Governor Mike Pence Signs Religious Freedom Bill Into Law

Why is a bill that seeks to protect the religious freedom of business owners who don’t want to provide services for a homosexual “wedding” controversial?

The fact that it’s necessary should be controversial.

What if a Ku Klux Klan couple wanted a black baker to make the cake for their wedding (Update: or, as a Facebook commenter said, a KKK rally) and he refused? Who, among us, would call him a bigot or a hater? And who would rally around the couple as they filed a complaint or a lawsuit? Imagine him losing the case and being forced by the government to either bake the cake or face fines and possibly bankruptcy.

But peaceful Christians, who don’t kill unbelievers or even threaten to, are easy prey. It’s time we stopped being prey at all. Legislatively, it’s important that conservatives draft and pass measures that add more enforcement power to the First Amendment, though none should be needed.

One such conservative is Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, who just signed into law a bill that will protect people of faith who choose not to accept business from homosexuals for their “weddings.”

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Gov. Pence said in statement. “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…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.”

If any other group of lobbying sinners tried to force others not only to accept their behavior but also call it good, they’d be shouted down. If someone who made it known they didn’t like blacks tried to force a black business owner to provide services, he’d be a global outcast. But when it comes to homosexuality, people have dropped all standards of liberty, decency, and common sense.

Photo credit: American Life League (Creative Commons) – Some Rights Reserved

Check Also

Mississippi PROTECTS Girls and Women — Bans Males from Accessing Female Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Dorms

Females and males should be provided areas, including restrooms, changing facilities and single-sex educational housing …


  1. It’s nuts that this is even necessary. That we have reached point where society is so twisted. If one owns a business, one should be able to choose whether he or she does business with another person. Private business is private, not taxc payer driven.

  2. I don’t think that this bill actually does what most people (proponents and opponents, alike) think it does. Like the federal RFRA, it simply establishes “compelling interest” as the legal standard that courts use in evaluating governmental policies (including public accommodation laws) against claims of religious freedom. Courts have overwhelming found that the state has this compelling interest when public accommodation meets religious freedom. The following article is very informative: