I first wrote about the First Amendment a couple of years ago. I detailed how the phrase "separation of Church and State" not only does not exist anywhere in our founding documents, but was taken - out of context and not even quoted correctly - from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Baptist ministers in an attempt to alleviate their fears that the United States government was going to select an "official religion."
Given the recent signing into law of a bill in Indiana that, for all intents and purposes, simply says that the government of Indiana will not force a business owner to provide services to an event that conflicts with their religious beliefs, it bears repeating, as some people just don't get it.
Everyone walking this planet "discriminates" every day. It's a fact of life.
You spend your money at one store over another; you eat at McDonald's over Burger King, you drink beer "A" over beer "B." You use Exxon gas rather than BP. I could go on and on and on, but I hope you get the idea.
If you patronize a white-owned business rather than a similar but black-owned business, does that make you a racist? No...
If you go to a regular bar and not the local gay bar, does that make you a homophobe? No...
As far as I know, not a single case of this so-called discrimination has been an outright refusal of all goods and services to gay people. They've just been refusal to provide goods and services for things that the business owner disagrees with for religious reasons, AS IS THEIR RIGHT under the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, nor was the First Amendment meant to protect government from religion. It's purpose was to protect religion from government, which is what this law was designed to remind you about...
But Hunter, wouldn't the ability to "discriminate" based on religious beliefs be forcing someone to participate in your religion? That would only be true if I could force you to spend your money at my business - which I can't do.
Let's turn that question around, though. Wouldn't that work the other way? How can freedom of religion (and the free exercise thereof) be considered a freedom if I'm forced to violate my religious beliefs?
Nobody is forced to practice any religion in this country. I can't force you to convert to Catholicism, and neither can the government, which is the primary reason for establishment clause of the First Amendment - to keep the government from endorsing or establishing an "official" religion.
What it doesn't do is give you the right to prevent me from practicing my religion in every aspect of my life. Your rights end where mine begin, and my rights are just as inviolable as yours.
It is interesting to note, however, that most of the liberals protesting this law remain absolutely silent on muslims throwing gay people off of buildings, beheading them, stoning them, etc.
Let's not mention good ole Hitlery Clintoon tweeting about the law (apparently not noticing the irony in protesting a law that's modeled after the law her husband signed into law at the federal level in 1993).
It is interesting to note, however, that most of the liberals protesting this law remain absolutely silent on muslims throwing gay people off of buildings, beheading them, stoning them, etc.
Let's not mention good ole Hitlery Clintoon tweeting about the law (apparently not noticing the irony in protesting a law that's modeled after the law her husband signed into law at the federal level in 1993).
By the way, a person is free to not participate in my religious beliefs by - and here's the important part - doing business somewhere else.
See? FREEDOM... ~ Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment