Posted on 03/31/2015 6:39:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Indiana is experiencing its two minutes of hate.
It is doubtful that since its admittance into the union in 1816, the heretofore inoffensive Midwestern state has ever been showered with so much elite obloquy.
Indiana’s sin is that its legislature passed and Governor Mike Pence signed into law a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, setting out a legal standard for cases involving a clash between a person’s exercise of religion and the state’s laws.
To listen to the critics, you’d think the law was drafted by a joint committee of attorneys from the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church.
The enlightened are stumbling over themselves in their rush to boycott Indiana. Seattle and San Francisco are banning official travel there, and Connecticut is following suit. In a Washington Post op-ed, Apple CEO Tim Cook pronounced the Indiana law part of a “very dangerous” trend that allows “people to discriminate against their neighbors” (never mind that his company is happy to do business in Communist China).
The anti-Indiana backlash is a perfect storm of hysteria and legal ignorance, supercharged by the particularly censorious self-righteousness of the Left.
All the Indiana law says is that the state can’t substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling governmental interest at stake and it is pursued by the least restrictive means. The law doesn’t mandate any particular outcome; it simply provides a test for the courts in those rare instances when a person’s exercise of religion clashes with a law.
Nineteen other states have similar protections, and they are all modeled on a federal version of the law that passed Congress with near unanimity in 1993 (Indiana’s law is arguably a little more robust than the federal version, because it also applies to private suits). If these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were the enablers of discrimination they are portrayed as, much of the country would already have sunk into a dystopian pit of hatred.
Legal historians a century from now may be mystified by how a measure that was uncontroversial for so long suddenly became a mark of shame. They will find their answer in the Left’s drive to crush any dissent from its cultural agenda, especially on gay marriage.
The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad.
Why? It’s a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays. The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.
As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesn’t make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, it’s the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question — individual conscience be damned. So it isn’t bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.
It’s not clear that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will shield these kinds of business people (they haven’t, to this point). It might be that more specific exemptions are necessary. But the mere possibility that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect a baker opposed to gay marriage is enough to create a furious, unhinged reaction.
Yes, there is intolerance afoot in the debate over Indiana, but it’s not on the part of Indianans.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review
Why Indiana?
There’s a federal law along these lines already; and some 19 similar laws in other states.
Why do the pervs have their knickers in a twist over Indiana?
The media narrative on LGBTXYZ nonsense distracts from the utter failure of this miserable administration and the democrat party. And every sector of the left is in the game. CEO’s, actors, journalists, professors, pundits, cable TV outlets, late night shows, Hollywood, unions - the usual anti-American vermin.
As a resident of Indiana I support this action.
Now Governer do something to stop the high crime situation in Indianapolis.
Sarc on/ It’s OK to kill minoritys but not OK to keep cake from gays. /Sarc off
RE: Why Indiana?
There’s a federal law along these lines already; and some 19 similar laws in other states.
____________________________________
According to radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, all the other states that have their own version of RFRA, also have anti-gay discrimination laws. Indiana doesn’t have that.
RE: Now Governer do something to stop the high crime situation in Indianapolis.
How’s Gary, Indiana doing? It has the dubious distinction as consistently being int he top 10 when it comes to crime in this country (sometimes, even in the top 5 ).
I think it should be mentioned that it does not mean that a practicing homosexual can be denied service to buy flowers at a florist or danish at the bakery. It applies to government forcing people to provide contractual services that would violate their religious/moral beliefs. A baker, for religious/moral purposes, could be just as opposed to providing a cake that depicted heterosexual immoral behavior. We should have the right not to enter into a contract which entails the celebration of a practice that violates one’s sense of religious morality.
And some politicians from those very states are calling for boycott of Indiana.
This may have been expressed here or elsewhere, but as usual with the left we must look one or more levels above the Controversy Of The Week to see the real agenda.
In summary: the rhetoric about gays, discrimination, equality, etc. is meant to distract from the additional, ongoing blurring of the line between the public and private, aka government and free enterprise.
Government does not care about gays. It does not care about gay marriage and it does not care about cakes or photos. It cares about growth at the expense (literally and figuratively) of private businesses. The ballast of regulation or, when necessary, lawsuits and public condemnation, will be brought to bear when pockets of resistance are encountered.
As usual, the most alarming aspects of it are the people who, unpaid and unbidden, take the fatuous ‘cause’ and run with it.
Legal historians a century from now may be mystified that there was ever a time when Americans believed that a person should not be forced to do something contrary to his religious beliefs when told to do so by the government.
Jewish bakers should be forced to make cakes for the Aryan Nation.
Black sign makers should be forced to make banners for the KKK.
and
Gay caterers should be forced to provide food and entertainment to Westboro Baptist 'Church'.
Anything less just isn't fair!
This should be good news for Mr. Pence who has been basking in the success of the previous grand Governor, Mr. McDaniels.
A chance to pick up some bragging rights during his watch as chief executive officer of Indiana by working through this well orchestrated and professionally organized adversary.
Not necessary to stand before the camera and wag your finger or make unnecessary statements like “no new taxes”.
Spot on; except I would substitute "obliterating" for "blurring."
“The issues are never The Issue. The Revolution is the issue.”
The queers, cross dressers and pedophiles are kicking some Indiana @$$.
RE: The queers, cross dressers and pedophiles are kicking some Indiana @$$.
They’re doing something else with it, but I can’t say it. This is a family website :)
Why Indiana?
Because it provides a convienient opportunity to cry “outrage!” and let slip the dogs of narrative.
Yes, there are differences between Indiana’s law and others. But as my various Progressive friends on FB have been loudly pointing out, the real issue is this is seen as a middle finger to their agenda. Which cannot be allowed to stand.
“Gay caterers should be forced to provide food and entertainment to Westboro Baptist ‘Church’.”
Interesting. There is a high end restaurant in Topeka owned by a pair of gay guys. I wonder if they cater.
But in reality, I don’t think the Indiana law would prevent this. The gay restaurant owner can’t refuse service to the Westboro clan...and a Christian bakery can’t refuse to make a cake for a gay person. No ‘refusal of service’ is prescribed by this law. Rather, the Christian baker cannot be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding...the gay ‘event’ being against the baker’s religion.
Its a subtle difference...but it keeps us from going down the leftist slippery slope of ‘they will be refused a seat at a restaurant’.
You’ll see this wherever the State (the instrument of anti-Christ) ever wavers into defense of Christianity.
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.