The left is yelling and screaming about this because they fear that if they allow Indiana to have this law then other states will pass similar laws and they will "lose" the rights that they have "won." The argument for religious freedom is good but a better argument is involuntary servitude and non-standard fare/product, forbidden under the 13th Amendment. Anyone can walk into a store and the owner must sell you the standard fare or product from the shelf, box of donuts, bottle of milk, etc. Walk into a bakery and the owner must sell you the cake in the display case because it is standard product. What the "customer" cannot demand is the time and talent that the baker spends making a one of a kind wedding cake or a photographer and wedding photos, or florists, etc. Those products are one of a kind and to demand the non-standard fare/product is now involuntary servitude. To say that the baker/photographer/caterer will be compensated is not an argument because slaves before 1860 were given compensation in the form of room and board. That of course is ludicrous.
Janet GronemanApril 9, 2015
I believe Rod Brewer hit the nail on the head - our right to perform temple ordinances will be lost to the "laws" promoted by the people of this ilk - we will be forced to open our temples to everyone, or be closed down, and of course we know what our choice will be. We need to get busy on doing our Family History and the temple work for our ancestors as quickly as possible before this happens, and I believe it will happen, if only for a brief while, until the Lord wipes out the wicked when they become fully ripened in iniquity. I foresee a time of persecution and trial coming for the Latter-Day Saints. Strengthen your testimony now.
Lisa HansenApril 9, 2015
Quoting Garrett Epps (The Atlantic) "[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
"The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: 'A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.' Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
"What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches."
Rod BrewerApril 8, 2015
Until we recognize the true nature of the opposition to all that is good and sacred in life, the opposition will continue to turn the hearts and minds of mankind away from true principles. Secularism and political correctness is more than a forum for those individuals, it is a way of life that opposes the freedoms we have enjoyed as Americans. The King of the opposition will not be happy until a complete mockery is made of the institution of marriage and family and the mobs once again coming knocking on the doors of the temple, chanting "let us in or we'll burn your temples down."
GaryApril 7, 2015
Thanks for this article Maurine!
JoEllyn PaschkewitzApril 7, 2015
All I can say is who decided to prosecute Indiana. It is my understanding Indiana is not the first state to have a law such as this one. Why attack Indiana? If the American people would read the constitution it plainly states that the government will NOT have the right to interfere with religious practices. It did not say that there should be a separation of church and state for the benefit of the government. It was intended to protect religion freedom. Our forefathers handled this problem over 250 years ago in the constitution. I am wondering if the government officials have even read the constitution? Do not condemn Indiana for upholding the religious freedom act because it has always been there.
richard b hunterApril 7, 2015
your idea may not be the cause of the Lord's concern; but same-sex marriage that is among us now [D&C 112:26] may well be the cause of the warning the Lord will give us this year toward September; watch to see if God will not be ,ocked!
TomApril 7, 2015
Chilling. Thanks for the excellent article. The voices from the great and spacious building are growing ever louder.
CharlieBrown2292April 7, 2015
A few weeks ago, Israeli Prime-Minister Benyamin Netanyahou told the U.S. Congress that when no one paid attention to Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda, it was not just six million Jews that were exterminated but a total of 60 million people during WWII. Allowing some Christians to be harassed because of their exerting their freedom of conscience will eventually turn every single American individual into a potential victim of the official doctrine.
Robert StarlingApril 6, 2015
Very well said. I fear our society is "ripening in iniquity" and is due for a judgement soon.
I was thinking about this issue the other day and I had an epiphany that perhaps may be useful to others. What if people of faith decline to perform unwanted services for religious (or non-religious) reasons not on the basis of the "protected class" of the person or customer served (which the courts say you can't do because that's discrimination), but instead based on the EVENT for which the service is requested. In other words I may decline to bake a cake or produce a video for a gay wedding (or a KKK rally) but it is based on the EVENT, not on the sexual orientation (or other protected class) of the customer. There's nothing illegal or bigoted about that, right? Just sayin'...
