Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[daws101]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Excuse me, but the law was signed over 20 years ago.

WTF!!!!

that's the other law Indiana made up it's own...

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - RFRAs Redefine Religious Freedom


Does everyone remember the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Enacted by the US Congress in 1993 and quickly signed into law by President Clinton it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores. This didn't end the matter because several states enacted their own versions of the RFRA, all attempting to give religious institutions the ability to ignore generally applicable laws


Compelling Interests & Religious Freedom
The Louisiana RFRA stated:

A governmental authority may not restrict a person's free exercise of religion, unless both of the following conditions are met:

1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not intentionally discriminate against religion or among religions.

2) The governmental authority proves that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest...
The key problem in the above text - and in all such bills - is the conflict between the concepts of "general applicability" and "compelling interest." The first concept is quite acceptable - it should prevent a law being enacted that is targeted directly at a religion. However, religious people would still have to follow laws which are aimed at the general public

These 8 facts prove the situation in America is not normal right now.
and only incidentally affect religion - fire codes for buildings would be an example of that. The addition of "compelling interest," however, creates a whole new and unacceptable situation.

With this extra condition, the government would essentially set up one set of rules for religious organizations and another, more restrictive set of rules for the rest of society. The government would have to demonstrate "compelling interest" to force a church to adhere to building codes or anti-discrimination laws, but would not bear that burden when dealing with a private business or non-religious group.

In this way, a blatantly discriminatory class of "special rights" for religious groups and believers is created, allowing for a dual system of laws and regulations. Ordinances that apply to everyone and every group would not necessarily apply to religious groups. This places government in the unconstitutional position of favoring religion over irreligion.

It was a breath of fresh air when Justice Stephens wrote in his opinion:

If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure... Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. The governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment...


State Level RFRAs
Religious groups have been working quietly and steadily to get state-level RFRAs introduced and passed - and most of the work has been supported by the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a rather inaccurately named organization. It is with great sadness to note that some groups normally opposed to breaches in state/church separation have come out in favor of these bills. Perhaps the enticement of special legal rights not available to other organizations is greater than their belief in constitutional principles.

It seems that these religious groups hope that at least one of these RFRAs will pass Constitutional muster when (not if) taken to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they are pinning their hopes on nothing but bad laws. Fortunately, at least on state has come to realize this: Maryland.

Maryland legislators had the good sense to withdraw their RFRA, citing that it might have "unanticipated consequences." Some officials realized that, as the bill was written, governments faced millions of dollars in lawsuits from challenges to laws affecting everything from jails to schools and property zoning.

Dr. Marci Hamilton, a Professor of Law at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, wrote that the bill would "...hand religion a legal tool unavailable to any other entity..." and that "If a church wants to avoid a zoning ordinance, the government must tailor its law to the least restrictive means for that church. If a philosophical bookstore or other business wants to do the same, it does not have the same right..." Roman Catholic officials and lobbyists were "disappointed" at this development, but that's hardly surprising.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act - RFRAs Redefine Religious Freedom

 

[TemplarKormac]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Grow up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

and quickly signed into law by President Clinton it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

The RFRA was upheld in this case:

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 546 U.S.418 (2006)

 

[Ravi]

Indiana's law applies to disputes between individuals. The other laws apply to disputes between government and individuals.

There is a vast difference and even the MSM can't figure it out so we can't expect the OP to figure it out.

 

[daws101]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Grow up.

now that's is funny!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

because of a conflict in the law regarding drugs...whereas Sharia is in direct conflict with our Constitution...

 

[daws101]

and quickly signed into law by President Clinton it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

DUDE! That ruling never ruled the Federal Law unconstitutional!

You idiot!

Boerne v. Flores (1997)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Created Special Religious Privileges

Should the government give special rights to religious believers and religious institutions which no atheist or secular institution can have access to? That's what the Congress did with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Far from restoring religious freedom, it created special rights and privileges based on religion, allowing religious institutions to ignore neutral civil laws. The Supreme Court




struck down the RFRA in Boerne v. Flores, reinforcing the principle of equality for all.



Background Information
Built in 1923, St. Peter Catholic Church can seat around 230 worshippers, too few for the growing parish, so the Archbishop of San Antonio gave permission for alterations to enlarge the building. A few months later, the Boerne City Council passed an ordinance authorizing the city's Historic Landmark Commission to create a preservation plan for proposed historic landmarks and districts. Under the ordinance, construction affecting historic landmarks or buildings in a historic district had to be pre-approved by the Commission.

When the Archbishop applied for a building permit to enlarge the church, his application was denied by City authorities who relied on the ordinance and the designation of a historic district (which, they argued, included the church). The Archbishop challenged this in court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

Congress had passed RFRA in

A
The RFRA prohibited "[g]overnment" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless the government can demonstrate the burden "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest." Essentially, the RFRA reestablished the authority of the Sherbert Test even though the Court had already rejected using that test anymore.

The District Court concluded that by enacting RFRA Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding RFRA to be constitutional.



Court Decision
With Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled against the Archbishop and in favor of the city, finding that the Congress did indeed exceed its authority by passing the RFRA.

In imposing RFRA's requirements on governments and laws, Congress had relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation."

The Supreme Court decided that the RFRA was not a proper exercise of Congress' power because it contradicted principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal state balance:

If Congress could define its own powers by altering the Fourteenth Amendment's meaning, no longer would the Constitution be "superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." It would be "on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, ...alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." ...Under this approach, it is difficult to conceive of a principle that would limit congressional power.
According to the Court, the RFRA's most serious shortcoming lay in the fact that it was so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive goal that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. Instead, it created a substantial change in constitutional protections, proscribing state conduct that the Fourteenth Amendment itself did not prohibit. Its sweeping coverage ensured intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter:

...RFRA's legislative record lacks examples of any instances of generally applicable laws passed because of religious bigotry in the past 40 years. Rather, the emphasis of the RFRA hearings was on laws like the one at issue that place incidental burdens on religion. It is difficult to maintain that such laws are based on animus or hostility to the burdened religious practices or that they indicate some widespread pattern of religious discrimination in this country.
Most interesting for atheists is Justice Stevens' concurring opinion, in which he states:

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a "law respecting an establishment of religion" that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. (see: Wallace v. Jaffee) [emphasis added]


Significance
This Court Decision found that the Congress was not permitted to force courts to use legal tests which they did not wish to use — the courts have jurisdiction over the means by which they decide whether or not laws are constitutional. Justice Stevens' opinion affirms the principle that religion cannot be preferred over non-religion by the government without violating the separation between church and state.
Atheism 101 Introduction to Atheism Atheists

• 
  

 

[mudwhistle]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

Who fucking cares......

 

[The Rabbi]

Indiana's law applies to disputes between individuals. The other laws apply to disputes between government and individuals.

There is a vast difference and even the MSM can't figure it out so we can't expect the OP to figure it out.

Untrue. Next.

 

[mudwhistle]

Indiana's law applies to disputes between individuals. The other laws apply to disputes between government and individuals.

There is a vast difference and even the MSM can't figure it out so we can't expect the OP to figure it out.

So take a drag...pass it on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:

Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:

From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):

(a)In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

The Federal law, at least in part, was struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Indiana law is not designed to give people the religious excuse to discriminate against gays (or others)

WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO??????

 

[mudwhistle]

Personally I think climate change is still a serious problem. Let's deal with that. Nobody really seems to know what this is about, and the libs will just tell their sheep it's about discrimination anyway.

 

[mudwhistle]

The left got the impression that a certain Republican from Indiana might run for president,.... so this is a preemptive strike against him pulled out of thin-air.

Arkansas is ready to sign an identical law, I notice the homosexuals and leftists are not bawling about that

No real targets in Arkansas....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

Simple: Partisan bigotry from and by the left.

 

[TemplarKormac]

it didn't need to ...learn to read...

Whahahahah!!!! Oho, Oho!

YOU lecturing ME on learning to read?! Read this:


Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf

This ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the RFRA. You have no leg to stand on. Go learn to read, whelp.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?

Either it does or it doesn't.

Does it? Doesn't it?

 

[daws101]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

Who fucking cares......

you must or why answer ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?

Either it does or it doesn't.

Does it? Doesn't it?

You mean apoplectic, right? We can add that to the list of words you dont know.
And no, he did not go apoplectic. He was firm and reasoned. I posted the video elsewhere. Point out where he was apoplectic

 

[TemplarKormac]

and quickly signed into law by President Clinton it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

DUDE! That ruling never ruled the Federal Law unconstitutional!

You idiot!

Boerne v. Flores (1997)
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Created Special Religious Privileges

Should the government give special rights to religious believers and religious institutions which no atheist or secular institution can have access to? That's what the Congress did with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Far from restoring religious freedom, it created special rights and privileges based on religion, allowing religious institutions to ignore neutral civil laws. The Supreme Court




struck down the RFRA in Boerne v. Flores, reinforcing the principle of equality for all.



Background Information
Built in 1923, St. Peter Catholic Church can seat around 230 worshippers, too few for the growing parish, so the Archbishop of San Antonio gave permission for alterations to enlarge the building. A few months later, the Boerne City Council passed an ordinance authorizing the city's Historic Landmark Commission to create a preservation plan for proposed historic landmarks and districts. Under the ordinance, construction affecting historic landmarks or buildings in a historic district had to be pre-approved by the Commission.

When the Archbishop applied for a building permit to enlarge the church, his application was denied by City authorities who relied on the ordinance and the designation of a historic district (which, they argued, included the church). The Archbishop challenged this in court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

Congress had passed RFRA in

A
The RFRA prohibited "[g]overnment" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless the government can demonstrate the burden "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest." Essentially, the RFRA reestablished the authority of the Sherbert Test even though the Court had already rejected using that test anymore.

The District Court concluded that by enacting RFRA Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding RFRA to be constitutional.



Court Decision
With Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled against the Archbishop and in favor of the city, finding that the Congress did indeed exceed its authority by passing the RFRA.

In imposing RFRA's requirements on governments and laws, Congress had relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation."

The Supreme Court decided that the RFRA was not a proper exercise of Congress' power because it contradicted principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal state balance:

If Congress could define its own powers by altering the Fourteenth Amendment's meaning, no longer would the Constitution be "superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." It would be "on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, ...alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." ...Under this approach, it is difficult to conceive of a principle that would limit congressional power.
According to the Court, the RFRA's most serious shortcoming lay in the fact that it was so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive goal that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. Instead, it created a substantial change in constitutional protections, proscribing state conduct that the Fourteenth Amendment itself did not prohibit. Its sweeping coverage ensured intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter:

...RFRA's legislative record lacks examples of any instances of generally applicable laws passed because of religious bigotry in the past 40 years. Rather, the emphasis of the RFRA hearings was on laws like the one at issue that place incidental burdens on religion. It is difficult to maintain that such laws are based on animus or hostility to the burdened religious practices or that they indicate some widespread pattern of religious discrimination in this country.
Most interesting for atheists is Justice Stevens' concurring opinion, in which he states:

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a "law respecting an establishment of religion" that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. (see: Wallace v. Jaffee) [emphasis added]


Significance
This Court Decision found that the Congress was not permitted to force courts to use legal tests which they did not wish to use — the courts have jurisdiction over the means by which they decide whether or not laws are constitutional. Justice Stevens' opinion affirms the principle that religion cannot be preferred over non-religion by the government without violating the separation between church and state.
Atheism 101 Introduction to Atheism Atheists

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf