According to the paper, the Religious Freedom Bill, House Bill 279, passed because of political cowardice and pandering.
"Cowardice," is often defined as the act of a soldier running away from battle during war. But what war? Could it be a war on Christianity? Now I know your response will be that there is no attack on religious freedoms. Indeed, you will deny the very existence of such a war. Yet, tell that to the owners of Hands On Originals or Chik-fil-A, who were vehemently attacked by government officials and agencies for expressing their personal religious beliefs. Tell that to the high school coach who gets sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for offering a prayer of protection before a ballgame. Tell that to the teacher who gets sued for saying, "Happy Thanksgiving," "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter." Tell that to the valedictorian who gets enjoined from mentioning God in her graduation speech. Tell that to the county judge-executive who gets sued for posting the Ten Commandments. Tell that to the student who tries to pray or read her Bible during school. Tell that to the citizens whose governor decided the State Capitol needed a "holiday tree" as opposed to a Christmas Tree.
You don't think our religious freedoms are under attack? The evidence shows otherwise.
Despite being guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Sections 1 and 5 of the Kentucky Constitution Bill of Rights, secular progressives value religious liberty only so long as it is practiced behind closed doors at home or in church. Hence, their opposition to HB 279.
No, during the debates on HB 279, many of us did not run from the battle. Quite the contrary, some stood, myself included, to face the opposition and confront the attack. You may not agree with our position, but you cannot say we ran from the fight.
Finally, the prediction of "nightmare scenarios" because HB 279 became law, sounds a little like "the sky is falling": lots of law-breakers motivated by "sincerely held beliefs," a barrage of complaints, government waste and so on. Yet amazingly, none of that was happening last October, before the Kentucky Supreme Court decided in the Amish case to change the law to restrict religious freedom. And that's what necessitated the filing and eventual passage of HB 279, to restore the law to what is was, to once again protect our religious freedoms from overzealous government infringement.
Pandering? No. Fighting for religious liberty? Yes.
At issue: March 29 editorial "Beshear's veto showed integrity, but political fear ruled legislature."