But that's all just spin.
Read the bill for yourself here. It mentions homosexuals and gays a grand total of zero times. The gay lobby is simply spoiling for this fight and to cry "discrimination!" What the bill actually says is that an individual cannot be compelled to do something that violates his or her religious beliefs.
Furthermore, the burden is on the person making the claim that their religious beliefs would be violated. They must prove ALL of the following:
1. THAT THE PERSON'S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.2. THAT THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.3. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
The gay community is up in arms about this because, as the Washington Post says:
"The catalyst for the recent flood of religious exemption legislation seems to have been a number of court cases that were decided in favor of LGBT clients who were denied wedding services. In August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court said that a photographer who refused to document a same-sex commitment ceremony broke the state's anti-discrimination law."
However, the way the bill is written one can refuse to per foam a service based on religious objection to just about anything. Yes, this law would give someone who disagrees with homosexuality based on religious grounds the right to refuse to work for a homosexual. But it also does much more than that. Consider these scenarios that would empower people's right of religious freedom under the law:
• A Baptist restaurant owner does not serve and does not allow liquor to be consumed in his establishment based on his religious convictions. This law would protect his rights to determine the activities that occur on his own property.
• A church building or meeting hall is rented out as a reception site for a Satanic wedding or gathering of some kind. This law would allow the church to refuse service to the Satanists on religious grounds.
• A Jewish baker receives an order to bake a cake with Nazi swastikas on it. Shouldn't the baker have the right to decline the order?
• A Unitarian gay couple who owns a bed and breakfast refuses to allow a Catholic priest to spend the night at their inn based on his (and their) conflicting religious beliefs. This law would allow them to make that decision.
• An atheist ... oh wait. Nevermind.
Some of these scenarios may seem farfetched, but none more so than a photographer forced to photograph a gay wedding against his or her will.
This bill is about the protection of religious freedom. All religious freedom.
Can we please stop making everything about gay and race, please? And can we please stop trying to bully people into chafing the way they think by using the gay and race hammer, as well? That would be great.
No comments:
Post a Comment