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

[Ravi]

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?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Stupid analogy. A caterer does not have to serve food from another vendor.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jarhead]

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

like I said shredded ...your attempt a semantics is laughable..

It is not that you are poorly informed.

You are properly informed. You simply refuse to accept the facts

 

[daws101]

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

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?

false and melodramatic.
what is sacrilege is you masquerading as a Christian and presenting you own twisted version of sacrilege as a fact...

 

[Jarhead]

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?

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Stupid analogy. A caterer does not have to serve food from another vendor.

Hope that helps.

he most certainly does if he had done it before. In a court of law, his history is used for final determination.

You have two problems. First, you are a racist asshole. Second, your mind is a closed as I perceive your vagina to be.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?

false and melodramatic.
what is sacrilege is you masquerading as a Christian and presenting you own twisted version of sacrilege as a fact...

Oh, you mean like progressive nutbags do when they dedicate massive tracts of bandwidth to telling Christians how to be more Christian (by participating in sacrilege) and lying to the Holy Spirit?

In the past, people who did that were struck dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?

Since most Christians have no problem with gays patronizing their businesses,

who are you talking about?

 

[daws101]

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

like I said shredded ...your attempt a semantics is laughable..

It is not that you are poorly informed.

You are properly informed. You simply refuse to accept the facts

if they were facts I would accept them....since the law is being substantially changed and the Arkansas governor will not sign it's version until the same sort of changes are made.
your Facts are not

 

[NYcarbineer]

He keeps repeating that because he doesn't understand that religion becomes a defense of the act of discrimination.

Of course the religious person must make the case that his motivation to discriminate is based on religious beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is establishing religion as a means to do something that might otherwise be illegal.

As I have pointed out, it would be the same if religious belief was made a legal justification for polygamy.

You keep repeating the same fallacies day after day because you dont understand what the law does.
Businesses discriminate every day.

So the defense allowed by the law doesn't come into effect only after discrimination has occurred and a lawsuit is in process?

Why don't you explain your position professor.

let me explain it to you this way...

If a business refuses to serve a person or business...lets use a non gay scenario so we can eliminate the emotions from the debate....

A Kosher caterer is approached by non Kosher couple to cater their wedding affair. They chose Moishe because he has a reputation as the best caterer in town as it pertains to quality and price. They don't mind Kosher food but they really want a cold seafood station at the cocktail party...you know, lobster, clams, oysters and crab. Of course, the Kosher caterer can not supply that food but knowing that, they had already hired a seafood supplier to furnish the food for the cocktail party...all they need the Kosher caterer to do is set it up and have his staff serve it.

After much thought, he realizes that his Kosher food would be compromised for it is likely that the guests will likely combine the kosher food with the non kosher food on the same plates...which is against the tenets of the orthodox Jewish religion....so as opposed to having to worry about that, he passes on the affair.

The couple is upset, He has the best staff, the best food and the lowest price in town. They feel the fact that they do not wish to abide by HIS religious restrictions is discrimination and they bring a suit against him.

With this law, he is now able to claim that he runs his business along the lines of his religious beliefs and a customer can not force him to compromise those beliefs.

Now, during his defense he will have to prove that he NEVER has, in the past, compromised his beliefs when conducting business.

If he can, then it will be deemed that his actions were not discriminatory, but, instead, a decision based on his own belief system.

Hope that helps.

Stupid analogy. A caterer does not have to serve food from another vendor.

Hope that helps.

he most certainly does if he had done it before. In a court of law, his history is used for final determination.

You have two problems. First, you are a racist asshole. Second, your mind is a closed as I perceive your vagina to be.

What?

So you're an open vagina advocate? Do we really want to know what that means? Well, out of pure curiosity, I suppose...
...proceed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

bullshit, besides that law is being shredded as we speak.

No it isn't. You are poorly informed.
The law is being written in a way where no one can misconstrue its meaning and intentions (be it intentional or otherwise)...but Pense made it clear that the law will stand as it pertains to its mandate.

like I said shredded ...your attempt a semantics is laughable..

It is not that you are poorly informed.

You are properly informed. You simply refuse to accept the facts

if they were facts I would accept them....since the law is being substantially changed and the Arkansas governor will not sign it's version until the same sort of changes are made.
your Facts are not

The change to these laws appears to be that they will remove the original purposes of the laws, which, if true,

is quite amusing.

