Sharpton: Indiana Religious Freedom Law Totally Like Slavery And Jim Crow Or Something

As Weasel Zippers notes, “This is the same guy who called a man a “punk faggot” on national TV.” And we surely can’t forget Sharpton’s involvement and leadership in pograms against Jews.

“This is a key moment for the country. Too often in our history, we’ve seen religion used to justify attacks on other people’s rights, from slavery, to Jim Crow, to women’s right to vote. That same fight is with us today, and we can’t let it stand.”

Interestingly, Leftists just like Al Sharpton are only interested in these attacks from one religion that occurred in the past. They are less than interested in those same attacks that come from Islam. In fact, if you even bring these issues up, you’ll be branded a racist, a bigot, and an Islamophobe. Honor killings? Jihad? Anti-Semitism? Forcing women to be covered from head to toe? Making women obtain 4 witnesses if raped, otherwise she will be whipped? Not allowing women to drive? Stoning women for adultery? Hanging gays? These are all issues, and the list keeps going, from hardcore Islam. Why are Leftists unconcerned about these actions? Actions which would not be allowed under Indiana’s RFRA. Indiana Governor Mike Pence penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which is, sadly, behind the pay wall, that explains the law. Here’s a snippet via the governor’s home page

“I want to make clear to Hoosiers and every American that despite what critics and many in the national media have asserted, the law is not a ‘license to discriminate,’ either in Indiana or elsewhere.”

“I abhor discrimination. I believe in the Golden Rule that you should ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore.”

“As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it. Indiana’s new law contains no reference to sexual orientation. It simply mirrors federal law that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.”

“Some express concern that Indiana’s RFRA law would lead to discrimination, but RFRA only provides a mechanism to address claims, not a license for private parties to deny services. Even a claim involving private individuals under RFRA must show that one’s religious beliefs were ‘substantially burdened’ and not in service to a broader government interest—which preventing discrimination certainly is. The government has the explicit power under the law to step in and defend such interests.”

“The hospitality and character of Hoosiers are synonymous with everything that is good about America. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Indiana residents. With the passage of this legislation, Indiana will continue to be a place that respects the beliefs of every person in our state.”

He also notes that much of this was about protecting religious people from Obamacare.

Here’s the thing: many people and businesses are legally allowed to deny service. “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. People can be banned from businesses for improper conduct. Does a business have to make a “Hitler cake“? No. What if someone wanted a cake with violent tones on it? No, they do not have to make it. Does a business have a right to discriminate simply because a person is gay, Black, a woman? No. However, they wouldn’t have to make a gay a wedding cake.

What if someone came into a Muslim (or Jewish) bakery and wanted a cake with bacon on it? Would the baker be within their religious rights to say “no, I cannot make that”? Yes, they would. In a rational world, the people wanting the cake would say “I understand. I may not agree with your religious beliefs, but I understand, and respect your beliefs. Can you recommend a good baker?” In today’s society, where everyone is Offended, that is not what seems to happen, and Something Must Be Done, forcing compliance, particularly under Government intervention.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Sharpton: Indiana Religious Freedom Law Totally Like Slavery And Jim Crow Or Something”

  1. jl says:

    Summary: Democrats more interested in sanctions on Indiana than Iran. (from Instapundit)

  2. John says:

    The American policy toward Islam has always been forced by the rightwing and oil companies
    Reagan had nothing but good things to say about the Afghan mujahadin when he gave them billions to fight Russia and in fact praised their traditional values (as opposed to godless communists)
    The left has alwYs opposed their actions against women
    When Bush occupied. Iraq and installed Malikii the condition of women went down from where it was under Saddam
    The right wing has long accommodated anyone who they believed could further their agenda
    Energy companies dominate Gop political doniors and politicians obey the golden rule
    Radical Islam is right wing not leftist
    Abortion equal rights for gays seeing. The man as boss of the family. These are the same things that the GOP base wants small government ? Can’t get much smaller than a religios kingdom and all usa allies seem to fall into that slot
    You used to be a cheerleader for the Iraq catastrophe was protecting Kuwait who is now the foremost supporter of ISIS a good idea ?
    Under SADDAM who hated fundamentalist Islam women and christians were both protected by the state
    After making that huge mistake about iraq you think you have the right to criticize the left on muslim matters?
    And Obamas poll is twice that Bush left with nd don’t remember you having a hissy fit about Bush and Agw
    The GOP base is way outside of what most Americans want

  3. gitarcarver says:

    The American policy toward Islam has always been forced by the rightwing and oil companies

    Really john?

    Please go read a book on history as I am pretty sure that there were no oil companies in the early 1800’s and Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and John Jay were not “right wingers.”

    That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

    The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    The law refers to “substantial burden” on the business as well as “taking the path of least resistance.”

    I’ve written about this before on my blog. It is very difficult when rights clash.

    In cases like this, if you are selling hamburgers, you should not be able to discriminate and not sell a hamburger to anyone because you disagree with them. If you are selling pencils, you should not be able to discriminate and not sell the pencil because you disagree with them. You have already displayed that you have no moral compunctions on selling pencils or hamburgers.

    Creating something is a little different. If you come into a store and say “create something that supports what I believe and you disagree with,” the customer has no right to force the company to make that which with the company disagrees. Teach is right in that no one should be forced to make a Hitler cake. No one should be forced to design and print anti-gay posters and flyers. No one should be forced to design and print tee-shirts that say “kill all white people.” No Muslim artist should be forced to paint, sculpt or carve a depiction of Mohammad.

    Courts have long ruled that the art of creation is a type of speech. In addition, the SCOTUS has said the right to not say anything is a fundamental right. That means that the government cannot compel me to speak or create anything.

    Yet opponents of RFPA’s want just that.

    They want government mandated and enforced speech.

    If I see discrimination against anyone for a “regular” product or service, I will be standing inline to protest the actions of the store or vendor. If you want to force someone to create or say something that is against someone’s moral or religious beliefs, my support will go to that person.

  5. john says:

    GOP NC state rep says his bill for religious freedom will NOT be too extreme and will not allow child sacrifice
    Sounds like a moderate to me

Pirate's Cove