Posted on 04/02/2015 8:25:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
If I visit a kosher restaurant and order a pork chop, am I being discriminated against when the waiter says they don't serve pork?
If an establishment requires that men wear jackets and women dress in what that establishment defines as an "appropriate way," does that constitute discrimination?
When I visit the Vatican, the Swiss Guards won't let me in if I'm wearing shorts. They offer a cover-up. It is the same for women, if they bare too much flesh. Is that discrimination?
What about the sign "no shoes, no shirt, no service"? Is that bigotry against the shoeless and shirtless? Should the government force any of these entities to violate their standards?
That is the issue in Indiana, the latest front in the culture war. The state legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed a law that says the government cannot force a business or individual to violate tenets of their religious faith, unless the government has a compelling interest in doing so. The language in the Indiana law is similar to a federal law, the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Though applicable to all religions, in '93, the motivating issues were the protection of sacred lands for Native Americans and the use of peyote as a part of religious tradition.
The backlash following the Indiana law's passage was immediate. Gov. Pence later admitted there was some "confusion about the law," and he has since asked legislators to change the measure to make clear, he said, "that this law does not give businesses the right to discriminate against anyone."
But facts don't matter when the media and gay activists believe they can find an issue that stirs controversy (the media) and advances their cause (the activists).
Then-Illinois state-Sen. Barack Obama voted for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1998. Several other states have similar measures protecting conscience from government intrusion. The religious conscience issue was before the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. The Court upheld that company's right not to cover certain contraceptives for female employees as part of its health plan because of the owners' religious beliefs and their objection to abortion.
The uproar about Indiana's law is political theater. It is also a trap set by the Left, which Republicans risk falling into. It works this way: Find a Republican state (Gov. Pence is a Republican and the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican); pick an issue you can twist to your political advantage -- and Republicans' disadvantage; enlist the help of a gay-friendly media; threaten a boycott of the state by prominent individuals and businesses; use this issue in the next presidential campaign to brand Republicans as racists, bigots and homophobes.
In this theater of the absurd, any defense becomes indefensible. The die has been cast; the scarlet letter attached.
Gov. Pence wrote an opinion piece forTuesday'sWall Street Journal. In it, he professed the absence of discriminatory DNA, saying he believes in and lives by the Golden Rule and that the law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, merely sets a standard by which a religious objection to a law can be judged.
It doesn't matter. As reporter Stephanie Wang wrote in the Indianapolis Star, "The argument over what Pence has thus signed becomes not only intellectual, but visceral, vitriolic, ugly. Both sides dig in, because each thinks the other is flatly wrong -- in their hearts, and on the facts. And the debate rages on, sometimes spiraling to a place so far away from the law itself."
The debate has become far more visceral, vitriolic and ugly than intellectual, thanks to the secular progressives who have made it that way. A Wall Street Journal editorial correctly noted, "Indiana isn't targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion."
Republicans have seen the potential for political damage. Nationally, Republicans don't want to debate social issues in 2016 because they see little advantage in doing so in a rapidly changing culture.
One potential good has emerged from this, however. Miley Cyrus has announced she won't be bringing her "twerking" self to Indiana, which is bound to have a positive effect on the state's moral climate.
The only reason the left got so worked up about this is that Gov. Pence has been mentioned as a potential Presidential/VP candidate and is conservative. They wanted to take him down before he got any traction.
No it doesn't. It merely indicates that he is naive, especially in regard to handling the media. I don't believe he's presidential material either but he is a pretty decent governor.
He took a stand against Common Core and he did not accept state subsidies for Obamacare. Those are both Conservative issues in my book.
Just like the Tea Party march on Washington in 2009 Can there be a march on Washington for Religious Liberty ?
Jim Robinson have you thought about a march on Washington for Religious Liberty ?
But with all due respect to Mr. Thomas, I cannot believe how many patriots are not mentioning that the state religious freedom laws compliment Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A).
14th Amendment, Section 1:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, used in that section is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these well-known rights, including 1st Amendment-protected freedom of religious expression, listed in the Bill of Rights.
Also note that not only have low-information, pro-gay activist states already unthinkingly abridged the right of religious expression imo, as evidenced by these states using equality laws to bully and punish Christians business owners, but consider this.
Section 5 of 14A gives Congress the power to enforce all Sections of 14A and is what gave Congress the power to make the Religious Freedom Restoraction Act (RFRA). Otherwise, citizens could argue that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making religion-related laws. (Note that corrupt Congress is probably not going to lift a finger to enforce RFRA.)
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Indiana And The Culture Wars, Kaslin wrote:
Don’t you think it’s up to the voters of Indiana if they want to reelect him if he runs again and not you?
I sure wouldn’t want you to tell me who to vote for and I wouldn’t tell you who to vote for.
SO MIND YOUR OWN FRIGGEN BUSINESS
WHAT ? If your part of his PRESIDENTIAL campaign and advised him to do this after he’s got talk show host after talk show host sticking up and defending him because you didn’t expect this backlash WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED . He turns around after they did a great job of getting his name out there. Pense makes them look like a bunch of jerks ! You should be fired !
No matter what he does or says the Left isn’t going to be satisfied. Walmart could have been defused by explaining their pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control pills. The big mouth from computers shooting his mouth off should have been asked about their markets in Iran and other Islamic societies and Sharia law. Barkley get portrayed as a miindless political correctness goose stepper totally ignorant of what that law is about .
Pense should have stood his ground. This has nothing to do with his gubnatorial re-election he’s been a good governor for Indiana and should be re-elected. But not presidential material.
I call’em the way I see them .I try not posting directly to you because I’ve had run-ins with you before. But thus one shows no comity is too much and confirms my suspicions of where your comming from. Another one of the GOPES. You guys are wrong wrong wrong and the reason I won’t shutup.
The “Gays Must Be Supported” laws are requiring folks to affirmatively support things against their religion by participating in and giving aid to things their religion says they cannot.
These laws require bakers to make cakes celebrating gay marriage, for example. The bakers involved have sold cakes and pastries to gays for years, but they have drawn the line at supporting immoral acts.
Had blacks in the 50s insisted diners support orgies, THEN it would be equivalent.
The gays ARE being served. They can buy cakes. They can buy cookies. They can buy anything they want. But the baker will not support their marriage ceremony with a cake celebrating homosexuality.
There is no equivalence at all to ‘blacks eating lunch’.
Also, blacks are physically black. Being black is not an action. Sticking your penis up a guy’s rump is an action.
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.