Indiana Got it Right

(troll shields up)

There’s been a lot of hullabaloo about the new Indiana Religious Freedom law.  Many say it’s a doorway for discrimination against gays.

There’s a problem with that.  It’s not.

Why is it considered discrimination if a business (or Church) were to refuse to participate in something it considers a sin?  To even begin to answer that question, we have to look at why it’s such a big deal.  To Christians (or anyone following a religion), committing a sin is similar to committing a crime.  One is breaking man’s law, the other is breaking God’s law.  Now, when we don’t commit a crime, but take part in it (such as lending a gun to someone you know is going to use it to kill), is considered abetting, the same holds true for sin.  If a religious individual enables someone to partake in sin, they are sinning by proxy.

This is why this matter needs serious consideration.  We consider freedoms things that we are allowed to do, as well as things we aren’t forced to do.  No one should be forced to do anything against their will, provided it doesn’t harm someone else.  If an individual decides not to cater, DJ or photograph a gay wedding, it doesn’t harm the other person.  They can hire someone else.  By forcing them to do those acts, you are indeed removing their freedom of religion, and forcing them to go against their very beliefs, even though allowing them their beliefs would harm no one.

I see this online a lot “People are so concerned about gay relationships.  Relationships that involve no one they love.”  The same holds true for the other side.  “People are so concerned about religion.  Religions that worship Gods they don’t believe exist.”

Basically, we have one side still saying what the other can and cannot do.  What makes it right this time?

Even as politically incorrect as I am, we should still respect others’ sensibilities.  For example, should a butcher association be allowed to force a vegan catering company to cater their event and provide meat?  Because that’s exactly the same thing that is happening here.  (Except religion is protected by the First Amendment.  Until Veganism is recognized as a religion, it is not.)  What if a catering company were asked to cater a swinger’s event?  Should they be forced to do so?  Should photographers be forced by law to photograph autopsies or accident victims against their will?

No one would say any of those are good ideas.  So I ask, why is it a good idea to force someone of a religious persuasion to do something they do not want to do?  Is that not denying them the right to not only believe in their Religion of choice, but to follow it as well?

I find it shocking and sad that there has been so much backlash over this law (even though very few have read it and actually understand it).  I find it shocking that those who claim to be oppressed are so quick to oppress the rights of others.  Are we not speaking of equal rights?  Forcing people, charities, Churches, etc to go against their beliefs and who they are (it’s ironic that everyone argues gays are born gay, that it’s not a choice.  They have discovered a gene that appears to make one predispositioned to believe in a higher being, a “God gene” so to speak, but there has been no discovery of a “gay gene”.) is different than not allowing gays to be who they are how?

While there is certainly a faction (albeit very small) of people that are truly against gays, there is certainly a large faction that seems to be against religion.  Sure, some believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married (there is actually an economic argument against this, the very reason government got into the marriage business in the first place).  But that belief violates no Constitutional right.  It doesn’t prevent them from being gay.  But forcing someone partake in a sin, that absolutely violates their religious freedom.  One cannot practice religion when forced into a sin.  A sin that may be legal, and can still take place without the religious person involved.

Yes, there are times when laws are needed to prevent rights of others from being violated by religion.  Think of some religion that may require human sacrifices.  That sacrifice cannot be made without another individual’s right to live being violated.  It’s impossible.  However, a gay wedding can still take place without a religious person’s right to adhere to their faith from being violated.

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s