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.
Thomas is trying to apply logic, but logic doesn’t apply in this argument because the homo lobby has used it’s control of education, the media, and pop culture to convince well over half of America that it’s about “fairness and equality”.
No shirt, no shoes, no service!
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I’ve heard that it’s hard for heterosexuals to get served in gay-heavy Key West bars. Ripe for lawsuit down there?
Pence can kiss any talk of running for POTUS goodbye. Every conservative talkie was busy defending it and his decision then he vacilates to the godless sodomites who’ve declared war on Christianity. Proves he’s no crusader for conservativism.
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.
“Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.”
That says it all.
I know that woman. She is the owner of River Knits in Lafayette, IN. I may never go there again.
See the fourth paragraph in the article
For gays it is
No shirt, no shoes, no clothes AND I WANT SERVICE!!!!
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 friggin business
Pence can kiss any talk of running for POTUS goodbye
And THIS is the reason behind this whole issue popping up out of the blue!!!
Who says he’s running for Potus? *rme*
Who says he’s running for Potus? *rme*
Thomas is not wrong. The more exact equivalent is requiring all Jewish restaurants to serve pork so as not to offend anyone who walks in wanting it. Or requiring a devout Jew to cater a pork BBQ when he only serves BBQ Chicken.
Can the state force you to do an overt act against your religious beliefs? If so, what religious freedom do you have?
This is all about government “discriminating” against religion and allowing the non-religious to use the power of the state against religious belief. It is 100% against what America was founded on, but it is emblematic of the godless, anti-christian state that is modern America.
That is the tactical victory, but there are strategic goals at well. One is as Thomas writes, to set the meme for 2016 of discriminatory Republicans. The other is as a warning to the other GOP candidates and the GOP itself that any conservative is going to get destroyed. It's designed to select another McCain or Romney as the presidential candidate.
Finally, the unintended by-product is leverage against major religious denominations to stop "discriminating" and accept gay "marriage." If there's one thing gays cannot stand, it's the truth that what they are doing is morally wrong. That's why they react so strongly because that truth strikes a very raw nerve and it hurts.
Hope Miley will stay out of my state, too. Thankfully, my 15 year old is not a fan of hers.
Only an idiot would expect a kosher restaurant to serve pork
“Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.”
YES! I hope to see the T-Shirt and Bumper Stickers soon.
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.