GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

The Left’s Real Outrage Over a Faux Cause

by

 As Gabriel Malor explains, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law does not legalize … much less mandate… discrimination against gay people. It merely makes Religious Conscience an available legal defense. It does not make it legal to discriminate against gays any more than the existence of Self-Defense as a legal defense make it legal to randomly kill people… despite the rantings of celebrity idiots like Cher and Sally Kohn (who continue in their endless rivalry to claim the title of #DumbestWomanOnTwitter.)  Not to mention the gay CEO of Apple sanctimoniously postures against “religious discrimination” while happily opening Apple stores in Saudi Arabia.  Or the Democrat Governor of Connecticut banning travel to Indiana for having exactly the same Religious Freedom Law that Connecticut has.

If the Democrat Left is really sincere about this, how about a push to repeal the Federal Freedom of Religion Act… which was signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Raise your hand if you think the whole #BoycottIndiana thing is more about professional activists who have to keep the outrage flowing or else they have to find real jobs than it is about any actual discrimination.

Comments

  1. This is about distracting from Hilary’s mess and scaring people that may not like voting for the Clintons that the alternative is voting for bigots who will burn all the gays at the stakes. The right needs to pull it together and make their case, but they’ll run away with their tails between their legs as usual leaving the left free reign to control the conversation. Hillary Clinton is as dirty and corrupt a politician as we’ve ever had and the Left can’t afford to let their base be distracted by that.

  2. It’s a perfect storm combining the activists who immediately jumped on it all & the mindset of liberal gays & their stooges who get upset that anyone opposes their holy crusade of intolerance.

    This has nothing to do with deflection.

  3. Same thing with the outrage of the Disciples of Christ leadership — they conveniently overlook that the denomination was a big supporter of RFRA back in 1993, and supported in an amicus brief when it was challenged before the Supreme Court.

    Not to mention that the denomination allows its own congregations and ministers to refuse to host or officiate in gay weddings. Apparently Disciples leaders want the state to impose upon everyone that which it will not impose internally because it recognizes the diversity of belief on the matter. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/355840.php

  6. I’ll see Craig Smith’s point above and take it a little further. Back in 2004, the only candidate on a major party ticket running for President or Vice President who supported gay marriage wasn’t John Kerry or John Edwards. It was Dick Cheney. The Democrats and the press would like everyone to forget that–and most people have (except for loyal readers, bloggers, and commenters here at GayPatriot, of course).

  7. What people here conveniently forget is that there is a clause in Indiana’s RFRA that provides a VERY weak standard of proof. It allows for the defendant to use RFRA as a defense in a suit, regardless of whether or not the state of Indiana, a county official, a city official, or any similar figure is a named defendant. If you want proof of that, here is the text from the statute, verbatim: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” In other words, if North Dallas Thirty and V the K were Indiana residents, and NDT decided to sue VTK for some reason, VTK can assert RFRA as a defense, even if NDT forgot to name Mike Pence, or Greg Zoeller, or Marion County, or whatever, as a defendant. This is troublesome because it CAN be used as a license to discriminate in the future.

    New Mexico and Oregon, otherwise known as the “wedding cake” states, have RFRAs as well. But they do not have the weak provision that Indiana does. It’s likely that the gay couples won their lawsuits due to such a lack of weakness.

  10. Paul I would argue that the lack of weakness then is a bad thing if the Cake bakers lost.

    I don’t think business should be compelled to participate in a rite that they see as a violation of their faith.

  11. Also, I’m rather bothered by the fact that in many of these cases Christian businesses were deliberately targeted in order to file these suits. That’s just petty.

  12. “Also, I’m rather bothered by the fact that in many of these cases Christian businesses were deliberately targeted in order to file these suits. That’s just petty.”
    I’m pretty sure they would have filed suit if the owners were Muslims. Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn’t change just because the religious practicioner’s skin color is darker and the religion is a bit more 7th century in nature.

    However, Muslims typically tend to stick to their own. All you need to do is look at Europe to see that such is the case.

  13. “I don’t think business should be compelled to participate in a rite that they see as a violation of their faith.”
    Are the wedding cake bakers reciting the banns of marriage? Are they sprinkling the water or oil on them (assuming it’s a Catholic wedding)? Are they saying “And now I pronounce you husband and husband?”

