On Thursday, March 26, Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Following the signing, many politicians, celebrities, and journalists were outraged, saying the law was a license to discriminate against gay people. Liberal rag, Daily Kos calls it a hate law and Indiana’s new right to discriminate law.
According to weeklystandard.com, the first RFRA was a 1997 federal law that signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representative where it was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer. Then it sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law re-established a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases. The law allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
If there is already a federal law in place, then why would any state see the need to pass its own RFRA? According weeklystandard.com, in a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. When Senator Schumer was asked to comment on Indiana now passing RFRA, the Senator declined.
It certainly doesn’t appear that Indiana’s RFRA grants a license to discriminate. In fact, twenty-eight other states have enacted their own RFRAs. These states, including Indiana, have never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations.
As a free market capitalist, I do believe that a private business owner or owners do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone on any basis. I can just hear a liberal asking me the following, “So, you believe it’s okay to discriminate?” My answer to that liberal would be no, it is definitely not okay to discriminate. I should have that right, though.
I’ve used this example many times and I’m going to use it again. I have a cake-baking business located in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I’m an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and will not bake Auburn cakes. Is that a smart business plan? Absolutely not and I will probably go out of business soon. But ultimately, I should have that right. I’ll give you another example. I own a restaurant. Do I have the right to refuse to seat Blacks? Yes, I have that right. Is that a smart business strategy? No, and I will probably go out of business if my restaurant’s not burned to the ground first. I should have that right, though.
I’ve always said this, “Just because you have a right to do it, doesn’t make it right to do it.” This is something the tolerant left doesn’t seem to understand. They can’t seem to make the distinction. Aren’t they supposed to be so smart? They do have the academic elites in their corner. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend one time. The discussion accelerated to the point that I did raise my voice. Actually, I think she did understand, but just wanted to be whiny like a lot of liberals.
Why are liberals making such a big deal out of Indiana’s RFRA law? Like I’ve said many times, liberals don’t care about facts and while they can read words on a page or on a screen, they are incapable of understanding what they read (at least that’s been my experience). Since they don’t care about facts, they’re not going to take the time to research anything. If they can twist something a conservative does to make that conservative look like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a hater of any kind, they’re going to jump on it.