Chicago Archdiocese Sued By Church Music Director Fired Over Entering Into Same-Sex Marriage

Colin Collette (Tribune Photo)

A case out of Chicago explains precisely why people of sincere religious faith insist upon enacting religious freedom restoration ("RFRA") laws. Colin Collette worked as a director of music and worship at Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness, Illinois. When Collette announced he was marrying his same-sex partner, the parish's pastor asked him to resign because of the church's doctrine opposing gay marriage and public acceptance of homosexuality. Collette refused, and the church fired him. He's now suing the parish and the Chicago Archdiocese in federal court, claiming the church violated the federal Civil Rights Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and Cook County's Human Rights ordinance.

Churches are always assured by gay activists that they have no intention of dictating to them their religious practices; rather, they want civil protections to ensure they are not discriminated against in their secular endeavors, whether that's employment, housing or public accommodations, and I believe the law should guarantee those protections. Yet we see these cases continuing to creep up where gay activists want to use civil rights laws in such a way that churches are no longer able to practice their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience. Gay activists want their individual rights to trump the practices within churches.

Laying that aside, Collette's legal claims against the archdiocese are problematic. The federal Civil Rights Act does not currently protect persons from discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. His lawsuit complains that he's being treated differently by the church than heterosexual employees who've entered into marriages not sanctioned by the church. His lawsuit also characterizes his employment as director of worship and director of music as non-religious in nature. The church will also rely on its First Amendment right guaranteeing religious freedom and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Illinois has also adopted its own RFRA law that the church will use as a defense to the state and local law claims.

For the life of me, I don't understand why people insist on belonging to churches with which they disagree on such fundamental issues. If a person wants to join a church that accepts homosexuality and sanctions same-sex marriages, there are plenty of churches from which to choose. Instead, they insist on demanding that a church change its fundamental doctrines to comport to their personal views of what's right and wrong. When the church refuses to accept their beliefs, they want government to step in and tell the church what it can and cannot believe. The day when government dictates to churches what they can and cannot believe is the day religious liberty ceases to exist in this country. If Collette has a problem with the Catholic Church's beliefs, then he should work within the church to change its practices or just leave the church, not expect the government to compel it to change its practices to conform to his personal beliefs.

Visit Indy And Media Shills Continue To Perpetuate RFRA Lie

Visit Indy made a spectacular claim yesterday just in time for this year's continued legislative debate over RFRA and LGBT rights. The taxpayer-financed nonprofit claims it lost out on 12 convention opportunities last year, which represented a $60 million financial impact, all because the state passed the same law the federal government passed decades ago and two thirds of the states already had on their books before Indiana finally passed its law last year. Visit Indy has zero proof to back up this claim, but their shills for social re-engineering in the media gladly pass these bogus numbers off to the public as fact without a scintilla of proof.

Naturally, Visit Indy refuses to identify the 12 groups it claims turned down Indianapolis as the site of a convention because of their supposed perception of Indiana as a place of intolerance based on its passage of a religious freedom law. The only group the media figured out on its own was a group that has been hosting its convention for the past 38 years in Las Vegas. What Visit Indy and their shills in the media won't tell you is why the International Association of Fairs and Expositions stated on its own website it was leaving Las Vegas and moving the convention to San Antonio. The IAFE moved its convention to San Antonio because it was miffed that Las Vegas presented a proposal with higher room rates than San Antonio and other competitors, including Indianapolis. Here's how the organization explained its decision to leave Las Vegas on its website:

Since the inception of the IAFE event about 38 years ago, according to Jim Tucker, CEO & President, Las Vegas has always hosted the annual gathering, although at different venues - first at the Stardust Hotel & Casino property, then in 1974 switching to the MGM Hotel (now Bally's) - then in 1995 switching to the Las Vegan Hilton before making a return to Paris & Bally's.

But it seems that Las Vegas has outgrown the IAFE and showed little interest in giving the IAFE an acceptable proposal. Las Vegas was named the Trade Show News Network's No. 1 trade show destination for the 21st consecutive year in 2014, which noted that Las Vegas hosted 60 of the largest trade shows in the U.S., up from 53 in 2013. Las Vegas is hot among trade show organizers, and a reported $9 billion is being invested in its meeting and convention properties and related infrastructure.

When the IAFE issued its RFP for the its meeting after 2017, Las Vegas was a reluctant suitor and the fair industry felt spurned.

In a letter to IAFE members announcing that the last Las Vegas IAFE convention will be held in 2017, Tucker somberly noted: "Only one Las Vegas hotel submitted a bid on the 2018-2019 Convention. That hotel's proposed room rate was the highest of all responding hotels in the final review."

Tucker told CarnivalWarehouse, that proposal from the MGM Grand, "was approximately 1-1/2 times the projected costs of any other location."

In addition, "the hotel demanded an unreasonable minimum guaranteed expenditure for food and drink at the convention," which he clarified to be " 2 times higher than current expenditures."