    If they aren’t doing any of these things, they aren’t participating in the wedding.

    It would be like if a Muslim restaurant owner catered food for a Bar Mitzvah. Judaism is completely contrary to Islam, but the mere provision of food doesn’t mean the Muslim is affirming the Jew’s faith.

  15. What stuns me is that everyone forgets that ‘substantial burden’ bit from the law. It means this defense will come down to the question of whether a given bit of refusal to participate counts as substantial or not. And quite frankly baking wedding cakes with two guys on top will absolutely qualify as substantial (as it’s taking direct action in a way which is not neutral towards the nature of the ceremony in question but affirms its LGBT nature) while refusing lodging will not (as the providers of that lodging are not required to take any sort of action pro or con with regards to the nature of their occupants).

  16. In closing: Those on the left must learn – now or when the Supreme Court gets around to it – that their freedom to marry does not supersede others’ freedom to be Christian. And just as Christians don’t get to define the freedoms allowed to LGBT individuals under the law, neither do LGBT individuals or their supporters get to define the freedoms allowed Christians under the law.

    Both groups are equally important. Both freedoms are equally important. And if the alternative to complete dominance of the one over the other is ‘separate but equal’ (in person-to-person dealings), then ‘separate but equal’ we shall have.

    This ain’t a race war, people. The other side of the fight is a constitutionally protected class – not a bunch of hicks and racists this time round. That’s something a lot of people forget lately.

  17. And here we have a perfect example of an unquestioned narative, where an anonymous caller into a radio talk show is taken as fact.

    You read the headline and look at the picture and are aghast that anyone would be that blatantly discriminatory.

    Then you read the article and find out that the picture that accompanies the article must be a fake (else they could name the restaurant) and suspect that the caller is not a restaurant owner at all, but a troll calling in to foment a reaction.

    Yet, it is reported as fact.

  19. Paul — if you are being sued under a state law for refusing to bake that cake, there is still state involvement in the form of the statute under which you are being sued and the state court that could punish you for your exercise of religion. The “no state involvement” argument is therefore a red herring.

  22. @Paul, you forget the part of the ceremony where they say, “if anyone can show just cause why this couple should not be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.” Simply by attending the ceremony, by being there, they are participating, whether they say anything or not.

  23. The people that sue cake makers are the gay equivalent to the black women who fall at jewelry stores.

    If apple made a car it would come with the hood welded shut but Cook is saying I don’t want to have interactions with women but I want the state to force people to have transactional interactions with me. As a crony capitalist I am surprised he wouldn’t sue a male escort that turned him down after seeing him.

  27. Also, Rusty — what the heck is wrong with believing Homosexuality is wrong?
    Or with wanting to protect kids from it?
    Especially since we still don’t know exactly what factors contribute to sexuality, and by all accounts nurture has some effect on the outcome?

  29. And I’m anxiously awaiting Cook’s defense for why Apple does business in countries where they execute homosexuals (and beat them with canes if they opt to just jail them) but thinks Indiana is messed up because they want to protect religious expression (something that is a constitutional right as the left is prone to forgetting).

  30. …the Democrat Governor of Connecticut banning travel to Indiana for having exactly the same Religious Freedom Law that Connecticut has…

    Not true. They’re substantially different.

  31. @rusty

    I’m sure you can find the Advocate saying HRC is pro-child abuse because of the actions of one of its founders. Or their essay condemning Obama for being pro-terrorist because of his associations with Bill Ayers.

    “Guilt by association” is the game played by self admitted paedophile James Edwards, not people of reason.

  34. Here’s something I realized.
    If providing associated services to a situation or group you find offensive has nothing to do with committing an offense yourself, why are governors banning travel to Indiana?
    They clearly think that associating with that state, even in the most tenuous fashion, has some moral and ethical significance… That’s why they’re cutting ties with the state.

    ‘Course, their argument for not supporting the RFRA act is that providing goods or services to an objectionable event has no bearing on your own morals or ethics, so it’s entirely okay to force Christian businesses to cater gay weddings.

    Let’s just come out and state it: this is a complete, blatant double standard. The argument against religious freedom legislation is disproven utterly by its proponents’ very own actions and attitudes!

    Just a flagrant bit of hypocrisy I felt like pointing out.

