Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

It's unfortunate that the crafters of the "civil rights" act were too short sighted to see the torrent of unforeseen consequences. The only sure remedy is a repeal of the public accommodation portion of the law and a full return to the concept of freedom of association.

Which worked so well before.
Laws are in place already protecting against racial discrimination. Since this isn't about race, but is instead about lifestlyes repugnant to the majority, we aren't even talking about the same considerations.

Says you. The USSC on the other hand cited 4 different race based cases between the Romer and Windsor ruling when describing why the rights of gays couldn't be violated.

You insist that citing race based cases is legally irrelevant. The USSC cited race based cases 4 times.

I'm gonna have to with the USSC on what's legally relevant.
 
Indiana House panel OKs religious freedom bill

About the Indiana Bill on religious freedom:

What does Senate Bill 101 actually say?

Senate Bill 101 would prohibit state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving that interest.

For more background, check out the actual bill or read letters from legal experts whosupport or oppose the legislation.
 
Indiana House panel OKs religious freedom bill

About the Indiana Bill on religious freedom:

What does Senate Bill 101 actually say?

Senate Bill 101 would prohibit state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving that interest.

For more background, check out the actual bill or read letters from legal experts whosupport or oppose the legislation.

This just sounds like a re-statement of previous Court decisions. But I can't help but see it as a mistake. This is not how we should interpret the First Amendment.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top