Category Archives: America
Dedicated to Channels 3, 5, 10, 12, NPR, CNN, and the Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, and Arizona Daily Star: Dumb, Uneducated, and Eager to Deceive
By Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist
In the aftermath of the abominable media coverage of Arizona’s religious liberty bill, an editor shared his hypothesis that journalists care about freedom of speech and of the press because they practice them. And journalists don’t care about freedom of religion because they don’t.
But one of the most interesting things about modern media’s deep hostility toward the religious, their religions, and religious liberty in general is that press freedom in America is rooted in religion.
But perhaps we don’t understand that the members of the jury ruled in favor of press freedom because of their belief in the foundational importance of religion and religious liberty. The Zenger press freedom case was a “disputation on truth and on how truth is revealed to man,” noted David Paul Nord in 2006′s “A History of American Newspapers and Their Readers.” This is another way of saying “religion.” In the Cato letters printed in Zenger’s New York Weekly Journal, it was argued that each individual had not just the right but the duty to seek truth in his own way. From the book (emphasis mine):
“Every man’s religion is his own,” Cato declared, “nor can the religion of any man, of what nature or figure soever, be the religion of another man, unless he also chooses it; which action utterly excludes all force, power or government.”
The media now call people who agree with this notion “bigots” or “Jim Crow” types. Sometimes they’re more nuanced and just write shockingly biased articles about religious liberty issues. (My favorite was the time a media outlet — Religion News Service, of all places — defiantly put scare quotes around “religious liberty” and then defended the obnoxious practice.)
Anyway, back when individual reason and conscience were the way to divine truth, the authority of human law could never be absolute. Nord wrote that Americans have been “strangely intolerant libertarians, often suppressing individual liberties in the name of a more transcendent freedom.” Or we used to be, at least. Now we hear from some of media’s biggest elites that transcendent freedoms are to be obliterated in favor of individual liberties, and that opposition to this notion is the real enemy. More on that in a bit.
The First Amendment begins with religious liberty because (and even our non-traditionally religious Founders agreed with this), all freedom of expression — speech, press, assembly, etc. — is rooted in the importance of man determining truth according to his own conscience.
So What’s That Have To Do With Our Modern Media?
Moving forward nearly 300 years, we have a press that loathes and works actively to suppress this religious liberty, as confident in being on the “right side of history” as they are ignorant of natural rights, history, religion and basic civility.
A broad religious liberty bill — renamed by a juvenile and nakedly activist press as “anti-gay” — gives us a good opportunity to see this dynamic in action.
Perhaps a framework for understanding the truth-avoiding goat rodeo the media participated in is in order. Here’s one provided by Jon Swerens, which he calls the “OOOOOPSI” model:
Opportunity: First, we need a hot-button event that is a proper catalyst for the cycle. Recent examples were supplied by Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Susan G. Komen, and now, Arizona’s proposed law. Outrage: Next, those on the opposite side of the culture wars make a lot of noise about “fairness” and “bigotry” and “tolerance.” Maybe they have a point, or maybe not, but it’s an important step in the news cycle. Opposition: Then, the national media by and large adopts the definitions brought to them by the outraged. For example, in this week’s Arizona story, the media labeled the bill “anti-gay,” without the scare quotes. Such labeling was a tremendous victory for the outraged. Oversimplification: As a part of its coverage, the media fails to add any nuance to the debate or closely examine the actual facts of what’s being argued, preferring to cover the horse race of two competing interests beating each other up. Overreach: At some point, a mainline media outlet gets too cocky and goes a step too far in its boosterism. Other media momentarily shrink back in embarrassment. Pendulum: Prompted by this misstep, a few media commentators rub their chins and publish thoughtful analysis pieces that ask if everyone is being a little too hard on the accused. The accused is still wrong, mind you, but we can be nicer about it. Silence: After this, coverage ceases as the nation’s attention runs elsewhere. Introspection: Finally, months later, on a Sunday news program, journalists will gather and ruminate about how they unfairly overstated one side of the debate. They pledge to do better next time.
Let’s agree to pretend that the media ever hit the Introspection stage and let’s also set aside the Opportunity and Outrage issues. Note the key point in “Opposition,” which is that the media adopt the labels of one side in a dispute. This couldn’t be more common, which explains why “religious liberty” gets scare quoted but “same-sex marriage” does not. In most cases, the media only scare quote those things they think are highly debatable or untrue. So even though religious liberty is fairly well ensconced in the Constitution and in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what not, it gets scare quotes. “Abortion rights,” which opponents believe is an oxymoron since no one actually has the right to take the life of another, even if the Supreme Court of the United States say otherwise? Well, missy, that’s settled law. And if you’re confused about it, you can ask the Susan G. Komen Foundation what we in the media do to people who don’t toe the line. We destroy them… for fun. On this issue, we help our friends (Wendy Davis, Kermit Gosnell) and we destroy our enemies (War on Women, anyone?).
