Indiana's religious freedom bill has ruffled some feathers across the country today as many who oppose the bill are calling it "anti-gay," "hate-filled" and "bigoted." But the bill was established and passed by Indiana lawmakers to allow small businesses the right to refuse service to whomever they please.
Despite what many are saying, this new bill does nothing more than protect those who don't want to lose their business if they refuse to serve a customer for religious reasons. This used to be a right held by small business owners, but recent years have seen countless mom-and-pop bakeries, photographers, bridal shops, and other small businesses forced to shut down over left-wing political agendas.
The response from those who support the bill has been mostly kept quiet, as not to inflict the wrath of the "tolerant," but conservative blogger Matt Walsh brought up some key points in support of what the bill actually conveys in his latest article entitled, "Sorry Gays, You Don't Have the Right to be Free From Discrimination."
"Indeed, there is no language in the bill stipulating anything one way or another in regards to gay people; it simply affirms the rights of private individuals and companies," Walsh points out. "Gay tyrants have only turned it into an 'attack' on them because they demand, as per usual, special treatment and exemptions."
While the gay agenda has been closing bakeries for refusing to support their lifestyle, it doesn't seem to take a dose of its own medicine with the same enthusiasm. And it's not even a full dose, either. This legislation is only saying that your religious right is protected if you own a small business. It's not saying anything at all about taking away anyone's jobs or lives if they are refused service. Worse case scenario for someone who is refused service under this new law is that they go somewhere else to shop. But the worst case scenario for those who lost their life's work because they wouldn't promote same-sex marriage? A ruined career, finances, future, and reputation.
"You'd think that a state law protecting freedom of speech and religion would be rather redundant if the ultimate law of the land already ratifies these as integral, God given liberties, inherent to our humanity and in keeping with the demands of Natural Law, but that's how times have changed," Walsh continues. "The Bill of Rights is effectively meaningless and its precepts moot. If any of its contents are to be preserved, individual states will have to go back and write them again, like some kind of cheap Hollywood remake of an old classic."
And the irony (or one of them) in all of this is that Indiana didn't even have to push a law like this at all if the recent bullying and harassing from gay activists didn't start closing down businesses.
Walsh makes another excellent point in his piece about protection from discrimination. While discrimination has become one of the worst words ever to pass human lips in recent years, many anti-discrimination crusaders are missing the point.
"When you choose not to partake in a gay wedding, you are making a distinction against it based on the category to which it belongs," Walsh said. "You are showing partiality. You are observing a difference. You are distinguishing. You are differentiating. You are discriminating. And so what?
"There is no right to not be discriminated against. I realize that we have invented this right, but it does not actually exist as a constitutional or moral reality."
And the points just keep hitting home. "When the t-shirt company or wedding venue or photographer or baker or candlestick maker declines to do business with us, which of our human rights have been infringed? The right to access baked goods? The right to a wedding reception at the venue of our choosing? What's the underlying liberty we're trying to protect? When someone murders you, they haven't infringed on your right to not be murdered, they've infringed on your underlying right to life. What, then, is the liberty at the foundation in this case?"
As Walsh points out, discrimination is a discernment that we all face every single day. We've all had discrimination occur against us. If we go to the bank and don't sign our check, the bank refuses to cash the check until it's signed. Is that discrimination against People Without a Pen? No. Because that would be absurd. But for some reason, the most vocal people in the country have all jumped on this selective bandwagon to support gay people, even if it means throwing out all common sense and stepping on everyone's else's "rights."
