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

[Mertex]

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.

Blah, blah, blah......we'll soon find out whether Pence has the cajones to keep this discriminatory bill in place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

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

I'm sorry, but you missed the part where it is a legal defense, but not a successful defense. Nine times out of ten, a religious objection is rejected in the courts due to a compelling governmental interest. The law allows the objector to voice such an objection to the court. Does it mean the defense automatically grants him the right to discriminate? No, it doesn't, and in all likelihood it never will. In just over a week, I have done more research on this law than I suspect anyone on this board has, including upstarts like you.

I suggest you reread the first two pages of this thread and stop trying to lie through your teeth incessantly.

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.

And? Oregon doesn't have an RFRA law, so the government acted summarily against the baker. Colorado doesn't have an RFRA. Therefore these two bakers weren't allowed to or able to use religious beliefs as a defense. Summary judgements were issued and that was the end of that.

The Indiana Law allows proprietors of whom hold religious faith the opportunity to defend themselves in court. That doesn't mean the court ever side with them, as I stated earlier. Oregon and Colorado didn't have this kind of law on the books at the time of the infraction.

See the difference? See how your argument fails?

 

[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.

Blah, blah, blah......we'll soon find out whether Pence has the cajones to keep this discriminatory bill in place.

He already said he wouldn't repeal the law. Go read the news. Read his op-ed. Watch his press conference on YouTube.

Suddenly, you shift from the Mayor of Indianapolis to Governor Pence. Congratulations, you have now successfully moved the goalposts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If it wasn't, Pence and the rest of the legislative body in Indiana wouldn't be scurrying around trying to change it.

Change it, not repeal it. Big difference. One you repeatedly fail to grasp.

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.

Like I said just 10 seconds before, he isn't repealing it. He's only amending it. The law stays, your intelligence on the subject notwithstanding. You haven't even taken the time to read the law or this thread, to find out what the intent of the law was. Don't worry, you're gonna have to live with that butthurt for a long, long time. And I hope my state passes its own, whether now, or in the next legislative session, so people like you have one more state to boycott.

I don't think any of you are clever enough to know what its real intent was and were just trying to fool everyone.

If you knew what the intent was, don't you think you would have sufficiently demonstrated that with substantial evidence by now? We all know your lackluster debate record, and habit for dishonesty (your thread on the forensic evidence at the Micheal Brown shooting scene for example).

Now excuse me. I've had my fill of idiocy for tonight. Back on ignore you go.

 

[Mertex]

If it wasn't, Pence and the rest of the legislative body in Indiana wouldn't be scurrying around trying to change it.

Change it, not repeal it. Big difference. One you repeatedly fail to grasp.

It isn't over.....wait a few days...I don't think the "change" is going to make a difference. I believe Pence will be repealing it, even after he has been claiming he won't. That's what you fail to grasp.

Like I said just 10 seconds before, he isn't repealing it. He's only amending it. The law stays, your intelligence on the subject notwithstanding. You haven't even taken the time to read the law or this thread, to find out what the intent of the law was. Don't worry, you're gonna have to live with that butthurt for a long, long time. And I hope my state passes its own, whether now, or in the next legislative session, so people like you have one more state to boycott.

Considering he is getting pressure from all over the country, I wouldn't be singing a victory song just yet....your butt may be the one hurting here in a few days.

If you knew what the intent was, don't you think you would have sufficiently demonstrated that with substantial evidence by now? We all know your lackluster debate record, and habit for dishonest (your thread on the foresic evidence at the Micheal Brown shooting scene for example).

It is evident to everyone in the country (except for the dimwitted conservatives, some who know the intent but pretend it isn't there and the rest of you, too dumb to figure it out) that the whole intent is to be able to discriminate against homosexuals. Large companies and corporations wouldn't be threatening to withdraw business if they didn't think that Gov Pence and his cronies were trying to slip one past them.

As for the Michael Brown comment, why don't you provide a link....I have no idea what you are talking about, probably just blowing smoke out your ass.

Now excuse me. I've had my fill of idiocy for tonight. Back on ignore you go.

Yeah, you little coward....Strollingbones has you pegged correctly....you spew your lies and misinformation and then you try and play the "iggy" game.

You can't refute, so like the coward that you are you run and hide.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Blah, blah, blah......we'll soon find out whether Pence has the cajones to keep this discriminatory bill in place.

He already said he wouldn't repeal the law. Go read the news. Read his op-ed. Watch his press conference on YouTube.

Yes, he said he wouldn't, and what are you going to do when he has to eat his words? I guess you'll just eat yours, too.......

Suddenly, you shift from the Mayor of Indianapolis to Governor Pence. Congratulations, you have now successfully moved the goalposts.

I didn't think you were that dense, but apparently you are. I'm not shifting anything, just showing you that even some Republicans are opposing Pence. Geez, you really are obtuse....like arguing with a tree. I would draw you a picture but I'm afraid you'd still wouldn't get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

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

I'm sorry, but you missed the part where it is a legal defense, but not a successful defense. Nine times out of ten, a religious objection is rejected in the courts due to a compelling governmental interest. The law allows the objector to voice such an objection to the court. Does it mean the defense automatically grants him the right to discriminate? No, it doesn't, and in all likelihood it never will. In just over a week, I have done more research on this law than I suspect anyone on this board has, including upstarts like you.

I suggest you reread the first two pages of this thread and stop trying to lie through your teeth incessantly.

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.

And? Oregon doesn't have an RFRA law, so the government acted summarily against the baker. Colorado doesn't have an RFRA. Therefore these two bakers weren't allowed to or able to use religious beliefs as a defense. Summary judgements were issued and that was the end of that.

The Indiana Law allows proprietors of whom hold religious faith the opportunity to defend themselves in court. That doesn't mean the court ever side with them, as I stated earlier. Oregon and Colorado didn't have this kind of law on the books at the time of the infraction.

See the difference? See how your argument fails?

My argument doesn't fail because the actual discrimination takes place.

Do you understand what an affirmative defense is? No. You don't. Look it up. You refuse to look it up because you sense your argument will die in the process.



By making religion an affirmative defense, what would otherwise be discrimination becomes legal discrimination.

It is STILL discrimination. The people who are discriminated against STILL have to suffer the discrimination.

If a person refuses to do business with you, and religion lets him get away with it, the discrimination still occurs.

So yes the law provides an opportunity to legally discriminate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

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

I'm sorry, but you missed the part where it is a legal defense, but not a successful defense. Nine times out of ten, a religious objection is rejected in the courts due to a compelling governmental interest. The law allows the objector to voice such an objection to the court. Does it mean the defense automatically grants him the right to discriminate? No, it doesn't, and in all likelihood it never will. In just over a week, I have done more research on this law than I suspect anyone on this board has, including upstarts like you.

I suggest you reread the first two pages of this thread and stop trying to lie through your teeth incessantly.

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.

And? Oregon doesn't have an RFRA law, so the government acted summarily against the baker. Colorado doesn't have an RFRA. Therefore these two bakers weren't allowed to or able to use religious beliefs as a defense. Summary judgements were issued and that was the end of that.

The Indiana Law allows proprietors of whom hold religious faith the opportunity to defend themselves in court. That doesn't mean the court ever side with them, as I stated earlier. Oregon and Colorado didn't have this kind of law on the books at the time of the infraction.

See the difference? See how your argument fails?

You've yet to tell us in your own words what the purpose of the law is.

What will this law do in Indiana in the event a business owner refuses to bake a cake for a gay person, and claims its against his religion?

 

[Ravi]

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?

Your examples are already covered by current law.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Your examples are already covered by current law.

Not in every state. The federal law passed by Bill Clinton does not apply to the states. Each state has to pass it's own version, which is what they are doing.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

Who are the "they" you refer to wanting to discriminate?

Are they the gays wanting to discriminate against the religious over their beliefs and lifestyle ... Or the religious wanting to discriminate against the gays due to their beliefs and lifestyle? Now pumpkin ... You can forget about hypotheticals ... And explain why one group of people discriminating against another group people for the same reason is any different ... Or provides equal protection under the law.

That would be like saying $10 equals $20 because you like $20 better.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Who are the "they" you refer to wanting to discriminate?

Are they the gays wanting to discriminate against the religious over their beliefs and lifestyle ... Or the religious wanting to discriminate against the gays due to their beliefs and lifestyle? Now pumpkin ... You can forget about hypotheticals ... And explain why one group of people discriminating against another group people for the same reason is any different ... Or provides equal protection under the law.

That would be like saying $10 equals $20 because you like $20 better.

.

The Indiana law doesn't provide a 'gay' defense for discriminating against the religious;

it provides a 'religious' defense for discriminating against gays.

 

[BlackSand]

The Indiana law doesn't provide a 'gay' defense for discriminating against the religious;
it provides a 'religious' defense for discriminating against gays.

Thank You
I am glad we agree that it protects the religious against gay discrimination ... And we agree that it doesn't provide equal protection under the law.

That is generally what happens when you attempt to have government fix social ills such as discrimination ... When it cannot fix the problem without discriminating against someone. Who you think ought to be discriminated against doesn't matter ... It isn't okay to discriminate against one group in favor of the other just because you like it better that way.

.

 

[dblack]

The Indiana law doesn't provide a 'gay' defense for discriminating against the religious;
it provides a 'religious' defense for discriminating against gays.

Thank You
I am glad we agree that it protects the religious against gay discrimination ... And we agree that it doesn't provide equal protection under the law.

That is generally what happens when you attempt to have government fix social ills such as discrimination ... When it cannot fix the problem without discriminating against someone. Who you think ought to be discriminated against doesn't matter ... It isn't okay to discriminate against one group in favor of the other just because you like it better that way.

.

Exactly. We need to understand that sometimes solutions that "worked" at one point in time aren't good policy, and aren't sustainable. It's like bloodletting. It might have actually saved a life or two back in the day. But as a general medical treatment it does far more harm than good.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Your examples are already covered by current law.

Not in every state. The federal law passed by Bill Clinton does not apply to the states. Each state has to pass it's own version, which is what they are doing.

The three examples you've provided are already covered by current law in any state.

 

[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?

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.

I understand that.

So then I have to ask...what is the fuss all about? We are talking about religious freedom...something both sides of the aisle agreed to back in 1993 and something the supreme court held up in the Hobby Lobby case......so is the left against religious freedom now but they were not against it 2 weeks ago?

The point I have been making all along is the following....

Religious freedom and the door it opens up to as it pertains to discrimination is a valid debate. We should NEVER say it is legal to discriminate....but I don't see an issue saying you can use religious freedom as your defense if you are accused of discriminating...but you dam well better prove that you are truly compromising your religious beliefs if you don't discriminate.

Now, I know many on this board will not look at the crux of the following analogy but instead try to tell me what a ridiculous analogy this is....but I ask that you just consider the overall comparison....

Is a Jewish man who is Kosher discriminating against a non Kosher Deli when he does not buy food there?

If that same man was not kosher but refused to buy food at a deli because it is owned by a black man, is he discriminating?

Don't go off on me for asking the question....I know there are many holes you can punch into the analogy.

But just think about it.

 

[Mertex]

Who are the "they" you refer to wanting to discriminate?

Obviously the ones that created this new law in Indiana, and most likely everyone here defending it on this thread.

 

[Mertex]

Are they the gays wanting to discriminate against the religious over their beliefs and lifestyle ... Or the religious wanting to discriminate against the gays due to their beliefs and lifestyle? Now pumpkin ... You can forget about hypotheticals ... And explain why one group of people discriminating against another group people for the same reason is any different ... Or provides equal protection under the law.

Oh sure.....we know that gays have been busy at work trying to come up with legislation that they can use to discriminate against Christians. Deflection is easy to spot.....try again.

 

[Care4all]

I think it is a form of personal discrimination or judgement in someone's own head, Jarhead, but no one else, is the wiser.

Walking in to a public store on Main street, with other customers present or with no customers present, and the store owner telling me that he would not serve me or sell me any of the goods for sale in his store to me, because he does not accept my personal, and legal lifestyle, or because he does not like my color of skin, or does not like the religion I belong to, is blatant discrimination and hurtful.

That is a one on one, face to face confrontation brought on by the Store owner, in Public, in a store that I only want to buy an item and then go home, from this store or restaurant, like anyone else in that store or eatery.

I don't believe any discrimination should be allowed but if Store owners of stores that are made available for the Public to buy from want to discriminate on who can buy from them like this law seems to allow, then I believe it MUST BE SIGNED, out front, Big and Bold, stating that "no black, (or lesbian) can ride that store's bus" and the customers know it upfront.

NOTE! (That not wanting to serve a customer that has caused a ruckus in your store, is a completely different ball game)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The law allows the business to explain why they should be allowed to discriminate. It does in fact not allow anyone to discriminate. Where in the law does it say that? Hmm? You seem to have never answered that question.

You're almost there. You just typed it but apparently don't understand what you are saying.
In order for a business to have the opportunity to defend themselves(in court) and explain why they " should be" allowed to discriminate they already have discriminated. Their " protection" afforded by the law is only effective AFTER they have discriminated. Why do you refuse to see that?