Or take marriage, which natural marriage supporters believe is a euphemism, more or less, for “penis+vagina=elaborate consequences.” So for them, “same-sex marriage” is an ontological impossibility, or at the very least an issue on which some thought should go into the consequences of redefining that equation. After the media malpractice on this issue, one wonders if we’ve been fully brainwashed away from even understanding this topic in any way. Basically, some people, known colloquially as “all people throughout all space and time in all religions and lands until 15 minutes ago,” believed that marriage was a nice way of saying “men and women are different and complementary and this is the way we organize their relationship in all its complexity, including all the norms and benefits and dangers that occur when a penis enters a vagina.” Marriage used to be the way we said that, more or less. And the penis and vagina parts are actually key to this entire shebang. See: human history. Or, if you are in any way confused about this, ponder how your own existence came about. Hint: penis and vagina. In any event, it’s easier to remove scare quotes, adopt the language, and hunt down and vilify all those who disagree.
For a particularly crafty look, here’s CNN redefining religious liberty not as “religious liberty” but as the “‘freedom’ to discriminate.” Brilliant. Even if, you know, terrifying and Orwellian. And I do mean Orwellian. Here he is on the matter:
At any given moment, there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas, which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that, or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it . . . [And] anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, whether in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
Particularly Egregious Idiocy
In this case, wholesale adoption of activist language is particularly egregious. What Arizona was considering was known as a RFRA bill. The original federal legislation was adopted after a bad Supreme Court ruling delivered by Antonin Scalia that limited religious freedom for Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of their religion. Congress realized this was a big problem and so they authored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer. From Wikipedia:
The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion. The act, which was Congress’s reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton.
And for those who worry about government encroachment against religious liberty, the bill has turned out to be a godsend. Hundreds of Americans of various religions have used RFRA to have even an opportunity to fight back against government violations against religious liberty. States have also adopted RFRA legislation, to help navigate the difficult borders of religious liberty vs. government action.
Have you heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor? Their only chance in their fight against the government is RFRA.
And so Arizona was tweaking its own RFRA statutes to expand in a couple of areas. A group of 12 law professors, some of whom support same-sex marriage and some of whom weren’t even sure the legislation was a good idea, but all of whom are religious liberty experts, tried to speak into the media-induced blindness regarding this bill:
SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.
Most RFRA cases don’t deal with the sudden clash between religious liberty and same-sex “rights,” but some do. And even though most Americans probably wish tolerance were a two-way street — where some people need to work to tolerate those attracted to members of the same sex while others need to tolerate those with different religious beliefs — I think current jurisprudence favors the sentiment expressed by Chai Feldblum, a legal scholar and gay-rights activist later appointed by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”
Outside of American newsrooms, Feldblum’s views aren’t universally shared. In fact, some find that in a choice between sacrificing religious liberty and expanding gay rights, they might go the other way. There are always conflicts with religious liberty — our first freedom. And they’re difficult to navigate. Religious liberty — and having the freedom to determine truth without government force — was what the Zenger trial was all about and no one is (yet) claiming that it was actually about bigots against gay rights. Of the hundreds of RFRA cases, I’d be surprised if more than a tiny handful had to do with gay anything, in fact. We do know that no reporter investigated how many RFRA cases involve gay issues. Is it greater than zero? I don’t think we know.
Either way, a broad religious liberty bill, one that in its national version was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton after passing with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, becomes, in the high-brow parlance of the Associated Press and the Washington Post, “anti-gay.”
By this standard, all legislation could be anti-gay. How many gay people are harmed by restrictions on gun rights? Ergo, gun control is anti-gay. How many unborn gays are terminated via abortion? Pro-choice laws are anti-gay. How many taxes are levied on gay people? All taxes are anti-gay. It only makes sense to call religious liberty anti-gay if you think that the only people in America are that tiny fraction of gay people that might ever be involved in suits where RFRA is argued. And even if you took that position, RFRA still wouldn’t be “anti-gay” since, as that rag-tag group of religious liberty professors put it:
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will be come more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger.
Of course, we can safely assume that none of the reporters or editors who promulgated the “anti-gay” rhetoric had read the legislation, however brief it was (all of two pages). By way of example, see what the New York Times deceitfully wrote here with the quote above:
“The measure would have allowed business owner [sic] to refuse to serve gay people and others if doing so ran counter to their religious beliefs.”