  36. NASCAR has issued a statement expressing its disappointment with Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s decision to signing the “Religious Freedom Rights Act” into law, an act which could give Indiana businesses the right to refuse service to LGBT customers.

    Here is the statement from NASCAR:

    NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana. We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance. We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race.
    NASCAR joins the NCAA, NBA, and WNBA in publicly denouncing the new law. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay has also come out against the law

  38. @Rusty: All you’re doing is compiling a list of people who think complete Separation of Church and State didn’t go far enough, and want to institute a complete Separation of Church and Public Life.

    Rat bastards, in other words.

  39. Ok, why is everybody complaining about a law that, as far as I can tell, only permits “religious objections” as an admissible defense in court, and doesn’t per se permit it in the public sphere? Which apparently is the case in about half of the states in the country? And why are people only now complaining about it?

  40. While there will likely continue to be disagreement over what the Indiana legislature, and the state’s governor, intended by this legislation, what cannot be argued is the fact that by adding the right to raise the defense of religious practices in a private lawsuit, Indiana has opened the door to increased discrimination against LGBT Americans.

    And while, today, members of the Indiana legislature—mostly out of concern for the severely adverse reactions they are seeing from critical business enterprises in the state— are suggesting that they may re-write the law to make it clear that discrimination is not intended.

    However, it is difficult to see how this can be done so long as the law permits private businesses, whether operated by an individual or a partnership or corporation, to raise such a defense in a private lawsuit.

    It is one thing when the government seeks to infringe on religious liberties but it is quite another when private businesses are allowed to discriminate against people they disagree with by claiming religious objection.

    Let’s hope that not only will Indiana rethink their position but that the other states currently on the track to passing similar laws will also see the light.

    The last thing this nation needs to do is turn the clock back on what we’ve learned about discriminating against Americans because of their color, sexual orientation or any other reason.

  41. @Sean: Supposedly it’s because this law now permits the religious defense to be used in issues of significant burden on religious freedom in cases where the government is not involved (ie between private parties).
    It has legal precedent in the hobby lobby case, but since when have the LGBT folks cared about legal precedent?

  44. @Rusty: That Forbes article doesn’t take into account the fact that all versions of this law specify ‘significant burden’. It can’t be used to discriminate in things like housing or restaurants (’cause ‘thou shalt not associate with gay people’ isn’t a commandment), but it can be used to protect (say) bakers being coerced into making cakes for gay weddings (which, as I stated above, is guilt by association in a morally objectionable practice).
    Both of these are as they should be.

  45. BAIER: Well, Indiana’s law is written a little differently. It is more broad. It is different than the federal law that it’s close to, but different than, and also different than 19 other states and how the law is written. In specific terms, Indiana’s law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for-profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government. That is broader than the other laws. This is where it’s a little different in Indiana’s case. You saw governor Mike Pence try to defend the law and say it’s just like the 1993 federal law where it’s just like 19 other states, but as you look in the fine print, it’s not really, and it may be something that Indiana deals with in specifics to line up with the others. Brett Baier. Fox News

  46. I think this is all a distraction. Gotta take the light off of Obama making deals with gay-hating Iran and Hillary destroying her subpoenaed emails and accepting millions from gay-hating terror sponsoring regimes.

    She did recently have brief meetings with Dear Leader.

  47. Hey Rusty, here is a copy and past for you –

    To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Indiana’s law adds a provision that offers a potential religious defense in private disputes, but then four federal appellate circuits have also interpreted the federal statute to apply to private disputes.

    The federal RFRA followed the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling in 1990 that abandoned its 30-year precedent of reviewing religious liberty cases under strict scrutiny. Congress responded with RFRA, which merely reasserted longstanding First Amendment protections.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183

    ————-

    It’s all a distraction, son. Your buddy in the White House is doing deals with a country that has no gays because they kill them where they find them.

    Hillary, whose husband signed DOMA, DADT, and this one, took millions from gay-killing Saudi Arabia and others while Sec. of State. And she deleted subpoenaed emails to protect her butt from incriminating Benghazi evidence. It’s rumored that the ambassador was gay.

  52. I don’t know what to think anymore, I am astonished, embarrassed and mortified on what the gay community has been saying and the vitriol out of their mouths about this issue. I want to engage and discuss but really feel it’s a waste of time.

