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

[Mertex]

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?

But to bring about the affirmative defense of religious freedom, you have to essentially admit you discriminated.

Here is how affirmative defenses work. You admit you did something wrong but you admit that you had a good reason to do it. The classic example is self-defense. The person claiming self-defense isn't arguing he didn't kill anyone, he just had a good reason to do it.

So in a discrimination case, the business owner would have to admit that yes, they discriminated against that customer but they had a good reason, it violates their religion to serve that customer.

And?
Businesses discriminate all the time. No shoes, no shirt, no service. No concealed guns allowed. No pets except service animals. Your point?

It's not discrimination when it applies to everyone....yellow, black, red and white. Geez, it's not rocket science.

 

[Ravi]

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

Again, I provided valid examples. You are assuming no government will try to stop you from putting a religious symbol on private property. This law is to prevent said example by providing a line of defense in a court case for said grievance if said government does in fact try to stop you from putting your religious symbol on said private property.

You didn't like the Obama Care examples that are being fought right now. Hobby lobby was just one example of a valid case for this law. Only now you don't have to go to the supreme court to argue for constitutionality based on the first amendment. A lower court may look at the grievance and ask the government why they did not allow for the person to practice his religious freedom.

No one is trying to prevent a business from declaring their religion. You are being disingenuous.

 

[Billo_Really]

You sure?

So what of the other 19?

Mississippi is the only other one that comes close.

Well, now that you mention it, Florida ain't that hot, either. Neither is Texas. Or Alabama. Or Georgia.

Let's just face it, California rules.

 

[RKMBrown]

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

Again, I provided valid examples. You are assuming no government will try to stop you from putting a religious symbol on private property. This law is to prevent said example by providing a line of defense in a court case for said grievance if said government does in fact try to stop you from putting your religious symbol on said private property.

You didn't like the Obama Care examples that are being fought right now. Hobby lobby was just one example of a valid case for this law. Only now you don't have to go to the supreme court to argue for constitutionality based on the first amendment. A lower court may look at the grievance and ask the government why they did not allow for the person to practice his religious freedom.

No one is trying to prevent a business from declaring their religion. You are being disingenuous.

Who said anything about declaring religion? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Ravi]

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

Again, I provided valid examples. You are assuming no government will try to stop you from putting a religious symbol on private property. This law is to prevent said example by providing a line of defense in a court case for said grievance if said government does in fact try to stop you from putting your religious symbol on said private property.

You didn't like the Obama Care examples that are being fought right now. Hobby lobby was just one example of a valid case for this law. Only now you don't have to go to the supreme court to argue for constitutionality based on the first amendment. A lower court may look at the grievance and ask the government why they did not allow for the person to practice his religious freedom.

No one is trying to prevent a business from declaring their religion. You are being disingenuous.

Who said anything about declaring religion? WTF are you talking about?

See your first paragraph.

I asked you before and I will ask you again. What is an example of what this law accomplishes?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You sure?

So what of the other 19?

Mississippi is the only other one that comes close.

Well, now that you mention it, Florida ain't that hot, either. Neither is Texas. Or Alabama. Or Georgia.

Let's just face it, California rules.

Whatever floats your boat pal.

 

[RKMBrown]

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

Again, I provided valid examples. You are assuming no government will try to stop you from putting a religious symbol on private property. This law is to prevent said example by providing a line of defense in a court case for said grievance if said government does in fact try to stop you from putting your religious symbol on said private property.

You didn't like the Obama Care examples that are being fought right now. Hobby lobby was just one example of a valid case for this law. Only now you don't have to go to the supreme court to argue for constitutionality based on the first amendment. A lower court may look at the grievance and ask the government why they did not allow for the person to practice his religious freedom.

No one is trying to prevent a business from declaring their religion. You are being disingenuous.

Who said anything about declaring religion? WTF are you talking about?

See your first paragraph.

I asked you before and I will ask you again. What is an example of what this law accomplishes?

ok ...

Asked and answered a hundred times, what don't you like about the examples?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Marriage under the law is nothing more than a legal contract. What you do in church is your business. As far as society is concerned the legal contract is the only binding contract. Therefore your beliefs concerning marriage are irrelevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Therefore your beliefs concerning marriage are irrelevant.

Your views on the law are irrelevant, given they are wrong, as has been clearly demonstrated in the course of the thread.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

So if a judge or the mayor officiates I'm not married?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

They shouldn't and wouldn't have to be if idiots stop making it necessary.

 

[LittleNipper]

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?

They shouldn't and wouldn't have to be if idiots stop making it necessary.

By "idiots" are you referring to the childish individuals who enjoy having things thrust up their rectums and consider that ecstasy or perhaps the individuals who have a passion for false teeth?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Therefore your beliefs concerning marriage are irrelevant.

Your views on the law are irrelevant, given they are wrong, as has been clearly demonstrated in the course of the thread.

Do I get a civil union license or a marriage license from the county?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

They shouldn't and wouldn't have to be if idiots stop making it necessary.

By "idiots" are you referring to the childish individuals who enjoy having things thrust up their rectums and consider that ecstasy or perhaps the individuals who have a passion for false teeth?

The idiots who still believe , even after fifty years of civil rights victories, that anyone would tolerate shit like this. The blowback was immediate and huge.The backpeddaling has been just as fast. But you idiots still don't get it.
Carry on. We need this to continue until Nov 16'

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do I get a civil union license or a marriage license from the county?

That's neither here nor there.

You get called out for attempting to muddy the waters like every other liberal on this thread. This law isn't about marriage, nor is it about discrimination. I have explained it upteen times in this thread. So thick headed you people are that you let your passion override your judgement and comprehension of stated facts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The idiots who still believe , even after fifty years of civil rights victories, that anyone would tolerate shit like this.

Case in point. You mouth off what you think this law is like, but won't even stop to A) read it or B) actually consider the actual intent of the law.

This has nothing to do with "civil rights."

 

[TemplarKormac]

They shouldn't and wouldn't have to be if idiots stop making it necessary.

Wow, who makes it necessary? Nobody makes gay marriage "necessary". Saying something is necessary implies there is no other alternative.

Smoove move slick.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The idiots who still believe , even after fifty years of civil rights victories, that anyone would tolerate shit like this.

Case in point. You mouth off what you think this law is like, but won't even stop to A) read it or B) actually consider the actual intent of the law.

This has nothing to do with "civil rights."

Read your own thread moron. It's alll there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read your own thread moron. It's alll there.

Of course its all there. You haven't refuted any of it.

You're just lazy.

 

[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?

They shouldn't and wouldn't have to be if idiots stop making it necessary.

By "idiots" are you referring to the childish individuals who enjoy having things thrust up their rectums and consider that ecstasy or perhaps the individuals who have a passion for false teeth?

The idiots who still believe , even after fifty years of civil rights victories, that anyone would tolerate shit like this. The blowback was immediate and huge.The backpeddaling has been just as fast. But you idiots still don't get it.
Carry on. We need this to continue until Nov 16'

What blowback? What backpedaling? Some morons who have been fed a lie blowing their mouths off. Nothing new. By next week this will be old news.