The most egregious deal breaker was a new stipulation - which Tucker admitted he had never received from a Las Vegas property - a penalty for members booking at non-convention hotels. According to Tucker, there was a non-negotiable clause that made the association liable for upwards of $250,000 if too many attendees sought less expensive rooms from non-MGM hotels. The stipulation is particularly problematic for the IAFE's Annual Convention & Trade Show. The event is operated concurrently with events by the Outdoor Amusement Business Association (OABA) and the Showmen League of America (SLA). Some conventioneers attend both events, although not renting rooms in the official convention hotel, skewing the room block numbers.

Do you see any mention of Indiana and intolerance in that passage? Only Advance Indiana has been telling you the truth about these ongoing wars between cities like Indianapolis which are hanging their economic growth model on building bigger and better convention facilities to compete in an increasingly competitive convention industry market. State and municipal governments are each investing tens of millions of dollars annually to lure conventions. It's become a bidding war, and the bribes groups like Visit Indy are paying to these convention planners for the opportunity to host these conventions is an outrage. The truth is that the IAFE chose to leave Las Vegas and move its convention to San Antonio because they got a better deal from San Antonio. It also probably didn't hurt that San Antonio's climate in December is a bit more favorable than Indianapolis' unpredictable winter weather.

Who knows why the other 11 conventions chose another city over Indianapolis. I guess Tom Brady could have told reporters after the Patriots' two-point loss to the Broncos on Sunday for the AFC Championship that his passing performance lagged because he doesn't cheat like some of his competitors and take performance enhancement drugs. If he had that competitive advantage, he would be looking at another Super Bowl. Similarly, Visit Indy could go to state lawmakers or city leaders and tell them they're losing out in the battle to host conventions because they don't have enough money at their disposal to bribe convention planners to host their conventions in Indianapolis. That would have probably been a more honest explanation for losing the 12 conventions, but the blame it on RFRA meme rules the day.

Levin Blinks: Won't Light Up At First Cannabis Church's Inaugural Service

The Grand Poobah of the First Cannabis Church won't risk arrest at his inaugural church service this Wednesday by lighting up and smoking marijuana as he earlier assured his followers and media folks would occur. Bill Levin now says his church will file a civil lawsuit against the state after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act takes effect on Wednesday. The Indianapolis Star quoted the attention-seeking Levin from a post he made on Facebook:

"Right now, we do not want to address this in criminal court, because it's not a strong hand," Levin said in an interview with The Indianapolis Star. "If we address this in civil court, we have a stronger hand."

"Due to the threat of police action against our religion I feel it is important to CELEBRATE LIFE'S GREAT ADVENTURE in our first service WITHOUT THE USE OF CANNABIS," Levin wrote on his Facebook page. "The Police dept has waged a display of shameless misconceptions and voluntary ignorance. We will do our first service without the use of any cannabis. CANNABIS WILL BE PROHIBITED ON THE FIRST SERVICE.

"We will not be dragged into criminal court for their advantage. We will meet them in a civil court where the laws are clear about religious persecution. We do not start fights. We Finish Them!

"One Love!"

Ignorance is bliss. Whether Levin's church could assert in a court of law a religious right to use marijuana as part of its religious ritual has absolutely nothing to do with the enactment of Indiana's RFRA law, which does little more than codify into state law a federal RFRA law that's been on the books for two decades and the associated case law interpreting that statute. RFRA re-affirms free exercise rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Mainstream news media reports and radical leftist organizations unfairly characterized the law as a license to discriminate against gays in an effort to demonize the long-accepted American tradition of religious freedom.

Hite And Curry Warn First Church Of Cannabis Worshipers Of Potential Arrests: Hite Likens To Jim Jones' Cult

UPDATED: IMPD Chief Rick Hite and Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry held a press conference this morning to warn those who intend to use the excuse of attending the first service of the First Church of Cannabis as a cause for lighting up and smoking marijuana that they need to be prepared to face arrest. "Anyone who is present in that sort of setting is subject to be prosecuted for visiting a common nuisance," Curry said.

Bill Levin, the church's founder, leader and self-identified Jew, has long advocated the legalization of marijuana, which he claims is beneficial to the human body. Levin has attempted to make a mockery of religion following the passage of Indiana's RFRA law, which in practical terms, is no different than the federal law passed by Congress two decades ago and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Levin is pretending the founding of his church making the worship of cannabis a central tenet was made possible by the law's passage, a total fabrication openly perpetuated by the mainstream media. Levin, who refers to his members as Cannaterians, says his church seeks "love, understanding and health." He plans his first church service on July 1, the day Indiana's RFRA law takes effect.

