Indiana was the 20th state in 20 years that has enacted their version
of
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Arkansas will be the 21st. The
RFRA was signed into Federal law by President Bill Clinton and for the
last 20 years 20 states have been enacting their own version. The
primary purpose of the RFRA was to address government from infringing on
religious rights with a presumption of innocence on religious 1st
amendment grounds; the question now does that include conflicts between
government declarations of protected classes and religious beliefs. So
far the business that have refused a service to LGBT, has only been
their participating in wedding ceremonies
that directly conflict with their Christian or Muslim religious
beliefs; yes
Muslim business have also been sued, but the press has completely
ignored them; the idea that these business otherwise refuse to service
LGBT has been a media lie. It is also interesting that the Bible is
replete with examples of Christians and Jews that were martyred because
they would not bend to laws that were contrary to their religious
beliefs. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech, once the
impeding of the free exercise begins, it is no longer an inalienable
right, but a right regulated by government; and the two are mutually
exclusive.
Another point I see regarding the Indiana case is the left is using a
poorly worded new law to say; 1) every conservative in Indiana is a
homophobic 2) This is the reason you need to vote for Democrats. The
truth is you would probably have to search far and wide in Indiana for a
business that is so devoted to their religious beliefs that they would
deny service of any kind; the reporter in Walkerton, Ind checked pretty
much every restaurant within a 20 mile radius before she found Memories
Pizza. And even then the owner never said they would deny any service.
The owner, answering a question from the reporter about catering to a
gay wedding said, while they have never been ask to cater a wedding of
any kind, she could not involve her business in a wedding ceremony that
goes against their religious beliefs. The owner further said she has
nothing against homosexuals and would never dream of denying them
service, it's the nature of a wedding ceremony that's the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.