    No wonder a lot of the straight community thinks so poorly of the gay community. We want respect, tolerance, and understanding yet give none of it….

    So sad and it will come back to haunt us……

  53. Nailed it, Annie.

    Ace described rusty and CrayCray beautifully today:

    What is being pursued here is not gays’ right to have wedding cake. They have this, of course, and do not need the law’s insistence to get it.

    What is being pursued here is hardcore gay-identity crusaders’ insistence that no one has the right to disagree with them on their Sacred Belief, and that the law can and should be perverted into punishing ThoughtCrimes.

    What we are seeing here is the enforcement of a new religious code, one which puts “secular” leftist values at the center of religious dogma, and then uses the power of the state to punish heretics, apostates, and blasphemers.

    It is ugly, cruel, and stupid, as are most things the left wants.

    As I keep saying, never let a weakling get a taste of power. They’ve had no experience with it and do not understand that power must be exercised, if at all, with restraint and regard for the rights and feelings of human beings.

    The weakling given power is nothing but vengeance and cruelty.

    Bluntly put, gay liberals like rusty are children, and like children, they do not have the emotional intelligence to stop until they are spanked.

  54. For many in the business world, the corporate social engagement in hot-button social issues like same-sex marriage has been fueled by need to draw and keep young talent, as well as to respond to a younger demographic’s social conscience, which they are more frequently attaching to the product they buy.

    “The days of standing completely on the sideline are disappearing,” says Farah Parker, a corporate consultant with FD Parker & Associates in Los Angeles, via e-mail. “Businesses can no longer remain completely silent on social issues. As more corporations strive to create communities and not just consumers, the target audience now picks products based on quality and the company’s cultural platforms.”

    On Monday, nine CEOs, including Angie’s List’s William Oesterle, Eli Lilly’s John Lechleiter, Roche Diagnostics’ Jack Phillips, and others wrote a letter to Gov. Mike Pence, urging him to enact new legislation that would make it clear that the new religious freedom law could not be used “to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.”

  55. “The days of standing completely on the sideline are disappearing,” says Farah Parker, a corporate consultant with FD Parker & Associates in Los Angeles, via e-mail. “Businesses can no longer remain completely silent on social issues. As more corporations strive to create communities and not just consumers, the target audience now picks products based on quality and the company’s cultural platforms.”

    On Monday, nine CEOs, including Angie’s List’s William Oesterle, Eli Lilly’s John Lechleiter, Roche Diagnostics’ Jack Phillips, and others wrote a letter to Gov. Mike Pence, urging him to enact new legislation that would make it clear that the new religious freedom law could not be used “to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0331/Religious-Freedom-Act-Are-businesses-becoming-more-socially-conscious-video

  56. McMillon Walmart CEO

    In the statement, Walmart CEO, Doug McMillon says, “Every day in our stores, we see firsthand the benefits diversity and inclusion have on our associates, customers and communities we serve. It all starts with our core basic belief of respect for the individual. Today’s passage of H.B. 1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation.”

  57. Silly bigot rusty gets smacked down once again.

    Most of the left-wing criticism of RFRA is vacant on the merits too, in fact. As Scott Shackford says, the attacks on the statute are little more than a pretext for broadly signaling your virtue to fellow gay-rights supporters, which includes most of the media and corporate America. It doesn’t matter what the law says or what it’ll mean in practice. It doesn’t matter that 19 other states have their own version. It doesn’t matter that RFRA laws traditionally have been used by followers of marginalized religions to defend their beliefs from laws passed by the Christian majority, something the left logically should (and once did) support. What matters is showing those peacock feathers to impress the other birds.

    And Hot Air links another great one:

    1) Most recent RFRA winner: Lipan Apache religious leader Robert Soto

    Just a few weeks ago, on March 10, the federal government returned the eagle feathers it had seized nine years prior from a Native American religious leader and famed feather dancer Robert Soto. He had appealed the seizure of the eagle feathers, for which he faced 15 years in a federal penitentiary and a $250,000 fine, on Religious Freedom Restoration Act grounds.

