Make no mistake. It isn’t the LGBT who are being targeted in these days. It is believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Wall Street Journal editorial from March 30: "Indiana isn't targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion."
How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Indiana discriminate against gays? It doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals at all.
How can it be that liberals who were so staunchly in favor of RFRA back in 1993 now are so heatedly in opposition to it today? If RFRA discriminated against homosexuals then why did leading liberals overwhelmingly support RFRA at the Federal level in 1993?
U.S. Representative (presently Senator) Chuck Schumer introduced RFRA in 1993 as the key sponsor. U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (deceased – Massachusetts) introduced the same bill in the U.S. Senate as the key sponsor. It was approved by the U.S. House in 1993 by voice vote and passed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 97-3. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. [Watch the great enthusiasm in the signing.]
In addition, to the Fed, there are 19 states that have passed RFRA.
Keep in mind, too, that in 1998 while serving in the Illinois state Senate, Barack Obama voted for RFRA (93-0).
Last evening on his radio broadcast, Mark Levin, former Chief of Staff of then U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese during the Reagan administration stated: “These statutes are all based upon the same premise: They are about civil liberties, civil rights, tolerance.”
Levin raised the question: “How does the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – discriminate again gays? It doesn’t discriminate against gays at all.”
Levin: All these statutes do is give standingto an individual depending upon the statute, a small business, a bakery, what have you, maybe a company – depending upon how the statute is written – gives them standing so that in the federal court to challenge a service or product that is being demanded from them that may interfere with their religious beliefs and to prevent interference with their religious beliefs. It’s not specific to gays, to anyone, or anything.
It gives a legal cause of action and a legal defense. Depending upon which side of the cause you are on. If you can demonstrate that based upon your religious beliefs – again depending upon the statute – what the government is demanding of or from you or a private party is demanding of you or from you violates your long held religious beliefs.
In fact, the Indiana law said “substantially burdens”. You can’t just say “Hey it burdens my belief because I’m an orthodox Jew, I’m a Muslim, I’m a practicing …
No. You have to prove that this somehow substantially interferes with your belief, with your exercise of your free right to your religious belief. That’s quite a high bar.
In other words, this is the bare minimum and you still have to go into court and the court still has to rule. So I want to know – How does this law that Indiana has written discriminate against gays?
Then someone asks “ Yeah but it’s different than federal law because it involves companies and businesses.” (Levin continues): Not in any significant way because it involves companies and businesses. [It’s like] so what?
If I own a small business, yes, so I and my business sue or defend and it gives us a cause of action. The store has to be adjudicated. You still have to prove your case. It has nothing to do with gays unless there’s a specific instance.
So the question is how does this legalize discrimination against gays? How does this legalize discrimination against gays when it gives causes of action depending upon whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant what kind of cause of action that still have to take to court or defense that you still have to use in court. How does that discriminate against gays?
They don’t discriminate against anybody. They are aimed at ensuring civil liberties, civil rights, that the religious liberties of certain individuals, that they can have their day in court. That’s it. The outcome is unknown. That’s it.
Listen to these brief comments and a bit more at Right Scoop.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee offered these comments:
“RFRA protects and preserves the religious freedoms of all Americans. Where were the protests when President Clinton signed the original law back in 1993, which passed almost unanimously and when Senator Obama supported it in Illinois? The substance of these laws have not changed — what has changed is the anger, deception and intolerance from those on the left who assault our religious liberties.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Reseach Council writes:
After 22 years of living under the same legislation Governor Mike Pence (R) just signed, most people want to know what, exactly, has changed? When President Bill Clinton put his name on an almost identical piece of legislation, his party cheered.
Now, two decades later, this same concept of religious freedom is sparking a nationwide panic. Businesses are boycotting Indiana; governors are banning state-funded travel there, and the media is giving in to a perfect storm of distortion from national liberal groups — all because Indiana wants what the Founding Fathers did: to let every American live and work according to their faith.
The reality is, if there weren't a hostility toward faith, there wouldn't be a need for RFRAs. As Americans, we have a proud tradition of respecting each other's differences. But, under the policies and influence of the Obama administration, religious intolerance, especially toward Christians, has grown significantly. The various states that have passed RFRAs are simply extending the same courtesy of tolerance to men and women of faith that the Left now enjoys.
A Wall Street Journal editor pointed out in an editorial entitled:
The New Intolerance – Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.
"The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views."
Tony Perkins continued:
The Left is no longer satisfied with coexistence. They want to demand acceptance from others — and use the heavy hand of government to get it. They don't just want to have their cake and eat it too — they want to force Christians to make their cake before they do. What RFRA is intended to do is to protect people from government discrimination.
Under this bill, everyone — regardless of their beliefs — would have the ability to defend their faith in court — whether it's a wedding vendor whose beliefs will not allow them to affirm same-sex "marriage," or a business like Hobby Lobby whose faith prohibits them from covering abortions.
The Left, meanwhile, is reaching for their pitchforks, when they should be reaching for their reading glasses. Nowhere in these three pages of Indiana legislation do Hoosiers have a free pass to deny people goods or services. In 22 years, no business has ever successfully used a law like this to do so. That's all hype. "The great irony," Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) argued, "is that in the minds of today's liberals, the only bigotry to be tolerated is their own bigotry against religious beliefs."
Gary Bauer comments on his End of Day (03.31.15):
In last 24 hours, Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Marco Rubio, former Sen. Rick Santorum and, to his credit, former Governor Jeb Bush have all expressed their support for the Indiana law, as has Reverend Franklin Graham.
I don't know how this battle will end, but you don't have to be a prophet to know this much: Religious freedom is the new battlefield in America and it goes to the heart of our founding — the First Amendment right to practice your faith.
In recent days, several left-wing commentators have mocked conservatives, asking, "What's the big threat this law is supposed to address?" You have to be willfully ignorant of big government's massive onslaught against religious liberty to ask such a question.
Obamacare attempted to force Hobby Lobby to subsidize abortion and contraception. The Obama Administration is still trying to force nuns — the Little Sisters of the Poor — to promote abortion.
In recent years, we have seen bakers, florists, photographers, college administrators and high tech executives be fined or fired for their faith. The Supreme Court is likely to impose same-sex marriage on every state of the union. There will likely be unforeseen and far-reaching consequences for radically redefining marriage and the family. Click here for petition to Justices.
All of this is happening because the demand for tolerance extends to everybody but those who believe in Judeo-Christian values. Men and women of faith are being demonized as bigots and criminals.
So far the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never worked as a defense for Christian bakers embroiled in lawsuits over gay weddings, but for a handful of Apache, Muslim and Sikh plaintiffs, it’s been a godsend.
Washington Times
The latest developments on religious objection laws
Reporters openly side against Indiana law
Ravi Zacharias quote:
America's very values emerged from a Judeo-Christian backdrop and the sacredness of belief in the transcendent. Today those same values are being targeted by a rabid secularization and evicted from any or all public expression. I'm not arguing for religious enforcement in the land, but if you evict the ideas that brought us freedom in the first place then you have lost the idea of what freedom is intended to be.
To support our efforts please click here or mail your gift to American Decency Association (ADA), PO Box 202, Fremont, MI 49412.
American Decency Association is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.
Call us:
231-924-4050Email us:
info@americandecency.orgWrite us:
American Decency AssociationCopyright 2024 American Decency
