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

[daws101]

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.

wrong I'm under no obligation to prove my assertion, it's on the plaintiff to disprove it.

 

[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.

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.

War?
I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

 

[daws101]

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.

War?
I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

being Christian would no fun if you didn't feel the need to be persecuted whether real or imagined in this case imagined.

 

[Moonglow]

So, does people from Indiana now have to wear a button on their shirt proclaiming sexual preference?

 

[daws101]

So, does people from Indiana now have to wear a button on their shirt proclaiming sexual preference?

no it's a patch
kinda like these

 

[Jarhead]

So, does people from Indiana now have to wear a button on their shirt proclaiming sexual preference?

Nope.
The fact that you think that maybe they do shows us why the wording needs to be changed. You see, even though the wording makes it clear that it does not allow one to discriminate, the media and many politicians on the left (and a few on the right worried about re-election) have opted to jump on the bandwagon of "you can be denied service if you are gay"....none pointing out to you (for they know folks like you tend to appreciate the emotional crap), that it only gives them the right to defend themselves using religious freedom IF you feel you have been discriminated against.

So, a store owner will need to decide:

1) do I want to be brought up on charges of discrimination
2) Do I want the advertisement of being brought up on charges of discrimination
3) Do I want to lose all those customers that would despise me for discriminating
4) Is it worth the cost to defend myself
5) Is it worth the time to defend myself
6) Can I truly prove that religion is why I felt compelled to do it.

And truth is?

If someone is willing to go through the above 6 points to NOT serve a gay man or woman.....there is a good chance that it is their religion compelling them not to.

 

[Moonglow]

So, does people from Indiana now have to wear a button on their shirt proclaiming sexual preference?

Nope.
The fact that you think that maybe they do shows us why the wording needs to be changed. You see, even though the wording makes it clear that it does not allow one to discriminate, the media and many politicians on the left (and a few on the right worried about re-election) have opted to jump on the bandwagon of "you can be denied service if you are gay"....none pointing out to you (for they know folks like you tend to appreciate the emotional crap), that it only gives them the right to defend themselves using religious freedom IF you feel you have been discriminated against.

So, a store owner will need to decide:

1) do I want to be brought up on charges of discrimination
2) Do I want the advertisement of being brought up on charges of discrimination
3) Do I want to lose all those customers that would despise me for discriminating
4) Is it worth the cost to defend myself
5) Is it worth the time to defend myself
6) Can I truly prove that religion is why I felt compelled to do it.

And truth is?

If someone is willing to go through the above 6 points to NOT serve a gay man or woman.....there is a good chance that it is their religion compelling them not to.

Where does it say in the Bible that Christ said to hate gheys????To deny them anything that other sinners are being able to get or do, since homosexuality is a sin, but so is many other things, yet, I see no religious business leaders going out of their whey to ostracize all sin and sinners alike.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

I suppose it feels like war to those who find it necessary to trump someone's faith with their own lifestyle/genetic predisposition.

It will always be a one sided proposition. So, I guess Christians need to stop going into business for themselves, stay quiet, and go into relative obscurity like they should, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The problem is if they are using the defense they have already discriminated.

The problem is, that they have not discriminated until the courts make such a determination. Sorry. The act of discrimination is only deemed discrimination if the courts do find evidence of willful intent.

 

[Moonglow]

I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

I suppose it feels like war to those who find it necessary to trump someone's faith with their own lifestyle/genetic predisposition.

It will always be a one sided proposition. So, I guess Christians need to stop going into business for themselves, stay quiet, and go into relative obscurity like they should, right?

I have done business with several Christians for many years, yet they never denied me service because of my sins...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

I suppose it feels like war to those who find it necessary to trump someone's faith with their own lifestyle/genetic predisposition.

It will always be a one sided proposition. So, I guess Christians need to stop going into business for themselves, stay quiet, and go into relative obscurity like they should, right?

Or just keep their religion at church or at home and off of others. : )

 

[TemplarKormac]

Or just keep their religion at church or at home and off of others. : )

And why should we keep our religion confined to home and church? Do you know what the First Amendment is? What gives you the right to determine where and when we can practice our faith, hmm?

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem is if they are using the defense they have already discriminated.

The problem is, that they have not discriminated until the courts make such a determination. Sorry. The act of discrimination is only deemed discrimination if the courts do find evidence of willful intent.

They have discriminated almost certianly. THe question is whether it was lawful or not. Some kinds of discrimination are always lawful.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Or just keep their religion at church or at home and off of others. : )

And why should we keep our religion confined to home and church? Do you know what the First Amendment is? What gives you the right to determine where and when we can practice our faith, hmm?

You are free to express your faith in any way you wish. Just don't be surprised and angry when you push your faith and get pushback.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Or just keep their religion at church or at home and off of others. : )

And why should we keep our religion confined to home and church? Do you know what the First Amendment is? What gives you the right to determine where and when we can practice our faith, hmm?

You are free to express your faith in any way you wish. Just don't be surprised and angry when you push your faith and get pushback.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The problem is if they are using the defense they have already discriminated.

The problem is, that they have not discriminated until the courts make such a determination. Sorry. The act of discrimination is only deemed discrimination if the courts do find evidence of willful intent.

They have discriminated almost certianly. THe question is whether it was lawful or not. Some kinds of discrimination are always lawful.

Correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

I suppose it feels like war to those who find it necessary to trump someone's faith with their own lifestyle/genetic predisposition.

It will always be a one sided proposition. So, I guess Christians need to stop going into business for themselves, stay quiet, and go into relative obscurity like they should, right?

Religion only has the rights that don't conflict with other rights.

Most Christians don't have a problem doing business with gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose it feels like a war to those Christians who feel the need to repeatedly inject their faith into public policy and get smacked down every time.

I suppose it feels like war to those who find it necessary to trump someone's faith with their own lifestyle/genetic predisposition.

It will always be a one sided proposition. So, I guess Christians need to stop going into business for themselves, stay quiet, and go into relative obscurity like they should, right?

A Christian who believes drinking alcohol is a sin doesn't open a bar, does he?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The governor of Arkansas not signing similar legislation has made the issue perfectly clear.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

What part of my examples is confusing you? Everything is already covered by current laws of every state.