"The RFRA act does not create any sort of immunity from prosecution because it’s under the alleged guise of religious practice," Curry said. Chief Hite went further in his condemnation of Levin's church, comparing it to the infamous Indiana cult leader, Jim Jones. "As Jim Jones once did within our state; he led a group of people into a place of no return. We don’t want that to happen again in our state," Hite said. "We want to send a message: This is not the way to challenge a law. You certainly can’t expect the police to stand by and not do something about it." Ironically, Levin's Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation donated an old synagogue near the city's downtown that cult leader Jim Jones once used for his People's Temple church services before relocating it to California. Jones was actually an agent of the CIA contracted to perform a Nazi-like human mind control experiment that ended with the execution of more than 900 innocent men, women and children, including dozens from the state of Indiana.

Something the media has paid little notice to is the fact that many employers in Indiana, including some of its largest employers, have a zero tolerance drug use policy that extends to the use of marijuana, even if used in states like Colorado where it's legal. Levin set up a GoFundMe site to fund his church, which identifies hundreds of contributors by name. Members of Levin's church could be unwittingly opening themselves up to a random drug test that could result in the termination of their employment, something Levin is probably not a whole lot concerned about as he basks in the incredible fifteen minutes of fame he's earning at the expense of people who hold sincere religious beliefs.

UPDATE: Levin reacted angrily to Chief Hite's comments comparing his church to Jim Jones' People's Temple cult. He wrote the following on Facebook:

I would think that if a person in position of power who is supposed to serve and protect... injecting insults and slander to our church and myself would be frowned upon by many... I would hope that the Mayor of Indianapolis, would ask for his resignation. This kind of brutal ignorance and bigotry needs to be nipped in the bud asap. If he made those comments about any other religion, there would be riots in the streets. I am ashamed of him representing our fair city.

Gay Rights Activist Registers Domain Name Of Indiana Lawmakers To Extort Support For Civil Rights Protection

Konrad Juengling

An Oregon gay rights activist, Konrad Juengling, has registered the Internet domain name of six Indiana Republican lawmakers who voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), which redirects web users to a site pertaining to gay rights, as part of a scheme to extort support from Indiana lawmakers for a non-discrimination law that protects gays and transgenders.

According to the Huffington Post, Juengling bought the domain names of State Reps. Martin Carbaugh, Dale Devon, Doug Gutwein, Kathy Kreag Richardson, Don Lehe and Donna Schaibley. Although many other lawmakers voted for RFRA, Juengling told the Huffington Post he only bought the domain names for these six lawmakers because the names were available for registration.

Juengling is using his ownership of the domain names to extort from the lawmakers their support for adding non-discrimination protection in Indiana's civil rights law for gays and transgenders. In a letter to the lawmakers dated April 10, Juengling says he will turn over control of the domain sites to the lawmakers if they help bring legislation to the floor of the House to amend Indiana's civil rights law, vote for it and it is signed into law.

Last week, he wrote to them and told them he'd be happy to give them their websites free of charge if they supported a statewide nondiscrimination policy protecting LGBT people.

"If you bring to the floor a nondiscrimination policy protecting LGBT people in Indiana, vote for it, and it is passed, I will happily donate the domains in question to you. I’m sure they’ll come in handy come stumping season," he wrote in his letter, which he shared with The Huffington Post.

He added that he decided to redirect the lawmakers' websites to the LGBT youth statistics to show them that the population that would be affected by RFRA "is already disadvantaged and have less accesses to family, community supports, and healthcare."

"A disproportionate number of homeless youth are LGBT; why would you support a bill that lets organizations turn these people away?" he asked.

Huffington Post has a link to the full text of Juengling's extortion letter, which you can view by clicking here. Juengling, a Portland, Oregon resident, is a contributing writer for PQ ("Proud Queer") Monthly, a monthly print and daily online that serves Oregon's LGBTQ community.

Hack State House Reporter Gloats About RFRA Lobbyist Losing Job With Law Firm Over Issue

RFRA supporter, Curt Smith, law firm sever ties. http://t.co/WIUMsmNzyQ
— Jim Shella (@shellawish) April 6, 2015

It's too bad WISH-TV political reporter Jim Shallow is more interested in reporting on State House gossip about those he personally disfavors instead of reporting on all of the public corruption his pals at the State House are engaged.

Pence's Signing Statement On RFRA Fix

Here's the text of the message Gov. Mike Pence's office just released after signing the fix to the RFRA legislation he signed into law last week before heading out of town with his family to take a European vacation.

“The freedom of religion for every Hoosier is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Indiana Constitution, which reads, ‘No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.’ For generations, these protections have served as a bulwark of religious liberty for Hoosiers and remain a foundation of religious liberty in the State of Indiana, and that will not change. 

“Last week the Indiana General Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act raising the judicial standard that would be used when government action intrudes upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers, and I was pleased to sign it. 

“Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward. 

“Last weekend I called upon the Indiana General Assembly to clarify that this new judicial standard would not create a license to discriminate or to deny services to any individual as its critics have alleged. I am grateful for the efforts of legislators, business and other community leaders who came together to forge this clarifying language in the law. 

“Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing. 

“In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful. 

“There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, ‘What is best for Indiana?’ I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.  

“Our state is rightly celebrated for our pro-business environment, and we enjoy an international reputation for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance and kindness of our people. Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan; it is our way of life. Now that this is behind us, let’s move forward together with a renewed commitment to the civility and respect that make this state great.” 

Here's the text of the fix:

SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9-0.7 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE 6 AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 7 1, 2015]: Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:
(1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;
(2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service; or
(3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.  

SECTION 2. IC 34-13-9-7.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]: Sec. 7.5. As used in this chapter, "provider" means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include:
(1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)).
(2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society. (Reference is to ESB 50 as reprinted March 17, 2015.)

So Why Would Mitch Daniels Want To Take Down Mike Pence?

Eric Holcomb announcing his campaign to replace Sen. Dan Coats

The pieces of the puzzle are all coming together now. Former Indiana State GOP Chairman and close Mitch Daniels confidante' Eric Holcomb left his job as Sen. Dan Coats' chief of staff shortly before Coats announced he would not be seeking re-election in 2016 to get a head start on assembling a campaign to replace his former boss. Initially, there was no shortage of potential Republican candidates lining up for a possible bid to replace Coats, including several members of the congressional delegation. Susan Brooks, Todd Rokita, Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young all expressed an interest, along with State Sen. Mike Delph, who got put in the doghouse last year over the Senate leadership's handling of the heated marriage amendment debate last year. Then there was total silence.

It seems the powers that be are wanting Coats to resign from his Senate seat early, allowing Gov. Pence to appoint his replacement. There's one big hitch in that plan. Mitch Daniels wants his boy Holcomb to fill Coats' Senate seat. Holcomb, who lost the only campaign in which he was the candidate against a little-known state representative in Knox County, is a also a darling of the Gannett-owned Indianapolis Star, which as far as I can determine exists solely to write press releases for Daniels and whatever is the flavor of the day for the rest of the bipartisan organized crime syndicate that runs Indiana as if it was a private business they operate for their own profit. Not surprisingly, Pence isn't keen on Holcomb taking Coats' Senate seat. What to do about this problem? Well, if you can't bring him over to your side, then kick him out of the way. And that's what they're doing.

A funny thing happened not quite like we've seen in Indiana in a long time. An issue known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), which passed Congress nearly unanimously in 1993, was handily adopted in 19 states in the ensuing years, including neighboring Illinois with the support of then-State Sen. Barack Obama, and which didn't even draw a single opponent to testify against it when it was first heard in committee this year, exploded as the number one issue of the session after being characterized for the first time in RFRA's more than two decade history as a license to discriminate against gay people. Gov. Pence wasn't even responsible for its initiation but quickly signed on to support it like so many Republican and Democrats alike have supported the law in the past in a bipartisan fashion.

It's one thing to credit gay rights advocates for re-purposing the law's intent for ulterior motives, but that doesn't fly unless the media is willing to run with the meme, which is precisely what happened with the Gannett newspaper leading the charge and the rest of the media simply going along for the ride and piling on in a typical media frenzy fashion. Any enlightened person agrees it's unfair to discriminate against a person simply because of their sexual orientation so branding RFRA as anti-gay was as good as recasting it as a law designed to discriminate against blacks. The Indianapolis Star knew respected legal scholars, such as Maurer School of Law constitutional law professor Daniel Conkle, a supporter of gay rights, had reviewed and signed on as a supporter of Indiana's RFRA legislation, but the newspaper threw aside all rational judgment and intentionally helped lead the state to the dark place it's been since the days when D.C. Stephenson and the KKK controlled virtually every office of any note in the state back in the 1920s through downright false reporting and over-the-top editorializing against SB 101.

By the point the manufactured media hysteria had reached top speed, Gov. Mike Pence had given his word to supporters he would sign SB 101 into law if it reached his desk, and he was a man of his word. Little did Pence know that forces had already been put into motion not just to discredit him politically as either a presidential candidate or candidate for re-election as governor in 2016. The forces have aligned and have a well-orchestrated plan to force him from the governor's office. Have people forgotten Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham and the role the Indianapolis Star's sister newspaper, The Arizona Republic, played in taking him down after he cancelled a paid vacation day for all state employees honoring Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Just like it happened this past week, businesses and conventions began a campaign to boycott Arizona over the King holiday issue. The Republic piled on by trumping up what turned out to be unfounded allegations of criminal wrongdoing on Mecham's part for allegedly misusing government money, which led to his impeachment, conviction and removal from office. Mecham was eventually acquitted of all charges at a subsequent criminal trial, but by that point Mecham was dead meat forever tarnished as the disgraced former governor who brought embarrassment and shame to his state.