 

[daws101]

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

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?

false and melodramatic.
what is sacrilege is you masquerading as a Christian and presenting you own twisted version of sacrilege as a fact...

Oh, you mean like progressive nutbags do when they dedicate massive tracts of bandwidth to telling Christians how to be more Christian (by participating in sacrilege) and lying to the Holy Spirit?

In the past, people who did that were struck dead.

false another lie you insist was true.
speaking of wasted bandwidth ever ready your own shit?

 

[daws101]

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

Yes, let's do:

1. Proven bigotry by religious bigots.

2. America won't stand for it.

You mean the religious bigots who think Christians should be forced to recant their faith, and participate in sacrilege?

Since most Christians have no problem with gays patronizing their businesses,

who are you talking about?

nobody in particular, kosher hag tends to extremely over dramatize..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

go to say Saudi Arabia and force them to bake wedding cakes for gays.....hahaha.....they'll probably strike you dead...

 

[The Rabbi]

How about this....

A gay photographer was approached to photograph a heterosexual wedding at a church. The church has a Priest who is known for his "anti gay" position and sermons and she refuses to be exposed to it during the ceremony...so she declines.

Do you feel the heterosexual couple has the right to claim discrimination?

Well here's a twist that turns it around.
The best cake baker in town is also an Orthodox Jew whose store is closed on Saturday. A Christian couple want to have a wedding cake, and they want it delivered on the wedding day, which is almost always Saturday in Christian churches.
The baker refuses, citing his inability to work on Saturday.
Should the couple be able to sue the baker to force him to work on Saturday, against his religious beliefs?

 

[Ravi]

go to say Saudi Arabia and force them to bake wedding cakes for gays.....hahaha.....they'll probably strike you dead...

This isn't Saudi Arabia.

 

[Ravi]

How about this....

A gay photographer was approached to photograph a heterosexual wedding at a church. The church has a Priest who is known for his "anti gay" position and sermons and she refuses to be exposed to it during the ceremony...so she declines.

Do you feel the heterosexual couple has the right to claim discrimination?

Well here's a twist that turns it around.
The best cake baker in town is also an Orthodox Jew whose store is closed on Saturday. A Christian couple want to have a wedding cake, and they want it delivered on the wedding day, which is almost always Saturday in Christian churches.
The baker refuses, citing his inability to work on Saturday.
Should the couple be able to sue the baker to force him to work on Saturday, against his religious beliefs?

No, because he never works on Saturday. And a church with a priest that rants against gays isn't going to hold a gay marriage in his church.

Are you two really as stupid as you appear? No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question.

 

[rdean]

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!

You know this is way, way passed 1993? Right? You know that?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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!

You know this is way, way passed 1993? Right? You know that?

^^^^ MSNBC Talking point issued. I saw this on TV this morning how the left is using the same talking points

 

[The Rabbi]

How about this....

A gay photographer was approached to photograph a heterosexual wedding at a church. The church has a Priest who is known for his "anti gay" position and sermons and she refuses to be exposed to it during the ceremony...so she declines.

Do you feel the heterosexual couple has the right to claim discrimination?

Well here's a twist that turns it around.
The best cake baker in town is also an Orthodox Jew whose store is closed on Saturday. A Christian couple want to have a wedding cake, and they want it delivered on the wedding day, which is almost always Saturday in Christian churches.
The baker refuses, citing his inability to work on Saturday.
Should the couple be able to sue the baker to force him to work on Saturday, against his religious beliefs?

No, because he never works on Saturday. And a church with a priest that rants against gays isn't going to hold a gay marriage in his church.

Are you two really as stupid as you appear? No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question.

OK so you agree that religious objections to a business proposal are valid.
Case closed. Thanks for playing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 Fentirekyderal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

You know this is way, way passed 1993? Right? You know that?

Really? You mean we are living in an entirely different political climate? Huh. Who knew.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 Fentirekyderal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

You know this is way, way passed 1993? Right? You know that?

Really? You mean we are living in an entirely different political climate? Huh. Who knew.

For sure it's different.
In 1993 Democrats cared about people's religious rights. Today, they only have contempt for them.
All of this should be unncecessary. In the past an org like Little Sisters or Hobby Lobby would have applied for a waiver from federal law on religious grounds and gotten it as a matter of course. But in the Obama Admnistration religion, which is protected under the 1A, is subservient to rradical feminism and radical gays, so they turned them down. That's why we're having this war.