(on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, widely seen as anti-gay)
I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.
35 comments
I think it's unfortunate Indiana passed an anti-gay RFRA, which is not about protecting religious beliefs by making a benign, non-intruding exception to the law, but rather about refusing service to some based on extensive cherry-picking of Bible and gross misinterpretation of Christian doctrine.
I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act.
That's because it IS an anti-gay act. The only reason it was passed was because gay marriage is becoming legal all across the country.
RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.
That was before Republicans started using them to allow legal persecution of gay people. Which if what you say is correct, there's no need for an RFRA because the First Amendment does what you claim the RFRAs do.
Been listening to the damage control and spin doctoring on Fox News, have we?
You can call it fertilizer all you want, it's still a turd.
"I got right, you got rights, all'o god's chillen got rights..."
The dividing line is when YOUR rights step all over somebody ELSE'S rights, idiots!
I am pleased to see Indiana opening the door to the stoning to death of whores, non-virgin brides, fornicators and wearers of mixed fiber clothing. Also beating your kids with iron rods.
The good old christian days are back again in Indiana , rejoice.!!!!
( yes sarcasm - cant you tell ;-) )
I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act.
What other minority is affected by the law? Other minorities (religion, national origin, race, etc.) are protected by the Civil Rights Act, which overrides the RFRA. Saying this isn't anti-gay is an old political trick, like funneling government business to your brother-in-law's company without mentioning its name but writing the specs so that his company is the only one that qualifies.
The law was bipartisan when it was aimed at protecting people wearing yarmulkes or beards - not when people were hiding their bigotry by claiming their religion required them to harm or insult people they don't like. Do these "Christians" (and it's always Christians) who won't serve same-sex couples also refuse to serve people who have committed adultery or worked on the Sabbath or did any of the other 20 or so things listed by Paul in Romans 1:29-31 as worthy of death?
If providing goods or services to someone your religion condemns is the same as participating in their "sin," then why don't you believe that a Christian-baked cake could change the gays that ate it? Doesn't the ju-ju work both ways, or is Christianity just particularly weak?
I could equally claim that you have been a participant in all the religions of all the countries that provide you with foodstuffs, etc. You know those Indonesian Muslims prayed over all that palm oil, right?
The original RFRA was somewhat in the spirit of the separation of church and state: Namely, that the state could not impose restrictions or duties on you contrary to your religious beliefs, except in cases of compelling interest. For example, it could not pass a law forcing orthodox Jews to work on the Sabbath.
The Indiana law, however, goes much further: It allows private companies to invoke the RFRA in legal disputes with OTHER CITIZENS, not just with the government. I.e. you could simply use the RFRA to potentially throw out any case brought against you by claiming that the plaintiff was imposing on your religious beliefs.
See the difference, dipshit?
It was anti-g3igh. Fortunately, Pence had a sudden outburst of common sense and is going to help defang it.
It's not as if there weren't signs this guy were cracking, tho--in August, when the state was still defending its anti-marriage equality law, Pence was attacked for not doing much to defend it. It was indefensible in the first place, mind.
Oh yes, that radical view that people should be treated as others are whether they gay, straight, male, female, white, black, or blue. That radical mindset!
@Common Sense:
When dealing with blacks that want to use any business that they desire to use:
If blacks don't like it, they can shop somewhere else.
White freedom > black entitlement.
Or, there's the question of Jews:
If Jews don't like it, they can shop somewhere else.
Christian freedom > Jewish entitlement.
Why not take it further, and explore the times when women weren't allowed to vote?
If women don't like it, they can move somewhere else where they can vote.
Male freedom > female entitlement.
Your tones are glib, but basically, yeah.
The right to conduct business when and with whom you want takes precedence over temper tantrums at having to shop somewhere else.
Why is this even an issue, anyway? Surely any business that would reject your patronage based on those factors isn't one where you would want to shop.
So you're a "Chistian Democrat?" What is that? Are you like a follower of Jebus Chist? Never heard of him. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, so you are not welcome in my place of business. I also consider bad spelling a sin. So, no soup for you!
@ Common Sense:
"We don't serve your kind around here."
Just let that sit on your shoulders a while and tell me how you feel about it.
I once walked into an all Black (screw your P.C., I grew up in the 60's) establishment in NYC. The guy behind the counter ignored me until I left. It wasn't right, but I understood. My understanding didn't make it right. He might have been looking out for me, knowing his customers better than I did. He might have been doing me a favor. It still was no less wrong than any person of African descent that got the silent treatment in Tennessee (or wherever) from a white man.
Paul was not Jesus. Paul was a nasty piece of work, not unlike many zealots. If you want to follow his rants, why don't you call yourselves Paulists?
@Common Sense
I'm disappointed I even have to explain this, but the reason anti-discriminatory laws exist is because without them it would be stupidly easy for businesses or even entire industries to deny service to minority groups, even in regards to essentials for everyday living (food, clothing, etc.), which would make "shopping somewhere else" effectively impossible for said groups if this discrimination occurred in large enough areas.
I'm disappointed, too, Louis, because that is exactly what SHOULD happen. The instant government officials step in and say "This is what has to be done with your business" is the instant that freedom of enterprise evaporates.
@Common Sense
You do realize you are advocating for the right for minority groups to be denied basic essentials for living, effectively condemning them to poverty or even death if enough businesses/industries practice this discrimination, right? Setting aside ethical issues, something like that would most likely cause severe political instability and destabilization nationwide that would most likely lead to mass protest, immigration away from the country, or even potentially violent opposition. Freedom is all well and good as a concept, but there is a limit to how much can practically be implemented while maintaining a basic level of national stability.
Canadiest
When has it (Christianity that is) EVER been discriminated against. These laws have nothing to do with anything like that, they are obvious attempts to raise Christianity above everything else. Worse, Fundamentalist Christianity, as many churchs have expressed resistance to these laws and polls have shown these are only wanted by small numbers of fundamentalists and the usual gang of Dominionists.
Several states have introduced laws like this and squashed them after realising the secular wording also gave those rights to other religions and (shudder) Atheists. Proving the existing system already favors Christianity and that new bills were entirely for entrenching Christianity into law. Michele Bachmans entire career was attempts to enshrine her state and/or America as Christian by law.
Sure, RFRA probably USED to be bipartisan. Now, however, it's pro-discrimination.
A basic thing with human rights and civil rights; you have to be prepared to fight for other peoples rights as well, or you won't have any yourself. I.e. if you want religious rights, you have to also help fight for equal marriage rights for gay people.
The appeal by those Christian bakers in Northern Ireland failed.
Thus in the UK is the last avenue of bigots destroyed.
I'm sure the ACLU will have taken notice of that ruling, and how it can be applied in your country...! >:D
PROTIP: What happened a few months later. [/SCOTUS]
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