“Mister, you wanted a war. You just got one.”
–George Peppard speaking to Richard Widmark in the movie How the West Was Won
By a vote of 7-0, Tempe’s city council just passed a non-discrimination law. It’s the same kind of law used in many areas of the U.S. to trump the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion. These radical laws exist elsewhere around Arizona, too.
Christian florists, bakers, bed and breakfast owners and photographers have all been hauled before activist courts and punished under this kind of radical law.
Tomorrow, a Christian florist in Tempe could be sued for not providing flowers for a so-called “same-sex commitment ceremony.” Even though same-sex “marriage” is illegal in Arizona. Even though the Constitution forbids governments from compelling people to violate their religious beliefs.
Governor Jan Brewer just turned a blind eye to this threat, growing out of control across America. She is not reading the tea leaves and does not understand this threat. She also didn’t understand Senate Bill 1062, which was designed to protect people from these kinds of attacks. She did, however, understand the power of corporate America, the NFL, homosexual pressure groups, the left-stream media, and RINO advisers and lawmakers (named Flake, McCain, Worsley, Dial, Pierce, Kwasman, et al).
Governor, you wanted a local war on religious freedom? You just got one.
We keep telling you folks about the fascist tactics of left-wing extremists who’d rather punish you than accept your right to disagree. The death threats received by a Gilbert business owner are disgusting, but not uncommon. This is further evidence that the Left is taking our culture in a downward spiral, not progressing it:
Reported by Alliance Defending Freedom:
A Gilbert business owner who publicly expressed her support for SB 1062, a religious freedom bill the state legislature passed last week, has received numerous hate e-mails, including one that wishes her and her children dead. It is the latest report of intolerant actions being taken by those who oppose the bill because they claim it and its supporters are “intolerant.”
The e-mail, obtained by Alliance Defending Freedom, reads, “DIE YOU ****. AND I HOPE YOUR CHILDREN DIE TOO. YOU HATEFUL **** DEMON.” The Gilbert business owner received the e-mail and others after expressing her support for SB 1062 in several media interviews.
“If you’re wondering where the supporters of SB 1062 are, they’re home protecting their children from death threats,” said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Doug Napier. “Sadly, this is not the first time we’ve seen opponents of religious freedom not only spread falsehoods but engage in the very intolerance they say they oppose.”
In addition to threats issued to the Gilbert business owner and others Alliance Defending Freedom are aware of, a Tucson restaurant has posted a sign saying that it reserves the right not to serve Arizona legislators, and a California restaurant/barr that caters to those who identify as homosexual is refusing to serve anyone who supports SB 1062 or similar legislation. Previously, the restaurant also banned bachelorette parties as an “offensive heterosexual tradition” because of their relationship to marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“We actually support their right to define their businesses the way they wish,” Napier explained. “No business owner of faith that I am aware of wants to deny anyone a sandwich. All religious business owners want is to make sure the government can’t force them to promote a message or engage in an activity that conflicts with their beliefs. That’s all SB 1062 is about, despite the misleading information people may have heard.”
Napier further explained that Alliance Defending Freedom supported the right of a California photographer to refuse to use her expressive talents to photograph Alliance Defending Freedom staff members at an event last year because she disagreed with the organization’s views. Alliance Defending Freedom also supported the right of New Mexico hairstylist Antonio Darden to refuse to cut Gov. Susana Martinez’s hair in 2012 because she supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Those who truly care about human dignity and are opposed to discrimination should want the same for Arizona businesses who don’t want to be forced to violate their beliefs either,” said Napier.
February 27, 2014
Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims is all about religious freedom.
It’s all about freedom, period.
I’m beginning to think that people — in addition to 10- and 13-year-olds — need to read this. The Pilgrims escaped Holland and London for religious freedom. They came to the New World before there was an America, for religious freedom, and that voyage and their establishment of Plymouth Colony and everything that happened there gave birth — later on, years and years, decades later — to our founding documents. This is a nation that is founded on the principle of religious freedom. That is the reason this country exists, and it just bit the dust in Arizona.
Here are the audio sound bites. Let’s start with Governor Brewer. We’ve got two of these bites. Here you go…
BREWER: I’ve not heard one example in Arizona where business owners’ religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. After weighing all of the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.
RUSH: She said that she has “not heard an example in Arizona where business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.” Maybe she’s not aware what’s happened in Utah, Colorado, where businesses were shut down for this reason. Here is the next explanation Governor Brewer…
BREWER: To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we could not even imagine and no one would ever want. Religious liberty and a core American and Arizona value. So is nondiscrimination.
RUSH: You know, I’ve been reading some people’s review of this, and the victors, the people that are crowing over all this, are claiming that what really happened here is that a phony bill that was rooted in phony religious freedom, under the guise of homophobia, was vetoed by Jan Brewer. So the people that won this thing are beating their chests, are out there claiming here that nondiscrimination triumphed over discrimination, that there was nothing about religious freedom in this bill at all. “It was all anti-gay.
“It was under the guise of religious freedom,” and if you read the bill (it’s two pages), there’s nothing about homosexuality in the bill. The word isn’t mentioned. Gay weddings, marriage, none of that is mentioned. Rich Lowry, “Brewer’s Foolish Veto — It was jarring to read the coverage of the new ‘anti-gay bill,’” quote/unquote, “passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the” bill. I mean, jarring to read the way this bill was portrayed than to actually read it.
“The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington…” Most bills are 1,000 pages; this was two pages. “[S]o reading it didn’t take much of a commitment. … [I]t was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all. They weren’t there.” There weren’t any references to homosexuality.
“A headline from The Week declared, ‘There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.’ It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” The bill was not anti-gay; it was pro religious freedom. That’s why the victors are out there beating their chest like Tarzan in the jungle saying that nondiscrimination has triumphed over gay bashing in the guise of religious freedom.
“The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of [Arizona]‘s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.” In other words, the bill mirrors a federal law that is already the law of the land — of course, being ignored.
And just like Arizona had tried to pass its own immigration laws that mirrored federal immigration laws ’cause Obama wasn’t endorsing them — the judge threw that out — Arizona said, “You know what? We’re not gonna wait for a judge to throw it out. We’ll just do it ourselves this time,” essentially. Here’s the real nub of it, and everybody knows it: “Arizona was going to lose the Super Bowl over this,” a two-page piece of legislation. This was media coverage that portrayed this bill in ways that it wasn’t.
This is how it works.
This is the Washington soap opera.
That’s why I said two days ago that everybody here was being bullied, because the bill was mischaracterized from the get-go, and everybody — low-information voters, hell, everybody else — thought it was a gay-bashing bill. Who reads legislation, for crying out loud? Hell, members of Congress don’t even read it anymore. Why would we expect John Q. Six-Pack Citizen to take the time to go find it and read it?
“Gov. Jan Brewer took no chances and vetoed it Wednesday. The bill was the subject of a truly awe-inspiring tsunami of poorly informed indignation. For The New York Times editorial board, the bill was ‘A License to Discriminate.’ It constituted ‘the legalizing of anti-gay prejudice,’ according to a piece in US News & World Report. It was, Salon scoffed, ‘cartoonishly bigoted.’ A reference to Jim Crow was obligatory in any discussion of the bill on [the mind vacuum that is] cable TV.
“Writing in The Week, Elizabeth Stoker said the logic of the bill ‘threatens to twist Christianity into a vile, exclusionary isolating thing.’ But it was beyond the power of Arizona lawmakers to redefine Christianity. Stoker must have mistaken the Arizona Legislature for the Council of Nicaea. In USA Today, the influential liberal pundit Kirsten Powers posited that the bill would enable all-out civil conflict, with Muslim pharmacists possibly refusing to give uncovered women antibiotics…”
That’s already happening, and it’s protected! I’ve got a story here in the Stack where the Regime sent the EEOC or some bureaucracy after a trucking company in Illinois. They fired a couple of Muslims who refused to deliver alcohol or some such thing, and the federal government said, “You can’t fire ‘em for that! They’ve got their religious freedom!”
Let me find it.
RUSH: I have a press release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bragging about this. “Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed [May 28, 2013].
“The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.” So the Feds went in and sanctioned Star Transport, sues them, because they fired a couple of employees who refused to deliver alcohol — and they refused because of a violation of their religious tenets. They’re Muslims, and they don’t want to be anywhere near alcohol.
“According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe…’Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees’ Islamic religion.’ Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.”
Well. So here while the religious freedom of business owners in Arizona is ignored, the religious freedom of employees in Illinois is upheld by the federal government. So this religious freedom business really does only go one way right now. Look, I’m not reviewing all of this Arizona stuff because I think there was a different outcome possible. There was no way this governor was ever gonna not veto this.
The bullying that was going on — and the NFL chiming in, trying to take the Super Bowl away, that’s all it took. That was the end of it there, and then Apple, Inc. saying, “Hey, you know, we’re bringing 2000 jobs to this state, maybe. It depends.” There was no question it was gonna go. But since we are interested in the truth and having you know it, I’m gonna tell you a little bit more about this.
RUSH: Now, let me just reiterate: There was no way Governor Brewer was not going to veto this bill. So I’m not spending time on this trying to beat her up after the fact. There was only one possible outcome here. There was only one. This state has been beaten up by Obama. It’s been beat up by every civil rights activist you can think of. They’ve been totally cowed. I think it’s amazing they got this far, frankly, in getting the legislation they had passed.
But I want to go back to Rich Lowry’s piece because and then a couple of audio sound bites from Bill Donohue from the Catholic League, who had to try to explain — to Chris Cuomo today on CNN — what this was really all about. “In USA Today, the influential liberal pundit Kirsten Powers posited that the bill would enable all-out civil conflict, with Muslim pharmacists possibly refusing to give uncovered women antibiotics,” meaning women not wearing the burqa, for those of you in Rio Linda.
They think “uncovered” means something else there. “Christian pacifists refusing to let Army sergeants stay in their hotels, and Christian restaurateurs who oppose judging gays refusing to serve overly judgmental Christians.” All of this was thrown out as, “Oh, my God, if she signs this bill, Katie, bar the door! We’re gonna have people being denied services and products just everywhere. Because don’t you know, this is just the most discriminatory, bigoted country ever!
The left has to come in and protect the bigots, and everybody, else from themselves. Well, as Rich Lowry writes, “If you’ll excuse a brief, boring break from the hysteria to dwell on the text of the doomed bill, it stipulated that the word ‘person’ in the law applies to businesses and that the protections of the law apply whether or not the government is directly a party to a proceeding (e.g., a lawsuit brought on anti-discrimination grounds).
“Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes … wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill ‘has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.’ In addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes and about a dozen other states interpret their state constitutions as extending the same protections, according to the letter.” In other words, this is common what Arizona was attempting to establish!
You know, if you want to get ticked off about something, it is… There is… How to phrase this a different way? Jonathan Turley, constitutional professor somewhere, Georgetown, showed up again to testify on Capitol Hill. He’s up there and he’s wringing his hands. “We are at a constitutional tipping point.” I’ve got the sound bites here coming up later. “We’re at a constitutional tipping point, ’cause Obama is just running roughshod. But so did Bush,” he said, to qualify.
He’s a good liberal, so he had throw Bush in there. It’s not even close, Jonathan. Bush and Obama? It’s not even close, the constitutional usurpation. There’s never been anybody like Obama. Anyway, Turley says this is very bad. You know why Turley says it’s very bad? It’s very bad because the Founding Fathers never dreamed that the other two branches would basically lay down and allow themselves to be walked all over!
The Founding Fathers thought that the people in the judicial and legislative branches would be trying to get as much power from the executive as they could, but they would not just lay down and let an executive walk all over ‘em. He said he can’t believe it. He cannot believe that Congress doesn’t care. They’re losing power be with Obama’s taking it. Now, Turley knew he was gonna be in trouble for this, so you know what else he said?
“By the way, I happen to agree with everything the president’s doing policy-wise. I just have a problem with how he’s doing it.” Give me a break! That is a qualifier that’s a bit suspicious to me. “Oh, yeah, I agree with the president policy wise most of the time. I’m just worried how he’s doing it. It’s a constitutional tipping point.” Well, the same here. Turley is right. The other branches are just laying down. They’re just allowing this to happen, and you and I know why.
It’s the same reason why everybody, why the governor and all of the forces behind this bill laid down. There is just abject fear of minorities right now. There is fear of being labeled a bigot or a racist. The whole debate is set up. Everything the majority wants to do now is bigoted, discriminatory. It’s the way everything’s been characterized, and so the people who are trying to do the right thing never stand up for themselves after they’re trying to do it. The right thing has no defense.
The right thing has nobody shouting in its defense.
The right thing has nobody. After they write it, and after making effort, they let it die. They allow themselves to be walked all over. They allow themselves to be mischaracterized. They allow their work to be mischaracterized. We’ve never seen anything like it, and we all know why. Fear of the media. It’s clear as a bill what made this in Arizona happen. The media and the left-wing bullies were able to totally mischaracterize what this was.
And the people who knew that they were being mischaracterized didn’t dare stand up and say, “No, you’re wrong.” They just didn’t want to take that risk. They figured they have nobody on their side. They figured they’d have no support, no help, an ddidn’t want to be a lone wolf or a series of lone wolves. They just said, “You know what? We’ll get this issue off the table. We’ll come back and we’ll get ‘em on… on… uh… on… Well, we’ll get ‘em on the next one,” and they cave on the next one and say, “We’ll get ‘em on the next one!”
