Indiana religious rights fury isn’t about legislating gay discrimination, it’s about legislating religious discrimination

The furor over Indiana passing the religious freedom restoration law is just the latest example of the left co-opting an issue for political gain. We know the back story now. President Clinton signed similar federal legislation. A couple dozen other states also have similar legislation on the books. Obama signed on as a state senator. So there’s no precedent here, just hypocrisy from the left.

This is an example of the Obama charter of negative liberties. You may recall this interview Obama gave.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

In other words, this isn’t an issue about potentially legalizing gay discrimination. What Obama and his LGBT community brown shirt supporters want is for legislation to be passed to dictate that all will actively promote the LGBT community. Tolerance is nowhere near enough. They want the government to intervene “on your behalf” to force all Americans, not just limited to religious objection, to promote their views.

The Founders inserted limitations in our Constitution to keep church and state separate. The Supreme Court never ventured into areas Obama objects to because those aren’t areas in which laws need to be clarified. Pursuing an agenda to rectify a non-existent “charter of negative liberties” is the mantra of the left. Activist judges and courts that legislate from the bench. It violates the spirit of the Constitution as well as the language used by the Founders.

This is collectivism trumping individualism. It is how our liberties are slowly and methodically stripped away bit by bit. Ignorant Americans will embrace the emotional aspect of this issue. They will buy into the idea that this is an attack on the rights of gays. Reinforcing existing protections such as religious freedom is seen as an attack on gay rights. In lefty world, you cannot have both mutually exclusive. It is a pendulum in which protection of rights under law they don’t agree with must infringe upon the rights of those they do support.

This issue, as well as an ever increasing list of others, is a prime example of why the opposite of what Obama calls for is true. We don’t need government at any level intruding in our lives to dictate how we must live them. Obama said “what the government must do on our behalf”. Precisely the problem.