The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the
freedom of speech, the press, religion, and assembly. In other words, it grants
the right to believe what you want, say what you believe, print what you say,
and associate with those of like mind. The First Amendment rights are the most
sacrosanct rights we have. The political left has historically been a champion
of those rights when it served their own purposes. We protect those rights,
regardless of how distasteful and unpopular they may be.
In recent years, we have seen the political left completely
abandon the first amendment. They are the ones who brought Political
Correctness into being. They are the ones who have tried to control speech,
thought, and beliefs. Rather than engage in a civilized discourse, they attempt
to insult, drown out, shame, and otherwise berate anyone who disagrees with
them. They call them hateful, bigots, and homophobes. These insults are neither
fair nor accurate. Most importantly, they have turned their ire on Christians
above all. It has now gotten so bad, that they want to use the power of the
state to get everyone to conform to their values. They will often claim
Christians are “imposing their morality” but fail to see their own hypocrisy.
They are attempting to impose their own morality on everyone else by using the
power of the state to do so.
The separation of church and state is a key element of our
republic. It was designed to serve two purposes. The first was to prevent the
church from imposing religious obligations on those who were not members of
their faith. As a Christian I certainly endorse prayer, even voluntary prayer
in schools, but it is most definitely wrong to require all students to pray in
public schools. That would be an imposition of the church on the state. As much
as I think it is a good idea for everyone to pray, it would be wrong of me or
the church to impose that standard upon everyone else. If I want others to
follow my example and beliefs, I can engage in civil discourse and attempt to persuade
others to do likewise…voluntarily…not by force of law.
Likewise, it is designed to prevent the state from
interfering in religion. It is here that the political left has gone off track.
They assume that since our state is secular that it can enforce secular values
on religious people. They assume that they have the right to force people to
put aside their religious values in order to serve a secular purpose. In this
they are dead wrong.
Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are
inherent to our humanity. The Constitution did not GIVE us our rights, it
merely recognized them and protected them. These rights are the rights to life,
liberty, to believe or not believe, to speak freely, to acquire and own
property. These rights do not depend upon another to obtain nor do they impose
upon the rights of others.
The Indiana RFRA is a microcosm of the battle being waged by
the political left against people of faith, particularly Christians. The law as
it is stated merely grants an individual a chance to make his case heard in
court if he has objections based upon religious grounds, and that the state
needs to prove a compelling state interest in enforcing compliance. It also
requires a remedy that does the least amount of damage to one’s religious
liberty.
To be clear, no one has suggested that Christian business
owners should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals in the general
sense. If a Christian restaurant owner had guests who were gay and wanted to be
served a dinner, there would be no compelling reason why he would not serve
them. However, should they then ask that restaurateur to cater their gay
wedding, the stakes have changed. The Christian is now being asked to be an
active participant in a religious celebration that is in contradiction to his
faith. He should be free to decline on religious grounds. The political left
disagrees. They have used the cover of “non-discrimination” to advocate for
slavery.
Slavery?
Yes! Slavery! They want to compel the Christian business owner
to labor against his will for a cause he finds morally offensive. Compelling
the labor of another against his will is the definition of slavery. Should he
refuse to comply with the wishes of the homosexual couple who wants his
services, the LGBT community, and those on the political left, want the state
to compel the business owner to provide labor and goods under threat of force
(hefty fines or imprisonment). The fact that the business owner is compensated
for his product or service is irrelevant. I’m sure the plantation owner in 1830
believed that he was compensating his slaves for their labor by providing
housing, food, and medical care for his slaves. They were slaves nonetheless
because they did not have a choice in whether to perform the labor or not. There
can be no right to enslave others.
Should the secular state give homosexual couples the right
to marry? That really is up to the state. Personally I do not believe that the
legal fiction called a marriage license
is anything more than a civil union contract between consenting people,
heterosexual OR homosexual. Marriage is a religious institution and is separate
from ANYTHING that the state grants. This law does not prohibit gays from
seeking and obtaining a civil union. If the couple wants to call it marriage it
is up to them. If they want to have a
celebration of their union, they are free to do so. If they want flowers, a cake, formal attire,
and a photographer, they are free to obtain them. There really is no shortage
of businesses who are willing to accommodate them. Where the line has been
crossed is when they feel that their “right to a cake, or photographer, or
other amenities” permits them to compel the labor of another under duress.
We should be respecting the religious liberties of ALL
Americans. The state should in no way compel any of its citizens to violate
their conscience and religious beliefs in order to comply with political
correctness. There is no such thing as “gay rights, black rights, women’s
rights, fill in the name of your group here rights”. All rights are individual
rights and need to be respected on the basis of individuals. Otherwise we end
up pitting one group against another in defense of their “special” rights.
LGBT activists, liberals, and progressives….THERE IS NO
RIGHT TO ENSLAVE! Love who you want, but don’t try to use force to get everyone
to agree with you. If a business owner respectfully declines to participate in
your wedding, respectfully take your business to someone who will. There is no
shortage of business wanting your patronage.
