Indiana RFRA

Lately, it has become a “fun thing,” not to mention potentially profitable, for homosexuals whose application for services is turned down by folks who consider such services a violation of their faith to bring lawsuits, either for money or spite or both. The best result, it seems, is to run the accused out of business. The highest profile such case in Lexington, Ky., had to do with a sweater-engraving business refusing to accommodate the local LGBTQ crowd. It's still in business after a court ruling in its favor.

I surfed over to the ABC Sunday morning show of 29 March in time to see ABC biggie George Stephanopoulos, former chief gofer for the Clintons, haranguing Indiana Governor Mike Pence over the law he had just signed disallowing an abridgment of religious freedom when business-people are attacked by the LGBTQ crowd for not conforming to their demands whether they like it or not. Little George kept using the term “discrimination,” the favorite of the ultra-liberals for tarnishing people. The governor did a good job of burying Little George, who was obviously in a fit of pique, just short of a temper tantrum.

Discrimination is a two-edged sword, of course. The governor had the high ground in that to abridge the alleged freedom of the Stephanopoulos crowd was to abridge the religious freedom of—discriminate against—people of faith. The U.S. Constitution guarantees against this, stating unequivocally in the first amendment that the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, which is what the LGBTQ crowd demands, unless, of course, a religious action threatens public safety, which is not an issue in this matter.

The Supreme Court ruled (Hobby Lobby, June 2014) that people of faith can refuse actions violating their beliefs, obviously absent a public safety issue. This also exonerated Hands On Originals in Lexington, Ky., from liability locally in June 2012 for refusing to prepare clothing engraved with symbols violating its beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, ruled in 2009 that a Kentucky Baptist children’s home, Sunrise Children’s Services, did not violate state or federal laws when it dismissed an employee engaging in homosexual conduct.

The homosexuals/lesbians/transgenders/whatever have attempted to make their position the same as that of racial minorities, a “protected group,” an obviously silly approach. They are just people who claim an aberrant lifestyle, sort of like alcoholics, who do not comprise a “protected” species. No business can be made to employ an alcoholic so why should a business be made to hire a homosexual? No apartment-owner can be made to rent to an alcoholic so why should he be made to rent to a homosexual who, he suspects, will contaminate his property with lewd and filthy homosexual practices such as anal sex?

Anyone can claim to be homosexual while racial ethnics, ipso facto, are recognizably what they claim to be but all of them are just people. The Constitution guarantees their civil rights but it especially guards their religious rights, which government cannot infringe upon, the substance of the Indiana law. Religious rights trump civil rights vis-a-vis Constitutional protection unless public safety is an issue.

If homosexuals had no other recourse for services, they might have a case. For instance, if only one doctor was available in a town he would be compelled (a compelling government issue concerning welfare) to treat everyone. This is not the case in this country. The sweater issue mentioned above was easily handled since at no extra cost the sweaters were produced by another supplier.

On April 28, 1967, boxing champion Muhammad Ali refused to be inducted into the U.S. Army, citing religious reasons. Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., in 1942, he changed his name to Muhammad Ali in 1964 after converting to Islam. He was also convicted of draft evasion but was later cleared by the Supreme Court. In other words, someone else had to take Ali's place and possibly go to Vietnam and possibly be killed there. Who suffered the discrimination? The Indiana case is no different. Ali had the right to tell the federal government NO for religious reasons, just as folks whose beliefs are violated by enhancing homosexuality have the right to say NO to homosexuals.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark