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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

I'd love it.

Government has no business in marriage at all, it is a religious rite.

Let civil contracts between any number of consenting adults be the law of the land, and let religions marry only who they want to marry.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

So tell me...what does this law allow for that you are against? Now, do me a favor...do not tell me it gives a company the right to discriminate. It does not. I have read the law and nowhere does it say a company has the right to discriminate.

What it DOES do, however, is it allows a company/company owner the right to apply his/her first amendment rights if brought into a court of law with a charge of discrimination levied against him.

He has the right to claim he was following his religious tenets...BUT AS WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVE IT AT HIS/HER COST OF MONEY AND TIME.

Do you feel that an owner of a company should not have the same rights as you as it pertains to your day in court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

I'd love it.

Government has no business in marriage at all, it is a religious rite.

Let civil contracts between any number of consenting adults be the law of the land, and let religions marry only who they want to marry.

Government is in marriage. That is the reality. PS civil contracts ARE government.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

 

[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.

Why do you support the Indiana law?

Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

 

[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?

To jack a thread for one post, I'm waiting for acceptance on my offer.

This was the first house we liked, we lost it earlier, and damn if the guy didn't get fired when his boss cut down on staff to dodge Obamacare, and he could not close the deal.

Ain't PP/ACA just fuckin' WONDERFUL!!!

LOL.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Government is in marriage. That is the reality. PS civil contracts ARE government.

What are you talking about?

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

I'd love it.

Government has no business in marriage at all, it is a religious rite.

Let civil contracts between any number of consenting adults be the law of the land, and let religions marry only who they want to marry.

Government is in marriage. That is the reality. PS civil contracts ARE government.

But civil contracts are not marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

Then in fact it would be. It doesn't mean such a defense would be successful, in fact just like religious objection, it doesn't hold weight in the courts. The law simply allows a person their rights under substantive due process to defend themselves and their actions in the court of law using whatever legal means at their disposal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

I'd love it.

Government has no business in marriage at all, it is a religious rite.

Let civil contracts between any number of consenting adults be the law of the land, and let religions marry only who they want to marry.

Government is in marriage. That is the reality. PS civil contracts ARE government.

But civil contracts are not marriage.

Civil marriage and a civil contract that is indistinguishable from marriage are the same thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do you support the Indiana law?

I support the law because it grants due process not only to the business or individual, it guides the courts in Indiana on balancing government interest and individual rights.

Why are you against it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

To be fair, to shut the critics up, I want Governor Pence to pass a law preventing discrimination against LGBT couples, make them a protected class. If people didn't notice already, discrimination was already legal in Indiana before this furor erupted. Legal then, legal now, unless that changes.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

Then in fact it would be. It doesn't mean such a defense would be successful, in fact just like religious objection, it doesn't hold weight in the courts. The law simply allows a person their rights under substantive due process to defend themselves and their actions in the court of law using whatever legal means at their disposal.

But the real problem here is that once you make religion a trump card over other rights, what happens then?

There are such things as legally legitimate defenses and those that aren't.

Religious beliefs are personal. And what a person happens to consider his religious belief can be anything.

Once you make them legal defenses you create a condition where every person is his own legal system.

 

[The Rabbi]

To be fair, to shut the critics up, I want Governor Pence to pass a law preventing discrimination against LGBT couples, make them a protected class. If people didn't notice already, discrimination was already legal in Indiana before this furor erupted. Legal then, legal now, unless that changes.

Why should they be a protected class? WHo is discriminating against them right now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no intelligent RWnuts on this forum.

That's a laugh.

Name one.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.

Religious rights CAN be infringed. You don't see much human sacrifice around do you? You don't see too much polygamy around do you? You don't see much legalized segregation around do you?

 

[The Rabbi]

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

Then in fact it would be. It doesn't mean such a defense would be successful, in fact just like religious objection, it doesn't hold weight in the courts. The law simply allows a person their rights under substantive due process to defend themselves and their actions in the court of law using whatever legal means at their disposal.

But the real problem here is that once you make religion a trump card over other rights, what happens then?

There are such things as legally legitimate defenses and those that aren't.

Religious beliefs are personal. And what a person happens to consider his religious belief can be anything.

Once you make them legal defenses you create a condition where every person is his own legal system.

The law specifically addresses that issue. Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.