Comments | Return to Story
Reid McLaughlinApril 13, 2015
The left is yelling and screaming about this because they fear that if they allow Indiana to have this law then other states will pass similar laws and they will "lose" the rights that they have "won." The argument for religious freedom is good but a better argument is involuntary servitude and non-standard fare/product, forbidden under the 13th Amendment. Anyone can walk into a store and the owner must sell you the standard fare or product from the shelf, box of donuts, bottle of milk, etc. Walk into a bakery and the owner must sell you the cake in the display case because it is standard product. What the "customer" cannot demand is the time and talent that the baker spends making a one of a kind wedding cake or a photographer and wedding photos, or florists, etc. Those products are one of a kind and to demand the non-standard fare/product is now involuntary servitude. To say that the baker/photographer/caterer will be compensated is not an argument because slaves before 1860 were given compensation in the form of room and board. That of course is ludicrous.
Janet GronemanApril 9, 2015
I believe Rod Brewer hit the nail on the head - our right to perform temple ordinances will be lost to the "laws" promoted by the people of this ilk - we will be forced to open our temples to everyone, or be closed down, and of course we know what our choice will be. We need to get busy on doing our Family History and the temple work for our ancestors as quickly as possible before this happens, and I believe it will happen, if only for a brief while, until the Lord wipes out the wicked when they become fully ripened in iniquity. I foresee a time of persecution and trial coming for the Latter-Day Saints. Strengthen your testimony now.
Lisa HansenApril 9, 2015
Quoting Garrett Epps (The Atlantic) "[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. "The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: 'A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.' Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. "What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches."
Rod BrewerApril 8, 2015
Until we recognize the true nature of the opposition to all that is good and sacred in life, the opposition will continue to turn the hearts and minds of mankind away from true principles. Secularism and political correctness is more than a forum for those individuals, it is a way of life that opposes the freedoms we have enjoyed as Americans. The King of the opposition will not be happy until a complete mockery is made of the institution of marriage and family and the mobs once again coming knocking on the doors of the temple, chanting "let us in or we'll burn your temples down."
GaryApril 7, 2015
Thanks for this article Maurine!
JoEllyn PaschkewitzApril 7, 2015
All I can say is who decided to prosecute Indiana. It is my understanding Indiana is not the first state to have a law such as this one. Why attack Indiana? If the American people would read the constitution it plainly states that the government will NOT have the right to interfere with religious practices. It did not say that there should be a separation of church and state for the benefit of the government. It was intended to protect religion freedom. Our forefathers handled this problem over 250 years ago in the constitution. I am wondering if the government officials have even read the constitution? Do not condemn Indiana for upholding the religious freedom act because it has always been there.
richard b hunterApril 7, 2015
your idea may not be the cause of the Lord's concern; but same-sex marriage that is among us now [D&C 112:26] may well be the cause of the warning the Lord will give us this year toward September; watch to see if God will not be ,ocked!
TomApril 7, 2015
Chilling. Thanks for the excellent article. The voices from the great and spacious building are growing ever louder.
CharlieBrown2292April 7, 2015
A few weeks ago, Israeli Prime-Minister Benyamin Netanyahou told the U.S. Congress that when no one paid attention to Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda, it was not just six million Jews that were exterminated but a total of 60 million people during WWII. Allowing some Christians to be harassed because of their exerting their freedom of conscience will eventually turn every single American individual into a potential victim of the official doctrine.
Robert StarlingApril 6, 2015
Very well said. I fear our society is "ripening in iniquity" and is due for a judgement soon. I was thinking about this issue the other day and I had an epiphany that perhaps may be useful to others. What if people of faith decline to perform unwanted services for religious (or non-religious) reasons not on the basis of the "protected class" of the person or customer served (which the courts say you can't do because that's discrimination), but instead based on the EVENT for which the service is requested. In other words I may decline to bake a cake or produce a video for a gay wedding (or a KKK rally) but it is based on the EVENT, not on the sexual orientation (or other protected class) of the customer. There's nothing illegal or bigoted about that, right? Just sayin'...
ADD A COMMENT