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.
Indianas 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 persons exercise of religion and the states laws.
To listen to the critics, youd 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 cant substantially burden a persons exercise of religion, unless there is a compelling governmental interest at stake and it is pursued by the least restrictive means. The law doesnt mandate any particular outcome; it simply provides a test for the courts in those rare instances when a persons 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 (Indianas 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 Lefts 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? Its 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 doesnt want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.
As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesnt make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, its the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question individual conscience be damned. So it isnt bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.
Its not clear that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will shield these kinds of business people (they havent, 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 its not on the part of Indianans.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review
We all know this to be true -
if there were only one Christian baker in the whole state,
that’s where the homos would go to demand their “wedding” cake be made.
“Compelling reason” <—— Ahhh there’s the rub.
Can anyone define it please?
Just make a not so good cake and send them dead flowers. The governments attempt to coerce an all encompassing morality(or lack thereof) will fail. We have a right and a duty to discriminate between that which is in our best interests and that which isn’t.
Will Muslim potters be forced to make idols if their customers want them?
Next Job for you Governor is to end the HIGH Crime rates in your home town of Indianapolis and Gary as a start.
Its OK to kill people in Indianapolis but its not OK for some to keep CAKE from LGBT?
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.