Indiana's RFRA | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The parallel here is not Hobby Lobby, it is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Defenders of DADT often asked whether soldiers had a religious freedom issue in having the policy. Luckily, the President, the Secretary, the Chairman of the JCS and the Congress did not think so. Granted, we have a different Congress, but the question is not about the applicability of RFRA - which concerns freedom from governmental action, but the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (That trumps a state law by the way).
Like DADT, this is not a religious freedom issuej. Baking a cake is not material cooperation with evil - unless you are baking it to forcevfeed people in Overeaters Anonymous. Forcing them to bake an erotic cake or to provide a cake topper might be. The point is, like DADT, a concern for religious freedom is not the same as one asserting the rigth to moral scorn, or in the case of the USCCB, religious power over employees. The state's interest is in keeping the peace - and I wonder who wins if gay people seeking a wedding cake who are denied one end up staging a sit-in at he baker's shop or the florist shop?
This act seems to authorize public violence to remove those protestors (so much for the libertarian rule about force). I suspect the federal courts will disagree - and yes, this is a big issue and one where I don't care what the bishops actually think - its not their job to make these calls - we have federal courts for that. Sadly, if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not considered applicable, this Congress won't help - hopefully the next one will. Final thought - what if a baker refuses to bakea cake for a Catholic couple because he believes the Pope is the anti-Christ? Should that be allowed? I think not. And, yes, the issues are the same.
PS Pence is panderingand he got caught.
No comments:
Post a Comment