Posted on 04/01/2015 2:50:15 PM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a law with the same name as one signed on the federal level by President Bill Clinton in 1993, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the presumptive next Senate minority leader. Naturally, Pence found himself on the wrong end of a partisan barrage from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos for signing that law the following Sunday. It sure is nice to be a Democrat.
What exactly does the law state? The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana states that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." That rule does not apply only if the government's action "is in furtherance of a compelling government interest" and is also "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." If government does act against someone in violation of that person's religious principles, he or she can assert that violation "as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding."
The law does not specifically single out same-sex marriage as an activity against which a religious person may discriminate, but it certainly holds out that possibility. Of course, that possibility is already inherent in a little concept we in the United States used to call freedom -- freedom to choose how to conduct one's business and freedom to practice one's religion in one's practice of business.
Under a philosophy of freedom, the market solves the general problem of private discrimination, because if one person decides to discriminate against Jews or blacks or gays, he or she loses money and is put out of business for his or her trouble. Nobody has the right, under a philosophy of freedom, to invoke the power of the government's gun in order to force someone to provide a good or service.
That system is a heck of a lot safer for minorities than a system by which government regulates the proper conduct of voluntary activities. Black Americans should know that, given that Jim Crow was not merely a system of voluntary discrimination but a government-enforced set of regulations designed to ban voluntary transactions involving blacks. Gays, too, should understand that freedom is far preferable to government-enforced societal standards governing consenting transactions, given that government used to be utilized to discriminate openly against homosexual behavior.
But the left has rewritten the concept of freedom to mean "whatever the government allows you to do," and leftists now insist that government cannot allow discrimination -- unless, of course, the government is itself enforcing discrimination against religious Christians who don't want to violate their belief in traditional marriage.
Same-sex marriage, it turns out, was never designed to grant legal benefits to same-sex couples. That could have been done under a regime of civil unions. Same-sex marriage was always designed to allow the government to have the power to cram down punishment on anyone who disobeys the government's vision of the public good. One need not be an advocate of discrimination against gays to believe that government does not have the ability to enforce the prevailing social standards of the time in violation of individual rights. There are many situations in which advocates of freedom dislike particular exercises of that freedom but understand that government attacks on individual rights are far more threatening to the public good.
You do not have a right to my services; I have a right to provide my services to whomever I choose. If you believe that your interpretation of public good enables you to bring a gun to the party, you are a bully and a tyrant. So it is with the modern American left, to whom freedom now means only the freedom to do what it is the left wants you to do at point of gun.
The law does allow a proprietor to use his religion as a defense against a lawsuit brought not only by government, but by private actors (say, a homosexual couple wanting to get married).
The fixation the left - politicians, MSM, academia - has on a mere 2-3% of the population and their abnormal sexual practices is positively psychotic.
I wanna run screaming somewhere and never come back.
Those Homos are FASCISTS all right!
Well, to tell you what I’ve thought about this legislation, all along, is that it’s the “gay issue” that brought it out ... BUT ... it’s not JUST about gays, but preventing Christian business owners from being forced into do several things that they consider to be VIOLATIONS of deeply-held religious convictions!
I posted elsewhere ...
— — —
To me, this kind of legislation seems to have a lot more to do with OTHER THINGS, other than gays. It seems that the “gay issue” is driving the discussion, but to me, that “gay issue” seems to be a minor point, as compared to ALL of what legislation guaranteeing “Christian Conscience” in business is about.
Unless I’m mistaken about what this kind of bill means, I see this bill as preserving the “conscience” of a Christian owner of a business from serving or doing business with a person who violates that “religious conscience” by who they are or what they represent or what they stand for. SO, in that sense, it is NOT TARGETED at gays, but all sorts of other things that would violate the “Christian’s conscience”!
A sampling of some other things I can think of, in which one would DENY SERVICE to people, would be a group coming in for Pizza who supports ABORTION! That would really violate a Christian’s conscience.
Or, if a Mormon church group came in and had an “after church Pizza gathering” some Sunday afternoon. I would DENY THEM SERVICE as they are one of the largest CULT GROUPS in America ... and as far as I’m concerned Mormons shouldn’t get service from ANY CHRISTIAN BUSINESS WHATSOEVER, ANYWHERE!!
If Mitt Romney were to come in to that Pizza place he SHOULD BE DENIED SERVICE because of clearly being a Mormon!
I would DENY SERVICE to GLENN BECK, too, for his Mormonism!
SO ... it doesn’t appear to be a “gay issue” but a VERY REAL “Religious Conscience” issue and opens the door to CHRISTIAN BUSINESS to serving Christians and not VIOLATING their religious conscience!
Turned on my computer. An example of your point, lead story:
They intend to drive us mad.
I’m tired of vacilation to the godless sodomites and their god denying democrat (in name only) party supporters who’ve through the guileful use of “political correctness” have declared war particularly on Christianity as well most religions.
We need crusaders for conservativism not capitulators.
Let these amoral clowns know you believe your values are worth defending.
Nobody is forced to go them for their particular services. There are plenty of bakeries and writers who will gladly provide their services for the homos. So how is one allowed to refuse service to persons they don't want to perform their service for and not the other?
I’ve longed believed that CWII would be triggered by either abortion or homosexuality.
Right now homosexuality is in the lead by several lengths.
Me too. I cannot believe that half of America thinks it is just fine to change the definition of marriage after 6 thousand years and thousands of societies that have always accepted that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is usually a "religious" ceremony.
All I can say at this point, I am ready to go to jail believing in the tradition of marriage, but I don't think I deserve to loose my job, my business, my home and be called a bigot for it.
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.