Posted on 04/02/2015 12:37:03 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Scott Walker: Indiana Law Outrage From People “Chronically Looking For Ways To Be Upset About Things”
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday much of the outrage over Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act comes from “people who are chronically looking for ways to be upset about things.”
Walker was participating in “Insight 2015,” a program put on by Wisconsin conservative radio host Charlie Sykes.
“We don’t need to, in Wisconsin, we have it in the constitution. That’s the remarkable thing for all of the hype, particularly in media here in Wisconsin. We have it in the constitution,” Walker said when asked if he would have signed the bill passed in Indiana.
The law, which prohibits the government from infringing on individual religious freedom unless certain standards are met, has triggered a wave of national attention for the state from critics who argue it could allow LGBT discrimination.
“It’s even more entrenched than anything that can be in the state statues and we don’t have the kind of hype and hysteria that the national media is creating on this,” Walker said. “Remember, it’s not because what we have here, President Clinton signed something very similar to this nationally back in ‘93. President Obama voted for something like this in the neighboring state of Illinois when he was a state senator.”
Walker said the outrage for the law was coming from people who hadn’t really looked at what the law really is and were just looking for a reason to be upset.
“I just think this is people who are chronically looking for ways to be upset about things instead of really looking what it is. I believe in protecting religious freedoms. It’s inherent in our state’s constitution. Heck, it’s inherent in our U.S. Constitution, and again, Wisconsin, we’ve done it, and we’re stronger for it.”
Asked about what would happen to a baker who did wanting to provide services to a same-sex wedding in the state, Walker didn’t address the scenario, but said Wisconsin’s law strikes “a healthy balance.”
“Again, if you look at the constitution there is both a combination of religious freedoms protecting the constitution and back in the ’80s, long, long ago when I was still a kid, there were also provisions there that would protect against discrimination including a gay or lesbian individual out there,” he said. “So there is a healthy balance of someone can’t be discriminated, say, in the workplace and that — but for someone who has a conscientious objection, based on their religious beliefs no matter what it might be, the constitution is pretty clear in the state.”
BLAMMO!!! I like Scott Walker.
My Governor is going to make onehelluva President! Yes, I am finally coming to grips with America needing him more than Wisconsin does. He’s set us up well to keep the Socialists at bay should be leave us.
Love My Gov! :)
He either didn’t get it, or is not stating the real reason if he understands it.
The point is to use the State to persecute Christians.
“Gay marriage” is simply the current way to do so.
About time somebody with BACKBONE stood up and said this. He called out the pathologically neurotic whiners for what they are. Bravo to Walker!!!!
The point is to use the State to persecute Christians.
***********
A very astute comment!!! You are absolutely right IMO. That is exactly the game they’re playing.
I was leaning to Walker, but Cruz's very firm support for religious freedom is attractive.
I agree with Gov. Walker. Low-information people are often government-indocrinated to be “professional” victims in order to win vote-winning but unconstitutional government entitlements and privileges.
Also bear in mind that the 17th Amendment is the background cause of unconstitutional entitlements and privileges imo, and needs to be repealed.
I don’t understand why the liberals and homosexuals picked his fight against Indiana. Many other states have these religious freedom laws. There is a federal law on the subject which was supported by the liberals when it was passed.
Why boycotts against Indiana, and only Indiana, when so many other states also have these laws?
When will the late night comedians villify the governor of Connecticut for banning travel to Indiana, when his own state has a religious freedom law??
If the liberals were intellectually honest they would have been fighting all of these other laws in other states all along. Its as if suddenly last week, liberal talking points went out, saying its been decided that we have a meltdown over the Indiana law, without knowing even what this law is about or what other states have such laws.
This would be laughable farce except for how powerful liberals and homosexuals are, and their control of the media.
They just keep “ramping up” to see where the point of resistance is,
then they caterwaul and criminalize that resistance.
Haha, this is why I love this guy, most of what he says sounds like it could come out of my mouth, but he usually phrases it better. I’m often talked about the left as the “perpetually outraged”.
Indiana holds the Final Four NCAA tournament this time of year. They knew they could get attention by timing it this past week by putting pressure on participating colleges and threatening the loss of the tournament; many younger folks and older guys could care less about their complaints but if it results in the loss of the Tournament . . .
OK so in that case if a gay couple went to a Waunakee pizza parlor and asked them to cater their wedding, and the pizza parlor said no because they are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, then which part wins? The religious freedom part or the anti-discrimination part?
I think that neither Cruz nor Walker hit the nail on the head.
I think (having heard Mark Levin on the subject) the law narrowly says that the government may not enforce a law against the religious beliefs of a person unless:
1) There is a compelling state interest,
2) The restriction on the person’s religious rights is as narrowly tailored as possible, and
3) The affected person is given rights to redress his grievance in court according to the law in question.
This is almost never the “cake for a gay wedding” scenario. It is almost always some other thing, like the antique eagle feathers used in Native American religious ceremonies that are made illegal by endangered species legislation. It is almost always the GOVERNMENT impinging on religious liberty which this legislation addresses.
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.