The Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence the other day is HORRIBLY INSENSITIVE! – said the liberal.
What protests of Indiana truly represent is liberal hypocrisy at its finest. The complication with the left’s hatred for the state of Indiana at the moment is that it’s not based on solid footing. The outcry is unjust.
The origins of the RFRA? It was brought about by ultra liberal Senator Chuck Schumer, passed near unanimously by both the House and Senate, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993.
Indiana is now the 21st state to pass a “religious freedom” bill.
The bill guarantees individuals the right to conduct business without ‘substantially burdening their ability to exercise their religion.’
There are currently 21 states with religious freedom laws: Alabama (state constitution amendment), Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
So why then is Indiana suddenly being dragged thru the mud?
Do liberals who completely misinterpret this law not feel the need to boycott any other state who’s feelings on the issue are nearly identical?
Nevertheless, the ‘extremely controversial’ RFRA is based on a 1993 Federal Law, which is also dubbed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was signed into law by ‘right-wing extremist’ president Bill Clinton.
Even blue states like Connecticut and Rhode Island have versions of the law. That is because the law is not as sweeping in its implications as activists seem to be suggesting.
In other words, not only can the Christian owners of a bakery refuse to write an inscription on the wedding cake of a gay couple, but the black owners of a T-shirt business don’t have to print the KKK’s burning crosses on shirts, and Jewish owners of a gift shop don’t have to put Nazi symbols on coffee cups.
Here’s a fantastic definiton of the RFRA by HSLDA:
[The RFRA] reestablished a test by which courts must give the highest deference to a person’s religious practice (known as the compelling interest test). This test puts the burden of proof on the government to show that its regulation of a religious practice is essential to achieve a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.