You better stop, look around,
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
This song, of course, is the Rolling Stones from 1966. It is the song that keeps coming to my mind when reading the utter insanity that has surrounded the Religious Freedom bill that was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence of Indiana today. It seems that the LGBT community and those who support them are seeing this as putting them under the thumb of discrimination. It seems that they are afraid that this opens the door wide so that they can't get no satisfaction from certain businesses and will be told you can't always get what you want. They are certainly trying to paint it black as they can. It also seems that very soon we can expect to see signs, signs everywhere are signs blocking out the scenery and breakin' our minds and denying services to those in the LGBT community.
Forgive my cheekiness but I tend to get that way when it seems to me that things may be being blown out of proportion just a tad. Let's take a few deep breaths here. simmer down a bit. I very much doubt the dire predictions will come to pass. Why? Because protecting citizens from the type of discrimination that is being described is of compelling interest to the State. Furtherance of compelling governmental interest is a criteria that has been written into this law. There are about 30 other states that have enacted freedom of religion protections. A majority of the country by the way. Can anyone give me instances and statistics that what people fear has happened in any of those other states? Or that they have happened at a Federal level in the 20 years since the Federal RFRA was put into place? Can you give me the statistics of the loss of revenue and jobs because businesses have pulled out in protest? Can you show me the evidence of an onslaught of LGBT discrimination from businesses as a direct result of similar laws in the other states? Can you show the pictures of the signs that went up in shop windows? I think not. Because if people could have shown that evidence they would have. Instead they are merely trying to shout this law down with opinion and fear. Religious freedom laws have not legitimized discrimination nor undermined discrimination laws in other states that have enacted an RFRA.
There was a petition circulating that calls for a recall vote to unseat Governor Pence. The problem is that Indiana does not have a statute providing for the recall of a state official. So it won't really matter how many names are on that petition it won't be able to make a difference. There is, however, another petition circulating in an attempt to institute such a statute. Time is on my side for Mike Pence however. Such a statute would require an amendment to the state constitution. This would require that the law go before two General Assemblies over two years. It is too late for this year's General Assembly which means that the law would have to go before the assemblies of 2016 and 2017. If passed it would go before the voters on the ballot in 2018 and would become law in 2019. You would then have to organize the recall vote. If Mike Pence were re-elected in the next election he would be leaving office after the two term limit in 2020. Which is just about the same time you would be able to unseat him through a recall if the amendment passed. Give or take a few months. But even after all of that we would still have the RFRA.
Opinions are being expressed that this law was totally unnecessary and therefore mainly an in your face power play after recent political losses concerning same-sex marriage. Many find it redundant to protect religious freedoms at the state level when the First Amendment already protects it and a federal RFRA is already in place. The necessity of freedom of religion protections go much further than the fact that some people don't like that two people of the same sex have decided to let's spend the night together. There was a time that freedom of religion would have been assumed due to the First Amendment. Over the past 50 years or so many of those freedoms have been slowly eroded and are no longer assumed. Freedom of religion has been reduced to the right to private practice of religion and the right to worship. Basically, you have a right to practice your religion and to worship but keep it to yourself and we can all get along. Public expressions or exercise of religious freedom are bit by bit being eliminated in a misinterpretation and misapplication of separation of church and state. Even freedom of speech rights are being eroded for the religious. To express a religious opinion, no matter how mildly or reasonably, can often be socially categorized as a hate crime. Many have said that it has always been legal to practice your religion in the United States. This narrow view of private practice vs a wider view of public expression and exercise is one of the reasons such laws have become necessary. As well as certain laws being enacted or that could be enacted that would force someone to actively participate in what is contrary to their religious beliefs. The federal RFRA only applies to actions of the federal government and does not cover the actions of state governments. This bill establishes a general legal standard on the state level for evaluating laws and governmental practices that may impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. The state must meet the "compelling interest" test in imposing burdens on the exercise of religion. Those who claim religious exemptions are also ensured the right to their day in court to establish that there is a reasonable basis for that exemption. It does not guarantee that they would win that day in court, however. Only that they have the right to say hey, you, get off of my cloud and have the opportunity to establish the reasonableness of that claim.
You shouldn't be able to discriminate. You also shouldn't be able to force someone to go against their beliefs. Nor should we want to. A business cannot refuse to serve you because of your sexual status. They can however, determine the content of their products and they might be able to refuse to participate in events that are contrary to their religious views. As long as they do not pick and choose, or target one group over another this is not discrimination. In other words, a bakery cannot put up a sign that says they will not serve LGBT people. Anyone can get their donuts, bread, cupcakes, etc and birthday cakes for their child's birthday. But the bakery might refuse to make cakes that depict something contrary to their religion. They also may be able to refuse events that are contrary to their religion. If they refuse a same sex wedding because of religious objections but they also refuse a sister wives wedding, refuse sympathy for the devil at a Satanic Temple event, refuse to cater the pro-choice rally etc. their actions in refusing a LGBT event might not be considered discrimination. They can demonstrate a consistent overall policy of maintaining religious convictions that does not target one group exclusively. By the same token a LGBT person who owns a small t-shirt business can refuse to print t-shirts that say marriage is one man one woman for a local church because the content goes against their beliefs. Or they could refuse to do the printing for a local anti-LGBT rally. Unless we are saying that they should be forced to print those t-shirts or risk being sued or fined right out of business? Would we be able to claim a religious discrimination? In this case all would say that they were only upholding their individual rights and beliefs. But when Christians do it we call it discrimination. When PETA won't hire someone as their spokesman because they privately wear fur coats, eat hamburgers and keep animals in cages we don't see anything wrong with it. PETA has a right to expect that their members and employees do not act contrary to their beliefs. But let that happen at a church concerning a question of a moral nature and all of a sudden the standard is different.
Indiana signed into law a reaffirmation of the protection of a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. You have to wonder what is going on in this country when protecting the First Amendment causes a 19th nervous breakdown. When upholding that freedom is met with frenzied, frantic, hysteria, dire predictions and deliberate associations of religion with discrimination. Without reason or reasonableness strident voices that have been easily triggered into reactionary outrage and emotion, following a lead of panic and fear are protesting the protection of a First Amendment right. Do we hear ourselves right now? Gimme Shelter.
That's my opinion. For what it's worth.
19th Nervous Breakdown,The Rolling Stones 1966
Under My Thumb, The Rolling Stones 1966
Satisfaction, The Rolling Stones 1965
You Can't Always Get What You Want, The Rolling Stones 1969
Paint It Black, The Rolling Stones 1966
Signs, Five Man Electrical Band 1970
Time Is On My Side, The Rolling Stones 1964
Let's Spend The Night Together, The Rolling Stones 1967
Get Off Of My Cloud, The Rolling Stones 1967
Sympathy For the Devil, The Rolling Stones 1968
Gimme Shelter, The Rolling Stones 1969
Opinions are being expressed that this law was totally unnecessary and therefore mainly an in your face power play after recent political losses concerning same-sex marriage. Many find it redundant to protect religious freedoms at the state level when the First Amendment already protects it and a federal RFRA is already in place. The necessity of freedom of religion protections go much further than the fact that some people don't like that two people of the same sex have decided to let's spend the night together. There was a time that freedom of religion would have been assumed due to the First Amendment. Over the past 50 years or so many of those freedoms have been slowly eroded and are no longer assumed. Freedom of religion has been reduced to the right to private practice of religion and the right to worship. Basically, you have a right to practice your religion and to worship but keep it to yourself and we can all get along. Public expressions or exercise of religious freedom are bit by bit being eliminated in a misinterpretation and misapplication of separation of church and state. Even freedom of speech rights are being eroded for the religious. To express a religious opinion, no matter how mildly or reasonably, can often be socially categorized as a hate crime. Many have said that it has always been legal to practice your religion in the United States. This narrow view of private practice vs a wider view of public expression and exercise is one of the reasons such laws have become necessary. As well as certain laws being enacted or that could be enacted that would force someone to actively participate in what is contrary to their religious beliefs. The federal RFRA only applies to actions of the federal government and does not cover the actions of state governments. This bill establishes a general legal standard on the state level for evaluating laws and governmental practices that may impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. The state must meet the "compelling interest" test in imposing burdens on the exercise of religion. Those who claim religious exemptions are also ensured the right to their day in court to establish that there is a reasonable basis for that exemption. It does not guarantee that they would win that day in court, however. Only that they have the right to say hey, you, get off of my cloud and have the opportunity to establish the reasonableness of that claim.
You shouldn't be able to discriminate. You also shouldn't be able to force someone to go against their beliefs. Nor should we want to. A business cannot refuse to serve you because of your sexual status. They can however, determine the content of their products and they might be able to refuse to participate in events that are contrary to their religious views. As long as they do not pick and choose, or target one group over another this is not discrimination. In other words, a bakery cannot put up a sign that says they will not serve LGBT people. Anyone can get their donuts, bread, cupcakes, etc and birthday cakes for their child's birthday. But the bakery might refuse to make cakes that depict something contrary to their religion. They also may be able to refuse events that are contrary to their religion. If they refuse a same sex wedding because of religious objections but they also refuse a sister wives wedding, refuse sympathy for the devil at a Satanic Temple event, refuse to cater the pro-choice rally etc. their actions in refusing a LGBT event might not be considered discrimination. They can demonstrate a consistent overall policy of maintaining religious convictions that does not target one group exclusively. By the same token a LGBT person who owns a small t-shirt business can refuse to print t-shirts that say marriage is one man one woman for a local church because the content goes against their beliefs. Or they could refuse to do the printing for a local anti-LGBT rally. Unless we are saying that they should be forced to print those t-shirts or risk being sued or fined right out of business? Would we be able to claim a religious discrimination? In this case all would say that they were only upholding their individual rights and beliefs. But when Christians do it we call it discrimination. When PETA won't hire someone as their spokesman because they privately wear fur coats, eat hamburgers and keep animals in cages we don't see anything wrong with it. PETA has a right to expect that their members and employees do not act contrary to their beliefs. But let that happen at a church concerning a question of a moral nature and all of a sudden the standard is different.
Indiana signed into law a reaffirmation of the protection of a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. You have to wonder what is going on in this country when protecting the First Amendment causes a 19th nervous breakdown. When upholding that freedom is met with frenzied, frantic, hysteria, dire predictions and deliberate associations of religion with discrimination. Without reason or reasonableness strident voices that have been easily triggered into reactionary outrage and emotion, following a lead of panic and fear are protesting the protection of a First Amendment right. Do we hear ourselves right now? Gimme Shelter.
That's my opinion. For what it's worth.
19th Nervous Breakdown,The Rolling Stones 1966
Under My Thumb, The Rolling Stones 1966
Satisfaction, The Rolling Stones 1965
You Can't Always Get What You Want, The Rolling Stones 1969
Paint It Black, The Rolling Stones 1966
Signs, Five Man Electrical Band 1970
Time Is On My Side, The Rolling Stones 1964
Let's Spend The Night Together, The Rolling Stones 1967
Get Off Of My Cloud, The Rolling Stones 1967
Sympathy For the Devil, The Rolling Stones 1968
Gimme Shelter, The Rolling Stones 1969
