Saturday, March 28, 2015
RFRA Opponents Showing More Of Their Backside
The manipulation of public opinion through false information has no bounds. I've said before that I believed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") legislation was totally unnecessary; however, the fact remains RFRA never was characterized as representing government-sanctioned discrimination against any group of people, in particular gays, until the debate came to Indiana after 19 states had already enacted state RFRA laws modeled after the version passed by Congress more than two decades ago.
When RFRA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, it overwhelming passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), an outspoken critic of gay rights, was one of only three senators to vote against it. When Illinois passed RFRA in 1998, then-State Sen. Barack Obama voted for it. It is shocking and disturbing that one side of a political debate can be allowed to advance phony arguments with the full backing of the media.
A point I don't hear discussed is the fact that under both the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Indiana's Civil Rights Act, an employer is permitted to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation. An employer cannot discriminate under those laws based on a person's sex, race or religion, but it can discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation. Why aren't the opponents of RFRA focusing their attention on changing those laws instead of claiming RFRA does something it doesn't do?
It's no wonder we now live in a country where an element of the government can assassinate a president, civil rights leaders and other world leaders with impunity and carry out false flag events and propaganda campaigns against its own people and have the media castigate the discerning citizens among us as crackpot conspiracy theorists. Creating false realities is now the modus operandi.