WELL NOW, THIS IS MOST INTERESTING. The Indiana State Governor has passed in to law, a provision that people cannot be forced to do certain things if their religious beliefs are contravened (ie Jews can’t be forced to serve pork; muslims can’t be forced to process non-halal meat, etc). There is already massive fallout, with a corporation pulling out of Indiana along with it billions in investment.
My view is this: Isn’t this a natural corollary of insisting on “human rights” etc on the basis of, say, sexuality (a particular way of enjoying sex)? If we are going to protect ‘gay’ rights then surely it follows for “religious rights” too? It would be unfair not to, surely? I have said all along, that compartmentalising like this was a slippery slope, and here we are…
We have reaped this, because we’ve erred from broad based legal definitions (race, gender and age) as “human” categories of rights and laws, into sub-sets (sexuality, religion, etc). Law needs to be broad. The trend towards boutique rights has led us in to this quagmire. It will divide and fragment civil society into sub-tribes based on lifestyle choices (sex, faith, socio-economic groupings, what football team you support, music differences, etc).
The magic of the American Constitution, was that it recognised people for their collective humanity. Agreed, society then was somewhat more homogenous (and no one pointed out the ghastly hypocrisy of the treatment of African slaves and North American Indians) but the American Constitution – based on Judeo-Christian values – still served, in theory anyway) diverse groups of Immigrants who became “Americans.”
I do not feel this needs legislation. If work forces you to do things against your conscience, then stand down, and get a colleague to enact that service, while you abstain for sincere reasons (like being a Conscientious Objector). Better still, read the contract and job description, and don’t join that workforce or company in the first place. We don’t need a law to do this.
I am afraid that this draconian law has come in to effect because of the pushing pushing pushing of the gay political lobby to force everyone else to accept their boutique redefinitions of the world, and attempts to “mainstream” homosexuality. A double edged sword if ever I saw one, and the inevitable downside several of my gay friends were afraid of as the shrill gay political lobby pushed their sub-culture into places they did not want to go (marriage, adoption, gender-redefinitions, matrimonial property law, etc).
This law has come about, because minority groups of gay politicised advocates, have forced religious people against their conscience, and faith, to acknowledge their lifestyles, while in objection to their own. It cannot work both ways. If you wish to force people to bake cakes for gay weddings, or take photos of lesbian marriages, when the providers object on the basis of faith, religion or conscience, then of course legislation like this in Indiana will result. They want their “rights” protected just like gay people pushing for laws based on their lifestyle choices. That’s only fair and equitable, right?
Put another way: if you are going to have special laws, or existing laws changed ON THE BASIS of how you prefer sex, and have managed to elevate that to a “status” of humanity, then surely others have the same right to define laws or change things, ON THE BASIS of their religious convictions. Isn’t that logical?
I agree that folks of conscience, within limits, should not be forced by the State to do things against their conscience or faith. But legislating those differences is going to fragment society, not pull it together. “Rights” is very much the trumpet call of our unwise modern age, but little of collective responsibility, respect, and manners towards each other. It’s all about me, me, me. Such myopically-individualised societies as ours, will become weaker and weaker within, as we fragment in to “rights” based on ever smaller definitions, while more collective cohesive societies, such as in Asia, will last us out. We’ve seen this trend in things like individuals insisting it is their “human right” to have the State pay for stomach reducing surgery, ofr sex-change operations, or other nonsense.
The focus is on self-centered consumer advantages as a basis of my “human rights” rather than inherent rights based on your collective humanity alongside others. A natural corollary also, of our obsession with consumerism and personal consumption.