Boycott Indiana? What Next?

(TheTrumpet) Indiana is in the news—and not just for hosting the Final Four in the NCAA national basketball tournament. The state passed a law on March 26 reaffirming First Amendment religious freedoms, saying that the government cannot coerce or force business owners from acting contrary to their conscience or religious convictions.

The law does not specifically reference sexuality or green-light discrimination on the basis of sexuality. But it does grant protection for private companies to do business in accordance with their religious beliefs, giving them access to a court in order to prove that their religious liberty is “substantially burdened” in a dispute.

This has set the maddened mobs on fire.

The crusaders for “tolerance” are incensed. They contend that the law could mean people denying service to homosexual would-be customers. They say anyone unwilling to contribute to a homosexual wedding should be fined or jailed into submission. And this movement is organized. Immediately, #BoycottIndiana became a trending topic on Twitter and other social media. Homosexual supporters are attempting to freeze the whole state out of the national economy. And they are having some success.

Seattle and San Francisco both imposed bans on all state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy signed an executive order imposing the same ban for his entire state, and the state of Washington quickly followed suit. Some of Indiana’s biggest employers, such as SalesForce and Angie’s List, made public stands against engaging in further business in Indiana. Media and politicians have bombarded Indiana with vitriol.

Rewind to 1993. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed 97-3 in the Senate and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. The ACLU supported it.

This Indiana law is a version of that same law. It doesn’t force anyone to do anything. It doesn’t segregate. It protects against force, against government coercion.

How times have changed. Twenty-two years later, the liberals who supported RFRAnow denounce it. They treat even the remote possibility of someone having legal means to defend a Bible-based business decision as hateful. They insist that the government should be able and is in fact obligated to force an individual to act contrary to his religious convictions. This coercion is necessary in order to protect the rights of homosexuals to live in a world where every last person they interact with behaves as though their actions are wonderful. Any business that won’t cater to them should be shut down.

Outspoken devotees of homosexuality want to penalize anyone who isn’t openly supportive. They would love a society where everyone wholeheartedly embraced homosexuality—but barring that, they want a Disneyland where everyone at least is forced to pretend to embrace it.

In the world they are creating, if you don’t love homosexuality, you had better pretend you do, or the government will come after you.