Is Indiana Really Full of Christian Haters Eager to Hate Gays?

Just once wouldn’t you like to see some gay guy ask a Muslim baker to make a sheet cake with an image of Mohammed—Peace Be Upon Him?

Gay guys are awfully brave when they bully meek Christian bakers with the full force of the federal and state governments behind them.

But let them belly up to a Muslim counter and ask for something Muslims kill over and look what happens to non-discrimination claims then.

Would CEO Tim Cook of Apple get all crazy-brave over that one? After all, he sells iPhones in countries where they hunt gays down and kill them—throw them off high buildings, crush them under collapsing walls, cut their heads off—with nary a peep out of him, yet even the shuddery thought of a Christian baker not serving a gay wedding sends him into gay hysteria.

Like most things gay these days, most of what you read is simply false, deliberate falsehoods.

Tim Cook and others, including New Homophile Melinda Selmys writing at the increasingly useless Patheos, insist the Indiana law and others like them are nothing more than patent bigotry and hatred, licenses to discriminate in any service you may think of.

A gay guy walks into a bar and the bartender says with a sneer, “We don’t serve your kind. Now git.”

A gay guy walks into a tax accountant and the tax accountant says, “We don’t serve your kind. Now git.”

A gay guy tries to fill his car with gas and the gas pump says, “You sound gay and we don’t serve your kind. Now git.”

This is the nightmare advertised by the sexual left and their partners in the media and major corporations; “a license to withhold services” indiscriminately.

Apparently the people all over Indiana were just waiting for the chance to unleash their inner Saudi on the gays. All they needed to do it was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At long last, we can get them, yippee, let’s get those gays!

Forget that “sexual orientation and gender identity” are not explicit categories of non-discrimination in Indiana or hardly anywhere else and that this has not resulted in widespread discrimination against gay guys. Are gay guys sitting at lunch counters trying to get cheeseburgers but being denied? If this were the case, we likely would have heard of it.

Still, it appears that even Governor Mike Pence fell for this nonsense. He went from a strong defense of his quite sensible law on the Sunday talk shows to a full on retreat at his press conference on Tuesday. On Tuesday he announced the law would be fixed so that it would not be a ‘’license to discriminate,’’ so that no gay guy would be denied a cheeseburger anywhere, and that no one would be discriminated against by anyone else for any reason. Take that, all you gay-hating Christians.

So, what do these laws really do?

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts set up a legal test on whether the government may impose a religious burden on a person or company and if the burden cannot be met in any other way.

Through Obamacare the government said that it had a compelling interest in making sure that everyone could get abortion drugs free of charge and the only way to achieve this was by making all companies pay for them. The company Hobby Lobby said this unduly burdened their deeply held religious belief forbidding abortion. The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby.

Consider the case of a Muslim in prison. The government has a compelling reason for insisting all inmates are cleanly shaven. But the Muslims have a religious practice that requires a beard. What is the solution? Muslims in prison get to grow beards, only short ones that cannot hide weapons.

Religious Freedom Restorations Acts, which are present at the Federal level and in 30 states, are not licenses to discriminate. They are a balancing test between what the government wants and what should be left to the religious discretion of a believer. They are a defense in court that does not guarantee anything. Religious believers can and do lose in court when making these claims.

The test is this. The state must show 1) a compelling goal or “interest,” 2) that is the least restrictive means for achieving that goal. The believer must show 1) a sincerely held religious belief and 2) the law imposes an undue burden on following that belief.

Now take the case of a religious believer being asked to participate in a religious ceremony they find offensive. A gay couple is a long-standing customer to a florist in Washington. The florist has happily served the flower-needs of the gay couple for years until the day gay marriage came to the state of Washington and the gay couple announced their engagement and asked the florist to decorate their wedding ceremony. The florists said, “You know, I really love you two, and you have been great customers for years so I hope you understand, I cannot handle your wedding because I have a religious objection to the idea of same-sex marriage. Perhaps you can use the florist across the street” or any of the hundreds of other florists nearby.

The state of Washington went after the florist for this. She was prosecuted, fined and may lose her business because Washington state does not have freedom of religion protections for the florist and will not allow even a single Christian florist to dissent from the gay orthodoxy.

But, New Mexico has such protections. Even so, the law did not protect a photographer who declined on religious grounds from shooting a gay wedding. She lost her business altogether.

A Christian chaplain is about to be run out of the Navy after twenty years of sterling reviews and promotions. His crime? Counseling a fellow officer what the bible teaches about homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. The chaplain’s commander says such beliefs by a Christian chaplain hamper military preparedness and unit cohesion.

The day of the gay bully is well upon us. Do not think you can hide. It is now open season on believing Christians.

Where will we get relief from gays and their protectors in government, the media and corporations? That is the question.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is a contributing editor to Crisis and president of the Center for Family & Human Rights (C-FAM). He is the author of the upcoming Catholic Case for Trump (Regnery, 2020). You can follow him on Twitter @austinruse.

Crisis Magazine Comments Policy

This is a Catholic forum. As such:

  1. All comments must directly address the article. “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.” (Matthew 12:36)
  2. No profanity, ad hominems, hot tempers, or racial or religious invectives. “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32)
  3. We will not tolerate heresy, calumny, or attacks upon our Holy Mother Church or Holy Father. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
  4. Keep it brief. No lengthy rants or block quotes. “For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.” (James 4:14)
  5. If you see a comment that doesn’t meet our standards, please flag it so a moderator may remove it. “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” (Galatians 6:1)
  6. All comments may be removed at the moderators’ discretion. “But of that day and hour no one knows…” (Matthew 24:36)
  7. Crisis isn’t responsible for the content of the comments box. Comments do not represent the views of Crisis magazine, its editors, authors, or publishers. “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God… So each of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:10, 12)
MENU