"Bishop Waldo's Nazi reference should bother traditional Christians in his diocese. How long will he tolerate priests and/or parishes in his diocese who 'discriminate' against gays by refusing to participate in the same sex-blessing rite? Aren't those priests and parishes forcing gays to wear pink triangles? And he condones that?

"Was he not aware that South Carolina has similar legislation, and was he at the State house when an amendment to that legislation was introduced this year?"

VOL checked and the answer is no.

"Is he aware that the Indiana legislation is similar to a Federal law signed by former President Bill Clinton? Has he even read the legislation?"

Here is what the Indiana bill in question actually says:

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

Section. 9 states: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

However, an Indiana University law professor, Daniel Conkle, who testified in favor of the bill in Indiana legislative committees, said he was a supporter of gay rights and that the predictions of negative implications from the law are unjustified.

Conkle, who has written extensively on religious legal issues, said he didn't know of any cases under similar state laws or the federal statute, which dates to 1993, where a court sided with a religious objector in a discrimination case.

"This 'license-to-discriminate' argument that seems to have this relentless repetition is just legally wrong," Conkle said Friday. "It is as if you just keep repeating something often enough, it takes on a life of its own."

This exposes the Bishop's flawed reasoning.

Waldo, who can hardly be accused of being a deep thinker, said this in 2013 about efforts in The Episcopal Church to broker in same-sex marriage, "Any time there are significant questions in our Church, it is critical that we engage in thoughtful, intentional dialogue. It is an important time in the life of the Church for us to address a host of biblical, theological, historical, pastoral liturgical and canonical questions on Christian marriage that face us."

Bishop Waldo, who said he favors the blessings for same-sex couples, but challenged efforts to revise the Church's definition of marriage. Such a challenge is not common among other members of the task force. So now he has changed his mind and believes those who oppose gay marriage have the mentality of latter day Nazis!!!

Wrote the blogger, "So what will it be, can a Christian baker refuse to bake a gay wedding cake? If 'No, no, no, that is deeply immoral, un-Christian, cynical and un-American,' then will Bishop Waldo condone an Episcopal priest in Upper South Carolina who refuses to bless a gay 'marriage', or is that priest 'un-Christian' too?

"Who will be the ones wearing armbands in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina?"

Andrew Walker writing in First Things said this, "All that a Religious Freedom Restoration Act does is initiate a balancing test when a private citizen feels that their religious freedom has been infringed upon by the federal government. It provides extra level of strict scrutiny protection by requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest for violating someone's religious liberty, and requires the infringement to be done in the least restrictive means. Yes, it contains an extra provision that helps adjudicate matters between the government and the aggrieved party, but also between private parties. RFRA ensures that religious liberty is taken seriously in such cases. It does not mean that it will prevail. If the RFRA is good and helpful in cases arising between the government and private individuals, it is as well in cases between private individuals. If people oppose the Indiana statute over its difference from the federal law, they ought simply to oppose both--a radical position indeed.

"Calls for boycotting Indiana after its legislature signed a bill virtually identical to what was signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton indicates that we've reached a new day for religious liberty. The myth that religious liberty can meaningfully exist in any historic sense of the term alongside gay marriage has now been debunked.

"According to the Republican signatories of a recent amicus brief, the fourteenth amendment requires that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples. At the same time, many of these individuals affirm the importance of religious liberty. But robust religious liberty protections will go to the wayside as the legal balance tips in favor of sexual liberty.

"You can't have it both ways. It is impossible to will a world where religious liberty is protected while endorsing a jurisprudence that describes opposition to gay marriage as animus. One side's vision of public morality will win out. Conservatives and Republicans who think that religious liberty can exist in a world with same-sex marriage should be disabused of such utopic foolishness after this week's shameful and dishonest attempts by the media to quash Indiana's religious freedom bill. That's the future of the debate about religious liberty in America."

One doubts Bishop Waldo begins to even understand what this says or means, but then again anyone who doesn't oppose the Religious Freedom Legislation might end up a Nazi!

END