WhatFinger


Oops!

Connecticut governor calls Indiana RFRA 'outright bigotry,' forgets to mention Connecticut has one just like it



So Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is a "bigot," eh? That's the word from Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, who has banned state-funded travel to Indiana because the latter just passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act - just like 19 other states. In a minute, I'll tell you what one of those states is, but first, here is more about what Malloy said:
“The governor’s not a stupid man, but he’s done stupid things,” said Malloy to Mika Brzezinski, “and signing this law, and, quite frankly, promoting this law, knowing exactly what it was going to do, was an incredibly stupid thing for him to do.” Pence, Malloy said, “knew exactly what he was doing, and when you see a bigot, you have to call them on it.” On Monday, Malloy suspended all state travel by his administration and other state employees to Indiana, calling the RFRA “disturbing, disgraceful and outright discriminatory.” “We cannot sit idly by and do nothing while laws are enacted that will turn back the clock,” Malloy said, saying that he “won’t allow any of our citizens in Connecticut to face discrimination in other states, at least without a fight.”
Well! If a state passes a law that amounts to outright bigotry, then sure! Ban all state-funded travel to that state! Except, er . . . one problem. If you're going to ban all state-funded travel to states that have RFRAs like the one Indiana just passed, then Connecticut state employees are going to have a hard time getting around. Because one of the 19 other states that have RFRAs like Indiana's is, you guessed it . . . Connecticut.

Support Canada Free Press


In fact, Sean Davis argues in a piece for The Federalist that the Connecticut RFRA goes even farther than Indiana's:
If you dislike Indiana’s RFRA, then you should loathe Connecticut’s. The difference comes down to a single phrase: “substantially burden.” Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction. Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law. The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.
Now how can it possibly be that Malloy's grandstanding is all over the national media, but none of the MSM stories covering it mention that Connecticut has its own RFRA with the elements David describes above? Is it that the reporters parroting Malloy's talking points are too stupid and/or lazy to check or ask about this? Or is it that they're so much in the pocket of Democrats and the gay lobby that they don't dare ask because they might not like what they find out? Actually the two are not mutually exclusive. Stupid, lazy people make excellent stenographers for dishonest propagandists. But what this really demonstrates is that this entire hysterical outcry about the RFRA is 100 percent a creation of the media. Here's why: The job of the media is supposed to be to report the facts. The facts about this law are that it doesn't do any of the things people are shrieking about. If their coverage was focused on the facts, then this would be widely understood. Instead, they report on what "activists" say they "fear" the law will do, and on the "economic damage" being wrought upon Indiana by people organizing boycotts and so forth. But since their reporting skips the basic facts, which would make clear to everyone that this law is not about promoting discrimination and does not do so, many people going around talking about the law really think it's about letting restaurant owners refuse to serve gay people. Indiana should not have to pass another law that "clarifies" what's already clear in the original bill. If the media did its job and reported on the bill accurately and with a focus on the facts, it would already be clear to everyone. But they don't. Why? Because they don't want to. They want to elevate the "fears" of activists to a place of credibility, even though they are completely baseless. Sure, activists would still shriek with hysterics no matter what the facts were. But if the media did its job, no one else would take them seriously. And sure as hell, no one would take seriously a hypocritical grandstander like Dannel Malloy. But the media in this country are a disgrace. They are the enemy of truth and the enemy of America.

Recommended by Canada Free Press



View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored