Defending religion against the power of government

The Arizona's religious freedom bill (SB1062) addresses the fact that some people think they have a right to coerce (and to use government to that end) and that those who disagree have a duty to obey. Opponents of this bill reject not only religious liberty, but also free speech while demanding that their own form of religion (secular humanism) and free speech be imposed.

I invite all who oppose this legislation to actually read it before jumping to conclusions. (It is truly unfortunate that today's legislatures must cobble together so many words to protect the rights already so eloquently protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.)

This legislation would simply protect a business owner's right to not violate their religious convictions when conducting business. The bill reinforces the First Amendment to the US Constitution which already prohibits federal interference with "the free exercise" of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment which extends that prohibition to the States.

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. — Albert Einstein
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. — Martin Luther King, Jr.

There really should be no need for this legislation because the Constitution already provides the protections this legislation would provide. (Wouldn't be nice if all politicians and judges simply followed the Constitution they swear to follow?) But, in recent decades, activist judges have imposed their own opinions and/or applied flawed judicial precedents, thus depriving good people of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

For those capable of thinking, another writer, Gary DeMar came up with a thought-provoking list:

Sometimes the best way to explain to people the nature of something is to put the shoe on the other foot. Here are some "what ifs."

• What if a print-shop owner holds to a "pro-choice" view on abortion and a pro-life group comes in and wants shirts and signs made that read "Babies are Murdered Here" to use in front of an abortion clinic? Should the owner of the shop be forced to make the shirts and signs?
• What if a print-shop owner who is homosexual gets an order for shirts and signs that are to read "God Hates Fags"? Should the owner be forced to fill the order under penalty of law?
• Should a supporter of PETA who owns a print shop be forced to make signs and shirts that read "PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals"?
• Should a baker be forced to supply cakes to a KKK-themed wedding or birthday party?
• Should an atheist who owns a print shop be forced to print signs and shirts that read "All Atheists are Going to Hell"?
• Should a printer be forced to print shirts and signs that read "Hitler Was Right"?
• Should a photographer be forced to film and photograph a wedding that has a "White Power" or KKK theme?

This bill doesn't legitimize or mandate discrimination against any sort of person such as homosexuals or anti-homosexuals as implied by certain activists. It simply protects businesses from being required to provide a religiously-objectionable service or product to another person. It is one state's small defensive maneuver against the Left's ongoing battle to silence the voice of the religious in the public square and to cow organized religion into sanctioning the immoral agenda of the Left including abortion.

I suspect that if Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer vetoes this bill, it will be because of the expected cost to defend it against Leftist social engineers -- not because of the merits of the bill. That is a sad statement on what the Left has done to this "land of the free and the home of the brave".

Ironically, opponents of this bill -- which protects diverse religious beliefs -- are the most vocal in demanding tolerance of their own diversity. The leaders of my church teach that we are to give due respect to all, even to those who have beliefs or behaviors I might disagree with (yet, some single out my church as hateful). Is there any reason why those who reject certain religious standards can't also be respectful?

If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes? — Jan LaRue