The Left Defends Individual License, Not Rights
Indiana's new religious liberty law is under attack from the usual suspects.
Indiana is ground zero for the latest in a long line of protests now mandatory in the standard operations of the Left. At issue is the Hoosier State’s new religious liberty law, which most of the Leftmedia are inclined to put in scare quotes – as if “religious liberty” is a made-up fantasy. And that’s exactly why such laws are needed.
All the ingredients are present to cook up a hyper-responsive framework to marginalize targets – celebrities and corporate CEOs yammering about discrimination and “hate,” raving partisans calling for resignations and activists organizing boycotts. The leaders of the Left, including Saul Alinsky disciple Barack Obama, must be very proud of the kerfuffle. Indeed, Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest said the law appears to “legitimize discrimination.”
Last week, Indiana’s state house, senate and governor all supported legislation based upon current federal law to protect religious liberty. Republican Governor Mike Pence’s signature placed the state in the same category of 19 others in modeling legislation on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That law was signed by Bill Clinton after Democrats led by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer supported religious liberty.
Oh, and by the way, Illinois is one of those 19 states, and its law passed with the vote of a then-state senator by the name of … Barack Obama.
Just prior to signing the 1993 federal law, Clinton described its scope: “What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that … we can never be too vigilant in this work.”
But Democrats’ support for religious liberty completely evaporated when they literally booed God at the party’s convention in 2012.
The Indiana law, named the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (sound familiar?), does not institutionalize discrimination as those on the “tolerant” Left declare. Instead, it protects the likes of businesses in the well-publicized cases of bakery owners, florists and wedding photographers attacked by the Left for standing by the teachings of their faith.
Simply, business owners whose faith says the same thing as God does about homosexuality – that the act is a sin – have their rights protected to observe their faith and not be forced to endorse, for example, a same-sex wedding ceremony.
We know that’s brutal, calling homosexuality a sin – just as it is to call abortion the murder of an infant. Operating a business on principles of faith where the observant says the same thing about love, goodness, mercy, sin, judgment and righteousness as the God being worshipped… It’s simply brutal to some.
Appreciate that in the world of the unicorn-riding Left, the only rights that exist are awarded by the state based on secular whims of division by constituency. It’s where sexual preference is celebrated, the acceptance of destructive behavior is applauded and antagonism of politically incorrect faith is the ideal.
The Left does not fight for the rights of individuals. They fight for the license of individuals, or the freedom to act upon one’s instincts, rather than rights and responsibilities.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the laws of the other 19 states have not conjured up or encouraged discrimination. On the contrary, we’re watching a “hands up, don’t shoot” moment in the making where the false narrative of the activist Left is parroted and crafted into “fact” by the presstitutes in the media. It’s awfully difficult to articulate a stance based on reason, precedent and true rights to a group inflamed by emotion and invested in the movement-of-the-moment.
This effective tactic employed by the Left – of marginalizing those with standards and a moral compass – is destroying our society’s foundations and, dangerously, the truth itself.
Will you be forced to participate in an act that violates your faith? Asked another way: Will one’s politics and cultural conveniences determine one’s god, or will God determine one’s politics and culture?