Another attack on Religion, how many more until Religion leaves you?
This entire scenario that has been going on in Indiana regarding a new “religious freedom” law has been mutilated by just about all main stream media as well as others who just don’t know what the context of the law is even about. So why not go out and speak as though you are some kind of expert and lash out at Indiana’s governor, the state’s House and Senate, insofar as it was their executive and legislative branches that produced the law; albeit, even if it is a narrow brush stroke from the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It is worth noting here that the RFRA was initiated by Senator Charles Schumer D-NY and signed into law by the then President Bill Clinton in 1993 — roughly 22 years ago.
So all things being equal, what’s different now? Indiana Republicans pledged on Monday to clarify a new “religious freedom” law, while similar proposals stalled in Georgia and North Carolina after businesses and activists said such measures could be used to discriminate against gays.
As for me that sentence just about explains everything. Businesses and activists say “such measures could be used to discriminate against gays.” Rather than read the content of the original bill or now law, we must always be reminded that the L.G.B.T. is around and well — flexing their muscles because measures could be used to discriminate against them.
Indiana’s law, signed last week, was perceived as going further than those enacted in 19 other states, giving businesses a right to refuse services on religious grounds. This is interesting inasmuch as who has made the claim that such a law would give business a right to refuse services on religious grounds?
Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appeals court ruling, and gay rights activists say Republicans pushed through the religious freedom act in response. The law was enacted months before an expected U.S. Supreme Court ruling over state bans on same-sex marriage.
Thousands rallied against the law in Indianapolis last weekend and the cities of San Francisco and Seattle and the state of Connecticut all banned official travel to Indiana. Can you spell or even say abhorrent?
The law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so — the “compelling interest” rule. If it tries to do so, you can go to court and plead legal objection under the religious-freedom law. The court will have to decide if there is a compelling reason to override your religious freedom, or not. Combating discrimination, incidentally, might well be such a reason.
Please note that we will say something about the religious freedom that was egregiously mishandled in the New Mexico Land Management v. Elaine Huguenin. Just type that case in the search box up top or visit The American Age website.