In yet another example of why Progressives are such truly awful people, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D, WI) informs us that
Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.
Actually, she didn’t say that. The transcript from MSNBC conveniently cuts out an “uh” every other word. Watching the video is like watching a victim of brain trauma try to manufacture a thought.
This elitist puke — and of course, she’s from Wisconsin, home of Progressivism — seems to think that religious protects only apply to institutiions…see, you have no right to religious expression. That would be the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment as specified by its authors, as shown in The Federalist Papers or repeated legal findings from the lowest courts to the Supreme Court. But that doesn’t matter to Progressives — they don’t like you expressing or living by standards that aren’t set by politicians and their “expert” advisors.
Let’s have another look at the First Amendment and see how ambiguous the writing is…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Damn that’s some hard reading. (Emphasis mine.) Take a gander at the spot Progressives and atheists always miss — or the free expression thereof…the state cannot establish or favor a religion (sorry, Bible-thumpers and Allah-grovellers!), but it also cannot stop you from exercising it. That means wearing garb or a symbol of your faith; that means speaking of your faith; that means live by those precepts as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
That’s what we call “tolerance”, folks who claim to be tolerant… Here’s the dictionary definition, if you are confused:
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Here’s the natural evolution of this sort of thinking. The First Amendment is not an individual right for religious expression. If it’s not an individual right, then the rest of the law is also not an individual right….that means not right to free expression of any kind, nor the ability to redress the government for its many transgressions. And since one of the Bill of Rights isn’t a individual right, aren’t they all — by extension — reserved to the People. They’re a gift from a benevolent state that will revoke them when they don’t like what you are doing, saying, or thinking.
Which is exactly what people like this awful example of human being, Baldwin, are after: not just obedience, but by curtailing your speech and thought, they hope to make you believe. All they need is a Room 101.