Tags: Gay Marriage | Americans | Government | Big Brother

Religious Freedom Laws About Freedom

Monday, 18 April 2016 12:44 PM Current | Bio | Archive

If a Ku Klux Klansman walks into a black-owned bakery and orders a cake emblazoned with “KKK” and a black man hanging from a tree, should the owner be forced to make that cake?

A Muslim-owned bakery is requested to create a cake with offensive depictions of Mohammad, with customer-supplied pork rinds as part of the “display.” Should the owner be legally forced to comply?

And should a gay bakery owner be forced to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple if he feels offended by their marriage?

Unfortunately, the freedom of an individual to decide what’s in his best interest, free from intimidation by extremists and an overbearing government, is eroding.

Fundamental rights have come under blistering attack from vitriol-infested loudmouths under the guise of “fighting discrimination.”

Partly due to many remaining silent (for fear of being labeled racist or bigot) and partly because of many leaders flapping in in the political winds, numerous states have passed laws outlawing such freedom.

And states that allow citizens to decide what’s best face boycotts and protests from misguided entities (professional sports teams, entertainers, big business), and a small but very loud minority of extremists, most of whom don’t realize that the very laws they advocate will hurt their own cause.

Despite the incorrect label, these are not “religious freedom” laws, since religion has little to do with them. Instead, they are simply laws guaranteeing freedom, for all Americans, to make their own decisions.

Decisions, moral or immoral, according to what people, not a paternalistic Big Brother government, think is best.

Americans do not always make the right decisions, but more often than not, they choose correctly. If choosing between history’s most benevolent people, who have shown the most remarkable tendency to rectify their mistakes, and a bumbling government on a Quixotic social engineering quest, we should be casting our lots on the side of citizens.

We the people have earned that trust.

Sexual preference (how a person engages in sex), unlike race, creed, color and gender, is not a protected class under the federal Civil Rights Act. While some in that community believe they are entitled to protected status, the law says differently. (Just as heterosexuals aren’t covered under the act.)

And should sexual orientation become a protected class, there will be repercussions against the gay community. For example, a company that now employs only gay designers would be forced by law to also hire heterosexuals, even if they were not as creative and artistic as their gay counterparts. How is that fair?

Employing a “re-education camp” mentality makes criminals of law-abiding citizens, and creates animosity that wasn’t there before government intervention.

What’s next? Knights of Columbus being hauled away in cuffs for refusing to rent their hall for a gay couple’s wedding reception? Baptist pastors forced to marry a gay couple?

And where do we draw the line? What about Ladies’ Night, where women drink for free? Seniors who eat at discounted prices? Single-sex high schools and colleges? Single-race fraternities? What about dating websites that cater exclusively to religions and ethnicities?

To be “consistent,” shouldn’t they also come under the heel of government?

Both sides need to “live-and-let-live.” If a baker refuses an order, patronize his competitor.

Likewise, find an accommodating banquet facility, and attend a church or synagogue where you feel welcome.

We have to get over our self-pity and the “everyone-owes-us-everything” mentality.

And we need to act like grown-ups rather than complaining and suing every time we get “offended.”

The free market can decide this issue. One of three things will occur to businesses that exclude customers:
  • They will stay in business because enough people don’t care about their stance (or agree with them). 
  • They will go under because of the negative publicity, boycotts, and protests.
  • Or, they will change their policy (a choice made by the owners, not government) to be more inclusive.
If there aren’t enough businesses catering to the “excluded,” some spring up that will, because that’s how the market works. A need becomes a business opportunity, and both sides come out ahead.

America is tolerant enough to accommodate everyone. So let’s drop the divisive rhetoric, and respect the beliefs of those on both sides.

That way, we can have our cake and eat it too.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, Freindly Fire Zone Media. Read more reports from Chris Freind — Click Here Now.


© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
America is tolerant enough to accommodate everyone. So let’s drop the divisive rhetoric, and respect the beliefs of those on both sides.
Americans, Government, Big Brother
Monday, 18 April 2016 12:44 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved