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

[The Rabbi]

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."

Well it has to do with civil rights of religious people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

What does marriage have to do with this thread?

How does someone refusing you service at some bakery stop you from getting married?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Note the silence in response to the question posed in the previous post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I mean seriously, some of you are so thick headed that something needs to be repeated to you ad nauseam. I mean Pence has to pass a "clarification," but even still you'll drone on.

 

[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."

Well it has to do with civil rights of religious people.

Not even that. The law has nothing to do with the civil rights of anyone. It merely gives the religious business owner the option of stating his case before a judge as to why he should be allowed to discriminate. The government has to respond with why it has a compelling interest in making the religious business owner serve someone or do something that goes against their faith. Believe it or not, they will more than likely, if not always, lose.

 

[The Rabbi]

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."

Well it has to do with civil rights of religious people.

Not even that. The law has nothing to do with the civil rights of anyone. It merely gives the religious business owner the option of stating his case before a judge as to why he should be allowed to discriminate. The government has to respond with why it has a compelling interest in making the religious business owner serve someone or do something that goes against their faith. Believe it or not, they will more than likely, if not always, lose.

Religious rights under the 1A are civil rights.
The law directs the legislature what standards to use in laws that people could have a religious objection to, like Hobby Lobby.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Religious rights under the 1A are civil rights.

I know, but the law does not deal with "civil rights" Rabbi. It is a law providing legal recourse to those of faith who feel they should be allowed to discriminate against someone because they violate their religious beliefs. The law provides guidelines to the courts of Indiana as to how they should deal with these kinds of claims, it allows both appellant and defendant their day in court regarding this matter.

The right to substantive due process.

The law directs the legislature what standards to use in laws that people could have a religious objection to, like Hobby Lobby.

The RFRA of 1993 by rule cannot direct legislatures to do anything. These legislatures take the liberties of adopting this law at their own convenience. But once again, it says nothing about "civil rights."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

rderp and almost all the far left wingnut liberals are thoroughly dishonest. When Indiana passes the law [in effect pretty much the same thing introduced in the House by the Congress-critter Upchucky Schmucky Schumer (far left wing liberal Democrap, NY) and the majority of the then Dem controlled House and the Dem controlled Senate and signed by liberal bullshit artist liberal Democrap President William Jefferson "Bubba" "BJ" Clinton] it is anti gay! Sound the alarums, sirrah!

But none of those dishonest rancid lolberal hack propagandist wannabes (like rderp) had a fucking WORD to say about it when the liberal Democraps passed and signed it in '93. And they say diddly shit about that now.

So, here's a question: If the Republicans are allegedly anti gay for passing the law in Indiana, then it MUST be the case that Schumer and Clinton are equally anti gay. Right?

Either that or it's only somehow anti gay NOW. Somehow.

Religious freedom is just SUCH an irritant to the hypocritical shit for brain liberal hacks like rderp.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Yeah, and your explanation is as lame as Gov Pence not being able to answer a simple yes or no question. If the Indiana law was the same as the Fed law that Clinton signed, why are they going back to clarify it? Better still, why is the Mayor of Indianapolis denouncing the law? Everyone is able to figure out the stupid law was intended to give homophobes the right to discriminate - some of you are not smart enough to figure it out.


Indianapolis Mayor Denounces Indiana s Religious Objections Law and Reaffirms City s Openness - State Local - GovExec.com

 

[Mertex]

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.

You're delusional. Pence is either going to repeal the law or Indiana is going to suffer greatly. I'm sure the majority of people in Indiana aren't going to like that very much.

The best part, is several of the clowns have joined up with Pence, and they're going to have to defend it in the primaries.....not going to make them look pretty....

Why Indiana s Law Controversy Isn t Going Away Soon - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Mertex]

Why should we submit to giving you a hypothetical case in regards to your hypothetical argument ... Neither actually exist?

Because even hypothetically you can't. It is obvious to everyone what this law was intended to accomplish, but the right-wing will not admit it. They want to discriminate without being labeled as such.

 

[Mertex]

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

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Obviously you don't either. Looks like Pence doesn't either. He was caught looking pretty dumb when questioned by Stephanopoulos.

Gov. Pence of Indiana Can t Answer a Yes or No Question Allegiance

Uh huh. Coming from you, that means less than the contents of my cat's litter box.

Your defense of a discriminatory law is what is in your cat's litter box.

 

[Mertex]

It is very sad new laws like this are necessary. But the Communists/Democrats did declare war on Christians. They've been waging it for years. Christians and people of faith have no choice but to fight back. Religious persecution is Un-American. Simple as that.

It's not "Christians" that are making these laws. True Christians would not look for ways to make less of others. It's pseudo christians that are coming up with these laws that do nothing but spew hatred and allow them under the law to discriminate people based on something that doesn't affect them.

I see you have not read the law....

This law is designed to allow a religious defense if someone wants to take someone else to court for discrimination.

This law is not for anyone or against anyone.

I'm actually looking fowards to this law. I'd love to see what happens when some cult sets up shop there and starts exerting their religious freedom

It's the tactic perfected by PoliticalChic. It's the old RWnut tactic based on the premise that you can't prove me wrong unless you get me to admit I'm wrong.

That explains a lot. I've noticed that right wingers will post the same false information repeatedly.

What I posted is 100% accurate. I read the law. Completely. And I discussed the law with a NY State judge who is my brother in law. The law allows one to defend himself/herself in a court of law if he/she is accused of discrimination...using religious freedom as the defense. One must be able to prove that it was an infringement on ones religious freedom.

It DOES NOT allow for discrimination. It allows for a defense....and that defense must be proven.

READ THE LAW

It also puts the burden of proof in such a case on the government to show a) that there is a compelling overriding interest on the part of the state, and b) that they have used the least intrusive means of resolving that compelling interest with respect to the person's religious beliefs.

An exact replica of the law Clinton signed, word for word. I compared the two laws at least 5 times before posting this thread yesterday, yet some people's ignorance has gone on for 43 pages yelling "discrimination!" or "this isn't the same law that Clinton signed" or "read section 9! That gives businesses the right to discriminate!"

The asininity makes my brain cry.

this was an obvious attempt by the left to discredit Pense as a viable conservative presidential candidate. They knew that most on the left will not read the law so they played on their emotions to create the uproar.

If anyone on the left read the law with an open mind, they would likely say "what the fuck are they talking about. There is no discrimination in this law"

But true to form, they did not read it.

Really? You seriously think that this is all coming from the left? You think that all the big corporations that have threatened to stop doing business in Indiana are all liberals? You think that Republican Mayor of Indianapolis didn't read the bill? You're delusional.


WASHINGTON -- The Republican mayor of Indiana's largest city is working to stem the backlash from a new "religious freedom" law, breaking with members of his own party in order to reassure companies that Indianapolis is still a good place to do business.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard (R) held a press conference Monday afternoon, giving his first public remarks since Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. The measure would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party and could open the door to businesses refusing to service members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

GOP Mayor Of Indianapolis Signs Executive Order Protecting LGBT Community

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is obvious to everyone

Obvious to you. In reality what you think the law does, and what legal experts say the law does are two different things. I've already posted legal opinions from two different people. Both of whom are proponents of gay marriage.

They want to discriminate without being labeled as such.

I will ask you like I've asked everyone else. How does the law discriminate against gays? Section 9? Nope. Did it imply discrimination? Nope. Any other reasons?

I've covered almost all of them in this thread. Care to give it a go?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your defense of a discriminatory law is what is in your cat's litter box.

Your lack of an argument proving how the law is in fact discriminatory is why you are among the ranks of the liberal lunatics on this board. You wouldn't know honesty if it (forgive my language) took you up the backside.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your defense of a discriminatory law is what is in your cat's litter box.

Your lack of an argument proving how the law is in fact discriminatory is why you are among the ranks of the liberal lunatics on this board. You wouldn't know honesty if it (forgive my language) took you up the backside.

The law enables businesses to discriminate against people and then use religion as a defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is obvious to everyone

Obvious to you. In reality what you think the law does, and what legal experts say the law does are two different things. I've already posted legal opinions from two different people. Both of whom are proponents of gay marriage.

They want to discriminate without being labeled as such.

I will ask you like I've asked everyone else. How does the law discriminate against gays? Section 9? Nope. Did it imply discrimination? Nope. Any other reasons?

I've covered almost all of them in this thread. Care to give it a go?

If it doesn't, why is Pence insisting they'll change it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the cake baker cases in Oregon and Colorado, the defendants' religious beliefs did not protect them from being found in violation of the law.

The Indiana law is designed to fix that problem, and thus make discriminating against gays, or whoever, legally defensible.

See the difference?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You think that Republican Mayor of Indianapolis didn't read the bill? You're delusional.

Apparently he didn't. His assertion:

"[The RFRA law] could open the door to businesses refusing to service members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community."

I'm sorry, that's not what it says.

First of all, lets go back waaaaaaay back to the beginning of this thread, where I cited Douglas Laycock, UVA Law Professor and proponent of same sex marriage, voicing his support of the Indiana Law:

UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana s Religious Freedom Law The Weekly Standard

And Daniel O. Conkle, another proponent of same sex marriage, and law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, also voicing his support of the law:

Law professor Why Indiana needs religious freedom legislation

In post 17, I demonstrated the folly of arguments like yours:

Let s clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I listed a number of SCOTUS rulings which outlined the intent of the RFRA of 1993, and the identical nature of Indiana's RFRA to that of the one Clinton signed:

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ___ (2015)

Now, the mayor of Indiana succumbed to the rhetoric and in fact DID NOT read the law.

 

[Mertex]

Your defense of a discriminatory law is what is in your cat's litter box.

Your lack of an argument proving how the law is in fact discriminatory is why you are among the ranks of the liberal lunatics on this board. You wouldn't know honesty if it (forgive my language) took you up the backside.

If it wasn't, Pence and the rest of the legislative body in Indiana wouldn't be scurrying around trying to change it. And, it's not over yet....I have a feeling that Pence will end up repealing it and your psuedo intellectual understanding of the bill will be revealed, it will be obvious that you and the rest of those defending this bill are the ones that don't understand what the bill's intent was. I don't think any of you are clever enough to know what its real intent was and were just trying to fool everyone.

And your insults don't make you sound more intelligent, just reveal how truly ignorant you are.