Saturday, April 4, 2015

The Religious Freedom Protection Act. Opinion ....

Controversy has set in . This has me using the *** Middle Way to dig through Indiana 's  somewhat new (old)  law called ## "The Religious Freedom Protection Act". For the life of me , with a nation such as (1)>  America with it's First Amendment , Bill of Rights that we would have frivolous  laws,  more laws that supersede the Constitution to the  freedoms already given . It's time to dissect the whole heated debate , maybe enlighten Americans.  Here is another point in state of Indiana it is against the law to "discriminate against anyone , regardless of age , religion , gender and race." First of all  the state of Indiana in it's constitution has already laws protecting "religious freedom". According to ( ) web site it states CLEARLY that " Discrimination is treating someone differently than someone else. However, not all discrimination is against the law. Only different treatment of a person on account of his or her race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, age or disability is unlawful according to state and federal civil rights laws." So what generally wrong with RFPA? It's a hard for me to see why such a law was crafted . It's a law that only serves bigots  , who will use a "religious " pretense to  refuse "service" to same sex couples . Obviously they all missed the DEVIL in the details of this silly law.  And what people are failing to realize, this isn't just an ONLY attack on gay people. This law will allow people and companies to discriminate against ANYONE that they feel offends their religious beliefs. That includes other races and other religions. This law effectively rolls back civil rights and hides it behind the guise of "religious freedom".  Organizations owned by members with strong religious convictions, to claim that a ruling or mandate violates their religious faith, something reserved for individuals or family businesses in other versions of the law. Both allow religious parties to go to court to head off a “likely” state action that they fear will impinge on their beliefs, even if it has not yet happened. The "key" point of the law will have lawyers left in a baffled state of mind : A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches.A lot of the commentary regarding this law focuses on the Constitution, equality under the law, and other "process" arguments. But at the end of the day, the simple question is this: whether it is OK to discriminate against people who happen to be gay. Everything else is really just background noise. Folks who support this law should just be honest and state clearly that they want to be free to discriminate against gay people. Opponents of the law should not be bending themselves into pretzels trying to argue against this law based on "process." Discrimination is wrong and I believe the majority of Americans are against it.

*** I don’t question the religious sincerity of anyone involved in drafting and passing this law. But
sincere and faithful people, when they feel the imprimatur of both the law and the Lord, can do very ugly things.It is not "Religious Freedom" to deny others services. It is not "Religious Freedom", for example, to argue that a restaurant will not serve African Americans any more than to use the same argument to not serve gay customers. It's just bigotry. ##But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote. Now the backdrop is often perceived to be the cultural division over same-sex marriage. (1)> Any one should remember the ERA ( The Equal Rights Amendment ) which many of the ultra -right and most of the "churches" jumped the wagon to repeal it. It sounds strikingly similar to the problems with " gay marriage" .  Many are "opposed" same sex marriage the same way they were also opposed to the ERA. Back in 1971 ,the proposed Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Different versions of an equal rights amendment have been considered by Congress since 1923. On 22 March 1972 a Congressional resolution proposed the current equal rights amendment, without allowing any moderating amendments which would have provided for reasonable exceptions (see question 16, p. 14). Congress specified that ratification by three-fourths of the states should take place within seven years of that date. In 1979, that ratification deadline was extended to 30 June 1982. So the "amendment" lays down against any kind of discrimination : 
The Equal Rights Amendment reads, in its entirety, as follows:Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

No comments:

Post a Comment