Posted on 03/31/2015 11:42:41 AM PDT by Cooter
Oops!
So Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is a "bigot," eh? That's the word from Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, who has banned state-funded travel to Indiana because the latter just passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act - just like 19 other states. In a minute, I'll tell you what one of those states is, but first, here is more about what Malloy said:
“The governor’s not a stupid man, but he’s done stupid things,” said Malloy to Mika Brzezinski, “and signing this law, and, quite frankly, promoting this law, knowing exactly what it was going to do, was an incredibly stupid thing for him to do.”
Pence, Malloy said, “knew exactly what he was doing, and when you see a bigot, you have to call them on it.”
On Monday, Malloy suspended all state travel by his administration and other state employees to Indiana, calling the RFRA “disturbing, disgraceful and outright discriminatory.”
“We cannot sit idly by and do nothing while laws are enacted that will turn back the clock,” Malloy said, saying that he “won’t allow any of our citizens in Connecticut to face discrimination in other states, at least without a fight.”
Well! If a state passes a law that amounts to outright bigotry, then sure! Ban all state-funded travel to that state! Except, er . . . one problem. If you're going to ban all state-funded travel to states that have RFRAs like the one Indiana just passed, then Connecticut state employees are going to have a hard time getting around. Because one of the 19 other states that have RFRAs like Indiana's is, you guessed it . . . Connecticut.
In fact, Sean Davis argues in a piece for The Federalist that the Connecticut RFRA goes even farther than Indiana's:
If you dislike Indiana’s RFRA, then you should loathe Connecticut’s. The difference comes down to a single phrase: “substantially burden.”
Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction.
Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.
The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.
Now how can it possibly be that Malloy's grandstanding is all over the national media, but none of the MSM stories covering it mention that Connecticut has its own RFRA with the elements David describes above? Is it that the reporters parroting Malloy's talking points are too stupid and/or lazy to check or ask about this? Or is it that they're so much in the pocket of Democrats and the gay lobby that they don't dare ask because they might not like what they find out?
Actually the two are not mutually exclusive. Stupid, lazy people make excellent stenographers for dishonest propagandists. But what this really demonstrates is that this entire hysterical outcry about the RFRA is 100 percent a creation of the media. Here's why:
The job of the media is supposed to be to report the facts. The facts about this law are that it doesn't do any of the things people are shrieking about. If their coverage was focused on the facts, then this would be widely understood. Instead, they report on what "activists" say they "fear" the law will do, and on the "economic damage" being wrought upon Indiana by people organizing boycotts and so forth.
But since their reporting skips the basic facts, which would make clear to everyone that this law is not about promoting discrmination and does not do so, many people going around talking about the law really think it's about letting restaurant owners refuse to serve gay people.
Indiana should not have to pass another law that "clarifies" what's already clear in the original bill. If the media did its job and reported on the bill accurately and with a focus on the facts, it would already be clear to everyone. But they don't. Why? Because they don't want to. They want to elevate the "fears" of activists to a place of credibility, even though they are completely baseless.
Sure, activists would still shriek with hysterics no matter what the facts were. But if the media did its job, no one else would take them seriously. And sure as hell, no one would take seriously a hypocritical grandstander like Dannel Malloy. But the media in this country are a disgrace. They are the enemy of truth and the enemy of America.
Stupid hypocrite. I’m sure the NYT will be all over this.
I just received the following email from an old and dear friend who taught school back when teaching school meant the “Three R’s” and DID NOT include Marxist political correctness indoctrination. I pass it along as possible food for thought for those of us who grasp the “end game” of this perniciously pestilential process.
“Dick, on this ‘Freedom of Religion’ law:
I think most people get the word ‘religion’ confused in their thinking——we have many people here of other religions.
If their religion required them to close their business at sundown and there were people of other faiths who wanted to do business with them, would they have to open for those who want to do business with them?
Dick, where is the country that I once lived in many, many years ago?
Mary”
To which I replied:
Mary, The country in which you and I grew up has been hijacked by a consortium of lownoinfo voters (thank you government schools and the Marxists now running them) and venal, self-serving politicians who believe that if they either remain silent to the ongoing “transformation” (much of the GOP) or aid and abet the process (ALL the Dems who are now indistinguishable from the Stalinists who captured Russia), they will be elevated to princes in the new regime.
Ernst Rohm and the others who assisted Hitler in his conquest of Germany held similar beliefs. He was rewarded with a bullet in the head in a prison cell. His associates died in “The Night of the Long Knives”, the lucky ones killed outright, the unlucky ones slowly strangled hanging from hooks like so many butchered cattle.
What these current fools and accomplices of this new tyranny fail to understand is that the history of tyranny is filled with such stories. The tyrant will not tolerate the existence of ANY groups or individuals who might come to threaten his tyranny.
“ALL men lose when freedom fails and good men rot in filthy jails. And those who cried “Appease, appease” are HANGED by those they sought to please.”
Love to you and yours as we enter perhaps the most dangerous 660 days in our lifetime.
Dick
Malloy is a putz!
Mallory stands as inspiration to all other brain-damaged nitwits seeking high office. If dannel can do it, so can any gibbering idiot.
But they are fantastically loyal distraction devices for a former Secretary of State under Senate subpoena.
These people, like CT’s gov, are complete fools and dangerous hypocrites. Stop caring what they spew out and do what you want anyway.
Connecticut must be purged from the union.
Here’s the thing. The law was passed to protect a certain group that uses religion as a shield for their inhuman actions. The law will allow them to wear their headcoverings, to rape women, to refuse to handle bacon, and other religious practices of theirs.
The law was not meant to protect CHRISTIANS! Get it?
Malloy would have to improve greatly to reach the level of "Incompetent". The guy can't put two words together without an extended "uhhhh" between them.
He made the cleanup after Hurricane Sandy into a Chinese fire drill, and the early snow of two years ago ground CT to a complete halt while Malloy tried to get his head out of ass.
With the same facts, the rules are ALWAYS different for Democrats.
Rambo Emmanuel asked Indiana businesses to move to Illinois because of their law. Of course, Illinois has an identical law like Connecticut too.
More evidence that liberalism is a mental illness.
this boils down to a simple question:
is your work an expression of your existence?
like art from an artist or writings from a journalist, does the application of expertise protect the burger flipper?
if yes, then you’re protected under the 1st amendment from having others force you to do anything against your will.
personally, i thought we banished slavery a long time ago... so the question of being forced to work against your will should be moot
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.