Looking at the Indiana issue over the last few days I see the issues of importance for both side of the ideological and political isle the question is do individuals and states have freedom and rights of their own or is the federal government the final word when it interprets cases and are they always correct.
I look at Indiana as this is a states’ rights issue upholding the personal freedom issues of an individual’s moral or ethical objections and the federal government should stay out of the way.
Now the RFRA was enacted in 1993 and endorsed by then president Clinton, Congressman Chuck Schumer and Senator Ted Kennedy all three leftist.
It’s my guess this was an act to try and sure up the Clinton religious voting base to show America democrats that states had this right also I believe this was to sure up the American Indian vote because the bill affected Native American religious liberties as well this was nothing but a vote grab bill and had nothing to do with religious freedom.
In 1997 part of the bill was overturned and in 2003 the act was amended Different states do use this law and can enact it based on their interpretation of the bill.
To me states have these rights and have the right to enact them the governor and the state representatives are by the way representing the people of that state.
It is a libertarian idea but individuals both owners and customers reserve the right to sell or buy from a individual based on creed or belief which is more of an ideology not always religion but a creed.
The federal government in the 1964 civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex and national order and I guess one can make a argument that creed can be religious but one can make the same argument that creed is not.
I believe our florist and bakers that have refused to give services to what they feel are morally objectionable on the bases of their idea of what is moral what is right and wrong to them.
The individual is refusing to give services based or doing business with somebody they do not agree with whether it be their belief, lifestyle or what they are participating in and the state is upholding this right to do so feeling there is no discrimination going on just a disagreement in belief or creed.
Should that person who has the business and is refusing to serve just coexist, get along and let cooler heads prevail. Should the customer do the same, go somewhere else like Costco or a supermarket or just have a wedding cake made then add on their own creed or belief after they have purchased the item, getting along and letting cooler heads prevail?
Should we force private people to create something that they feel is morally religiously wrong? If they refuse to serve or create do you call it discrimination.
Can you change the color of your skin, can you change your race, you can change your religion but should you have to?
Should you be so bold to advertise your religion for the sole purpose to cause strife? What about belief, do you have the right to refuse based on what another person views of what is right and wrong and should you be so bold to advertise that belief on the sole purpose to cause strife?
Would this be the same argument if Anton Lavey from the church of Satan or two people that practice Wiccan came to a baker and asked them to make a cake with a broken cross and derogatory terms about God or Jesus? Would you insist the bakery make this cake for this celebration of marriage?
On the same issue what if a bride and groom asked a homosexual florist to arrange flowers with a tag on them proclaiming Matthew 19: 4-6, does the florist have the right to refuse service based on they have an objection to that scripture?
Overlooking the RFRA and not allowing states to enact a provision takes away from the sovereignty of each state something I believe our framers wanted each state to have. If we can’t uphold states rights that try and uphold individual rights then why have individual states?