Religious Freedom and Tolerance Are a One-Way Street In Today's America
The outrage coming from all corners of the nation over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is deafening. Nineteen other states, plus the federal government, already have laws very similar to Indiana's, so why is the media choosing to focus on this one?
Following the signing of the bill last Thursday by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, opponents dubbed the law "anti-gay," saying that it will take away the rights of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. But it this actually the truth?
The outrage has been so great that even the hashtag, "#BoycottIndiana," began to trend nationally on twitter, and businesses like Angies List and the NCAA are reconsidering doing their business in the Hoosier state.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Apple's CEO Tim Cook, who was recently named the world's "greatest leader" by Fortune Magazine, took to the twitter-sphere to say that he is "deeply disappointed" with Indiana's law:
Cook went so far as to pen an op-ed in The Washington Post:
"A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law."
Cook couldn't be more wrong about the facts of the law. As Gabriel Malor points out in The Federalist, Indiana's RFRA law is nothing but a "shield" for religious people, yet the mainstream media is acting as if it is a "sword."
Malor says that the law "can't be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law," but you wouldn't know that had you listened to NBC News or read The New York Times this week.
The media, those on the left, and even some on the right are spreading the misinformation about this law, not because they don't understand the actual purpose of the law, but because tolerance in America is increasingly becoming a one-way street.
Opponents of the law are up in arms because they believe it will allow any business to deny someone service if they don't agree with their sexual orientation, hence the "anti-gay" label.
Although that simply isn't the truth, the narrative has been centered on the "anti-gay" stigma, all in the name of being tolerant of those who are "different" and choose to marry their own sex.
What's amazing is the exact same people who call for tolerance of homosexuality, are being intolerant of those who want to deny service to a gay couple, because their religious morals don't agree with the gay couple's choice to be gay.
And that, for some unknown reason, is deemed to be okay, and isn't ever focused on in the media.
When they say they want tolerance and acceptance of everyone, what they really mean is: "Accept me and what I believe, but if you don't, you're a bigot, a homophone, and you're racist."
America was undoubtedly built on the principles of the First Amendment in our Constitution. Freedom of religion IS included, but it seems like so many in society today want to take that fundamental right away from religious people, especially Christians.
I contest that those who are calling this law "anti-gay" are really anti-religion, because the one purpose of the RFRA is to allow religion to be cited as a compelling reason to not be forced to do something you don't agree with, in litigation against the government only. The law actually does not actually address civil disputes. The law is simply a reaffirmation that here in America you can practice any religion you choose and the exercise of your religion won't be impeded.
Anyway, what sense does it make to force someone to serve you, who doesn't want to serve you? Or force someone to participate in your ceremony that doesn't want to participate in your ceremony? As a gay couple, do you actually want someone, who disagrees with your gay marriage, to bake your wedding cake? Or would you rather have a cake baker who supports your gay marriage?
After all, what happened to freedom of choice? The government has no business coercing people to serve others with whom they disagree with religiously - and the courts agree.
Courts all across the country, and most recently the Supreme Court, have ruled in favor of businesses that have religious affiliations, re: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
And although actual justice of law has the back of religious Americans, religion has become outdated in mainstream America, and so has two-way tolerance.
That's a problem – a real big problem.
"Be tolerant with one another and forgive one another whenever any of you has a complaint against someone else. You must forgive one another just as the Lord has forgiven you."
- Colossians 3:13
