Last week, the Indiana State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". The verbiage of the bill is sufficiently vague [by design] to seem benign on it's face....but the public statements by supporters of this bill, leading up to it's passing, make it quite clear what it's about [some Indiana establishments are already declaring that they will no longer serve gays]. A special privilege for religion....but with an ironic twist probably not thought of by the proponents - only those religions sanctioned by the Government. If I followed a religious belief not shared with the dominant faiths of this nation, my standing in a court of law under this bill, would likely be nil.
That's something I fail to understand, regarding the pursuit of a victimhood status by the dominant and pervasive religious faith of this society. Many of the faithful rail against alleged government intrusion in their religious practices while accepting both special privileges and incentives from said government - and ignorant of the precedent set when laws like this pass. They seemingly fail to realize that every time a law is passed creating a special right or allowing them to discriminate as please, they set a legal precedence that can be used against them. The chicken little charades over Shari'a law taking hold in this nation, are made more likely with the passing of each one of these laws.
In the end however, it is not religious freedom they seek, they already have that. Are there instances where this is infringed upon? Absolutely, and those cases should be adjudicated appropriately, taking religious liberty into account, without carving out a special right not available to other citizens...based merely on what a citizen believes.
Back to the Indiana law. I wrote above that the bill was written to a level of vagueness [by design I believe], such that Gov. Pence is forced to "clarify the intent" of the measure. I'm thinking that a "Clarification Bill" is an easier process now that the law has been passed, than were the "clarity" to be written into the law in the first place. By design. Special privileges.
Personally, as I have stated previously, I support the right of private business owners to refuse goods or services to whomever they wish. That someone believes in a deity, and I am fairly agnostic, doesn't equal their belief to be any more valid than my own, in the eyes of the law. THAT is religious freedom.
But let the majority continue to pursue their crusade of victimhood, along with their well heeled industry of faux outrage and contrived injury. It will be their undoing, because they're not playing the long game; they're not pursuing a coherent and just strategy; and they are ensuring that they will not remain the dominant religious faith [among the landscape of faithful and not] in perpetuity [as declining numbers already indicate].