Pence has always been a media savvy politician, but he looked like a deer staring into the headlights when the anti-RFRA onslaught hit him. Legislation he played no part in writing or steering through the legislature suddenly became his baby. Even House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long, whose leadership power allowed them at any point during the process to put the kabash on SB 101 before garnering overwhelming support for it from both of their caucuses and placing it on the governor's desk for signature, seemed more than happy to throw Pence under the bus by laying the blame at his feet, again with the quite willing assistance of The Star and the rest of the media, as Pence became the butt of late-night comedian jokes. To hear The Star's Matt Tully describe it, Pence in one fell swoop had destroyed everything Mitch Daniels had worked hard to build during his two terms as governor. Tully described Pence as "a stunningly ineffective leader" who was "never meant to be a governor," which contrasted quite sharply from earlier columns he penned lauding the governor's leadership on his pet issues like early childhood education. When Long and Bosma brought forward a collection of Daniels' cronies at their press conference this morning to announce their fix to this mess Pence had caused to our great state, you could picture Daniels sitting in his office in West Lafayette with a wide grin on his face.

Daniels may claim he's totally happy acting as Purdue University President and having no part of politics, but everyone who knows him best knows he can't stand not having his hands on the control switch. Coats was more than happy in his multi-million dollar retirement home in North Carolina before Daniels, Lugar, Holcomb, et al. coaxed him into moving back to Indiana in 2010 to reclaim the Senate seat he obligingly vacated to make room for Evan Bayh in 1998 simply to keep someone Daniels and company couldn't control from taking the Senate seat, which was reportedly once his for the asking when Gov. Robert Orr had to chose a replacement for Dan Quayle when he was elected vice president, an offer he turned down so he could build his wealth into a multi-million dollar fortune by trading on his political connections and power. Daniels and company are still stinging from the smashing defeat of his beloved mentor, Richard Lugar, in the 2012 primary election by Richard Mourdock, who now lives in purgatory. It was no secret they were all privately supporting Democrat Joe Donnelly in the November election that year in retaliation for that unexpected loss.

It makes all the sense in the world that Daniels would do whatever it takes to ensure his handpicked choice succeeds Coats in the Senate. If that means taking down Pence to prevent him from having a hand in the decision, then so be it. He knows Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann is in his back pocket should he succeed in forcing Pence from office, a guy he only begrudgingly supported for governor in 2012 after concluding he had nobody capable of beating him in the primary. If you doubt me, look at how abruptly he threw former Secretary of State Charlie White under the bus. Daniels first called White into his office and ordered him to give up the office to which he had been overwhelmingly elected. When he refused, he confidently told White he would be indicted, convicted and kicked out of the office in his typical take-no-prisoner fashion. Mitch was true to his word.

Indianapolis Star Story Accidentally Proves RFRA Law Doesn't Give License To Discriminate Against Gays

A former employee of the Gannett-owned newspaper once told me that a senior management employee told the newspaper's employees their job wasn't to simply report the news; it was to frame and shape the news. The lie that made its way several times around the world over the past week that Indiana had passed a law providing businesses a license to discriminate against gays became the truth regardless of the actual text of a law informed and formulated by decades of judicial opinions as a consequence of the way the Indianapolis Star chose to frame and shape the reporting of Indiana's RFRA law. If you read an online story on the Star's website today, "How Indiana's RFRA differs from federal version," the newspaper accidentally reveals the true meaning of the law, not the false, hysterical description opponents of the law have used to brand anyone associated with its passage as a bigot, with whom most of the media have blindly sided in this pathetic debate.

To be sure, as the story's analysis reveals, there are differences in the text included in the federal RFRA law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and the state law Gov. Mike Pence signed into law last week. None of those changes, however, support the opponents' argument that the law gives a license to Indiana businesses to discriminate against gays, even with the gratuitous comments thrown into the story made by opponents of the law. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who coauthored the federal law describes the differences as "significant, legal differences," and that Indiana's law "in no way resembles the intent or application of the federal RFRA." His words were polite compared to former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., who described RFRA as "code for we need to deny gay and lesbians the civil rights they are asserting." Sullivan told the Star this "is obvious because the same people — including lawmakers and lobbyists — who were pushing for the failed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage are now behind the RFRA law." Don't you just love it when a supposedly respected judge paints with such a broad brush?

So what are these "significant, legal differences" between the federal and state law? The first difference raised by opponents centers on the inclusion of for profit corporations in the state law's definition of covered persons. The federal RFRA law failed to provide a definition of the "persons" allowed to assert a religious liberty right as a defense to action compelled by a law, but the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case relied upon the definition provided in the Dictionary Act for the U.S. Code, which includes in the definition of a person "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies and joint stock companies." The opponents rely upon this supposed expanded definition to argue it broadens the idea of who has the right to religious liberty. The opponents' argument fails because nobody can argue with a straight face that covered persons under Indiana law is broader than the federal law.

