Bye-bye White House Bid! Gov. Mike Pence Drops the Ball on Religious Freedom
By Steve Pauwels
Let’s see, what to call legislation that apparently serves no visible purpose? I’ve got it! How about: Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?
Plainly, that seems to be the case after that state’s Republican governor, Mike Pence, turned in a disastrous and pusillanimous performance regarding the controversial bill at a March 31st press conference.
The Hoosier State’s version of RFRA, roughly mirroring the federal law passed in 1993 by a nearly unanimous U.S. Congress, simply extends potential protections to folks who opt to live according to their religious convictions, prohibiting state measures which would “substantially burden” a person’s spiritual sensibilities. Critics have been frenziedly squawking the effort is an open door for “discrimination” — particularly against homosexuals, who, apparently, have become contemporary American society’s demographic to be preferred above all others.
Pence’s grovelling attempt to “clarify” and “fix” the bill he signed last week succeeded in prompting a so-what’s-the-point-of-it reaction from those of us who think a business owner ought to be able to actually abide by his/her deeply held tenets. RFRA, both the federal and various state versions, was originally crafted, in part, to protect First Amendment, free-exercise-of-religion rights for Bible-believing florists, bakers, photographers and others who, increasingly, are being brutalized into participating in fake — that is, same-sex– “weddings”. Pence, however — much rumored a plausible GOP horse in 2016’s White House race — proceeded to abase himself abjectly before a slavering media and the take-no-prisoners “gay” lobby by expressly asserting his state’s iteration of the statute does not codify a privately held enterprise’s option to deny services to homosexual couples.
I’ll say you do, Mr. Guv: not a few God-and-Country-loving traditionalists perceive you, confronted by the mephitic forces of libertine progressivism, blinked in the crunch.
Pence even stooped to the ignominious “no-one-should-be-‘harrassed-for-who-they-love’ “ platitude. Yes, he actually resorted to that treacly abomination.
What about those of us who “love” Jesus? He’s plainly no fan of homosexual marriage (Matthew 19). Are His followers, then, who happen to be offering products or services in the marketplace, protected from pro-homosexual discrimination?
Again, the question irrepressibly bubbles to the surface: If RFRA doesn’t shield even explicitly faith-motivated, marriage-upholding citizens from anti-Christian coercion, exactly what practical benefits does it confer?
Instead of rewiring the legislation into irrelevancy, the unacceptably frazzled Hoosier Chief Exec should have addressed the venomous, sky-is-falling hysterics by “clarifying” his position, thusly: “Religious believers have rights along with everyone else in this Republic. In fact, religious liberty was so central to our Founders’ passions, they placed it in the forefront of our Constitution. Indiana’s RFRA reflects that principle, not aiming at encouraging bigotry of any kind, but intentionally underscoring the officially sacrosanct rights of devout individuals to conduct their affairs according to the dictates of their respective faiths.”
Had Pence unfurled that unimpeachably reasonable brief, he would have found himself in admirable company: Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson emphasized:
No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience … We are bound … to make common cause … to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience … It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others.
Read more: Clash Daily
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.