There are so many dialectics going on here (with the bill, not your post, Editor
) that I don't know where to start.
Last night I listened to a preacher on shortwave ranting about so-called Christians who won't call their "leaders" to convince them to pass the bill (which, as I understand, has been returned in Indiana). The surest way to make people scream for something is to tell them they can't have it. So Christians, especially, are all in a frenzy to force through something that is not good for them.
While I agree that a big part of the grab is in regards to private property, it goes so much deeper than that...
The property, at least an interest in it, was already grabbed back in 33. Unless you have land that you paid for with lawful money, removed from the state register, and don't pay the annual state rent on, you don't completely own your land.
Fictions can't own real things, only equitable things. Persons, corporations, etc. do not have complete ownership of anything. The creators of these fictions (This State) will always have claim of interest. So persons and corporations have this not so silent partner that can tell them what they can and can't do. Until persons break the nexus and become people of standing, they will only have the "rights" their creator (This State) decides they should have.
The "Religious Freedom" Bills are to extend States' right to protect their interests:
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.
To have complete ownership of anything, you must have all
interest. This State has a right and obligation (contractually and otherwise) to protect and promote its interests. For years, when people lived the best of fascism, they didn't mind this silent partner. Now that the partner is not so silent, they do mind, but not enough to break the ties and become fully liable for their own actions.
editor wrote:To force a man to bake a cake for another man against his will, no matter what his reasons, is to subject that man to involuntary slavery. Period.
Yes, but forcing a person/corporation to bake a cake for another person/corporation is to subject that person/corporation to compelled performance, which is "legal". Persons can't eat their cake and have it too.
Qualifier: When I speak of complete ownership, I only mean among men. Obviously Yahweh owns it all and can do as He sees fit.