Where My Free Will Sits

The Indiana Religious Freedom bill is necessary to ensure that the government cannot overreach. For instance, it would stop the egregious fines and restriction on Christian bakers who refuse to violate their faith. It isn’t about being gay, who is gay, or the wherefores and why’s of gayness.

For years, Christians have been tolerant of satanic displays, atheist bullying and, dare I go there; religious persecution. The point is that we are all free to believe what we believe. It is the Gay lobby and the Atheist lobby etc that are the real promoters of discrimination on Christians.The feminists aren’t far behind (Insert hand clap hear because I can). And, they know it. Further, the Huffington Post has released an article promoting safe places for “non-white” citizens. I hate to break it to you but safe places is just a promoting theory for Jim Crow Laws which translated means let’s segregate.

Muslims want to live in America but many (not all) denounce American rules, laws, faiths and everything else.The Muslim issue is that their faith permits no tolerance of any other faith…period.

The atheist doctrine is, simply put, my faith for me but no faith for thee. That is just plain arrogant bullying to censor what another might believe and feel.

I don’t hate gay people. In fact, I love a couple (a couple is all I actually know). My bad I guess. I love heterosexual people too. But who I love, what I think and what faith I have comes from a place where my free will sits. And, that isn’t legislative and you cannot regulate it.

FInally, why is it bad to enact a religious freedom bill in 2015 that is essentially the same that Bill Clinton enacted as president? Could it be because Gov. Pence, a reublican governor, did it? Could it be that Clinton was a democrat? Or, more to the point is it because his last name is CLINTON?

“Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney fees.”