E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, April 6, 2015

Following up on RFRA

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

A commenter left a long response to my editorial last week supporting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana. Here is my response to that comment.

  • This was never intended to ensure that the majority can use religious pretext as an excuse to discriminate against disfavored minorities.

The issue in the RFRA (which has since been clarified) is not discrimination against any minority. The issue is that Christian business owners do not want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding - whether by taking photographs of the wedding or providing food or flowers. You do not see broad-based discrimination right now, and you would not have seen it even if the original version of RFRA had become law in July. By expanding it far beyond the real issue, RFRA opponents are intentionally distorting the facts.

  • Further, it has since been perverted by the Hobby Lobby decision to, somehow, encompass a corporation's religious conscience.

A corporation is a legal entity, but a corporation is made up of people. Jut because people organize their business under a corporation (which is necessary for a wide variety of legal reasons) does not mean the owners' free exercise of religion is any less burdened by being forced to provide objectionable drugs - or being forced to participate in a same sex-wedding.

  • With respect to the law that Barack Obama voted for in IL, remember that IL indeed has sexual orientation listed in its civil rights laws as a protected class.

It is factually correct that Illinois currently includes sexual orientation as a protected class. However, that claim is extremely misleading because that was not the case when Obama voted for it as a state senator. Sexual orientation was not added to the civil rights code in Illinois until 2005, almost a full decade later and after Obama was serving in the United States Senate.

  • You are indeed correct that IN RFRA changes nothing. It doesn't matter.

It does matter, because appearances are not facts and the legal reality is what it is. By admitting the RFRA changes nothing, you are admitting that the national firestorm and economic boycotts over the "discrimination" supposedly allowed by RFRA were based on misinformation, whether intentional or not.

  • Let me put this clearly to you: If you're in the business of selling flowers, you have to sell them to all comers. If you're in the business of catering weddings, you have to cater to all comers. Period.

Why? That is a serious question. Why must a business be forced to facilitate all events, even ones the owners find morally objectionable? Just because something is a tradition does mean it is right. If we are going to substantially burden someone's free exercise of religion, there needs to be a compelling state interest to do so. Is it a compelling state interest to force one baker or florist to endorse homosexuality when a couple could easily go to a different business where the owners would be more than happy to take their money?

At its core, this is not about equal protection under the law. It is not about tolerance. It is about mandatory acceptance of homosexuality. It is not a compelling state interest to force Christians (or Muslims, Jews or anyone else) to accept and endorse homosexual behavior. If we are interested in tolerance, then that tolerance needs to go both ways. Otherwise it is not tolerance at all. It is tyranny.

And yes - If government forces a Christian-owned business to provide flowers or a cake to a homosexual wedding, that is forced endorsement and acceptance of homosexual behavior. It is not up to you or anyone else to determine whether an individual's conscience on this matter is reasonable or not, especially given Christian submission to Scriptures that predate these United States by thousands of years.

(2 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At April 6, 2015 at 4:49 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"or being forced to participate in a same sex-wedding..."

Dumb and dumber. If someone selling a cake or flowers "participates" in the wedding to follow, does a gun vendor not "participate" in murders and other crimes committed with his lethal wares? What's a "principled" Xian to do?


At April 6, 2015 at 4:51 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"Christian submission to Scriptures that predate these United States by thousands of years"

And, no doubt, you meant to say "Christian cherry-picking of scripture," from the 4th commandment on through countless other "laws of God" you blithely ignore every day?


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.