Only days after Indiana rushed through a change in its state law
amid a backlash led by homosexual-rights groups and Arkansas reacted by
modifying a similar law before it was adopted, voters in Springfield, Missouri,
have moved the opposite direction.
The city repealed an “anti-discrimination” law
adopted only months ago. In the election this week, 51.4 percent of voters
decided to reject the law, which had been adopted by the Springfield City
Council in October.
Opponents had quickly organized a successful
petition drive to force the public vote. “The churches were startled and
alarmed and began to get involved (in the ordinance repeal),” Calvin Morrow,
who was part of a Christian group advocating for repeal, told Associated Press.
“They were the target.”
He questioned whether there was “discrimination”
against homosexuals in Springfield and told AP the dispute divided the city.
Opponents of the repeal said they would continue
to work to make Springfield “a welcoming place for all people.”
Amid opposition, the council last year added
sexual orientation and gender identity to a nondiscrimination plan that already
existed in the city of 165,000. Critics said the special protections provided
an open door to sexual predators in public spaces.
The
local News-Leader posted a
quote from Perez Hilton, a homosexual activist, saying, “More anti-gay
discrimination … this time from Springfield, Missouri.”
Zack Ford, at the leftist Think Progress, wrote:
“Because Missouri is one of the 28 states with no state-level protections and
there are no nationwide protections, the local ordinance was the only
enumerated legal protection available to the city’s LGBT residents.”
He continued: “The pro-repeal campaign also used
‘religious liberty’ to justify discrimination. … What the Yes On Question 1
campaign actually admitted, however, is that it was worried that wedding
vendors might actually have to serve same-sex couples. The ordinance actually
already contained exemptions for religious organizations, but that wasn’t
enough for those who felt their license to discriminate was threatened by the
protections.”
In a
number of recent cases, Christians claim they were forced effectively to
endorse same-sex marriage
through floral arranging, photography or other artistry.
WND reported Indiana’s Religious Freedom
Restoration Act was fiercely opposed by homosexual activists, including the CEO
of Apple, prompting state lawmakers to provide special protections for
homosexuals at the expense of the religious rights of business owners.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth said the
changes amounted to “eviscerating” Indiana’s religious freedom bill.
The Indiana chapter of the American Family
Association had also urged Republican Gov. Mike Pence not to adopt the changes.
“The actions taken by the Indiana General
Assembly do not clarify our Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s purposes or
goals. Our legal advisers tell us that it actually changes our law in a way
that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana. If this revised law does
not adequately protect religious liberty for all, it is not really a religious
freedom act,” said AFA of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark in a
statement.
In Arkansas, the governor sent a similar
religious freedom act back to lawmakers to make changes before he would sign
it.
LaBarbera said a great deal of the blame for the
hysteria in Indiana belonged to the news media, which, he said, were not even
pretending to cover the story objectively.
“This is a media-generated crisis, the media
working with gay activists,” he said. “The mainstream media have become part of
the gay lobby almost. An incredible hysteria has been whipped up against
Indiana.”
One of the biggest stories was the nationwide
vitriol and threats against the Christian owners of Memories Pizza in
Walkerton, Indiana. An owner was sought out by a TV reporter and asked whether
or not they would cater a same-sex celebration. Thought the establishment
served “gays,” she said couldn’t serve a ceremony that conflicted with her
biblical beliefs.
LaBarbera said that type of harassment is not
representative of all homosexual activists, but he said it’s a consistent
practice of a belligerent portion.
“There is an element of the gay rights movement
which has acted recklessly for decades and tried to intimidate people,
sometimes using force,” he said. “We had it happen at one of our banquets in
Illinois. I would hope people would keep the argument civil. There’s no need to
get into these extremes.”
More
than a dozen other states already have Religious freedom laws similar to what
was proposed in Indiana,
and a federal level was signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
The changed law drew fury from critics. A talk
show host described the homosexual community as “totalitarian” on the issue.
The original Indiana law
was a fair attempt to balance interests, wrote Daniel O. Conkle, a professor at
Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, in
the Indianapolis Star.
He explained he’s a same-sex marriage supporter
but believes the Indiana religious freedom law simply requires, as in other
states, that a state have a “compelling interest” to order people to violate
their faith.
“Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by
wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security,” Conkle noted.
“Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA
protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling
that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city
parks.”
J. Matt Barber, a popular blogger and associate
dean in the law school at Liberty University, said, “What was intended as a
shield to protect religious liberty has now become a sword to destroy it.
“What was intended to defend people of faith
against being forced by government, under penalty of law, to affirmatively
violate their First Amendment-protected liberty of conscience, has now been
turned into a government weapon that compels people of faith to violate that
conscience.”
Barber called the changes “a complete 180.” Joining
Barber in alarm over the reports of the lawmakers’ plans was Senior Counsel
Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending
Freedom.
“The [original] religious freedom law is a good
law. It does not pick winners or losers, but allows courts to weigh the
government’s and people’s interests fairly and directs judges to count the cost
carefully when freedom is stake. The new proposal unjustly deprives citizens
their day in court, denies freedom a fair hearing, and rigs the system in
advance. It gives the government a new weapon against individual citizens who are
merely exercising freedoms that Americans were guaranteed from the founding of
this country. Surrendering to deception and economic blackmail never results in
good policy.”
Waggoner has defended a florist who was targeted
for standing by her Christian beliefs and declining to lend her artistic talent
to a homosexual ceremony. In Washington State, florist
Barronelle Stutzman already has been
penalized $1,001 for her faith.
And the judge ruling in the case has opened her
savings, personal possessions and even home up as a target for the homosexuals
who wanted her artistic talents and now may claim her assets as damages.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/backlash-voters-torpedo-lgbt-protection/
Comments
The “turd in the punchbowl” here is when gay
activists and gamers use these anti-discrimination ordinances as grounds to sue
small businesses and hold elective office to advance the gay lifestyle. Freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution is at risk here, more than “religious freedom”. Gays don’t need to be “evangelists” for “the
gay lifestyle” and claiming protected group status is not a good strategy. They
do deserve to function in our free market, whatever is left of it. There is
ample evidence that gays can survive and thrive in our Meritocracy. They are a
sub-culture and like many sub-cultures, they are most “at home” with their own
kind where they are free to be hilarious. They are generally very capable, well
liked and kind.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment