Indiana law has homosexuals 'foaming at the mouth'

Critics of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's recent signature on his state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act are ignoring the fact the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution "both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion," Pence said.

And Monday, he said, "Many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action."

The signing has evoked strong reaction from "more rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth people than you can imagine," in the words of one observer. Many activists claim the law intended to protect religious rights will allow discrimination against homosexuals.

But does it?

"[J]ournalistic abuse has exploded into controversy over an innocuous religious freedom law in Indiana," wrote Gabriel Malor on The Federalist. "This law, known as a Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... tracks the language of the 1993 federal RFRA signed into law by President Clinton after a 97-3 vote in the Senate. But you would not necessarily know how innocuous it is from news media coverage. According to what you might hear in the news, this is an anti-gay law that is 'almost universally loathed,' and which a White House official suggested would 'legitimize discrimination.' Indiana's RFRA has none of these characteristics."

That 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton "unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer ...," reports the Weekly Standard.

"The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be 'substantially burdened' by a law only if the law furthers a 'compelling governmental interest' in the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.'"

Indiana is not alone in enacting protective legislation. Thirty-one states already have heightened protection for the exercise of religion. Eighteen of those states have laws based in the 1993 RFRA, and the protections in an additional 13 states came through court rulings.

Contrary to the incendiary verbiage from critics, the justification for RFRA is far removed from "gay" rights or same-sex "marriage" issues.

In an email to the Washington Post, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock explained, "There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."

Television commentator George Stephanopolous over the weekend interviewed Pence on ABC's "This Week" and insisted that the governor state whether he favored discrimination against "gays."

But negative reaction also has come from gaming enthusiasts who are threatening to relocate their massive Gen Con event, to another state. Seattle and San Francisco are banning city-funded travel to Indiana. Miley Cyrus posted an expletive-filled rant on Instagram against Pence. Indianapolis-based Angie's List announced it will cancel a $40 million headquarters expansion.

But others, tired of being pushed around by "gay"-rights activists, are relieved that religious freedom is being protected. They point out how "discrimination" is a two-way street, and "diversity of opinion" never includes anyone except liberals.

One man wrote to Angie's List in frustration over the company's refusal to cancel his subscription over the Indiana pullout.

"[Y]ou have forgotten that business is about serving customers honestly and profitably and not about manipulative social engineering," he wrote. "In choosing to champion a 2 percent to 3 percent homosexual subgroup or a 21 percent liberal political faction, you offend 97 percent to 98 percent of the general population in one case and 79 percent in the other.

"Homosexual activism has long engaged in tyranny in which they intimidate individuals and corporations into compliance," he continued in a letter to WND. "I call it the 'screaming child in a toy store' tactic which seems to get them everything they demand. ... I would recommend and encourage all Christians subscribing to Angie's List to politely cancel their subscriptions and explain exactly why. The company representative with whom I dialogued was convinced that Angie's List does not discriminate against anyone. Of course, their 'anyone' does not include Christians."