Read the damn law!! A pseudo rant on the Indiana "Religious Freedom" law

[mikegriffith1]

I know there are plenty of Conservative and Orthodox Jewish business people who would object if asked to service a gay wedding. But, so far, either no gay couples have asked any Conservative or Orthodox Jewish vendors to service a gay wedding or they have asked but opted not to make an issue of the rejection.

There would be no need for laws to protect religious vendors if gays would just respect the beliefs and feelings of others. They are not being "denied" any "right." They have no right to force a religious business person to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally objectionable, just as religious persons have no right to force a gay business person to service an event that they find morally offensive. Sheesh, just go get a different photographer, baker, florist, whatever, and stop trying to impose your values on others.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I know there are plenty of Conservative and Orthodox Jewish business people who would object if asked to service a gay wedding. But, so far, either no gay couples have asked any Conservative or Orthodox Jewish vendors to service a gay wedding or they have asked but opted not to make an issue of the rejection.

There would be no need for laws to protect religious vendors if gays would just respect the beliefs and feelings of others. They are not being "denied" any "right." They have no right to force a religious business person to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally objectionable, just as religious persons have no right to force a gay business person to service an event that they find morally offensive. Sheesh, just go get a different photographer, baker, florist, whatever, and stop trying to impose your values on others.

You talk of rights as though you understand them.

Here is a solution for you, asshole. If you are a religious freak and you are asked to photograph a gay wedding.....you don't say no and use your bigotry as a reason. You tell the couple that you will do the job, but that you will not try hard because you hate who they are. Tell them that you don't care about their feelings and that you are not professional enough to do the job. They will call you a homophobic asshole and find someone else.

Perfectly legal and honest. Asshole.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Right, so, I've been watching discussion over Indiana's religious freedom law. Many people have been misconstruing the nature of the law to overtly discriminate against gays and homosexuals, others insist this law only protects Christians.

Well, if you're one of those folks, you'd be wrong. To be succinct, why can't you just read the law in it's entire context? It gets really tiresome when someone outrightly condemns or endorses a law as "this" or "that" without ever reading it. Just read the damned law! It protects any religious belief, not just Christianity. It does not call for discrimination. Pretty cut and dry.

Below is a complete citation of the the statute as listed in the Indiana Code. Nowhere in said statute does it call for open discrimination against homosexuals. This law mirrors that of the Federal Law, which consequently does not call for open discrimination against homosexuals also. The simple intention of this law is to prevent government from unreasonably burdening the religious practices of a person (as defined in this law). As such, if the government can in fact prove a compelling interest, then this law cannot be used as a defense. Really, it isn't too hard to understand, just read the damned law.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

Doesn't matter what it says (s. 8 seems to be the meat of it btw,) government shouldn't be making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Wanna be religious fine. But you're not going to be allowed to do things others couldn't BECAUSE of any particular religion. Wanna live in a theocracy move to KSA, Iran, Afganistan, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know there are plenty of Conservative and Orthodox Jewish business people who would object if asked to service a gay wedding. But, so far, either no gay couples have asked any Conservative or Orthodox Jewish vendors to service a gay wedding or they have asked but opted not to make an issue of the rejection.

There would be no need for laws to protect religious vendors if gays would just respect the beliefs and feelings of others. They are not being "denied" any "right." They have no right to force a religious business person to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally objectionable, just as religious persons have no right to force a gay business person to service an event that they find morally offensive. Sheesh, just go get a different photographer, baker, florist, whatever, and stop trying to impose your values on others.

Segregation in the South had 'other places' for black people to go.

 

[emilynghiem]

Indiana Law Sorting Fact From Fiction From Politics It s All Politics NPR

3 Gay Marriage Supporters Who Still Support Religious Freedom

Same-Sex Marriage i Is i a Religious Institution Deserving Lawful Protection G. Roger Denson

What would happen if the LGBT community did something that no one in the state of Indiana, and apparently no one in the US mainstream media, expects us to do? That is, what if we lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals claim our entitlement to and protection under the so-called Indiana "Religious Freedom" law sponsored by Governor Mike Pence (which after the initial outcry is now undergoing amendment talks). For all that LGBT Americans would need to do to be covered under the Religious Freedom Law as individuals and as married citizens is to claim that they and their marriage are partaking in a religion or spiritual calling.

I don't mean that we on the spot improvise or fake a ritual and liturgy that purports to sanctify same-sex unions. There's no need for such desperate tactics, given that same sex relations were included within the universal Christian community almost at its origins, and even was bestowed authentic matrimonial liturgies in the Roman and Orthodox Churches from the fourth-to-twelfth centuries.

Sadly, by the twelfth century, same sex marriages were gradually discontinued. And there seems to be no clear record or known reason why. Even the Catholic and Orthodox clergy are largely unaware that there were once nuptial liturgies performed by priests just for same-sex congregants of the Roman and Greek Churches. But that doesn't mean that the sanctity of the nuptial proceedings themselves are null and void.

Indeed, it seems that all around the world, especially among formerly colonized peoples who were once denied their ancestor's indigenous faiths are renewing the old rituals and liturgies once they learn what they were.[/b]

 

[emilynghiem]

Right, so, I've been watching discussion over Indiana's religious freedom law. Many people have been misconstruing the nature of the law to overtly discriminate against gays and homosexuals, others insist this law only protects Christians.

Well, if you're one of those folks, you'd be wrong. To be succinct, why can't you just read the law in it's entire context? It gets really tiresome when someone outrightly condemns or endorses a law as "this" or "that" without ever reading it. Just read the damned law! It protects any religious belief, not just Christianity. It does not call for discrimination. Pretty cut and dry.

Below is a complete citation of the the statute as listed in the Indiana Code. Nowhere in said statute does it call for open discrimination against homosexuals. This law mirrors that of the Federal Law, which consequently does not call for open discrimination against homosexuals also. The simple intention of this law is to prevent government from unreasonably burdening the religious practices of a person (as defined in this law). As such, if the government can in fact prove a compelling interest, then this law cannot be used as a defense. Really, it isn't too hard to understand, just read the damned law.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

Doesn't matter what it says (s. 8 seems to be the meat of it btw,) government shouldn't be making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Wanna be religious fine. But you're not going to be allowed to do things others couldn't BECAUSE of any particular religion. Wanna live in a theocracy move to KSA, Iran, Afganistan, etc.

Dear Delta4Embassy
Then why is half the nation allowed to establish the belief in federal health care mandates based on required purchase of insurance?

It goes both ways.

As pointed out before, the neutral way would be to keep marriage OUT of the govt to begin with.
And only if people AGREE on marriage laws, then those can be made public policies.

But if one side has one set of beliefs about marriage
and another has a different set of beliefs,
how can the govt endorse one set of rules over another?

How is that not establishing a set of beliefs? In this case focused on marriage.
In the case of ACA and health care, focused on the belief that federal govt can or cannot dictate/regulate/penalize
choices of paying for health care (which many groups can argue involves Spiritual and Religious choices
that Govt is not supposed to regulate, much less penalize and discriminate against by law).

Delta4Embassy I hope you are objective, discerning and intellecutally honest enough
to see that, either way, POLITICAL BELIEFS ARE BEING ESTABLISHED BY GOVT.

Are there any honest liberals out there willing to defend the political beliefs of others
equally as the liberal political beliefs? Or all groups only out to defend THEIR beliefs
through govt? Where the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights principles
of equal protection of all beliefs from political discrimination by creed
"ONLY APPLIES TO US" and we fight when opposing beliefs seek equal protection?

Are we reduced to a nation of political bullies, deciding policies by force and not inclusion
and equality?