George Neumayr has had enough. He writes at the American Spectator re: the backlash against Indiana’s RFRA:
On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos repeatedly hectored Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor, with the question: “If a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?” Pence declined to answer the question. But the truth is that it was already legal before this new law passed. And why shouldn’t it be? Pence should have thrown the question back at Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that Indiana should change existing law to force owners of businesses to participate at gay weddings?
Coercing conscientious objectors into supplying a service at a gay wedding is a blatant violation of a historically Christian country’s tradition of religious freedom. Calling that conscientious objection “discrimination” is absurd. Discrimination connotes an act of unquestionable immorality. But there is nothing immoral about declining to serve at a gay wedding. A country not in thrall to gay activism would recognize that as an obvious and reasonable exemption from nondiscrimination laws.
Perhaps holding the view that such an exemption is legitimate, Pence avoided giving an answer to Stephanopoulos’s bullying question. But now under constant pounding from secularists and financial pressure from the business community, Pence is waving the white flag. He implied at a Tuesday press conference that he should have given Stephanopoulos the answer he wanted. He assured reporters that no denial of gay wedding services will be permitted under the new law. He then went back to singing the praises of religious freedom’s vitality. But how vital can religious freedom be if it doesn’t even apply to Christians dragooned into aiding and abetting gay weddings?
That is a far more serious violation of religious freedom than laws interfering with Peyote-smoking or the design of Amish carriages. Liberals can accept a trivialized conception of religious freedom that makes them feel like large-minded benefactors of “religious minorities.” But doctrinal Christians are a different story. They don’t count in the eyes of liberals as a religious minority, even though they increasingly are, and their supposedly eccentric views don’t command any sensitivity whatsoever.
It’s not tolerance when it’s a self-segregating group like Indians or Amish. It’s easy to tolerate someone who doesn’t witness against the falseness that you’ve let define your existence.
The debate is over. They’ve won and they don’t have to hide their contempt or their true intent anymore. As Andrew Walker said over at First Things: “It is impossible to will a world where religious liberty is protected while endorsing a jurisprudence that describes opposition to gay marriage as animus.” At this point, secession is the best outcome. The alternatives are this civil war heating up, dhimmi subjugation by secular authorities, and a Maoist cultural revolution.
And where is the faux-libertarian leader Rand Paul on this? The presidential candidate most closely identified with liberty has yet to come out in defense of private property. This is his opportunity and he’s blowing it. He showed such promise early on in his Senate career. Then he threw in with social liberals to appeal to potheads and sexual hedonists, whose conception of freedom is closer to license. They fail to realize that, even in “freedom,” they are slaves of the ones they obey, to paraphrase Romans 6:16.