Religious Freedom and Leftwing Loons

The left is in hysterics again, this time over an Indiana law that essentially repeats at the state level what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 does at the federal level. That federal law was shepherded through Congress by Democrat Charles Schumer and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. BTW, the Christian Coalition and the ACLU were in lockstep support of the law. The ACLU and people who falsely call themselves liberal have done a 180 now, and the cognitive dissonance is driving them dizzy and crazy, so they are flailing about and lashing out.

The only sane and cogent argument I've seen against this law comes from libertarian Constitutional Insurgent at his blog, Libertas and Latte.  Proof that it is cogent and sane?  The leftwingers attacked him over it, and he is on their side!

The left's raving, unhinged argumentation usually turns on tedious semantics as they stamp their feet and insist the Indiana law does not "mirror" the federal law or is not "substantially the same," and any rightwing meanie who says otherwise is a big fat liar liar pants on fire!

The screaming, purple-faced pouters on the left do have a minor, trivial point on two narrow differences between Indiana's law and the federal statute.  From The Atlantic:

"...you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not.

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.”

[...]

"The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”"

The first difference is that Indiana, unlike the federal statute, covers for-profit businesses, such as the bakery or other business who's religious beliefs would prevent it from providing services to a satanic wedding or purchasing insurance coverage for employees that includes abortifacients.

This makes sense. A business is not just some free-standing building with merchandise and cash registers; it is owned by people who hold values, sometimes religious ones.  It has a reputation and an image.  More importantly, a business can be fined and shut down by the government, and it can be sued in civil court.

The second difference is that Indiana's law provides the same protection against civil lawsuits that it does against adverse government action. This is not "odd language" in an age of agitprop lawfare, agenda-driven outrage and 21st century slip-and-fall lawyering based not upon physical harm, but hurt feelings.

But it Legalizes Discrimination!!!

I've been out rambling across the countryside of Left and Right Blogistan, asking progressives to point out what part of the law allows discrimination, and I still haven't gotten an answer, just fever swamp rantings of crazy people hinting darkly at a dominionist take over of our country and a Reverend Fred Phelps behind every bakery counter.

Here is how the federal law (and the equivalent state laws) work:

Ms. Victim alleges discrimination at the hands of an individual or entity whom we will call Mr. Perp. The government steps in and compels Mr. Perp to correct the wrong. Mr. Perp claims religious exclusion, and the government must prove in a court of law that there is a compelling reason to violate his religious sensibilities. In a civil case, Mr. Perp may use the same legal argumentation.

In both instances, it comes down to a judge weighing Mr. Perp's religious beliefs against a broader government interest. Have Mr. Perp's religious beliefs been "unduly burdened?" The answer is no if the government/accuser can show that the claimed burden is "(1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

That is the question a judge must decide.

So, if a restaurant owner decides to bar transgendered customers, it's gonna be a rough row to hoe for him. However, if he refuses to cater a transgendered convention, it will probably go in his favor, like it did in the Hobby Lobby Case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty.

It really is that simple.  Sure, some bigots will attempt to use the law to their advantage, and I wish them bad luck.  Their success is unlikely anyway, since they would have to gain a court ruling first.

The (barely) Hidden Agenda

The real leftwing agenda here is to shrink the sphere of religious liberty to within the walls of your bigoted church and prohibit any religiously-motivated activity in the public marketplace of ideas.  The agenda is also to force you to bow down to activities that you disagree with.  The Pink Mafia, who by no means represents all gay people, are not satisfied with toleration.  They want your obeisance.  They want you to bow down to them and validate their activities.  They've already rounded up dimwitted crowds to maumau you in public forums, but what they truly crave is a tyrannical government using the full weight of the law to force you to endorse their agenda.

Related Links:
All the lies told about an Indiana law
WSJ - Religious Freedom Restoration Act