And they cave on that, and you and I know why. So what Arizona had on the table is something that’s already federal law and essentially the law of 18 states and others. Now, let’s wrap up Lowry: “Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes … wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill ‘has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.’ …
“The letter argues that, properly interpreted, the federal law that inspired the Arizona statute covers cases that don’t directly involve the government and covers businesses. So Arizona’s changes weren’t radical but in keeping with a federal law once championed by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy. A religious freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion.
“It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden,” and now that’s even been taken away here. “For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought.” The substance didn’t matter. It was the opportunity the bill gave them. A, mischaracterize it. B, call it gay bashing.
C, attach it to the Republicans and make ‘em out to be the usual racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. D, scare them into paralysis. E, we get what we want — and what we want is this Constitution shredded and bastardized every chance we get. “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings,” but it became that. Not only is this the denial of religious freedom, this is using the force of government to force people to act in ways they don’t want to act.
It’s a double whammy.
Again, “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government.” That’s the question, and that’s what just happened. The government can now compel people, just like they can’t compel you to buy a product or insurance, but now they can. The government can’t compel you to do business with people you don’t want to, except now they can.
“The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness…”
Oh, yeah. They’re the tolerant ones, you see. They’re the ones that are not closed-minded! They’re the ones that are not bigoted. Oh, noooo. And they certainly aren’t the bullies. Oh, no. They’re just loving, kind, soft-spoken, gentle people who just want everybody to get along — except when you don’t agree with them, and then they become like jackbooted thugs, and they start bullying everybody in their way. They become highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it, and tolerant of only one point of view: Their own.
They are the exact opposite of the way they portray themselves.
RUSH: We got a guy who works for the Star Trucking Company on the phone. He’s driving through Wisconsin. Hey, Jim. Welcome to the program. Great to have you here. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Hi. Can you hear me?
RUSH: Yeah. You’re Jim, right?
CALLER: Yeah, I’m Jim.
CALLER: It’s the first time I’ve ever called you. Well, yeah, I don’t work for Star anymore. I used to. But what I was trying to tell your screener was that Star has a policy. When you first go in for orientation, you have a what they call a force dispatch, which means the dispatcher give you a load and you have to take it. You sign that paper.
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. I want to make sure I understand this. So when you get hired at Star trucking, Star trucking gives you a piece of paper that you agree to sign, and when you sign it, you are agreeing to ship whatever they give you? Whatever’s in the shipment, you’ll drive it?
CALLER: Yes. Yes. It’s basically the dispatcher gives you a load, sends you a load, and you haul it.
RUSH: So when you sign this, you know that you have no choice. You can’t refuse whatever they may put in the trailer. You’ve got to take it.
CALLER: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUSH: You think these two Muslim drivers knew full well when they signed on that they might have to drive some alcohol?
CALLER: Yeah, yeah. That’s basically what the paper says. You have to take whatever. It’s a forced dispatch company, and you have to take whatever you’re given. You know, whatever dispatch, you have to take that load. You can’t refuse.
RUSH: Not anymore, Jim. Not the case anymore. What’s happened is the government has just told Star Trucking that they can’t do that anymore. They can’t force people to haul. Now, they could make you drive a bunch of condoms. They could make you drive whatever you don’t want to drive. You couldn’t object to it.
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. It doesn’t matter. You have to take the load.
RUSH: No, you don’t. That’s the point.
CALLER: Well, most companies are like that. Most companies don’t have a no force dispatch policy, but the Star was one of the companies I worked for that had — well, the first company I’d worked for that had.
RUSH: So the point is that these two guys knew full well. They signed a release, in essence. We know what’s going on here, too, folks. This didn’t just happen, and this just isn’t some couple of guys randomly offended and doing something about it. We know what’s going on.
If Governor Jan Brewer listens to reason … she will sign Senate Bill 1062, providing better protection for religious freedom in Arizona.
If she gives in to fear, intimidation, bullying, and propaganda, she will veto the bill and yield to the radical homosexual agenda.
That agenda and religious freedom cannot coexist.
If Brewer signs the bill, there had better be beefed-up security around Arizona because the left-wing extremists may raise a nasty ruckus. The state is watching them. This is their chance to improve their public image by behaving well and act with calm and decorum.
Let’s hope the governor exercises wisdom and signs this commonsense bill — despite the intense pressure from the left-stream media and homosexual activists. This is a real chance for the governor to stop the corrosive impact of the left-wing on the culture.
