As we mentioned in an earlier post, we do not believe that Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” is a model that should be universally followed. What is rather needed is the restoration of freedom in general, in particular the freedom of contract. The State, of course, is under a specific obligation to treat everybody equally, but free citizens in a free country should have the right to freely choose with whom they want, or do not want, to conclude contracts. This is freedom of choice as we understand it.
That being said, we cannot but express our astonishment at the crusade so-called “liberals” (who are in fact the exact opposite of what they pretend to be…) are waging against the State of Indiana in reaction to the newly adopted law, trying to organize an economic boycott.
Indiana is neither the first nor the only US State to have enacted such legislation. In actual fact, the model for the new law is a statute that had been adopted at (US) Federal level back in 1993. The bill was introduced by two Democrat politicians, Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). It was adopted by unanimity in the House of Representatives and nearly by unanimity in the Senate, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
These days, Hillary Clinton is twittering that she finds it “sad that this new Indiana law can happen in America today”. What a disgusting hypocrite she is, and how stupid she must think American voters are! The Indiana law is not new, it is simply copy-pasted from a law made by Democrat politicians and signed by Hillary’s husband!
What were the reasons that led to the adoption, at federal level, of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993?
The background was a series of decisions by the US Supreme Court according which it was not unconstitutional for state legislation to restrict religious practice. In particular, the decision in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which upheld the state of Oregon’s refusal to give unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony, caused public outrage.
The majority opinion in that case was written by a reputedly “conservative” judge, Antonin Scalia. He wrote that “it would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of statues that are to be used for worship purposes or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.” But Oregon’s ban on the possession of peyote was not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it was a law that applied to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a “neutral law of general applicability,” in the Court’s phrasing.
Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support the RFRA overturning laws if they unduly burden a religion.
So it seems that for Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton, religious freedom is ok if it involves the use of drugs, but it is not ok if it involves speaking out for a correct understanding of marriage and family, or peaceful and passive resistance against the “gay rights” agenda.
The current campaigning of “gay rights” activists against one single US State, which they are singling out and accusing of “homophobia”, is in fact nothing else but a glaring self-exhibition of the lobby’s bigotry and intolerance. Rather than making a good case why it should not be boycotted against, the lobby is trying to organize a boycott, thereby demonstrating that it does not consider itself bound by the “moral principles” it wants to impose on everyone else.
Once again, it becomes apparent why it is a political mistake to tolerate sodomy and its ideologues: because they are themselves intolerant. Indeed, tolerance seems an impossibility for them, because everybody speaking the truth about marriage (even if only silently, i.e. by living an orderly and happy family life) to them is a “provocation”, reminding them of the lie they themselves are living in. And while it is unacceptable for them that persons not believing in same-sex “marriage” might want to abstain from contributing to such travesties, they find it normal to persecute such opponents with death threats.