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

[The Rabbi]

"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.

Where did you see that? The AK Senate has just passed the bill. IT isnt on his desk yet.

 

[Scorpion]

Heard an interesting scenario on a radio show today.

A portrait artist accepts offer from a client to paint a couples portrait.
She agrees to paint virtually every client she can fit into her schedule until she is asked to paint a couple nude.
She declines because of her personal feelings with regards to nudity.
One could claim she is discriminating against a couple who practice a nudist lifestyle.

Does she get taken to court?
A baker is an artist as is a florist and all are merchants.
Does the portrait artist get a pass because her defense is NOT based on religious ground but permissible because the thought of painting a nude couple caused her great discomfiture?

 

[Mertex]

Why do you refuse to see that?

Because he is obtuse. They keep saying it doesn't allow discrimination but Pence is looking into "clarifying" it........if it doesn't allow discrimination, then he doesn't need to clarify anything......

I guess all the businesses that are threatening to pull their businesses out of Indiana are not as "intelligent" as TK, Pence and the other morons who have embarrassed the hell out of Indiana.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Heard an interesting scenario on a radio show today.

A portrait artist accepts offer from a client to paint a couples portrait.
She agrees to paint virtually every client she can fit into her schedule until she is asked to paint a couple nude.
She declines because of her personal feelings with regards to nudity.
One could claim she is discriminating against a couple who practice a nudist lifestyle.

Does she get taken to court?
A baker is an artist as is a florist and all are merchants.
Does the portrait artist get a pass because her defense is NOT based on religious ground but permissible because the thought of painting a nude couple caused her great discomfiture?

A service provider doesn't have to provide services they don't provide. Your plumber doesn't have to mow your lawn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Two governors got religion on the dangers of trying to be too religious.

 

[Camp]

How many Republican Presidential hopefuls will flip flop on this issue by the end of today?

 

[dblack]

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

Exactly. The real question isn't religious freedom. It's whether we have a right to be treated equally by businesses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you give business the right to turn away gay customers on religious grounds, then in 'fairness' you have to give him the right to turn away people of color on religious grounds, and so on, for any particular group of people.

Once you've decided that discrimination in the business world is a valid religious prerogative, then all anti-discrimination laws become subordinate to the professed religious beliefs of the individual.

That creates a kind of theocracy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

P

If you give business the right to turn away gay customers on religious grounds, then in 'fairness' you have to give him the right to turn away people of color on religious grounds, and so on, for any particular group of people.

Once you've decided that discrimination in the business world is a valid religious prerogative, then all anti-discrimination laws become subordinate to the professed religious beliefs of the individual.

That creates a kind of theocracy.

For sure(ia)!

 

[dblack]

If you give business the right to turn away gay customers on religious grounds, then in 'fairness' you have to give him the right to turn away people of color on religious grounds, and so on, for any particular group of people.

Once you've decided that discrimination in the business world is a valid religious prerogative, then all anti-discrimination laws become subordinate to the professed religious beliefs of the individual.

That creates a kind of theocracy.

Exactly. It's special exemption for those who claim religious belief. Discrimination laws should be struck down across the board, for everyone equally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry, Sparkles, but by definition, if you make an assertion, YOU are the plaintiff . . . inasmuch as there is any such thing when this is a conversation, not a court of law, dumbass.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your job to prove, not other people's job to disprove while you just throw out blank assertions. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but don't be surprised when everyone just starts dismissing you as a lightweight . . . even more than we do now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, the assumption that only one group is forbidden from affecting public policy based on what they believe to be right and wrong, while everyone else is given a pass, would basically BE a war on that group.

Who are you to tell me which of my beliefs I'm allowed to base my political activism on and which I'm not, simply because you don't happen to like the motivation for them?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Well, the assumption that only one group is forbidden from affecting public policy based on what they believe to be right and wrong, while everyone else is given a pass, would basically BE a war on that group.

Who are you to tell me which of my beliefs I'm allowed to base my political activism on and which I'm not, simply because you don't happen to like the motivation for them?

This is far too advanced a concept for the anti-Christian crowd to grasp.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

One could say the same thing about being leftist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Based on your flawed and ignorant assumption of what the law says and does? Hardly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.....

Oh, goodie, another ignorant, useless post where we're supposed to argue based on the assumption that your bullshit worldview is objective reality. How about not? And I do hope you're not going to be terribly surprised if no one feels the slightest urge to dignify you with a real response.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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'm thinking they'd really like for us all to segregate ourselves off onto special reservations, kind of a voluntary version of what the US did to American aborigines in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[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?

I'm thinking they'd really like for us all to segregate ourselves off onto special reservations, kind of a voluntary version of what the US did to American aborigines in the 18th and 19th centuries.

With the behavior that's going on now against the Christian community, people such as Hutch will "awaken a sleeping giant" as it were.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

Why would they? Very few religions feel compelled to avoid interaction with non-believers, and those that do generally segregate themselves more or less entirely, like the Amish do. And even they tolerate tourists.

There's a big difference between everyday interaction with others, and actively participating in their actions that you don't approve of or agree with. All Christians want is respect for their right to draw that dividing line for themselves, according to the dictates of their own consciences, regardless of the dogma and dictates of the Politically Correct Left.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. : )

And where does the First Amendment require that Christians suppress their beliefs and limit them to certain places that you "generously" are willing to allow them to express themselves in? Do we get to limit YOUR freedom of speech and expression in the same way?

FYI, refusing to participate in someone's life is not "putting your beliefs on them". Going to the courts to make someone participate in your life, however, is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, we're not surprised that you feel justified in trying to oppress us. Angry, on the other hand, we most certainly are and will continue to be whether you give us permission to or not.

And again, choosing not to participate in your life is not "pushing" anything.