First Lady Compares Religious Freedom to Jim Crow

According to First Lady Michelle Obama, religious freedom laws like the ones causing so much controversy in Mississippi are really just modern versions of the Jim Crow laws that kept blacks segregated and oppressed. In a commencement speech at Jackson State University on Saturday, Mrs. Obama spent several minutes decrying the troubling racial history of the state before pivoting to the modern fight for civil rights.

“If we fail to exercise our fundamental right to vote, then I guarantee that so much of the progress we’ve fought for will be under threat,” she said. “Congress will still be gridlocked.  Statehouses will continue to roll back voting rights and write discrimination into the law.  We see it right here in Mississippi – just two weeks ago – how swiftly progress can hurtle backward, how easy it is to single out a small group and marginalize them because of who they are or who they love.”

Keep in mind, this was after a long leadup where Michelle Obama described the trials and tribulations of black Mississippians in the years leading up to the 1960s. “The march for civil rights,” she said, “isn’t just about African-Americans – it’s about all Americans.”

Er, except for Christians who want the freedom to refuse to be a part of gay weddings. In that specific instance, there should be no civil rights. Why?

Because Christians who aren’t on board with the LGBT train are just as bad as the segregationists of yesteryear.

Oh. But that doesn’t make any sen–

QUIET! WE HAVE SPOKEN!

Fine, fine. It’s just that…the Religious Liberty Accommodation Act doesn’t discriminate against anyone. It doesn’t segregate LGBT people living in Mississippi. It doesn’t take anyone’s civil rights away. To the contrary, it is an affirmation of civil rights that have been infringed upon in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. It is a backlash against federal powers that have turned the concept of “democracy” into a joke.

To be absolutely clear, the Mississippi law does not actively prevent any individual from doing anything. It prevents the government from punishing state residents for adhering to their religious beliefs about gay marriage. This law is an expansion – or at least a legal reinforcement – of individual freedom. Only a Democrat could find a way to make that sound villainous.