Press can't explain why RFRA is different than all those other laws!

[bigbadjohn45]

An amusing struggle as the press tries to explain why RFRA is different from all those other laws


posted at 12:01 pm on March 31, 2015 by Jazz Shaw







While it's certainly a serious topic which merits the debate going on around the country, there has been one exceptionally funny aspect to the entire RFRA discussion this week. It took some prodding from conservative outlets, but the media has at long last begun to grudgingly admit that virtually identical laws are on the books in nearly two dozen other states and on the federal level, many bearing the signatures of Democrats. This has left liberal opponents sputtering and side stepping in their attempts to say, well yeah, but this is way worse because… Republicans!

Given a bit of time, though, the more erudite among them will come up with some better ways to parse it. One such effort is brought to us by Erick Eckholm at the Gray Lady. See if you can pick out the double standard at play. It begins with the opening salvo in the first sentence.

When the federal government adopted a religious protection act in 1993, same-sex marriage was not on the horizon.

While there is more to dig into, you could almost stop right there. So, Mr. Eckholm, you're saying that the law which protected the religious liberty of some individuals was a good thing in 1992, but once we began debating the almost entirely unrelated matter of gay marriage, it's no longer a good idea? I see.

Let's continue. I'll need to add a bit of emphasis into this part.

An informal coalition of liberals and conservatives endorsed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it seemed to protect members of vulnerable religious minorities from punishment for the exercise of their beliefs. The federal legislation was set off by a case involving Native Americans who were fired and denied unemployment benefits because they took part in ceremonies with peyote, an illegal drug.

Twenty states, including Indiana last week, have since passed their own versions of religious freedom laws.

But over time, court decisions and conservative legal initiatives started to change the meaning of those laws, according to liberal activists. The state laws were not used to protect minorities, these critics say, but to allow some religious groups to undermine the rights of women, gays and lesbians or other groups.

This is what's at the heart of it. Such laws are only of benefit to society if they are used to protect an oppressed minority. Never mind that we're talking about the constitutionally mandated freedom of religion for all people. The legislation can suddenly become poisonous if it fails to be reserved for a small subset of people. Or, perhaps I could rephrase it for you.

Hey! When we passed this thing you never said it was going to be used to protect Christians!!

I've been watching this unfold since yesterday morning on several cable channels and in numerous newspaper articles. And honestly, none of them get any better than the item above in terms of making any sort of sense. In a rather sad fashion, they are almost making my point for me. Religious liberty is great unless and until it becomes inconvenient for a politically popular demographic and/or benefits the majority in any way.

For a bit more on the coverage of this story, allow me to point you to this article at Rare by John-Henry Westen. It avoids the inherent hypocrisy of the preceding argument and gets to the root of why religious liberty is actually important to everyone… majority, minority or unaffiliated.

According to critics, Pence's signature is the equivalent of state-supported discrimination against gays.

However, it is same-sex activists who have engaged in state-sponsored discrimination. In Colorado, Vermont, California, and many other states, Christian business owners who serve gay customers but do not wish to participate in same-sex ceremonies are being forced out of their livelihoods. Bakers, photographers, printers, wedding planners, and bed and breakfast owners have been subjected to government-sponsored prejudice because of their religious beliefs.

It is therefore hypocritical for gay activists to target Indiana with such heated rhetoric.

But perhaps more importantly, their accusations are based on a misunderstanding of both religious liberty and the RFRA itself.

That's a refreshing way to look at the RFRA, isn't it? Perhaps we can get some of the cable news spokesmodels to give it a read.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash/Mike,

Suppose the tables were turned and a muslim business owner refused to do business with a homosexual? Suppose a homosexual florist refused to provide the flowers for a traditional, Christian marriage? Do you think we'd see the same outrage?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Good point BBJ. And where was the outrage when Slick Willie signed the same bill into law in 1993?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

I've been watching the debate over Indiana's Religious Freedom Act - and now Arkansas has adopted similar legislation. Now, in full disclosure, I support civil unions believing that marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman - the traditional view. I fully support anyone choosing within his or her "pursuit of happiness" to enjoin in a relationship with someone of the same sex - privilege to choose, not a mandated right.
What I find interesting is this liberal progressive leftist rant over "fairness." I am still wondering who are those people in the far away rooms that determine what is fair or what is for the "social good.

Here in America, out First Amendment right is for freedom of religion, but it seems some are seeking a freedom FROM religion - and they can freely choose NOT to have a religious faith.
But what is most disconcerting about the argument I hear presented from the left is that they feel my right to freedom of religion is trumped by someone else's choice of sexual partner.
I remember a quote that goes something like this, "the right of an individual to throw a punch stops at another individual's nose." So let me present a simple question: is it fair for someone to be forced to accept a lifestyle choice from another that is inconsistent with their freedom of religion and free exercise thereof ? That's what it says in the Constitution, if that still matters.
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention advanced the premise that America would not have a Head of State who is also the Head of Church. That was what he meant by separation of church and state. Jefferson also put forth that he did not want a nation where the state could subjugate religious beliefs to the state. Sounds pretty simple to me, but are we on a different path?
Consider a baker in Oregon who is a Christian, and when asked to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage humbly declined based upon free exercise of religion. It was not a rejection of the patrons because of their sexual behavioral choice - it was the event.
I am quite certain the same baker would have humbly declined to bake a cake for a polygamous event or something else inconsistent with their beliefs. Is it fair that that baker has lost their business and been viciously attacked? Or how about a photographer who humbly declines a request to shoot a same sex marriage due to their religious belief. Is it fair that the state, i.e. the government, should bring suit against them and destroy their business? Somehow I don't think that was what Jefferson had in mind.
Therefore, have we come to a point in America where the right of an individual to hold religious beliefs is being made subject by way of coercion, intimidation, and government tyranny to the whims of a minority? Maybe, just maybe that's why Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Act - to protect those with religious beliefs - which are not radical - from persecution. Then maybe we are no longer a nation with a Judeo-Christian faith heritage that respects and honors Christian principles. If that be the case, and this is the opening towards a secular humanist state, just say so.
I find it odd that we are now in the religious persecution mode, which is why Pilgrims came to America in the first place.
And get this impeccable irony - the White House releases a statement against Gov. Pence while sitting at the table trying to get a nuclear deal with a country, Iran, that hangs gays and lesbians. Yep, I know, such hypocrisy isn't just laughable but disturbing.
This isn't about denying gays and lesbians service. They are individuals and no one is putting up a sign - unlike what my mom and dad had to endure.
However, is it really fair to force a private sector business owner to do something against their First Amendment right to the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof? And sadly, we have charlatans like Al Sharpton who will try to equate this to race - incomparable. When I walk into an establishment there are two identifying characteristics - male, black. There are no other behavioral aspects that are known, unless, I feel so compelled to broadcast such in an attention-grabbing stunt.
So, in conclusion, this ruckus is much ado about nothing - other than a certain group that seeks to impose its lifestyle and behavioral choice upon others. Now that ladies and gents isn't fair - and it's even more unfair when the state is complicit by way of coercive policies allowing one to throw the punch, forcing the other to take it on the nose.
I think we need to have a conversation in America about what is a right, and what is a privilege.

Here’s EXACTLY why the RFA is so important

 

[bigbadjohn45]

"However, is it really fair to force a private sector business owner to do something against their First Amendment right to the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof? And sadly, we have charlatans like Al Sharpton who will try to equate this to race - incomparable. When I walk into an establishment there are two identifying characteristics - male, black. There are no other behavioral aspects that are known, unless, I feel so compelled to broadcast such in an attention-grabbing stunt."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely well said, Flash. You're so right, race-baiters such as Sharpton are purposely blurring discrimination and discretion. If, for example, a Christian bakery owner refuses to sell a wedding cake with two men or two women on it--they are (and should be) allowed to refuse to do so because this would conflict with their Christian beliefs. This is what is called using discretion. This would be invoking their rights of religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Discrimination, in the above example, would involve refusing to sell a wedding cake if the couple were, for example, black, or Asian, or American Indian, etc.

But notice how it's always CHRISTIAN groups who are the ones guilty of "discrimination" according to liberals. They would never consider it discriminatory if a homosexual baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a Christian, traditional marriage, right? Or if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake with two men or two women on it! Oh no! They can't have that!

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay, Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I'm pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week's adventure to Dearborn, Mich., to find out! (see link)



Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakery

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

This is different than "those other laws" in that it gives the individual the right to refuse service to a person based on their views, even if it violates the other persons constitutional rights. The "other laws" state that a person can refuse the government service, not individuals. As far as the Muslim bakery, if they refuse service based on sexual orientation, they should be boycotted and sued. It's discriminatory.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Or this example

Does a Black Bakery owner have the right to refuse to serve members of the KKK?

Meanwhile, back to the real life example from the Indiana Pizza joint. First of all they don't cater events. The owners gave an answer to a hypothetical question - meanwhile, the press didn't mention that they had no problem serving a member of the gay community in their restaurant (real example). They merely stated that if they did cater events they would not do a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs. And they should have that right, there are many other businesses that will do it - it called freedom. You have the freedom to shop around and do business with ever you would like but you cannot force someone to cater to you. And why would you?

The point is, if you LOOK for discrimination, I think you can find it. But that doesn't mean its common, or there are no other options.

I could make the case because I am a short bald man that I am discriminated against because of my lack of height....I am sure that have been times when that has been the case - studies show that taller men are more successful. But I have persevered and found roles were I have thrived.

 

[BlueRaiderFan]

Yes a person has the right to refuse service to those that would do him harm (e.g. a hate group like the KKK). As far as the restaurant, hypothetical or not, they answered it and suffered the consequences. That's the way boycotts and protests work. Looks like it will work out for them in the end as they are getting plenty of donations. You don't have the right to refuse service to "anyone for any reason." You can't discriminate. Don't like it? Hand over your business license. You clearly don't belong with civilized society. We live in a republic. We aren't free to do "anything and everything." We have a constitution that we must abide by. Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation etc is against the law. I wouldn't want to see gays refuse service to a christian based on their religion and I'm not going to be ok with christians refusing service to gays.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

So the are the gay support groups that gave the business owners death threats hate groups? You can belong to the KKK, it's not against the law. I don't agree with them but they have a right to believe whatever they want. They can demonstrate all day long in a peaceful and lawful way.

It saddens me that you think a hypothetical answer to a question is discrimination. There is a nuance here about religious freedom that you cannot grasp. The owners clearly said that they would never turn anyone away that wanted to be served in their restaurant.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ and Mike,

Tammy Bruce, a conservative gay radio host, said that the invective hurled at businesses refusing to provide services to same-sex marriages "is the antithesis of what the gay rights movement was about" and that the gay rights movement is becoming the monster that we were fighting against" (see link).

"For all of us, we have embraced the civil rights movements of this country, which were about allowing people to live the lives that best suit them. For gay people, it was about living our lives decently without being attacked by others because we were different, or because we refuse to conform, and here we are now in the 21st century with Christians being attacked by gay bullies because they're different, and they don't conform to the leftist narrative or to the leftist agenda. This is the antithesis of what the gay rights movement was about, what every civil rights movement was about, and it's not what we've been fighting for for generations" she stated.

Bruce also said the attacks on Memories Pizza in response to "a hypothetical" is "almost as though you've got packs of wolves now targeting small, Christian-owned businesses saying 'are you going to negate your faith?' Are you going to abandon what you believe in? Or we will hurt you,' effectively. 'Will you conform to our narrative?'"

She concluded, "of all people in the world who should understand the need to be respected for who we are, the risks at being different, the ability to make a living, and to be safe, it's the gay community. For us to put on, to these small business owners, this kind of totalitarian boot, is clearly us becoming the monster that we were fighting against."





This post was edited on 4/5 4:34 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

The antithesis of the gay rights movement