The second point on which the opponents argue the state law is written more broadly than the federal law is the inclusion of religious liberty claims that include not only those cases where a person's religious freedom has been burdened but also when it is likely to be substantially burdened by government action. The opponents claim this has the effect of expanding the type of claims covered persons can assert under the law. That argument similarly fails because the proponents point out that federal courts have interpreted RFRA to read "likely" into the statute so that one doesn't have to be already injured before asserting a claim. As the proponents point out, it's the difference in whether the relief being claimed is compensation for an injury already suffered or an injunction to prevent a violation. In other words, there's no real difference between the federal law as applied by the courts and the Indiana law as written.

The final major point on which the opponents claim Indiana's law differs from the federal law is that it allows a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding between two private parties to assert a religious freedom defense under the act. The opponents suggest this makes it easier for businesses sued by persons discriminated against because of their sexual orientation to raise their religious beliefs as a defense to their discriminatory actions. In the years following the passage of the federal law, it has been interpreted in four judicial circuits covering half of the states to allow cases between private parties as well as those cases brought by the government to invoke RFRA if the burden is imposed by the law relied upon to assert discrimination occurred. So the Indiana law incorporates the prevailing rule applied in at least half of the states already. As the proponents point out, in virtually every case where discrimination based on sexual orientation was the basis of the underlying claim in cases between private parties, judges have ruled the government had a compelling interest in enacting the underlying nondiscrimination law to overcome the defense raised under RFRA. So again, this is another red herring where the opponents want you to believe that administrative bodies and judges in red states will rule against gays because that's just the kind of people they are.

"Is Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act the same as the federal version that became law two decades ago," the Star reporters asked in the opening sentence of their story today. "Not quite," they answered. They continued, "Indiana's RFRA is similar, but not identical. And there's debate about how much those differences matter." Now that you know the differences between the federal and state law, would you agree that those differences are a distinction without any real differences?

The Hypocrisy Behind RFRA Outrage

So now nine CEOs from companies like Eli Lilly, Cummins, Anthem and Angie's List have sent a letter to Gov. Mike Pence and Indiana's legislative leaders repeating the lie made up out of whole cloth by the opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") that the newly-enacted law gives businesses and individuals a license to discriminate against gays. This so-called "corporate social advocacy" of tying a state's social policies to a willingness of these companies to do business in some places is a growing and disturbing trend, particularly because of the selective and hypocritical outrage of the out-of-touch elitists who run these companies.

Imagine our state officials being lectured by corporate executives who not only ship jobs overseas to some of the countries with the worst human rights abuses like China where organized religion is virtually non-existent, but actually pay bribes to their government officials for the right to do business there as Eli Lilly has been called out by our own government for doing. They aren't just shipping jobs to lower paid workers overseas. Some of these companies actually lobby Congress to ease work visa rules to flood the country with even more foreign workers, dashing hopes of many American workers of finding a decent paying job when they graduate from college to help pay down the mountain of debt they incur getting a higher education in this country.

When Cummins was asking Indianapolis taxpayers last year to shell out millions in public subsidies to build new corporate offices in downtown Indianapolis, I don't recall the leaders of the company conditioning the generosity of Indianapolis taxpayers on its state leaders agreeing to enact or not enact a law that until it was proposed in Indiana this year-- after being passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate with only three dissenting votes before being signed into law by President Bill Clinton, an action which was followed by at least 18 other states and countless number of court decisions in more than a dozen other states establishing essentially the same standard of review in cases involving religious freedom claims. Likewise, Eli Lilly expressed no concern about the state's social policies when it sought and obtained hundreds of millions in tax abatements from the city. And the NCAA, convention industry, NBA and NFL, et al. didn't give a hoot about how Indiana treated anyone other than themselves when they sought and obtained billions of dollars in subsidies from state and local taxpayers over the past three decades for their new sports and convention facilities.

The hypocrisy meter breaks when it comes to the reaction of Mayor Greg Ballard and Angie's List's CEO Bill Oesterle to the passage of Indiana's RFRA. Mayor Ballard just a few short years ago had to be reminded by this blog that Indianapolis enacted an ordinance in 2005 that prohibited a business owner in the city-owned City Market from refusing to provide service to gay customers because the business' owner disagreed with their lifestyle, and then only reluctantly agreed to enforce the law after much hand-wringing, claims by some of the city's largest law firms that the law didn't really mean what it said and, incredibly, even public claims by the council members and some gay rights advocates that the law they sponsored and backed didn't say what it really said. It's too bad these folks are incapable of reading Indiana's RFRA law. If they had bothered, they would know there is nothing in it that gives anyone a license to discriminate.

