Posted on 04/03/2015 3:10:37 AM PDT by yongin
Most voters still oppose a religious freedom law in their state like the one adopted in Indiana. Yet despite concerns that such laws may lead to discrimination against gays and lesbians, voters also continue to strongly defend the right of a Christian photographer to turn down a same-sex wedding. Many also believe the media portray religious freedom laws unfairly.
Arkansas this week came a step closer to joining the 20 states that have laws prohibiting the government from forcing businesses to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds, but 53% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose such a law in their state. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 35% favor a law that would allow businesses to refuse service to customers for religious reasons. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I thought we had one in all states and territories of the USA, it’s called the 1st amendment. Why do we need more laws to enforce it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We're gonn'a get all MORE jumbled up in wordy word words.
... and ten years from now black cars will be unconstitutional because of the first ammendment
Rasmussen Report has a poll on the Indiana RFRA lynch mob. 53% oppose Indiana’s 1st version of RFRA. 35% support it. Considering the lies and grossly one-sided converage, plus Pence looking like he had a gun to his head, that is not too bad. For AZ last year, Rasmussen had 66% oppose the AZ religious freedom bill and 20% favor it. Interestingly, Rasmussen has people who followed the news coverage of IN very closely to be in slightly in favor of it. People who did follow the subject very closely opposed the bill.
But all is not lost. Seventy percent (70%) still agree that a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage has the right to turn down working a job at such a wedding.
Meaning we really someone who can articulate the subject well.
And 100% of Scott-less Rasmussen Reports oppose such a law.
What this means is that our CommieMSM has thoroughly confused the issue to the point that it is no longer understood.
AND THAT WAS THEIR INTENT ALL ALONG!
The news coverage of IN have given RFRAs a bad name. Every time a state RFRA bill is proposed in a state, its going to be examined more closely by the media.
What is the recommendation for states that want to have RFRAs. Easy: use language identical to federal RFRA.
When any lawyer (government or private) writes a law they must get paid by the words, not the meaning. As a County Commissioner I had such an experience with lawyers attempting to “guide” a county committee into writing an ordinance that THEY, the lawyers wanted to word versus what the committee wanted, the lawyers lost.
Government schools teach ignorance of that portion of the archaic 1st Amendment. That ignorance is reinforced by a media that despises truth.
Because that's how they subvert the Constitution.
Same reason we had to have a Miranda decision, despite an extant 5th Amendment....or Heller, or laws explicitly permitting open carry, in spite of the presence of the 2nd...
Because agents of the government will find ways to violate our rights until and unless they are explicitly and enforceably forbidden to do so.
Becasue that's what they do.
Here in New York I don’t want anything but to leave for somewhere that is still in the United States Of America.
Better hurry up! Its all but gone on the coasts and rapidly disappearing in the middle, especially in the north. Look for places where the phrase, "Democratic Party" is largely regarded as a traitorous obscenity.
It will be easier to persecute moslems without it.
Absolutely.
I wonder how many voters understand just what these religious freedom laws are.
As I understand it, they do not discriminate against anyone personally. They do business with you when you enter the store. They do discriminate against events such as homosexual marriages.
Such a law is good and proper.
I may shoot for Oklahoma. Looking at the last 2 presidential elections every county was red.
More likely, lawyers elected to a legislature can not keep their self interest at bay and craft laws that enrich lawyers. While judges, who are also lawyers, mold precedents to the same purpose just as fortold in the “Anti-Federalist Papers”
Because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been systematically gutted at least since Woodrow Wilson's time.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 effectively trashed the right of free association. Perhaps it was thought necessary to bring about the full participation of black Americans into American society, and I find no fault with the motivation.
I'm just wondering how it all worked out, and how black life has improved.
Still, that's not the point. The right to free association was trashed, and that's part of the price that was paid; the rest being the assumption of unlimited power by the courts to defy the Congress, the states, and the people.
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.