The truth about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

For all of the sound and fury over SB101, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it would be helpful for people to actually read the legislation. The relevant section reads as follows:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

That’s it.

Basically, the idea that businesses will be permitted to turn away any customer for any reason is false.

The real issue is that militant homosexuals have no interest in tolerance. They demand acceptance, so they demand that a florist or baker or photographer must be forced by government to participate in a same-sex wedding by government.

The RFRA protects against this, but would not allow racial discrimination. Nor does it endorse a blanket license to deny all service (such as buying gasoline) to homosexuals. Check your facts!

2 thoughts on “The truth about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s