So Mayor Ballard has issued a new executive order restating what the 2005 ordinance already states, demanded that state lawmakers change state law, and the City-County Council has passed a resolution denouncing the newly-enacted RFRA law while holding hands with Angie's List's CEO Bill Oesterle, whose company stands accused in a class action civil lawsuit of defrauding its consumer members by providing positive ratings for businesses which pay hefty fees to advertise with his company, while downgrading businesses which refuse to pay protection money to rate favorable treatment on Angie's List. Mayor Ballard and a bunch of our city council members want to reward Angie's List's unacceptable business practices with $18.5 million in public subsidies to expand its operations, a move Oesterle now says is on hold because of the new state law. I'm sure the fact that his company has never earned a profit in its two decades of existence despite no shortage of fools willing to invest in it had anything to do with it, but let's jump on the bandwagon of mislabeling RFRA supporters as bigots because it makes me look good. It's all about appearances, after all, not actual substance.

Who said Hoosier Hysteria was all about basketball? Well move over basketball. There's a new game in town being played. Let's call it Hoosier Hypocrites.

Freedom Indiana Now Admits Indiana Law, Like Federal Law, Already Permitted Discrimination Against Gays

After vilifying the Indiana General Assembly and Gov. Mike Pence for supposedly enacting a form of RFRA that discriminates against gays, Freedom Indiana finally owns up to the fact that Indiana's civil rights law never protected gays from discrimination. In fact, not even the federal Civil Rights Act protects gays from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. Even when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, there was no serious push made to expand federal civil rights protection to persons based on sexual orientation.

In a press release issued this morning, Freedom Indiana is now seeking the legislative solution it didn't seek before it cast RFRA as representing something it did not:

The "Fairness for All Hoosiers Act" legislative proposal would: 

• Update the state laws against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations to provide protections for LGBT Hoosiers. 

• Clarify that the recently enacted RFRA cannot be used to allow discrimination prohibited under state or local laws. 

"If we don't act now, we will continue to do irreparable harm to Indiana's economy and our ability to attract top talent and jobs to our state," Katie Blair said. "We're presenting this solution as a way to start rebuilding our reputation and to move on from this harmful legislation by ensuring protections for all Hoosiers."

Let me repeat, both federal and the state's civil rights law permit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation. That's always been the case. While some Indiana cities, including Indianapolis, have enacted human rights ordinances with expanded civil rights protections for gays, those local ordinances are viewed as being very weak in terms of enforcement and remedies.

So will Freedom Indiana be issuing an apology to Gov. Pence and state lawmakers for falsely accusing them of passing a law that discriminates against gays? Don't count on it, and don't count on any honest reporting by the useless State House media that has aided and abetted Freedom Indiana and other opponents of RFRA in representing this legislation to the state and the nation as something it never was.

The Woman Behind The Orchestrated Attack On RFRA: Meet Katie Blair

If you're one of those rallying against Indiana's RFRA law, Advance Indiana thought you should see the woman who has orchestrated the statewide and now national attack in the media against it in an effort to villainize anyone of faith, in particular those of the Christian faith. Meet Katie Blair. The idea of recasting RFRA as short-hand for all things anti-gay was her brainchild. In this role she has found more success than gaining supporters for government-funded abortions to all women on demand in her former role as director of activism for Planned Parenthood of Indiana. A few months after leaving her next job at the state Democratic Party as director of the 51% Club, she became advocacy coordinator for the ACLU of Indiana. See Blair speaking at this State House rally for Planned Parenthood of Indiana in 2011. The ACLU, incidentally, supported the original federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

George "The Fraud" Stephanopolous Grills Pence On RFRA

The irony in watching ABC News' George Stephanopolous, a former attack dog media spinner for President Bill Clinton, grill Gov. Mike Pence on his decision to sign Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRF"). While Stephanopolous, a closeted homosexual, was flacking in the Clinton administration, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") to bar recognition of same-sex marriages, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which statutorily recognized the military's policy of barring gays from serving in the military and this now condemned law known as RFRA. To this day, Bill Clinton remains the only president in the history of the United States to sign into law discriminatory laws against gay people. The hypocrisy of these people is beyond the pale. Gov. Pence handles himself well under questioning by the faux newsman. As I've said on numerous occasions, I don't believe a federal or state RFRA law is needed; however, I won't stand by and watch as a bunch of carnival barkers commandeer the public stage and make this law out to be something it has never been since the federal law was enacted more than two decades ago. Yep, there's truly a sucker born every minute.

Angie's List Uses RFRA As Excuse For Canceling Plan For Taxpayer-Financed Expansion

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Less than a week after news reports surfaced of a Pennsylvania class action lawsuit being filed by its members alleging a scheme to defraud its members by claiming it provides unfiltered consumer reviews of service providers, Angie's List announced that it is putting on hold its plan to tap $18.5 million in taxpayer subsidies awaiting approval by the Indianapolis City-County Council, blaming the enactment of RFRA for its decision.

The proposal had already been sent back to committee once after reaching the full council due to growing skepticism about the future viability of a company that has never turned a profit in its two decades of existence and was scheduled for a vote by the council at next Monday's meeting when the class action lawsuit with damning allegations was filed against the company. The lawsuit, in essence, claims the company's consumer ratings have more to do with advertising fees paid by the service providers it rates than actual reviews made of the service providers by its paid consumer members. Naturally, the Gannett-owned Indianapolis Star accepts the faux reasoning offered by the company's CEO for putting its taxpayer-financed expansion plan on ice because it fits the newspaper's agenda:

Angie's List is canceling its Eastside headquarters expansion over the passage of the religious freedom bill, its founder and chief executive officer said Saturday. The CEO of the online consumer ratings service based in Indianapolis said he could not in good conscience partner with the state over the proposed $40 million expansion and hinted that moving some parts of the company out of state is "on the table."

"We are going to re-examine our options for a HQ," Oesterle said.

"We are putting the 'Ford Building Project' on hold until we fully understand the implications of the freedom restoration act on our employees, both current and future," Oesterle said in news release.

"Angie's List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents," Oesterle said.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the distinct possibility its taxpayer-financed expansion plan was about to be voted down by the council, even after the company hired a team of high-paid lobbyists to help secure its passage.

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.

Pence Issues Signing Statement On RFRA

Amidst an avalanche of criticism, dire consequences and warnings coming from its opponents, Gov. Mike Pence joined 19 other states and the federal government in enacting the state's own Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here's the statement he issued after signing SB 101 into law:

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith. 

“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action. 

“One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views. 

“Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means. 

“Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states—including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky—have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action. 

“In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action. 

“This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana. 

“Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.”

It will be interesting to watch and see what the organizations threatening to boycott Indianapolis as a convention city will do now since they can't hardly pick one of the 19 other states to move their conventions and trade shows if they are being true to their word.

UPDATE: Even Miley Virus is raging against Gov. Pence. It's a full frontal Illuminati assault!

mileycyrus

2 hours ago

You're an asshole @govpenceIN ✌️-1 cc: the only place that has more idiots that Instagram is in politics@braisoncwukong thank you for standing up for what is right! We need more strong heterosexual men fighting for equality in both men and women! Why are the macho afraid to love muchoooo?!?

It looks like Gen Con isn't going anywhere despite all of the table pounding before Gov. Pence signed SB 1 into law. Let's face it, what city in in this country is going to take care of the leaders of these organizations who make the decisions about where to host a convention better than the thick wallet Indianapolis gives to Visit Indy to take care of these folks to make sure they keep coming back year after year? The only other city that "entertains" these decision-makers as lavishly as Indianapolis is Chicago. Sorry, Illinois enacted RFRA quite a few years ago. In fact, a man in the State Senate by the name of Barack Obama voted for it.

Indiana Passes RFRA, Sky Is Falling

I'm not advocating for the passage of a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") modeled on a similar federal law enacted with bipartisan support in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, which has been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, but does its passage really mean really bad, horrible things will happen if Gov. Mike Pence signs legislation passed by the General Assembly into law? Call me skeptical, but the sky is falling meme is reigning supreme as the media stirs up a lot of Hoosier hysteria over that very prospect. WTHR's Bob Kravitz jumped into the fray today, sounding the alarm bells.

What's next? Boycotts of Indiana, and Indianapolis in particular, when it comes to hosting sporting events (like the Final Four) and conventions?

The "religious freedom bill'' is this close to getting passed, and not only does it leave me queasy on a personal level, it makes me wonder if events and other conventions will look differently at one of the best sports/convention towns in the country.

Jason Collins, the openly gay basketball player, tweeted this the other day: "@GovPenceIN, is it going to be legal for someone to discriminate against me and others when we come to the Final Four?''

Um, yes, Jason, it will be. Once it's signed into law – and there's every reason to believe this controversial and wrong-headed law will make it to Pence's desk in short order – the answer is, yes, businesses will have the right to discriminate. The only thing that will be missing with be a Jim Crow-like "No LGBT Allowed'' sign over businesses, even if it's implied . . . 

Do we really want to become Arizona? The state that refused to recognize the Martin Luther King, Jr. national holiday, and ended up losing its 1993 Super Bowl bid and the estimated $200 million that would have come with it? The same Arizona that has just dealt with this same religious freedom bill the past year and has cost itself concerts and conventions? Or how about 2010, when Arizona's immigration laws once again left Arizona in the dust regarding conventions and other events?

So to answer Jason Collins' question, the answer is, yes, businesses will have the right – the “religious freedom'' – to deny you service . . . 

The Indianapolis Star followed quickly with a warning that the city's largest convention, Gen Con, might move its annual convention elsewhere if Gov. Pence signs the legislation into law.

The organizers of Gen Con, the city's largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples. 

"Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years," said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC, in a letter sent to Pence just hours after lawmakers sent the measure to his desk . . .

It looks pretty bleak. Right? Until you consider all of the other states which will have to be boycotted, and that's a pretty lengthy list. Nineteen states have RFRA laws to be precise, including a number of states with notable convention and sports destination venues, such as Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. Now you know the rest of the story.