RUSH: We’ve had Josh Earnest weigh in on Mike Pence’s remarks today in Indiana, talking about fixing the bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It’s at the press briefing today, and Julie Pace from the AP said to Josh Earnest, “Okay, Governor Pence said earlier this morning that he wants to amend the legislation to clarify that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. Does the White House feel that that’s the right approach, to amend the bill, or do you support a full repeal of the Indiana law?”

EARNEST: We’ve seen the governor and other Indiana officials in damage control mode here because this law has provoked an outcry from business leaders across the state of Indiana. Understandably, we see business leaders saying that they are reluctant to do business in a state where their customers, or even their employees, could be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love. That’s not fair, it’s not consistent with our values as a country that we —

RUSH: Ah, wait a minute. Stop the tape. We gotta deal with something else here ’cause I’m starting to see this phrase all over the place, “We can’t allow these customers or employees to be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love.” Who they love. It’s not about who anybody loves. It’s about gay marriage. It’s about people who have religious prohibitions against it. It’s about gay marriage. It’s not about homosexuality. It’s not about honoring disagreement, discrimination against homosexuality. It’s about people whose religious beliefs prohibit them from
engaging in activity which lends credence or support to gay marriage.

But this business of who you love, where does that stop? If you’re gonna start throwing the phrase around “who you love,” what happens if you love your dog, which we have had a story of a UK woman who wanted to marry her dog, I think, and did. Do you remember that? Married a dolphin. Okay. Whatever. She wanted marry an animal that was not a man. Where is this “who you love” business? That’s a catchphrase, that’s designed to silence all opposition because who opposes love? My God, we need more love in the world. What are you doing, you’re against love? People love each other, it’s horrible you’re against love. We need more love in the world.

That’s precisely why they use this phrase “who they love.” But who they love, what does that mean? Where does that stop? Well, hey, I’m not the one using the phrase. Don’t get mad at me for thinking about a woman who wanted to marry her, or did marry, a damn dolphin. I didn’t. I’m not making it up. She loves the dolphin. Is it legit? So, anyway, that’s not fair, that’s not fair. The point here, Mike Pence, the point is — oh, gosh, I just saw the clock.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Sanford, Maine, this is Period. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hello.

RUSH: Hello, Period. How are you?

CALLER: This is David. I’m sorry. I apologize. Thanks for taking my call, Rush.

RUSH: Oh, it says Period.

CALLER: The guy from West Virginia that said that we shouldn’t hold conservative views about abortion and homosexuality, he thinks that Christians should retreat from the public square and we don’t count. Second thing. The homosexual issue is about accepting their lifestyle 100%, and if you divert from that, they will come after you personally, business wise, and even the governor of the state, who is a good man. Third thing, you hear talk about discrimination, discrimination, discrimination, this is about influencing the Supreme Court on homosexual marriage. Thank you. Have a great day and I’d love to hear what you have to say. Bye.

RUSH: All right, thanks very much, Period. Great to have you on the EIB — well, there’s a period up there where his name was. I thought that was the name he gave. Oh, there it is. It says David up there now. Okay. He’s responding, if you missed it, one of the first calls of the day was from a guy much like some guests that came to my house for dinner one night that I didn’t know, they were friends of friends, who basically were of the opinion that we should throw Sarah Palin overboard because the media had destroyed her and there was no way of saving her, and since she’s done, it’s just a waste of time, plus she’s stupid.

And I, having told you this story before, will rein it in. I said, “So you guys want to let the media pick our candidates, and if the media disqualifies somebody, they’re gone?”

“That’s pretty much right. I mean, if the media can destroy them, Rush, then what good are they?”

I said, “So you’re perfectly fine, you don’t care to defend anybody, if somebody really thinks what you think and believes what you believe, if the media can destroy them — ’cause they can destroy anybody — then we should just let ’em go?”

They said, “Yep, cut ’em loose.” And that’s basically what our first caller said today. He said, “Look, you guys gotta realize you’re not gonna win this in Indiana. They should have never brought this up. They should have never written this bill. They should have never even entered this whole arena where they’re gonna be perceived as taking on militant homosexuals ’cause there’s no way we Republicans are ever gonna win. It was a stupid thing to do, Pence should have known it.” He’s asking me, do I think that’s the right way to go about this.

I do not because you’ll cede every issue to people that way. If you’re of the opinion that you can’t beat X, Y, and Z, then why would you even try if you’re gonna further damage yourself by trying to defeat them? That’s what the guy was saying. Now, I disagree with that totally. I think all of this is political. It’s not about who love. That’s just what they say. It’s not about love and marriage and devotion. It’s all political, it’s all part of the Democrat left-wing agenda, and there’s no question that this is in part an effort to influence the justices on the Supreme Court who were deciding the Burwell case over subsidies for Obamacare and any other thing that might come up that negatively impacts the Obama agenda.

And of course same-sex marriage is also at the Supreme Court. He thinks this is explicitly aimed at that. I don’t think there’s any question that militants like this, they are bullies, and they attempt to gain victory via intimidation, and they’re trying to intimidate anybody who might stand up and oppose them. That’s exactly how it works. As I mentioned earlier in the busy broadcast today, let’s go look at the case in New Mexico where we had a photographer, a lady owns a little photography store, and in walks a gay couple wanting her to photograph their wedding.

She says no. My religion opposes gay marriage, and it would be immoral for me. So they go to the news media, they make a news story out of it, lawsuits left and right, intimidate this poor woman, she’s the worst example of living, breathing bigotry that there is, and they end up putting her out of business. The way that happened was, her existing clientele were frightened into staying away. Once her store became publicly known by everybody, and once her photography shop, her studio was associated with anti-gay bigotry, and every existing customer she had saw exactly what happened to her, they said, “You know what? I don’t want these people coming after me. So I’m not gonna patronize this studio.” And she lost her customer base.

The same thing happened to a bakery, I think it was in Denver, somewhere in Colorado, same thing. The existing clientele end up being intimidated in staying away because they think that the activists are keeping a sharp eye on anybody that goes in that store, and they could be targeted, too. So the first caller today probably would agree, yeah, that’s the only sensible thing to do, just don’t patronize these places because you’re just gonna end up being a target yourself. And that’s the objective. This kind of intimidation.

At the end of it, how can you blame the gay activists? Look, the bakery went out of business and the photography studio went out of business. All we did was ask her to photograph our wedding and they said no and they go out of business, that’s kind of justified, right? They’re bigots and they’re homophobes. But that’s not why they went out. They went out of business because everybody’s scared to death. So this law comes along to protect the scared-to-death.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a shield that basically says that people like this cannot be discriminated against, cannot lose their businesses because of religious views. It’s not a weapon. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not give anybody the ammunition to discriminate against or otherwise be bigoted against anybody else. It’s about totally misconstrued, misreported, but that’s the name of the game.

Just like Ferguson was misconstrued and misreported. The Duke lacrosse rape case totally made up, not one shred of evidence to back up what everybody thought was the truth there. And the fact that the Duke lacrosse case was exposed as a fraud, that’s the exception to the rule. Most of these stories don’t end up being exposed. Ferguson has been exposed but you’d know never it. The protesters are still there. They’re still trying to wreak havoc on the community. They’re still importing protesters from outside the city, in many cases the states.

The worst thing you can do is back away from it. I think what Pence should have done — this is just off the top of my head, and I don’t like actually doing this because it’s easy for somebody like me, not even in Indiana, to sit here and say this is what he should have done, I would do this. But this is what I would have done if I’d have been involved. I’d have gone out there and said, “You know what, you want the law changed? Fine, you know what I’m gonna do, I’m gonna rewrite this law so that it is word-for-word what Chuck Schumer wrote in 1993 and what Bill Clinton signed into law.”

I would find a way to throw this back on the Democrats, rather than sit there and act like I have to make excuses for myself, which I don’t think I ever have to do, and I don’t think you do, either. I don’t think you need to make excuses for the things that you believe. You’re not a bigot. You’re not a racist. You don’t discriminate against people. You have a religious objection maybe to gay marriage. You know, marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. They’re changing the definition of words here to make this all look legit, kosher, but it’s not anti-gay.

It’s people that are opposed to the definition of “marriage” changing because they have a religious belief in what marriage is, and this law simply provides a shield for them that they supposedly can’t be harmed for holding that view. This thing is so out of focus and out of whack. It’s not the businesses that are doing the discriminating. It’s the other way around.

REAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, I don’t know what everybody’s so hysterical about. The photographer in New Mexico… Elaine Huguenin is her name. The name of her company was Elaine Photography. She refused service for the 2007 commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple. She lost her business. They’ve got a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in New Mexico. It did not save her business. The Colorado baker was a guy named Jack Phillips. He owned the Masterpiece Bakery.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not save Elaine’s company, either, nor the bakery. Neither the federal law nor the New Mexico law saved the businesses. Nor did it shield them. I don’t know why. I don’t know what everybody’s so hysterical about because the law didn’t even stop the discrimination by the militant homosexuals in this case. Anyway, I have to make these points because when stories like this hit the news, none of it is true. It’s striking, how little factual truth there is to these highly charged emotional culture related stories.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here. Despite there being an RRFA law on the books in New Mexico since 2000, in 2013 the New Mexico court of appeals unanimously upheld a claim against the photography studio that refused to take pickets the gay wedding. In 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld that ruling in a unanimous decision. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Even with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the photography studio lost her business.