As all of this incendiary, mass-produced outrage burns its way across national headlines concerning Indiana Senate Bill 568 [i.e. the Religious freedom restoration act], the onslaught of so much scathing enmity expressed towards a law and by extension our nation’s own 1st amendment (which, in a sane America, would suffice as the only document necessary in defending religious freedom) couldn’t make it anymore denotative to this archetypical pattern attributed to the inveterate grinding down of America. Methods of subversion actuated by a social caste of schismatic militants designed to undermine and overthrow our country, our laws, our traditions, values, and beliefs. In short, everything intrinsic to our heritage and entire way of life. Consequentially, these spectacles of simulated umbrage and hostility directed at hapless Indiana Governor Mike Pence are perverse when you understand the underlying impetus of deceit behind all of it. But even more infuriating has been Pence’s subsequent caving in to the opprobrious coercion of these monomaniacs. A trait that has become synonymous with the GOP establishment as it relates to their chronic acquiescing to the political skullduggery of Barack Hussein Obama, that makes me think of them anymore as an intimidated housewife trapped in a dysfunctional marriage, constantly bludgeoned into submission by an abusive drunkard for a spouse.
I refer you to the headline and excerpt from a March 31st article at Breitbart:
PENCE BUCKLES UNDER POWERFUL GAY/MEDIA BLITZKRIEG
~Governor Mike Pence of Indiana seems to have caved into enormous pressure and will ask the state legislature for new legislation to make it clear that Christian florists and bakers could be forced to participate in weddings that violate their religious beliefs.
Last week, Indiana joined 19 other states and the federal government by enacting a law to protect religious believers from governmental encroachment on religious freedom. Such legislation was cited in the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision that determined religious employers could not be forced to supply abortion drugs to employees under ObamaCare.~
Never mind that this current legislation in Indiana mirrors the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton, and sponsored by Harry Reid’s soon-to-be successor, then-Congressman Chuck Schumer. Supported by every Democrat at that time who are now voicing their casuistic opposition to Indiana’s implementation of it today. Speaking of dingy Harry, he was a staunch supporter of this 1993 law too.
A March 27th article at theweeklystandard.com by writer John McCormack, elucidates the particulars of what Indiana’s modern day version of this law means, as McCormack also traces its lineage back to its 1993 progenitor. An article appropriately titled,
‘Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained’:
~On Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists–including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few–are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people:
Meanwhile, activists are calling for a boycott. The CEO of SalesForce, a company that does business in China, is pulling out of Indiana. The NCAA has expressed concern about holding events there in the future. And the city of San Francisco is banning taxpayer-funded travel to the state.
Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?
No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: “In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else.”
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
So the law doesn’t say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven’t.
If there’s already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?
Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections. Here’s a helpful map from 2014 that shows you which states have RFRA protections (note that Mississippi and Indiana have passed RFRA since this map was made):
So Indiana isn’t even the first state to have implemented such legislation, but you sure wouldn’t know it to listen to all of the hyperventilating outrage of heterophobic derangement being proliferated by the left. Never mind either that the purpose for this legislations reintroduction is intended to counter the expanding trend involving the targeting and attacks of Christian owned businesses by prominent gay groups, organizations and media collaborators after those business owners had previously declined providing specific services for gay couples and their same-sex weddings [specifically citing their own religious beliefs and principles as the basis for their refusal]. Yet beyond their declining to make cakes or take photographs for these ceremonies, those business owners never denied routine patronage to any of these gay couples from doing business in their establishments. They just couldn’t actively participate in contributing to a same-sex ceremony which ran contrary to their personal religious principles as they related to their faiths belief that the act of marriage was a sacred union between a man and a woman.
And while these gay couples (supported by their entourage of gay mafiosi and media collaborators) demanded acceptance from these Christian business owners of their homosexual lifestyle and beliefs to the extent they compelled their acceptance at the end of an activist Judges gavel, did they reciprocate this courtesy? Absolutely not. These extremists weren’t satisfied until they had destroyed these people’s livelihoods. Showing absolutely no acceptance in return for the religious lifestyles and beliefs of these Christian business owners, as evidenced in the headlines and accompanying excerpts below:
Oregon ruling really takes the cake — Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple
~The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.
The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.
The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:
“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”~
But isn’t that how “tolerance” works nowadays when you’re dealing with these Progressive parasites? As you read for yourselves, they’re not above even threatening the lives of children to get their way. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who will threaten the life of a child has pretty much forfeited their right to continue breathing. But that’s just my opinion tho’. Then there’s this August 8th, 2013 headline at theblaze.com that’s pretty blunt and to the point:
‘Mother F***er Racist Sons of B**ches From Hell’: Wedding Venue Gets Threats, Fears Shut Down After Refusing Gay Couple’s Nuptials
~Another business is facing retribution for declining service to a same-sex couple. Betty and Dick Odgaard, owners of Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, are catching the ire of gay rights advocates after they declined offering their venue to Lee Stafford and his fiance Jared.