Warning: if you want fair and balanced coverage do not watch Channel 12 of Phoenix. They are in the tank for the anti-freedom Left.
By Joseph LaRue and Kerri Kupec, Alliance Defending Freedom
Opponents of the proposed amendment to Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act are putting the people of Arizona in a high-risk disaster zone when it comes to their First Amendment freedoms.
In America, we live by the basic principle that you don’t forfeit your religious freedom just because you step outside the four walls of your home.
Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the legislation after which the Arizona RFRA is modeled, for that very purpose.
But the federal RFRA only applies to the federal government, and thus, a number of states, including Arizona, enacted their own versions to ensure this religious protection for their citizens.
Arizona’s RFRA, as it currently stands, does not contain the necessary specificity regarding who can use RFRA for protection if the government discriminates against them because of their religious faith. Contrary to the voices opposing protecting religious freedom for all Arizonans, Senate Bill 1062 and House Bill 2153, which were approved last week, will not allow people to do “whatever they want” in the name of religion.
The use of the amended RFRA will only come into play when the government’s law inhibits someone from freely acting in accordance with his or her faith, as has always been the case. And even then, sincerely held religious beliefs will continue to be balanced against state interests. So, Arizona will always be able to make certain things — like murder — crimes even if someone says that his religious beliefs require him to kill someone.
So, what happens in states that don’t have a clear RFRA? Elane Photography in New Mexico is a perfect illustration.
Elaine Huguenin, the Christian owner of Elane Photography, declined to photograph what two women called their “commitment ceremony.” The women had no trouble finding another photographer because plenty of them were clamoring for their business. But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.
Elaine, however, did not refuse the women because they identify as homosexual. She declined to photograph the ceremony only because she didn’t want to promote a message at odds with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. So, Elaine asserted a defense under New Mexico’s RFRA, similar to Arizona’s current RFRA, saying that the government should not be able to force her to promote and participate in the ceremony when doing so violates her religious convictions.
But the ambiguity in New Mexico’s RFRA, like Arizona’s current one, allowed the New Mexico Supreme Court to hand down a strained interpretation that actually distinguished between Elaine as a photographer and Elaine as a small-business owner.
And because the government was not actually a party to the lawsuit, the court had wiggle room to ignore the state RFRA, even though the entire case dealt with a state law. Instead, as one of the judges wrote, “the price of citizenship” for Elaine was that she must be forced to violate her beliefs.
Did the legislators ever intend for such a messy interpretation? Probably not, but this is what happens with lack of clarity in a law — the type of ambiguity that SB 1062 aims to fix in Arizona. An old adage states, “Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.” In states like New Mexico, that’s exactly what happened.
No Arizonan should be forced to choose between making a living and living free. An amended bill that provides a safeguard from laws that violate our First Amendment freedoms — while still letting government enact laws necessary to the common good — is a sensible one.
No court in Arizona should be able to tell you that a violation of those freedoms is just the “price of citizenship.”
Joseph La Rue is legal counsel and Kerri Kupec is legal communications director for the Arizona-based Alliance Defending
Dear Governor Brewer:
Do the right thing and sign Senate Bill 1062. Protect those who disagree with the homosexual agenda — which is the majority of your constituency. Homosexuals only make up 1 percent of our population, but their pressure groups are monopolizing left-stream media hoping to intimidate you to get their way.
If they get their way, Arizona loses in many ways.
Failure to sign this bill will subject many, many Arizona business owners to abuse from homosexual activists and activist courts — including fines that can easily bankrupt small business owners and subject families to welfare subsistence.
Equally bad, failure to sign the bill will greatly damage the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.
And disastrously, Arizonans would be subjected to compelled government speech. They would lose the freedom to disagree with things they find morally objectionable.
Nondiscrimination policies would trump the First Amendment and Arizonans would lose their rights of conscience. They would be forced to agree with the homosexual agenda’s radical plans to destroy marriage and family.
Furthermore, this part of the homosexual agenda’s attempt to re-define marriage in Arizona. It is part of their effort to qualify a ballot initiative to overturn our 2008 state constitutional marriage amendment.
Religious freedom and the homosexual agenda cannot co-exist. The First Amendment and discrimination policies cannot co-exist.
Protect Arizonans from undue punishment. Keep the government out of small business owner’s affairs.
Don’t forget this: 85 percent of Americans polled side WITH Elaine Huguenin, the New Mexico artist who declined to glorify a same-sex commitment ceremony and stands to suffer business-crippling fines. She and her husband have received death threats and all kinds of abuse from leftists and homosexual activists. Don’t let this despicable stuff happen here.