    The feds had sent undercover agents to a powwow in 2006 to confiscate the feathers, which are central to Soto’s Native American faith. The federal government prohibits possession of eagle feathers without a permit and only grants permits to museums, scientists, zoos, farmers, large power companies and federally recognized tribes. Even though the Lipan Apaches are recognized by the State of Texas, historians and sociologists, they’re not recognized by the feds.

    2) An arbitrary ban: Sikh federal employee Kawal Tagore

    After being baptized in the Sikh faith, Kawal Tagore began carrying a kirpan, “an emblem resembling a small knife with a blunt, curved blade” that reminds Sikhs of their commitment to justice. It’s one of five articles of faith baptized Sikhs are supposed to carry.

    She was told to go home from her job with the IRS in a federal building in Houston and told not to return. The building allowed scissors, knives, box cutters and other items with far sharper blades than her kirpan, but they wouldn’t let her carry her religiously required emblem. After working from home for nine months, she was fired.

    She sought protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and on November 4, 2014, the government agreed to settle the case.

    Looks like Cut-N-Paste, Wal-Mart, Apple, and all these other people that Cut-N-Paste is frantically citing to prove his fascism is normal want to jail Native Americans and Sikhs for practicing their faith.

    Typical of the fascist Cut-N-Paste.

  59. Zoe M

    One difference between CT’s law and Indiana’s law is that CT doesn’t even have the ‘significant’ burden. So actually CT’s law is MORE open than Indiana’s law.

  63. Suppose a homosexual photographer in New Mexico is vehemently opposed to the Roman Catholic faith because of its teachings on homosexuality. Nevertheless, he has accepted work from Catholic clients who hired him to film birthday and graduation parties.
    One day, a Catholic offers to hire him to film a baptism and he refuses, on the basis that unlike birthday parties, baptisms directly support the Catholic faith and he can not provide such direct support to a ceremony based on a faith that he opposes.
    Is this a violation of the New Mexico’s Human Rights Act’s prohibition against religious discrimination?
    Answer correctly, and you will know why and how the RFRA would apply.

  64. This all feels like very empty and loud posturing by the Gay Left. The Illinois law is being amended to allay fears of improper discrimination against gay people, from what I’ve heard. So it’s terrible, why? Because Christians will have the possibility to appeal their decisions based on their faith? Seriously?!

    Anybody else think we’re coming to the point where we separate the West Coast from the country and make the progressives move there?

  65. Pence knew

    “In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs.”

    http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

  66. *Michael Ejercito, this is where Christians and LGBTQ activists differ. A Roman Catholic, confronted by a loved photographer who refuses to photograph a baptism because it violates his morals, will say, “Oh! I see. All right, we’ll find someone else.” The law would not even be invoked.

  67. Bluntly put, gay liberals like rusty are children, and like children, they do not have the emotional intelligence to stop until they are spanked.

    Please don’t threaten violence to other commenters here. Thank you.

  69. Please don’t threaten violence to other commenters here. Thank you.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — April 1, 2015 @ 8:49 pm – April 1, 2015

    Gee, CrayCray, you seem upset.

    Maybe because other commenters are starting to call you on your trolling too?

    53.Interesting how craycray admonishes others for using exactly the same tactic as James. Can you imagine the liberal outcry if all conservatives played as dirty as liberals do? Black guy shoots white cop in Boston.. White people think this a a dandy time to burn black owned businesses. Ya think?

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — April 2, 2015 @ 6:35 am – April 2, 2015

    54.Yes, I noted Vince is unwilling to call out the self-admitted paedophile, but condemns holding him to his own standards.

    here’s a hint Vince, the only person who would call you a paedophile without proof, is James Edwards.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 2, 2015 @ 8:40 am – April 2, 2015

    And since we’re playing by James Edward rules, which seem to be the only ones you respect, since rusty has never condemned pedophilia by gays and also calls for gay conservatives to kill themselves and/or be murdered, then rusty supports pedophilia and violence.

    Come on, CrayCray. We are changing tactics; very simply, instead of following an objective set of rules, we’re going to apply whatever rules you appear to be respecting on any given day, and then when you screech and bleat and try to change them, we will simply reverse to match.

  70. Rusty is my friend, and does not support pedophilia and violence. You trying to tarnish his repute with lies is disgusting.

    But, you’re familiar with low-class campaign tactics. So, I’m not surprised.