‘Puter’s dutifully followed along with his liberal friends’ untethered ramblings concerning Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law. ‘Puter’s friends thoughtfully referred to the new statute as “anti-gay.” a
Not content to merely exist in a state of ignorant bliss, ‘Puter’s friends made the mistake of accusing ‘Puter of bigotry for daring to state the law was not, in fact, a conspiracy by Big Jesus to ship gays off to death camps.
In response, ‘Puter posted the following:
If you’re against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law because you believe it’s anti-gay, then you must also believe the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced by noted anti-gay bigot Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by the House on a voice vote, and signed into law by another hateful, anti-gay bigot President Clinton is also anti-gay.
The texts are in all meaningful portions the same.
1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.
Maybe the new standard on religious freedom (and by extension free speech) should be: If the religious practice or speech is popular, it’s fine. If not, too bad.
We can and will disagree on applications of the law, but to attack the entire law as anti-gay is disingenuous at best.
No response, except from a friend who called me courageous for posting this. Naturally, hearing nothing but crickets from his earlier antagonizers, ‘Puter doubled down, posting this:
Guess which noted bigots in our United States Senate voted in favor of a 1993 statute with the same exact language as Indiana’s no good, very bad, horrible, totally anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration law?
Well, since there were 97 such horrible individuals, so I’ll just provide you the highlights. You may recognize a few of these gay-hating individuals:
Joe Biden (D-DE) (current US Vice President)…
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) (the “Lion of the Senate”)
John Kerry (D-MA) (current US Secretary of State)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (former mayor of San Francisco)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) (poorly closeted alleged lesbian)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Paul Simon (D-IL) (former presidential candidate)
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) (former presidential candidate)
Noted gay basher Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the legislation in the House, where it passed on a voice vote. And the least gay-friendly human of all time, President William Jefferson Clinton (D), signed the bill into law.
So please, tell me again how Indiana’s 2015 legislation, taken almost verbatim from the federal government’s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a masterwork of gay hatred. If you choose to do so, please explain in detail the functional differences between the two pieces of legislation.
‘Puter’s heard nothing back as of yet. ‘Puter assumes people either haven’t seen these posts yet, or are ashamed of their ignorant, anti-religious bigotry.
‘Puter’s betting the former, because liberals rarely admit they’re more bigoted than the alleged bigots on whom they heap scorn.