Sign the bill today. Protect our culture of freedom. Do not bow to the radical demands of radical people and the left-stream media.
If you’re fearful of the nasty ruckus the homosexual activists will cause … and if that is what is delaying your decision, sign the bill sooner rather than later. These left-wing fear-mongerers will raise a ruckus no matter when you sign the bill. Fascists will always try to punish people who disagree with them. So don’t delay.
Sign the bill today.
Ronald Reagan would have signed the bill last week. This is no time to go wobbly, governor.
The Arizona Conservative
Equality Arizona is leading a vicious campaign against the religious freedom protection bill awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature this week.
The state’s most radical homosexual pressure group’s latest email message says if the governor does not veto “it will be legal to deny basic services and protections to LGBT Arizonans.”
That is a flat-out lie by the No. 1 left-wing propaganda machine in Arizona.
This bill is designed to protect First Amendment free exercise of religion from so-called “non-discrimination laws.” Those laws have already illegally compelled government speech, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, florists, and other businesses to violate messages and immorality they disagree with. One activist judge even went so far as to order a Christian businessman to support a message he finds immoral and pay homosexuals thousands of dollars to celebrate their lifestyle, which he disagrees with.
Christians are the victims of homosexual activists and nondiscrimination laws drafted to punish them. With fawning media sheep cheering them on, homosexual activists are falsely claiming incorrectly they are the victims. They are the people filing frivolous lawsuits attacking Christians for their scriptural beliefs.
Call Governor Brewer and tell her to stand up to the pressure group bullies and their cowardly media allies at Channel 12, the Arizona Republic, the Arizona Daily Star and other left-wing radicals … and sign this bill to protect Christians. Elected leaders must do everything they can to assure Americans their first liberty — religious freedom and free speech. The political Party of Control and its extremist allies want to destroy constitutional freedom and force Christians to confine their beliefs to home and church. This is the fascist challenge of our time, and it must be rejected.
This is “National Marriage Week.” United Families International, based in Mesa, provides this statement on the great value of marriage as the union on one man and one woman to society, in its book “The Marriage Advantage,” authored by Marcia Barlow:
Marriage is a unique, opposite-sex union with legal, social, economic and spiritual dimensions.
It is a fundamental and universal social institution and the mechanism bywhich every known society seeks to obtain for each child the love, attention and resources of a mother and a father. The happiness, development and productivity of a new generation are bound to the marriage and the family unit. The successful development of children is critical to the success and preservation of nations. Because of marriage’s essential role, states and nations have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married.
There is now broad bipartisan recognition that healthy marriage affords substantial benefits for adults and their children. Stable marriage has a positive effect on the economic, emotional and psychological well-being of men and women and dramatically benefits the well-being of children. A wealth of social science research attests to this conclusion.
Efforts to uphold marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation for the family – the fundamental unit of society – should be supported and strengthened.
Families, communities and responsible governments should use all prudent means to encourage healthy, lawful marriage and to discourage pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock childbearing, adultery, divorce and alternative family forms.
Marriage Leads to:
• Better health and greater longevity
• Less crime, less violence
• Safer homes
• Safer communities
• Less poverty, more wealth
• Healthier society
• Better intimate relations
• Less substance abuse and addiction
• Less hardship and better outcomes for children
• Less government, lower taxes
• More happiness
PHOENIX – Robert Graham, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, called out three Arizona Democrats in Congress for their efforts to blatantly postpone full Obamacare implementation until after their reelection. The three signed a letter to President Obama last week asking for delays until 2015 — after the November elections later this year in which all three Democrats are at very high risk of losing their seats to Republican challengers.
“These three cowards are afraid to admit they supported this faulty legislation, and now they want to run and hide their mistakes from voters,” said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham. “You can’t fix the fundamental flaws of Obamacare — it would be like treating the symptoms instead of the disease — and the self-serving tactics of these liberal Democrats shirking their responsibility for this disaster is something voters deserve to hear about before they vote in November.”
Graham noted the three are following the national trend of congressional Democrats, who as a party gambled heavily on the Obamacare passage and are suffering the consequences of the now-failed implementation. Many of those House Democrats lost their seats in 2010, and in 2014 the full force of the Obamacare train wreck will motivate voters to replace them with Republicans.
“Arizona voters are in a unique position with these three competitive seats to voice their firm opposition to Obamacare by sending Republicans to Congress who will fight for taxpayers, small businesses, and families looking forward to a more prosperous future,” Graham added.