Friday, March 08, 2013

The misguided opponents of the Religious Freedom Act and their discontents

House Bill 279, the Religious Freedom Act, passed the Kentucky State Senate tonight midst warnings of universal doom from several Democratic opponents. Kathy Stein (D-Lexington) gave a rambling floor speech argued that the bill would do everything from protect men who abuse their wives to protecting discrimination against Blacks--at least in South Carolina barbecue restaurants.

It's hard to credit Stein, who is a lawyer and surely knows better, with sincerity. Does she really not know that, for example, civil rights related to race are considered a compelling interest in federal law?

In the floor debate over this bill, the opponents were unable to produce a single case from 1938 to 1990 when the strict scrutiny test re-installed with HB 279 was in effect, or since 1993 when it was re-instituted at the federal level or in Kentucky until October 25 of last year when it was abandoned by the Kentucky Supreme Court where any of the depredations they warned of ever occurred.

There weren't any of the blatant smears like those leveled by State Rep. Kelly Flood (D-Lexington) on the House floor. Maybe we should just be thankful for that.

But as usual, the gay rights advocates who are always claiming that people hate them were accusing those who supported this bill with ... hate. Funny how you just never feel the love from these champions of Tolerance and Diversity.

Just check out the Twitter feed on this bill. It's a bunch of people who are apparently completely ignorant of the law and apparently don't check out the bogus claims of the Fairness Alliance and the ACLU on these things.

It's pretty pitiful.


Art said...

This bill is great news. It's a core belief of my religion that traffic laws are all optional. This means that I will be permitted to ignore all of those annoyances - stop signs, traffic lights, lane markers, speed limits, etc.

KY just got a tiny bit more like India (anyone who has traveled in India knows what I mean.)

Martin Cothran said...


I see you are of the same intellectual persuasion as the ACLU attorney who argued that it was crafty plan to help churchgoers get out of parking tickets.

So can you produce cases in which things like this have happened when this standard was in effect in the United States from 1938 to 1990, or when it went back into effect in 1993 (after 1997 only for the federal government) or in any of the many states that have the same standard?

Or are you just blowing smoke?

Art said...

If, under this new law, Amish persons will be permitted to ignore a particular traffic law because of some religious conviction, then why would not the same law apply to my religious convictions?

Please quote the sections of the bill that make this distinction.

Martin Cothran said...


Please quote the sections of the bill that permit Amish persons to ignore particular traffic law.