On the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

Last week the news cycle was absolutely dominated by the state of Indiana's newly passed Religious Freedom Act. There's been panic on both sides of the argument based on whatever news story their source of choice (which generally complies with their personal leaning, whether right or left) instead of -- and I know this is crazy -- actually reading the law.

Before I continue, I'm just going to leave this link here:

                             Here it is: The text of Indiana's ‘religious freedom’ law

Please don't continue until you take the necessary five minutes (at most) to read the law.

Did you read it? No? GO BACK AND READ IT.

Do it now.

I'm serious.

OK did you FINALLY read the law?

Good. Now we can continue.

Like many of you, I've spent the past few week in deep discussion with friends on both sides of the issue. Some see it as a necessary protection for us Christians and other people of faith.  On the other side, I've heard more than a few people attempt to compare this law to Jim Crow in the segregated South.  A quick aside about that:

No person has been denied service in general from any business because of their sexual orientation, nor does the law allow that to occur. Rather it presents a scenario where a business can decline to participate in an event (in this case the wedding ceremony of two same-sex partners) because of a moral objection -- which still to me seems like a reasonable choice that a person should have the right to make without being forced to either a) participate against their morals or b) close down their business.

I'm going to give an example which is admittedly a far more extreme scenario -- chosen specifically because I want to craft a scenario that all reasonable people, liberal and conservative, can understand how they personally would react -- to help people understand the thinking of someone refusing an event (so please skip the comments calling me a bigot for comparing homosexuals to Nazis):

A photographer being asked to be the photographer at the big Ku Klux Klan rally or a baker being asked to bake a Swastika shaped cake for the Illinois Nazi Bridge Rally. (Look that last part up kids so you can see how clever I am.) If I were that photographer I would absolutely, unequivocally say no to photographing the Klan rally and if I was that baker I would decline to bake the Swastika cake because I am morally opposed to the actions of both the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party (that's "Nazis" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).

Frankly nobody would call me a bigot for that -- mostly because it's acceptable to 99.9% of Americans (at least) to find the Klan and the Nazis immoral. Now if Joe the Nazi or Bubba the Klansman want to come in and buy a birthday cake or a dozen chocolate chip cookies from my display case, I'd sell them those things without question because their money is green and I'm in business to sell those things. What's the difference? One is turning participation in a specific event. The other is refusing to sell to a person because of who they are.

Nobody would get mad if I refused those jobs. But if you really boil it down, it's not much different than saying no to being the baker, florist or photographer at a same-sex wedding. It's an event. It involves some level a direct participation in an event. One should be allowed to say no to being part of an event if they morally feel they should.

More importantly, when you read the law, (you know, that link above that you promised to read?) it states that a business may use religious objects as a defense in court. It doesn't say it will be accepted.  I liken it to a claim of self defense when someone is on trail for murder. It can be argued, but you have to prove it for it to be accepted.  The reality is that people may initially try to use this law as an excuse to discriminate -- but ultimately the certain high level of failure of this defense will ensure that this claim is used only when appropriate.

Thankfully I'm lucky that I have a couple of politically informed friends who are able to discuss such issues in a rhetorical manner in an effort to discover the truth behind the talking points. A few legitimate issues did come up, such as:

 

• What is the line between refusing an event and refusing to serve a person?
• What is an event? Is a gay couple going out to dinner an event?
• Can we make an accommodation only for small Mom and Pop businesses?
• What about larger businesses? Can a major grocery store chain refuse to be the wedding cake provider because the CEO or some member of the board has a moral objection?
• Is there room for reasonable accommodations to be made for individual employees at a major business like we offer for workers with disabilities, so that the consumer can still purchase the item/service they desire but the individual with the objection can be excused from participation?
• What are the limits of these accommodations? Can a devout Catholic refuse to complete a customer's check out at the grocery store because he is a box of condoms? Can a devout Vegan refuse to complete checkout of a customer because he has a box of steaks?
• How to we ensure these protections for businesses aren't allowed to turn into legitimate segregation?

With these in mind, I suggest the following proposal for a religious liberty protection law.

1. It is prohibited for any business, regardless of size, that is open to the general public, to refuse sale to any person normal day to day service or product within the confines of the business' location based on their race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc.
A. Day to day business is defined as any normal service or product available at that store as a stock item, menu item, or standardized service offered within the location.

B. Open to the general public is defined as a business available to all people, or all people who have attained a certain age (such as bars and casinos), or to all people who meet a singular criteria of membership as set out by said organization (such as an athletic club for women or a fraternal organization for men).

C. Non-profit organizations, certified religious organizations, and private membership organizations such as fraternal organizations are exempted from the above, regardless of size, as required by law.

2. It is prohibited for any business with ten or more employees to refuse any standard off-site service (such as catering, decoration, etc.) that they would otherwise provide to any person or group based on their race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.

3. Businesses under ten employees may refuse to take part in an off-site event (such as catering, decorating, etc.) based on personal objections to such event including but not limited to religious beliefs, political beliefs, or secular moral beliefs.

4. Businesses with under ten employees may refuse to incorporate certain symbols, images, uniforms, etc. into the design of products or on images that they are contracted to create -- but may not refuse to serve said person because of the customer's race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc.

A. For example, a photographer may refuse to photograph an individual wearing their Ku Klux Klan robe and a baker may refuse to put a Swastika on a cake. However, the same photographer may not refuse to photograph said individual wearing clothing other than the objectionable uniform. Likewise, the baker must still bake the customer a cake that lacks the objectionable symbol.

5. Businesses with ten or more employees shall, to the best of their ability, provide reasonable accommodations to individual employees on a case by case basis to employees who offer personal objections to a task or assignment.

A. Reasonable accommodations is defined by accommodating the employee in a way that does not interfere with the moment to moment service received by customers. For example, a reasonable accommodation would be a Vegan employee requesting to not be station at the grocery store deli counter and instead requesting to be stationed elsewhere.  An unreasonable request would be a Vegan cashier refusing to cash out a customer purchasing steaks and requesting that a new cashier be called in to complete that customer's order.

Nice and simple. Takes up less than one page. Replete with reasonable compromises and accommodations to protect the rights of EVERYONE, not just select interest groups. Nobody is getting everything they want -- but everyone's rights are protected.

Nobody is stopping that same-sex couple from having a wedding with a cake and a photographer -- but Mom and Pop bakery (owned by people of faith) can have the right to not be a part of that wedding. That said, the aforementioned same-sex couple is still welcome to come into the bakery and purchase some delicious goodies on display in the case and order their friend's birthday cake without being refused service. 

Joe the Vegan and Fred the Hindu can both ask not to be stationed in the deli at the big supermarket chain while customers can order their honey roasted ham and smoked turkey breast without any delay and also have their purchase checked out by a cashier as normal.

Yes, somebody may still find their feelings are hurt, and in short, that's too bad. The Constitution exists to protect the rights of all -- not the feelings of all -- even if the person exercises said rights to be politically incorrect.

As a country, we must be sure to tread the oh-so thin line between personal freedom and discrimination. I believe the above law does just that.

What do you think? Do we need to add a detail or two? Did something get missed? Discussion is always welcome in the comments or on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page.

Letter Bag: PETA, Social Security & Freedom of Religion

We've had a busy month on the comment boards for Biblical Conservatism...well, relatively, anyway...which is to say we've had five.  So today, we're going to take time to answer three of these responses.  Remember, friends, I welcome comments here, as long as they follow the Rules for Comments, and may be used in a future "Letter Bag" posts!

To kick it off, we've got a comment from the post Seriously PETA, Mario Brothers?

Seems ridiculous in modern times, but PETA is sliding closer and closer to animal worship. Some comments of both PETA and the Sierra Club place higher value on animal lives than humans. If this isn't animal worship then it is the next step closer. - Anonymous

A great point from our Anonymous friend, who we're going to refer to heretofor as Worf.

Worf, I've said for years that in many ways the environmental lobby as a whole is far more religion than science.  (The Animal Rights nuts are part of that greater Environmentalist movement.)  These individuals, who continue to trumpet the hoax of Global Warming, even after Climategate demonstrated how trumped up and/or fabricated these claims were.  I can tell you the basis of that, by the way.  There are a whole lot of people whose religion is science.  Sure, they tell you they listen to "logic and facts" but they rarely believe that scientists would be subject to bias and falsifying their data or overstating their case.  They genuinely believe in the old school, Dr. Alan Grant type characters who are above the fray of politics and just assess the truth. The reality is some of these scientists are this honest and good at their job.  Others bitterly cling to their Global Warming, Evolution and Animal Rights and won't reassess their beliefs.

Thanks for reading us, Worf, and thanks for commenting!  Glad to have you here!

Secondly, we have a comment from A Dose of Reality on Obama's Payroll Tax Holiday:

Except, if we live long enough, "we" will receive 3 of 4 times as much as we ever put it. In 1940, 42 taxpayers supported each retiree. Right now each retiree is supported by 3.3 workers.http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/cbigelow/social-security-violates-younger-generations-prope

It's estimated that by 2030 it may be 2:1 or even 1:1. That is unsustainable. It hasn't been "me" saying for myself for a long time, though that's exactly what it should be and should revert to. I should only get out as much as I paid-in, plus the interest the govt made on my money. - Anonymous

Another great point from another Anonymous friend of Biblical Conservatism, who we will henceforth refer to as Scooby:

You're absolutely correct, Scooby, the current receipients are receiving more than they paid in, as will we...theoretically.  Honestly, I don't expect to receive a dime, and I don't know how old you are, Scooby, but if you're under 50 I wouldn't expect on seeing anything either.  Here's why:  There's absolutely no way they can get away with taxing current workers at a high enough rate to pay for the social security of the retirees...you'd have to tax everyone at like 80-90% (and not just those evil rich people, friends, everybody) at which point we'd have such ridiculous poverty in America that the system would collapse.  Social Security is, as Rick Perry said, a Ponzi Scheme, except Ponzi Schemes are voluntary. 

What Obama's Payroll Tax Cut is just accelerating the day when Social Security is insolvent by reducing the incoming revenue.  As I said before, if you're going to cut taxes, cut them in the general fund, not in Payroll Taxes, because Payroll Taxes are the sole funding mechanism of Social Security.

Thanks for reading, Scooby, and thanks for commenting!

And now, finally, we've got a comment from DH on the post Freedom of Religion Doesn't Mean Freedom FROM Religion:

"Liberals would rather have us believe that the most disgusting pornography on the planet is protected speech under the Constitution, while saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for this meal you have provided us and for your 
blessings on our lives. Amen,” is not protected speech."

Wrong. Liberals believe that both are protected free speech. And both are inappropriate in situations where the government has paid for a stage and microphone (such as a graduation ceremony at a public high school).

Well, Designated Hitter, I have to disagree with you.  The average Neighborhood Liberal may think that, but the average Activist Liberal does not. Look around you:  There are people saying you cannot show a manger scene ON YOUR OWN LAWN and wanting "In God We Trust" off our money, even though it is our national motto. 

There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of why there is an Establishment Clause in our Constitution in the first place:  To stop there being an official state religion.  The United States is not officially a Christian nation or more specifically a Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian nation.  That does not mean that public exercise is forbidden.

Liberals have this idea that the Establishment Clause opposes "endorsement" of a particular religion.  Wrong.  It opposes officially establishing an official religion.  Public affirmation by a group is not the same thing as establishing an official religion.

"... the Founders intended to protect free expression of religious faith, all political speech, and assembly in protest when they ratified the First Amendment. The Constitution protects my right to pray in public, to talk  about Jesus in public, to quote the Bible in public. I have that right."

I agree 100 percent — as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for the stage from which you're speaking. Now would you feel if I tried to prosthelytize to you (assume I belong to a different denomination, or practice a different religion than you)? Would YOU want to hear MY prayer when I am speaking at a public high school graduation ceremony?

You talk about what stopping certain religious expressions on propert your tax dollars are paying for, Designated:  based on that logic I can also demand that no speeches promoting liberalism occur on property that my tax dollars pay for...after all, I vehemently disagree with liberalism!  Do you see what a slippery slope that is...and what we've already started to decend down?  Freedom of speech is just that...you can speak of your politics, or your faith, on public property, period.  My options with that liberal speaker are as follows: Listen, not to listen and walk away, or engage in discussion with that liberal speaker.  I do not have the right to silence them.  The same goes for expression of religious faith.
Now to your other point, I don't see a reason at all in prosthelytizing someone to a denomination.  The Presbyterianism doesn't save, neither does Catholocism,  Faith in the blood of Jesus Christ is what saves!

When I meat a Christian who attends a Baptist or Lutheran Church and they are earnestly seeking God in that church and serving and worshiping Christ, why would I bother trying to get them to attend an Assembly of God church like me?  Why would it matter? Hallelujah!  They're under the blood of Jesus!

Now if you are of a different religion than me, feel free to try to prosthelytize me to yours...just as long as you're willing to listen to me as well.  You see, it's not about feelings or being left alone in my comfortable box.  I'm not a Christian because it "makes sense to me" or because it "works for me personally."  I'm a Christian because I am 100% convinced that I am right, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Savior, that He is the only road to salvation, and out of that love and conviction I want to share my faith so all can be saved. 

I know most modern Americans care more about not having their momentary lives not interrupted and their real or imagined sense of security questioned.  My purpose is both very genuine and very loving...I want them to receive the same forgiveness of sin and place in Heaven I have received from the blood of Jesus!  I'm willing to make people a little uncomfortable in that attempt, because I care more about people's souls than being politically correct.

Now, those people have the right choose between listening, not listening, and engaging in debate with me, just like any other topic.  People of other faiths have the right to try to prosthelytize me too...all I ask is that they also listen to me in return.

Let me ask you: Do you really think that's fair in a situation like a high school graduation?

Let's assume you're, say, a devout Baptist or a Catholic and your grandchild is graduating from the local public high school. Let's assume you're the kind of devout Christian who certainly does not belive in Mormonism. And suppose the high school valedictorian, who is allotted time to speak at the graduation ceremony, happens to be a Mormon.

Do you think that speaker has the right to say Mormon prayers and otherwise advocate the Mormon faith as part of the valedictorian's speech?

Your choice is either to listen or leave? You have to listen to Mormon prosthelytizing (which you find offensive) OR you can leave and miss a once-in-a-lifetime event in your grandchild's life.

Seems to me the fair thing to do, and the thing to do that is in keeping with the First Amendment, is to limit the valedictorian's speech to matters related to graduation from high school and similar matters. Designated, there's a couple issues with your point.  One, Mormons are ridiculously garded about what they show in public from the specifics of Mormon ritual, from everything I've ever read.  Two, what you're talking about is a very different issue than free speech.  What you're talking about is good taste. You might have a point about being in good taste.  But, if I was allowed to legally regulate taste, the Occupy protesters wouldn't be allowed to speak.  Secondly, you're talking to a guy who took the opportunity of a college speech where the assignment was to give a rhetorical critique of a famous speech and chose to analyze Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, so yes, that is completely protected speech if said Mormon did it.  Especially if it was kept to generic references about God, which, quite frankly, covers Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the cults that claim Christ's name (I do not mean cult like drink the poison Kool Aid in their matching Nikes, by cult as in group that names Christ but doesn't follow the orthodox Biblical Jesus) like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.  Frankly, the problem isn't these people.  The problem is Atheists who don't want their sensitive ears to be bothered with hearing the word God.

Thanks for writing, Designated Hitter.  Even though I do continue my campaign to have both artifical turf and the designated hitter made illegial in baseball via a Constitutional Amendment, I'm still glad to have you as a reader!  Glad to engage in friendly debate with those who disagree with me.  To these people, my response hasn't changed:  Life isn't about not offending you, get over yourself.

Thank you all for reading and for commenting on Biblical Conservatism!  Special thanks again to our three commenters, Worf, Scooby, and Designated Hitter!

Freedom of Religion Doesn't Mean Freedom FROM Religion

Recently a high school student and his family sued a school district to restrict references to God and prayer from a high school graduation ceremony. As a Christian and as a Constitutionalist, stories like this are highly frustrating to me. Liberals have tried, with unfortunate success, to convince America that people have a right to never hear anything that ever upsets them in the slightest. This, in a nutshell, is the true definition of political correctness. I don’t know about you, but I’ve quite frankly had just about enough of this baloney.


Here’s the truth: we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion. It’s an important distinction. As Americans, we have freedom to practice our faith. The only exception is if PHYSICAL harm is being done to another human being. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means people can’t legally sacrifice another person on an altar in the name of practicing my religion. It does not mean I can’t say “God bless you” to an atheist when they sneeze.) Furthermore, the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was never meant to keep God out of all government circles. It was designed to prevent the United States from having a declared state religion (which we do not have).

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, here’s a quick history lesson: Before the United States was a nation, we were colonies of Great Britain. Great Britain, both then and now had an official state religion, the Anglican Church. The Founders did not want the United States to fall into that trap, hence the first part of the First Amendment, which prohibits the United States from becoming a Methodist nation, or a Lutheran nation, or a Baptist nation. That was the historical intention of that part of the First Amendment.

However, the Founders also put a second statement about religion. The Founders also made sure that there would be nothing to stop people from freely practicing their religion. Notice it does not say “private exercise thereof.” It says Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The United States government may not stop people from practicing their religion. Got it?

Yet Liberals and atheists of all political leanings have combined to demand that they never have to hear anything about other people’s religions and now what the law to protect their ears from having to hear our free speech. With all due respect to you atheists, if you don’t want to hear the free expression of my faith, don’t listen to me. Don’t read Biblical Conservatism (for crying out loud, it’s in the name of the blog). You do not have a right to stop my expression of my faith, or for that matter, anyone else’s expression of their faith. Not in private, not in public, not at all. Period.

Liberals would rather have us believe that the most disgusting pornography on the planet is protected speech under the Constitution, while saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for this meal you have provided us and for your blessings on our lives. Amen,” is not protected speech. Sorry Liberals, but you’re wrong (quite frankly, on both counts). For the record, I recognize that I legally do not have the right to stop the pornography industry, provided all involved are consenting adults. That said, the Founders intended to protect free expression of religious faith, all political speech, and assembly in protest when they ratified the First Amendment. The Constitution protects my right to pray in public, to talk about Jesus in public, to quote the Bible in public. I have that right.

You have two choices in such situations. First and foremost, you can leave. You don’t have to stay and here my free speech. You have every right to avoid hearing my speech (as I avoid viewing the aforementioned pornography because it highly offends me). No one is forcing you to stay and listen.

Secondly, you can counter my speech with speech of your own. You are more than welcome to enter into a discussion with me on our differences of faith or our differences of political opinion. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I believe in the Arena of Ideas. You present your ideas, I’ll present mine.
Unfortunately for Liberals, their ideas rarely stand up in a debate. They end up being Unconstitutional, just plain whiny, or both combined (see: demanding people of faith never speak their faith out loud). Not only do you have a legal right to stop people from expressing their faith, you also are being incredibly hypocritical. Liberals claim to be open minded but never want to be open minded about anything they don’t like. As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.”

So Liberals, and atheists of all political bents, please hear me: Get over yourselves. We have the right to express our faith. You have a right to not listen. You have a right to debate with us. You do not have a right to silence our constitutionally protected religious speech. Get over it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Emphasis Added)