberals have proven that they are accepting of this religious behavior).
Re-Framing Strategy
The Left is fine when government restricts freedom, but when that rare law comes along that reiterates it, they melt down like Hillary at a Benghazi hearing.
The Left hijacked this issue as it always does, by re-framing it to fit its own depraved philosophy, one that always de-values life and freedom. It is exactly the way the abortion debate has been handled. Pro-lifers frame the issue as a matter of murder. Pro-abortionists frame it as a matter of “choice”.
In the case of religious freedom laws, Leftists re-frame the reiteration of a group’s freedoms, instead making those protected by the law appear as bigots. It isn’t a pro-freedom law, it’s an anti-gay law. The complicit mainstream media, like USA TODAY, calls it a law “that grants businesses the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples.”
What a load of crap. How did this nonsense get started? Because last time a law like this passed, CBS News falsely claimed that an EMT could refuse to give aid to a homosexual, citing religious beliefs.
Never mind that no EMT would ever do something like refuse care to a homosexual, because EMTs are EMTs because they like saving lives.
But leave it to the Left to concoct the most ridiculous and impossible circumstance that Philip K. Dick could dream up, and make it reality. Firefighters won’t put out a gay fire! What if the only hospital in town refuses service to a gay person? What if the only barbershop in town won’t cut a gay head?
The Left must do this, because without victims, government has nothing to fix, and people cannot be controlled.
The Ugly Truth
It is the Leftists that are bigots. To them, it doesn’t matter if the rights of other people that get trampled on in the process. It only matters when the rights of people Leftists care about get trampled on.
The Left is so very strident against discrimination – oh, but only gays, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and Radical Islamists need apply for the victocracy.
Yet they don’t care about discriminating against Christians, and will do anything they can to align themselves against the Jews and Israel, because Leftist philosophy is anti-freedom, anti-religion, and ultimately anti-human.
The great irony is that these laws were passed because a gay couple decided to sue a bakery that wouldn’t make them a cake for their gay wedding. Instead of the couple just taking their business elsewhere, and doing everything they could to shame the business that turned them down, to put up awful reviews on Yelp, to protest in front of the store, and promote the more open-minded bakery, they chose to be vindictive.
Which forced the very governmental action they are now decrying.
We are now longer in an age where the Civil Rights Act is necessary, because of this silly thing called the internet. Were I, a Jew, to be refused service at a bakery, I wouldn’t need to go running to the government for justice. I’d be writing at TownHallFinance.com, making a stink at every review site I could find, marching with every other right-thinking person in town in front of the bakery, and publicly shaming the owners. They’d be out of business in a week.
That’s called the free market. Let the people decide. I don’t need to sue. I don’t need the Anti-Discrimination Bakery Act. I will not be a victim and cry to the government about the Aryans down the street.
And if somehow enough people in my one-bakery town patronized the Bakery of Hate enough to keep it in business, then I’d know who the bigots are in my town. I’d rather have them out in the open, and know who’s who.
My guess is they’d all vote Democrat, anyway.
Yes, but what about the homosexuals? LOL
Would a Jew have to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding? Forcing a Christian to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding is the functional equivalent of forcing a Jew to bake a cake with a swastika on it.
The Left has a long history of opposing Constitutional protections and liberties. This temper tantrum over the IN law should not be a surprise to anyone.
Even on this board this morning, I have seen posters throwing with the homo agenda talking points on this, Discouraging.
They want privilege.
I saw a homosexual couple kissing in the pews a few months ago, during the sermon, in your face daring anyone to call them out.
This isn’t a protest for homosexuals, it is a protest against churches. Christianity and churches stand in the way of their Marxist agenda and that is what they fear.
The poor downtrodden “fill in the blank” is a weapon to that end.
Pray America is waking
mark for ref. This nails it down as well as it can be nailed. And ping to a worthy debater from another thread for further discussion.
bookmark for reference.
[A Jew Walks Into A Nazi Bakery….]
Ok, it’s funny so far...what’s the punchline?
But in keeping with the law, the Jewish baker would have to bake a cake, minus the Nazi trappings, for anyone who asked for it. Bottom line is, force nobody, under the laws of contract, to do anything that would make him a participant in behavior of which he doesn't approve and would amount to an infringement of his own beliefs. It's a free speech issue, but not in the way the Left imagines it.
By liberal "logic," shouldn't the sponsors be forced to support Rush because he is willing to pay for their services?
Why minus the Nazi trappings? Why would the Jewish Baker not be required to put the swastika on there if that is what the customer demanded.
The fact of the matter is that baking cakes and being a photographer are both ARTS. In keeping with the first amendment an ARTIST should not be forced to paint, draw, take pictures or otherwise participate in any artistic endeavor that goes against what they believe.
If someone wants to buy a pre-made painting, or a pre-made cake, or a pre-made photograph, then it matters little who is paying the artist for the art.
However when someone wants a cake, or a photograph, or a painting done especially for them, then the artist has every right under the first amendment to have complete control over the artwork and to refuse to use their artistic talents for any purpose for which they have any objection regardless of whether the objection is political, religious or even racist.
For the government to force anyone at the risk of going bankrupt to create some item of art for a cause to which they disagree is the height of tyranny.
If I had a service business, it wouldn't matter to me one whit who my clients were. But if a group with an agenda demanded I create something promoting an agenda with which I disagreed, I should have the right to turn them down. A Christian being forced to bake a "wedding" cake for homosexuals is a violation of the rights of the Christian bakers.
It is in Washington state...and the florist also gave her ‘friend’ a list of 2-3 other florists who would do the flowers...
Should a photographer be forced to take pornographic pictures, just because a client wants it?
Had they done so in a mosque, the mohammedans would have jumped them, drug them outside, lynched them, cut them down, beheaded them then burned their corpses while swinging swords in the air, dancing and singing, handing out candies to the kiddies and blamed the homos for desecrating their sanctuary.
The demoncrats would have had to acknowledge the goathumper's rights to defend their pagan moon god.
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.