Now the owners, who are Christians, are receiving vicious and threatening emails and phone calls — and they fear that their business could shut down because of the fierce reaction.
It was less than one week ago that the Lee and Jared entered Görtz Haus looking for additional information about holding their wedding there. After Dick realized that it would be a gay ceremony, he told the couple that they would not be able to hold their nuptials at the establishment — and that’s when the controversy erupted.
“It started with emails and we noticed the emails were from a person with a name that looked like a man’s name. We’re a little suspicious about it and … two fellows walked in and that’s where it all began,” Dick told TheBlaze on Friday. “It was obvious what the situation was. I had to confirm it. I asked if this was a gay marriage celebration and I said we can’t take your money for this.”
From there, news spread that the Odgaards turned the couple away. Before long, phone calls and emails came streaming in. Betty said that some people have promised that the furor won’t stop until the business, which is a bistro, flower shop and a wedding destination, shuts down. Detractors have called Betty and Dick “haters.”~
Those are only a few in a litany of examples to draw from, but during the March 30th edition of his radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh made an interesting analogy to the Indiana controversy, connecting it with another spectacle of even greater proportions of contrivance:
The Left Repeats “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Tactic on the State of Indiana:
~RUSH: I want to go to Indiana and discuss this supposedly controversial Indiana religious freedom law. It’s made to order for the modern-day Drive-By Media. On Saturday and Sunday, ABC, CBS, NBC — virtually every mainstream media organization — condemned a new law in Indiana that would protect private businesses from government infringement on their religious freedom. What this means is that the Obama administration wants to do away — and the media is assisting — with the whole notion of free markets, the Constitution, and the freedom of religion clause.
The administration wants the power to mandate everything as much as they can. Now, the news organizations — ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the others — just had a collective cow over this. And rather than provide any kind of balance, rather than explain the history and the context and the true meaning and detail of the Indiana law, they predictably began to trash the legislation and Indianans as a bunch of bigots opening the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
But what is fascinating about this, and it’s becoming an even more prevalent reality. On the one hand, on any issue, we have the reality. We have facts, we have history, we have context, we have truth. On the other hand, we have the absence of all of that, the misrepresentation of the facts, misrepresentation of the truth, misrepresentation of the context. In addition to that, then the media is hyping it all with a bunch of emotional propaganda that is designed specifically to misinform people bunch of about what has happened, particularly this case, this law in Indiana
When the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. There’s literally nothing new that’s happened here in Indiana that hasn’t already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed US Congress and been signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton. But you would think… Because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity. What we’ve got here, folks, if I may draw… It’s not the perfect analogy, but it’s pretty close.
We’ve got “hands up, don’t shoot,” except in this case it’s supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders, and that’s not what it is. It’s a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed. But you see, it’s selective outrage.~
Kind of ironic how all of this escalating upheaval and turmoil unlike any we’ve seen in recent memory all seems to dovetail and correlate with Barack Hussein Obama’s pernicious presidency. Coincidence? Just sayin’.
This kind of thing is precisely why I equate these militant nihilists on the Left with radical Islam. Convert or die are the only 2 alternatives each of these depraved sects provide for or will accept from their adversaries. Which brings up another interesting discrepancy when you consider how none of these gay couples and their entourage of gay mafiosi seem inclined to turn their dogmatic attention on anyone of Muslim persuasion. How about that, eh? I guess these fruitcakes are fond of keeping their heads firmly attached to their shoulders and not overly enthusiastic at the idea of paragliding from rooftops without a paraglider.
But in the vein of these pernicious fascists modus operandi (somewhere in the bizarre fugue of selective cognitive dissonance they shamble about in) they consistently project on their dissenters the exact same traits and characteristics they themselves embody and typify in their own comportment daily. We’re the “haters“, but they’re the ones who exemplify hate. Believing we can coexist with people like this is almost as unrealistic as believing we can ever truly coexist with Islam. But that’s just my opinion.
I agree with certain aspects of criticism surrounding this law in that we already have a written document that guarantees religious freedom. It’s our 1st Amendment. That we’re now living in such times under a president who has shown nothing but a visceral contempt for our law of the land, where we feel compelled to write additional (and unnecessary) legislation to back it up with is a stark indicator to this grinding down of our country I made reference to early on in my article.
It’s no wonder then why so many feel with these mounting tensions that a wars brewing. Which goes back to my earlier remark comparing the idea of coexisting with these people being as unrealistic as believing we can coexist with Islam. It’s not just the gay community involved here. They’re only a segment of a larger brigade of fundamental dissidents seeking to purposely undermine our country. These factions (like radical Islam) don’t want compromise. They don’t want to make bargains or concessions. They want control and dominance. Of everything and everyone. Just like their ancestors did 150 years ago when they brought our country to the brink of dissolution just so they could keep another race oppressed under the brutal yoke of slavery. Do you really expect otherwise from those who would threaten the lives of children?!?
In the end, the only way to coexist with these radicals will be to either surrender or kill them all.