Posted on 03/31/2015 3:20:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
While it’s certainly a serious topic which merits the debate going on around the country, there has been one exceptionally funny aspect to the entire RFRA discussion this week. It took some prodding from conservative outlets, but the media has at long last begun to grudgingly admit that virtually identical laws are on the books in nearly two dozen other states and on the federal level, many bearing the signatures of Democrats. This has left liberal opponents sputtering and side stepping in their attempts to say, well yeah, but this is way worse because… Republicans!
Given a bit of time, though, the more erudite among them will come up with some better ways to parse it. One such effort is brought to us by Erick Eckholm at the Gray Lady. See if you can pick out the double standard at play. It begins with the opening salvo in the first sentence.
When the federal government adopted a religious protection act in 1993, same-sex marriage was not on the horizon.
While there is more to dig into, you could almost stop right there. So, Mr. Eckholm, you’re saying that the law which protected the religious liberty of some individuals was a good thing in 1992, but once we began debating the almost entirely unrelated matter of gay marriage, it’s no longer a good idea? I see.
Let’s continue. I’ll need to add a bit of emphasis into this part.
An informal coalition of liberals and conservatives endorsed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it seemed to protect members of vulnerable religious minorities from punishment for the exercise of their beliefs. The federal legislation was set off by a case involving Native Americans who were fired and denied unemployment benefits because they took part in ceremonies with peyote, an illegal drug.
Twenty states, including Indiana last week, have since passed their own versions of religious freedom laws.
But over time, court decisions and conservative legal initiatives started to change the meaning of those laws, according to liberal activists. The state laws were not used to protect minorities, these critics say, but to allow some religious groups to undermine the rights of women, gays and lesbians or other groups.
This is what’s at the heart of it. Such laws are only of benefit to society if they are used to protect an oppressed minority. Never mind that we’re talking about the constitutionally mandated freedom of religion for all people. The legislation can suddenly become poisonous if it fails to be reserved for a small subset of people. Or, perhaps I could rephrase it for you.
Hey! When we passed this thing you never said it was going to be used to protect Christians!!
I’ve been watching this unfold since yesterday morning on several cable channels and in numerous newspaper articles. And honestly, none of them get any better than the item above in terms of making any sort of sense. In a rather sad fashion, they are almost making my point for me. Religious liberty is great unless and until it becomes inconvenient for a politically popular demographic and/or benefits the majority in any way.
For a bit more on the coverage of this story, allow me to point you to this article at Rare by John-Henry Westen. It avoids the inherent hypocrisy of the preceding argument and gets to the root of why religious liberty is actually important to everyone… majority, minority or unaffiliated.
According to critics, Pence’s signature is the equivalent of state-supported discrimination against gays.
However, it is same-sex activists who have engaged in state-sponsored discrimination. In Colorado, Vermont, California, and many other states, Christian business owners who serve gay customers but do not wish to participate in same-sex ceremonies are being forced out of their livelihoods. Bakers, photographers, printers, wedding planners, and bed and breakfast owners have been subjected to government-sponsored prejudice because of their religious beliefs.
It is therefore hypocritical for gay activists to target Indiana with such heated rhetoric.
But perhaps more importantly, their accusations are based on a misunderstanding of both religious liberty and the RFRA itself.
That’s a refreshing way to look at the RFRA, isn’t it? Perhaps we can get some of the cable news spokesmodels to give it a read.
Ordinary people can call gay marriage whatever they want. For me, marriage is a sacrament that comes from God, and is only between a man and a woman.
I don’t think that the Indiana law is that different but Indiana doesn’t have civil protections for sexual orientation as a protected class like some other states which makes it easier to claim discrimination.
This is a perfect opportunity for the left to activate their usual ideology, (which begins with their favorite flawed proposition):
Truth doesn’t exist, therefore lying and hypocrisy don’t either.
Mark Levin is explaining this issue quite well today.
It’s just loud noise from the left to try to drown out news of Obama’s utter failure in nuc-talks with the Iranians.
I don’t follow your take on the law, not sure if you are serious. The law is unequivocally correct.
To me it is a very simple matter of what one places at a higher level on a hierarchy of rights or principles. The free exercise of religion is a very profound right, embodied as it is under the First Amendment. The prohibition against discrimination is a manmade distinction. By that measure, it exists at a lower level on any hierarchy of rights.
But more insidiously, the precise purpose of the law was and is to protect observant religious people from being compelled by the police power of government to overthrow their own religious beliefs; in other words, it is a government mandated and (apparently) now publicly-ratified overthrow of the First Amendment!
Now, a Neo-Nazi can walk into your Jewish bakery and demand a Swastika-shaped pastry and if you do not serve him/her, the government can compel you to toss out your religious beliefs by fining you, ruinously.
Not sure the last point fits. If your bakery doesn't bake swastika-shaped pastries in the normal course of business, then the law is definitely on the side of the baker.
Dr. Floyd Ferris would have a field day with these laws.
Since “Obama the Least” claimed that HE killed Osama Bin Laden, “Obama the Least” has no one super-meanie to launch a missile against, or some other substantive active rememdy, to deflect any bad news from himself.
(His mirror is showing cracks and glue separation syndrome.)
That’s still not quite it.
The idea is more like, the government can come in and commandeer your business and impress its particular mandate against you, in contravention to your specific Constitutional rights. Using their power, then, they can subjugate you and trample on your rights. That would be tyranny by any definition.
Compare the damages suffered in the bakery example. The NeoNazi has to go find another bakery from which he can order his pastries. I don’t think that’s such an onerous burden. Most towns have more than one bakery. Eventually he will find one cooperative bakery. But what if he had to drive 15 miles to another town for his pastries? That seems like a pretty ordinary inconvenience. Meanwhile, the baker has his Constitutional rights crushed and/or has the gov’t come in and commandeer his business. People pretty routinely go to court and achieve damage awards for having their Const rights thrashed. They do not go to court for having to drive 15 miles because one vendor happens to be out of stock or is closed for a family emergency on an otherwise business day.
How about: Could the government force a business owner who’s closed due to a family emergency or because he’s at his kid’s baseball game to make those pastries? (probably not, because he would appear to be closed to both gay or straight customers)
Suppose you sell surgical supplies and you object to abortion. Can you refuse to sell to Planned Parenthood?
All the law does is to prevent the govt from coming in and taking over your enterprise. You may still have to make your case in court, that your religion is deeply held. And that might (trust me, it WILL) cost you a bloody fortune. The law does not grant a right to discriminate against gays.
What I find so onerous is the idea that people are almost universal in their complete ignorance of the law and how eager they are to follow along with the media rampage against this. They cannot wait to surrender their 1st amendment rights. This is quite profound.
We need laws to limit the lies told by the media and Harry Reid.
bookmark
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.