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

[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.

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

I told you that you didn't need to answer and yet you did, making yourself appear even stupider.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

LMAO...you call US stupid as you showed us your inability to read the fact that I made it clear it was a heterosexual marriage?
And what if a catholic baker had NEVER baked a cake for a gay marriage? Is that not tame as Jew NEVER working on Saturday?

You are too much Racist Ravi. You ignore scenarios that do not support your narrative but then use the same scanris when they DO support your narrative.

Pathetic racist you are, Ravi.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

 

[Jarhead]

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

uh...the governor made it clear that the press and some on the left were irresponsible on how they reported the law but in an attempt to make sure they can no longer do that, he will change the wording BUT NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE LAW.

I understand you dont like the truth because it does not allow you to continue to a conservative governor......but you will survive. Trust me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If the 1993 law allows business owners to legally discriminate against gays, why aren't the Colorado and Oregon bakers going to the Supreme Court?

 

[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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

uh...the governor made it clear that the press and some on the left were irresponsible on how they reported the law but in an attempt to make sure they can no longer do that, he will change the wording BUT NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE LAW.

I understand you dont like the truth because it does not allow you to continue to a conservative governor......but you will survive. Trust me.

What is the meaning of the law, in your own words? How will the law effect Christian businesses and gay patrons?

Be specific.

 

[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.

If the 1993 law allows business owners to legally discriminate against gays, why aren't the Colorado and Oregon bakers going to the Supreme Court?

Thanks for proving the whole point.
Because the matter is subject to state, not federal, law. And those states never instituted a Religious Restoration act similar to the federal act and Indiana act.
That is precisely the reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If the 1993 law allows business owners to legally discriminate against gays, why aren't the Colorado and Oregon bakers going to the Supreme Court?

Thanks for proving the whole point.
Because the matter is subject to state, not federal, law. And those states never instituted a Religious Restoration act similar to the federal act and Indiana act.
That is precisely the reason.

They already had laws in place protecting gay rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If the 1993 law allows business owners to legally discriminate against gays, why aren't the Colorado and Oregon bakers going to the Supreme Court?

Thanks for proving the whole point.
Because the matter is subject to state, not federal, law. And those states never instituted a Religious Restoration act similar to the federal act and Indiana act.
That is precisely the reason.

They already had laws in place protecting gay rights.

Non-sequitur.

 

[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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

OK. So religious objections are valid objections. Case closed.

 

[dblack]

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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

OK. So religious objections are valid objections. Case closed.

Only those that the state recognizes as such.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

OK. So religious objections are valid objections. Case closed.

Only those that the state recognizes as such.

exactly true. If someone attempts to use religious freedom as an excuse to not serve a black man, he will be quite difficult for him to prove that he is observing a legitimate religious tenet.
No state in the US will recognize a "modern day" religion that has racism based in its principals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

Leftists are so used to living in a haze of ignorance.

We're not the ones that watch FAUX News 24/7..........

"Squawk squawk squawk! Faux News! Talking points! Squawk! Polly want a cracker!"

I'm sorry, I can't serve Polly her cracker because it violates my religious beliefs!

(couldn't resist!)

Yes, feeding the trolls is against my most deeply-held beliefs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

Epic fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

So you can't name who made the reports, or how the information was substantiated.

Typical low information, lying hack.

you can look it up yourself ...but that would mean you have to admit I'm right .

"I made the assertion, now it's YOUR job to prove me right! I've done MY part!"

Piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if there is no clarification of this law needed, why is Governor Pence crafting legislation to clarify this law?

What A Fix In Indiana Would Look Like - NationalJournal.com

Because shitstains like you specialize in disseminated false information at the top of your lungs and muddying the public's understanding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course, store hours for everybody are discriminatory. Goddam you people.

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

OK. So religious objections are valid objections. Case closed.

Only those that the state recognizes as such.

exactly true. If someone attempts to use religious freedom as an excuse to not serve a black man, he will be quite difficult for him to prove that he is observing a legitimate religious tenet.
No state in the US will recognize a "modern day" religion that has racism based in its principals.

Why would the State have the right to do that? You really think that the State is final authority as to what you can or cannot hold as a religious belief?

 

[Ravi]

Store hours are not fixed necessarily. So the baker closes at 6PM, say, but has no problem delivering a cake at 9PM. He is closed Sun but will come in for a special order.

If he only works on Saturday for non-Christians, and that is clearly demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, then he's discriminating.

OK. So religious objections are valid objections. Case closed.

Only those that the state recognizes as such.

exactly true. If someone attempts to use religious freedom as an excuse to not serve a black man, he will be quite difficult for him to prove that he is observing a legitimate religious tenet.
No state in the US will recognize a "modern day" religion that has racism based in its principals.

Why would the State have the right to do that? You really think that the State is final authority as to what you can or cannot hold as a religious belief?

Ironic, isn't it?