Indiana Republicans Reward Homosexual Activists, Target Christians

hammerYou just have to wonder how “Republicans” can be this stupid. You just have to wonder how anyone could possibly be this stupid and manage to make it out of bed in the morning without breaking their neck.

“Republicans” in Indiana have managed to do what today’s “Republicans” are so good at: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They took a done-deal law that protected religious freedom in their state from hate-filled homosexual activists…and not only are they on the verge of annihilating that good act, but are poised to stick it to the same Christians they originally set out to protect.

As we heard yesterday, after homosexual activists and their “useful idiot” mouthpieces in the “mainstream” media came unglued that religious freedom might actually be protected in Indiana, Governor Mike Pence called on his fellow “Republicans” to “fix” a perfectly good and just law.

As many of us feared, the proposed “fix” does more than just “clarify” the Indiana RFRA; it guts it, makes it worthless, reverses it, and declares open season on Christians in Indiana.

The text of the proposed “fix” from Fox59 in Indianapolis:

This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military services; (2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military Service

As Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner stated regarding the “fix””

Woodrow Wilcox


“The religious freedom law is a good law. It does not pick winners or losers, but allows courts to weigh the government’s and people’s interests fairly and directs judges to count the cost carefully when freedom is stake. The new proposal unjustly deprives citizens their day in court, denies freedom a fair hearing, and rigs the system in advance. It gives the government a new weapon against individual citizens who are merely exercising freedoms that Americans were guaranteed from the founding of this country. Surrendering to deception and economic blackmail never results in good policy.”

In Indiana, there have been none of the asinine discrimination protections for homosexual behavior until this proposed “fix.”  This proposed “fix” would not only make the Indiana RFRA useless, it will turn the shield the RFRA was intended to be into a club with which to beat Christians into a pulp. Any Christian business owner who exercises their religious freedom to decline to participate in a counterfeit wedding will be hammered–as they have in other states–on the basis of this claim that engaging in a dangerous and immoral sexual behavior is somehow a legitimate basis for legal protection. By making homosexual behavior a basis for legal protection, no one will be allowed to refuse any demand made by homosexuals.

Consider for a moment the list of bases for protection.  Only one of these is comprised of a dangerous and immoral sexual behavior–and even then, with the issue at hand, virtually no one is refusing service to homosexuals, only refusing to perform services which facilitate an activity or lend credibility to an activity the business owner considers immoral. There is no legitimate reason to refuse service to someone because of their skin color–an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic. There is every reason to refuse to participate in an activity which is immoral, i.e the counterfeiting of a marriage by homosexual activists.


In fact, to force someone to perform an act which violates their moral values is to assault them and rob them of the most sacred of all properties: their right of conscience.

The men who founded our great nation recognized this:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. – Thomas Jefferson

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. – James Madison

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. – New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. – James Madison

Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. – John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers

There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable.  — George Washington, letter to Benedict Arnold, Sept. 14, 1775

Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. – Thomas Jefferson

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. – James Madison

Now all acts of the legislature apparently contradictory to natural rights and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered void. The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him, from whose punishment they cannot protect us. All human laws which contradict His laws we are in conscience bound to disobey. – George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights [Christian rights] of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I should never have placed my signature to it; and, if I could now conceive that the General Government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. – George Washington

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams

Of course, weapons against freedom such as this proposed “fix” in no way negate or supersede the religious freedom protections guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the religious freedom protections found in state constitutions.  However, the selective myopia that currently plagues our dysfunctional society tends to ignore higher laws in favor of lesser ones (as long as those lesser ones enable the immoral behavior desired by the Left), and too many on the Right are too stupid, too naive, and too scared to hold the line.

When will our so-called leaders on the Right wake up, pull their heads out and realize that the Left cannot and will not be appeased?  When will the “leaders” (who should rightfully be called “surrenderers”) on the Right figure it out that liberals are never going to like them?  When will they realize there is already a liberal party of record (the Democrat Party) to pursue the liberal agenda, so why would anyone favor a “me too” version favored by RINOs?  And that if Republicans would just stick to what is right, they would gain the respect and support of conservatives who have come to expect their “leaders” to behave like idiots and surrender?  Few people respect weakness and cowardice; evil most certainly has no respect for it (ask Neville Chamberlain).  If you cower in fright before your enemies, not only will your enemies not respect you, the people in your own camp can’t respect you, either.

Why are today’s “Republicans” so utterly incapable of grasping things that were simple common sense only a generation or two ago? Perhaps because “we the people” have for too long given them a pass for their stupidity and betrayals.  Perhaps because “we the people” have expected too little of them, because they were the “lesser of two evils.”  Look what this dereliction of duty on the part of “we the people” has wrought.

In an example of profound irony, this proposed “fix” surrender comes on the heels of a display of the typical homosexual and Leftist “tolerance” resulting in a business having to close down after death threats for having the audacity to state, when asked, that they, as Christians, will actually obey the Bible and refuse to participate in a counterfeit wedding.

It is beyond obvious which camp is the vociferous enemy of freedom and public safety, yet it is the enemy of freedom and public safety that gets legal protection from Indiana “Republicans.”  Hammer those who believe in what is morally upright, and offer protection for those who seek to tyrannize and terrorize those who disagree with them.

We now truly live in an upside-down Isaiah 5:20 world.

We can only hope that these “Republicans” in Indiana will come to their senses before it’s too late, and we yet again see the “Republican” Party accomplish yet another victory for the Democrats and the rest of the Left.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all posts by Bob Ellis
Bobs website
  • Well if it’ll make you feel any better, Bob, it’s still perfectly legal for any private business to turn away Gay customers, RFRA or not. Although a couple counties and a handful of cities have local civil rights ordinances that include sexual orientation as a protected category, there is no state law prohibiting discrimination against Gay people.

    • With “Republicans” paving the way with this “fix,” it’s only a matter of (short) time before Christian businesses are not only hammered with hate like that pizza place that had to close out of fear for the safety of their staff, but will be officially hammered by their own government for daring to exercise their religious liberty.

      • franklinb23

        If you provide and sell product “x” to the public, you should be required to provide this product to everyone, regardless of what you think about the customer. Exceptions would be when your service involves renting out your own residence (such as an inn or b&b). In fact, no reason needed but “I don’t like the cut of your jib.”

        Further, you should not be forced to change or customize your product in a way for any reason whatsoever, nor should you be forced to provide a product that isn’t an integral part of your business. This means that religious owners should not be forced to cover contraception or abortion services.

        This seems a reasonable approach. You can’t just give carte blanche to businesses to discriminate, though. This ends up benefitting almost no one and can potentially harm some minorities, depending on where one lives.

        In terms of that pizzeria, well, we live in a largely uncivilized society. I wouldn’t take it as a general movement towards institutionalized persecution. The store’s GoFundMe account has raised quite a bit for them, with many donors not necessarily agreeing with their stance but who disagree with how they’ve been treated.

        • Actually, no you shouldn’t.

          If you put forth your property and energy to start and run a business, that business is YOURS. It belongs to YOU and no one else.

          Black economist Walter E. Williams explains it much better than I ever could, so I’ll encourage you to read just a little bit of what he has written on the subject of freedom and the free market (

          You are right to recognize that religious business owners shouldn’t be forced to pay for contraception and abortifacients if that violates their conscience.

          They also shouldn’t be forced to provide services which lend the illusion of credibility and legitimacy to behaviors that violate their conscience.

          What many people forget (or never realize, given the pathetic excuse for education and information provided by our education and media establishments) in todya’s pro-homosexual hysteria is that the big discrimination scandal of the past involved businesses being FORCED by laws made by Democrats to discriminate against Americans of certain skin colors. Just as Democrats of today want to force businesses to do the government’s bidding, whether they agree or not and whether it violates their conscience or not, so the Democrats of yesteryear did the same.

          This great nation was founded on principles that allowed every American to live according to conscience and conduct their affairs however they see fit, so long as that conduct did not proactively bring harm to their fellow Americans. Those principles are what made us the powerhouse we quickly became and have been for 200 years.

          It’s high time we ended this flirtation with Marxism, statism and tyranny, and returned to the American standard of freedom.

        • Thisoldspouse

          “If you provide and sell product “x” to the public, you should be required to provide this product to everyone, regardless of what you think about the customer.”

          Says a fascist. Franklin, you are so blind that you cannot see that this is the ESSENCE of fascism.

          • franklinb23

            I don’t know your gender, but I’m assuming you’re a female.

            Suppose you’re in the middle of a large city at night. It’s dark and raining. There are plenty of cabs, but unfortunately, most of them are being driven by Muslim men (which isn’t a stretch to believe, depending on the city). Because you’re unaccompanied, none of them are picking you up despite the fact that they’re unoccupied. Why? “Religious objections”.

            You’d have no problem with this? Their personal “discomfort” takes priority over your convenience and perhaps even personal health and safety? You’d just throw up your hands and say “Bless the free market! Why, I guess I’ll walk fifteen miles!” ?

            If so, I’ll concede you’d at least be consistent.

            • Thisoldspouse

              Cab drivers (I was once one in a large metropolitan city) may already turn down ANY fare that they want, no questions asked.

              Find a better example.

              • franklinb23

                Let me try to rephrase this.

                At some point, someone’s claim to religious liberty is going to come into conflict with someone else’s claim to legal protection and rights.

                Let’s say the owner of this cab company establishes a policy that no cab driver can deny service to single passengers, even if they’re women. The cab driver has already been hired. Does the employer have a right to fire their own employee for refusing to abide by their own terms of employment, or are you going to claim that the right to religious liberty trumps every other consideration all the time?

                There are considerations between employers and employees as well as companies and their customers. You seem to be implying that religious freedom considerations are pre-eminent above all else, but I could be wrong. If you ARE, though, realize what the implications of this are for consumers as well as employers and employees.

                This isn’t an impossible case. There has already been a suit against Abercrombie & Fitch over the alleged “rights” of a Muslim employee to wear a head covering (in violation of company dress code).

              • Who owns the cab business? Whoever put forth the money and energy to start and run the cab company gets to decide how it’s run. If a cab driver who works for the person who owns the company doesn’t want to serve a single woman, he can go look for a job somewhere else. He can even start his own cab company in a free country like America, and he can make his policy that he won’t give rides to single women.

                This stuff really isn’t hard. It’s only when people get wrapped around the axle, show contempt for freedom and the free market, and get all lathered up about forcing other people to do things the way THEY want them to rather than the way those free people want to conduct themselves.

                When principles of freedom and property rights were followed, it worked very well for 200 years. We need to return to the Judeo-Christian principles that once held sway in this country, and end this regressive infatuation with tyranny.

              • Let me give you a real-world example.

                Many years ago, I was working for a private sector company that employed thousands of people. Most of us used PCs in the course of our jobs, and we were allowed certain latitude about how we decorated our cubicles and things we put on our computers. Another Christian fellow and I put Bible verses on the Windows-standard screen saver on our PCs. Our boss didn’t like that (apparently flowers or quotes from Aristotle were okay, though) and told us not to put Bible verses on our screen savers. Since my friend and I didn’t own the company, and we didn’t want to go find a job elsewhere, we complied and took the Bible verses off the screen savers.

                Pretty simple.

              • Thisoldspouse

                I understand where you’re coming from, but again, the example was a bad one.

                Cabs, at least in most instances, are operated in one of three ways.
                1) They are leased by the cab company to sole proprietor drivers.
                2) They are purchased by private individuals or companies to be operated by, again, sole proprietors.
                3) They are leased by the owners, other than the cab company, to sole proprietor drivers.

                In any event, the drivers are either operating their own business, or are voluntary employees of the owers of the cabs.

                There are minimal local laws governing how the cabs are operated, such as maximum/minimum rates to charge, and other safety-related issues, such as driver time behind the wheel. Other than that, drivers may operate as they wish.

            • There are no other cabs around? No other cabs or cab companies can be called? Not at all realistic…just like the supposition that we’re somehow supposed to believe that a homosexual couple who insists on counterfeiting marriage can’t find a baker who will help them do it. (And the last time I checked, no one’s property, health or life depended on getting a wedding cake made at a particular Christian bakery).

              • In Charleston, West Virginia (where I live), there is only one cab company. In fact, the West Virginia Public Service Commission allows cab companies to be monopolies in individual cities. So if the company wanted to discriminate against Gay fares (as some Republican lawmakers actually wanted to ALLOW them to do during our last legislative session), I would have no alternative.

              • Can’t take a bus? Get a ride from a friend? Buy a car? Rent a car? Walk? Ride a bicycle?

                I also find it hard to believe that Charleston only has one cab company, when my town is about the same population (and Charleston metropolitan area is about 3 times as big as mine) and we have four major taxi companies and several smaller “mom and pop” taxi services. According to what I found in 30 seconds online, there are two major cab companies in Charleston, and who knows how many “mom and pop” operations there may be that aren’t on the online radar.

                What’s more, as we all know, the overwhelming majority of businesses do not discriminate on ANY basis, except for a few who are asked to do things that violate their consciences. And even then, many people will choose mammon over morality.

                As usual, I think we have here another Leftist “solution” in search of a theoretical problem, or as it is more commonly known, a thin excuse to wield tyranny over people with moral convictions.

  • Frank

    The reality is that sexual orientation cannot be quantified. A belief in sexual orientation is purely religious, on par with a belief in unicorns. The term ‘sexual orientation’ is deceptive in that it is intended to present their sexual preferences as some sort of innate, biological programming that they have no control over. Persons who are ignorant and accept this as a ‘scientific fact’ thereby internalize the term ‘sexual orientation’ as describing something which actually exists.

    I think this is more about a group of people who are basically attempting to see if they can get away with forcing various religions to change their texts. All these people actually look at religious people as being ‘crazy’ to believe in something that doesn’t exist (ie g-d), and so they taunt us by creating terms to describe other things that don’t exist so that they can force us to believe in them based upon a claim that if you believe in one thing that you cannot see, then you should believe in other things you cannot see.

    The entire purpose of religion, is to acknowledge a belief in things you cannot see or prove to exist. For that reason, homosexuality has always been a religion rather than a ‘sexual orientation’ because the entire premise of the religion is belief in a term that describes something that doesn’t exist.

    So when it comes to religious discrimination, the question is simple. Can a Jew refuse to serve a Christian food if they come into their restaurant? I would argue that it depends. If a christian walks into the restaurant and demands pork, then the Jew can tell him to leave. Service of goods is a tricky issue, and each incident has to be taken on a case by case basis. With regards to homosexuals, if a homosexual walks into a christian restaurant, there is no way for the restaurant to even know the person is homosexual so there would be no basis to invoke denial of service. Now if a restaurant has a ‘no sexual display’ policy, and two men come into the restaurant holding hands and kissing each other, then yes you can reject them and in that case, you would be rejecting them because of their display of sexuality. Now there are some businesses that are actually dedicated to sexuality, such as the marriage support businesses and the religious support businesses that assist in religious rituals related to various forms of marriage. In any of those businesses, if a homosexual person walks in an demands service for a definition of sex that is not supported by the business owner, the business owner can refuse to provide the service. This is no different than if a person walks into business and attempts to buy an item that is designated for a specific purpose, to thereby use for a different purpose. If i walk into an islamic business and ask to buy a prayer rug, and when i inform the vendor that i want to use the prayer rug as a doormat, the vender could refuse to sell it to you because it would violate the purpose for which he provided the product, which is to be used for prayer and not to be dirtied and destroyed as a door mat.

    There is no difference with businesses who are intending their products to be used for a specific purpose (ie heterosexual marriage ceremonies), wherein they find out that someone wants to buy them for a different reason for which they were not intending to provide the product (ie a homosexual marriage).

    So it is merely a situation where things have to be reviewed on a case by case basis, but what homosexuals want is for a blanket authority to harm anyone that does not support their religious beliefs by either contributing to them or assisting to support them. This is the goal of all the anti-discrimination bills being advanced by the homosexuals as these bills are anything but an attempt to keep their ‘rights’ from being infringed upon, but rather an attempt to obtain the legal ability to target persons who do not join their religion with legalized harassment

    • AJCastellitto

      No scientific evidence for gay propensities or pedophilia, etc…… We are fallen creatures prone to all kinds of wickedness…… We need to be taught, disciplined and most importantly redeemed.

  • AJCastellitto

    Next week I am going to work and will let everyone know Ive decided I’m a woman, I will proceed to use the female facilities and in the process evoke major outrage ….. I’ve been to a work training that said it would be permissible….. Women who had not been at that particular training in which that example was given were absolutely terrified of such a prospect….. Oh well…… Too bad!!!

    Of course I would never but I ‘could’….. Think where we are headed, started with no fault divorce, sex revolution, etc. and going downhill ever since. People are as miserable as ever!!!

  • DCM7

    The thing that often gets lost in all this discussion about “discrimination” is that, as much as we’re supposed to pretend otherwise, abnormal sexual preferences simply cannot be put on the same level as other potential “discrimination” factors.

    Same-sex attraction is NOT comparable to race.
    Same-sex attraction is NOT comparable to gender.
    Same-sex attraction is NOT comparable to religion or other cultural considerations.

    Same-sex attraction is ONLY comparable to other abnormal sexual preferences, such as pedophilia. Not that I’m not *equating* the two things, as often as there is overlap and connection between them, but I *am* pointing out that they’re in the same category.

    A behavior that is demonstrably abnormal and unhealthy — no matter how loudly this is denied — is NOT a valid criteria for protection from discrimination.

    We’re supposed to pretend that the desire, in men, to have sex with males over 18 has nothing in common with the desire, in men, to have sex with males under 17. We’re also supposed to pretend that this desire has a lot in common with something like skin color.

    Sorry, but some of us are NOT going to go along with this pretense. You might as well ask me to swear that 1+1=5 just because “everyone else does.”

    • franklinb23

      DCM writes: “Same-sex attraction is NOT comparable to religion or other cultural

      Which does one have more power of choice over: one’s sexual orientation (and I mean orientation, not behavior) or one’s religious affiliation?

      There is certainly no genetic basis for Mormonism, Catholicism or anything else. Why does someone’s choice to follow the teachings of Joseph Smith (who had multiple wives, some under the age of 16) grant them immunity from every form of discrimination when someone’s sexual orientation cannot?

      • DCM7

        First of all, who says people wanting multiple wives, including some under the age of 16, would be granted immunity from every form of discrimination?
        At any rate, it’s not a matter of what one has more power of choice over. No one should think that abnormal sexual preferences are *easy* to get away from. However, the experiences of many people show that they are both *possible* and *desirable* to get away from.
        Trying to compare abnormal sexual preferences (sorry, but “sexual orientation,” as any kind of innate quality, remains an utterly fictitious concept) to cultural things like religion just doesn’t work — it’s the old apples to oranges thing.
        Unacceptable practices *may* be associated with a man-made religion, or they may be associated with abnormal sexual preferences. That changes nothing about their unacceptability.
        Sorry, but you’re doing the old “start with the desired conclusion and try to reason backwards” trick. Doesn’t work.

  • retiredday

    Discrimination. What a concept! I, for one, have grown weary of the very limited use of the word ‘discrimination’. It’s been turned into a hot pink, flashing, neon buzzword signifying hatred and injury to others. But…

    I have an old Dictionary (1971) that gives the secondary usage as “To act on the basis of prejudice” but the primary usage is “To make a clear distinction; distinguish; differentiate”. It can be said that a discriminating person has good taste, good judgement and certainly a good reputation. It takes discrimination to know the difference between right and wrong.

    Increasingly, our society is defending the so-called “equal rights” of moral deviants specifically because we as a society no longer discriminate between right and wrong. Pro-gay advocates are so perverted in the way they perceive equal justice that they see nothing wrong in denying Christians and others their God-given right to agree with God and believe that sin is sin, according to Biblical revelation.

    Soon, Christians will be celebrating the resurrection of Christ. He gives us victory over ALL sin. All we need to do is repent. Demanding the right to sin doesn’t lead to eternal life. Only if we are in him will we know eternal life. He has led the way. Will you follow? Or will you go to your death demanding your right to sin against God?

    • Thisoldspouse

      Remember when advertisers used to appeal to potential customers (back in saner days) by saying things like, “for the man of discriminating taste,” or “discriminating men like ____?” It was actually seen as a POSITIVE character trait.