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

[RKMBrown]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

Because they are the people who pushed this legislation through.

You tell us, specifically and in detail, what is the purpose of this law if anti-gay discrimination is not its purpose.

Cite ONE example of how this law would apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

ONE

Name one example of how the first amendment would not apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

What is the purpose of the law? Where would it apply. Cite a hypothetical case.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Where is your link?

 

[TemplarKormac]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

What is the purpose of the law? Where would it apply. Cite a hypothetical case.

Not my place to prove a negative. I've already proven my case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

Yes. NYC is also largely ignored by the intelligentsia of this site.

There are no intelligent RWnuts on this forum.

That's a laugh.

Name one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

That's gibberish.

Explain how it is gibberish.

 

[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.

Where is your link?

Jesus Christ on a bicycle it's common knowledge at this point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

That's gibberish.

Explain how it is gibberish.

Because the word 'encourage' carries no legal weight.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

Yes. NYC is also largely ignored by the intelligentsia of this site.

There are no intelligent RWnuts on this forum.

That's a laugh.

Name one.

Why? Your responses make all of them look intelligent.

"RWnuts"

Sure, intelligent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

That's gibberish.

Explain how it is gibberish.

Because the word 'encourage' carries no legal weight.

And what would you know of legal weight? The legal weight is carried in "Nothing in this law shall be construed." You are so clueless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

Because they are the people who pushed this legislation through.

You tell us, specifically and in detail, what is the purpose of this law if anti-gay discrimination is not its purpose.

Cite ONE example of how this law would apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

ONE

Show me how this law discriminates against gays without citing less than reliable sources of legal advice, and maybe I will oblige your asininity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

What is the purpose of the law? Where would it apply. Cite a hypothetical case.

Not my place to prove a negative. I've already proven my case.

That's not a negative. I'll add you to the long list of nuts who cannot cite even ONE legitimate purpose for this law.

That separates you from the anti -gay lobby in Indiana, who had no problem citing the purpose of this law.

Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch

keep in mind these people got to go to the 'private' signing of the bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

That's gibberish.

Explain how it is gibberish.

Because the word 'encourage' carries no legal weight.

And what would you know of legal weight? The legal weight is carried in "Nothing in this law shall be construed." You are so clueless.

To 'encourage'? How about 'this law cannot be used under any circumstances to defend anyone from a charge of anti-gay discrimination'?

 

[Roadrunner]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

Because they are the people who pushed this legislation through.

You tell us, specifically and in detail, what is the purpose of this law if anti-gay discrimination is not its purpose.

Cite ONE example of how this law would apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

ONE

Show me how this law discriminates against gays without citing less than reliable sources of legal advice, and maybe I will oblige your asininity.

I'm still going with pissing in the cake and gloating in silence.

Maybe tell them a few weeks late, anonymously.

Sometimes you have to savor your victories alone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Here we go again. In the Boerne decision, the act of Congress compelling the states to comply with the RFRA was unconstitutional, the law itself was not. See the difference?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fix would go something like this

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to encourage discrimination by businesses or individuals based on sexual orientation."

That's gibberish.

Explain how it is gibberish.

Because the word 'encourage' carries no legal weight.

And what would you know of legal weight? The legal weight is carried in "Nothing in this law shall be construed." You are so clueless.

To 'encourage'? How about 'this law cannot be used under any circumstances to defend anyone from a charge of anti-gay discrimination'?

Because that's not what it says? Denying someone of substantive due process is unconstitutional.

 

[westwall]

Address the OP or don't post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

Because they are the people who pushed this legislation through.

You tell us, specifically and in detail, what is the purpose of this law if anti-gay discrimination is not its purpose.

Cite ONE example of how this law would apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

ONE

Show me how this law discriminates against gays without citing less than reliable sources of legal advice, and maybe I will oblige your asininity.

This law allows an affirmative defense of discriminating against gays, which is the religious belief.

You pretend to be a law student , you should know by now what an affirmative defense is.

 

[JFK_USA]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.