Indiana: Constitution Friendly

The Indiana law protecting people of faith in that state from having to participate in a ritual or act with which their faith disagrees is being said by totalitarians and Leftists (one and the same) to be “discrimination.”

Yeah, so?

I don’t mean to be cavalier about someone being refused a service or product because they are of a particular DNA, i.

e., black, white, or any other naturally born biology. Trust me, I would find it absolutely repugnant for a white woman, or Chinese man, to be denied participation in the national Miss Black America Pageant.

(silence)

After all, if either of those two persons mentioned above were turned away for their skin color or gender, why, that would be horrible, terrible, disgusting, pure right-wing, Reagan-esque Naziism, wouldn’t it?

I can see Liberal jaws working up and down as they croak out inarticulate noises.

But regards Indiana’s governor, Mike Pence, signing the state’s new bill known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA allows Indiana’s residents to refuse certain services to some patrons due to religious convictions.

Somehow, to Liberals like George Stephanopoulos, it is outrageous that a bakery owned by a Christian does not want to participate in a gay wedding.

Hey George, newsflash! Neither does God.

Let’s say you have a black-owned restaurant and a man in a white robe and pointed hood comes in and says he wants the restaurant to cater his KKK gathering at the park. He calls it his, Lynching of Negroes rally and he very kindly explains to the black owner that it’s just a name, no one’s going to be harmed in any way.

“We just love the idea of hanging black people from trees,” he says.

And let’s say that the black owner says to this mild mannered White Supremist that he wants no part of such a gathering and refuses to cater the Grand Wizard’s happy event.

Should that black restaurant owner be forced by the government to cater such an event? If Liberals were consistent and courageous, they would say, Yes, of course he should.

But they aren’t.

Liberals like Stephanopoulos would scream Apartheid if such a Federal coercion were implemented.

Now let’s say a Christian restaurant owner, black or white, refuses to cater a gay event because his precious and holy Master and God through his Holy and sacred Word has commanded him to have nothing to do with sin, even to the point of abstaining from “every form of evil,” 1 Thessalonians 5:22.

“Well, but it’s discrimination,” screeches the Liberal.

With big government tyranny types like Liberals, it’s cafeteria Constitution on parade. You like that amendment? Great, take it. Don’t like this other amendment? Fine, ignore it. To a liberal, freedom is whichever way the political wind is blowing, so long as it’s blowing in their direction.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

Now, first of all, who “shall make no law”? State governor? State senate, state legislature, state bird? No. Congress shall make no law. So, does that means a state can make such a law?

Yes, that’s what that means.

If a state wants to have a state religion, it is perfectly acceptable. Well, acceptable by the Constitution.

But then, what’s some old, out-dated document matter?

For those of us who still abide by that old, out-dated document, if a state wants to make it possible for its citizens to be protected by the First Amendment, it has every right to do so.

Enumerative position was no accident.

There is a reason our Founders put that Amendment as the First Amendment. Importance. They were fleeing religious persecution by their king and wanted to make sure there would be no such tyranny here, in their new land, America. Looking to rid themselves of religious oppression in the form of a Constitutional Republic, they gave such tyrannical government powers the boot!

Guess Liberals want to lay out the welcome mat again.

“So, just because the restaurant owners are Christians, then gay people don’t get to have their weddings catered?”

“No, they just don’t get to have them catered by Christians.”

“By damn, Christians should have to cater gay weddings!”

“And the black restaurant owner should have to cater Separatist Lynching Negro parties?”

More silent stammering.

Look. Virtually no one in this country wants anyone to be discriminated against, in the legal sense of the word. Republicans, who died to free black Americans, did so fighting Democrats who wanted to keep them enslaved. But when someone tells me I must do something my God tells me I can’t do, we have a problem. And our Founding fathers knew it.

Thus the First Amendment.

I would not demand a Jewish bakery make me a cake cross for my wedding. Nor would I demand a Muslim restauranteur serve pork crumpets to my guests at my 10 False Teachings of Islam class held at my house.

That doesn’t mean the Jewish baker or the Muslim restaurant owner is a bigot. It just means that they are First Amendment protected Americans.

Hey, gay people. Go somewhere else to have your cake made!