The RFRA Obama voted for in 1998

[TheOldSchool]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Have you ever been gay?

I suppose the bigger question would be... Have you?

No. Would you turn away a lesbian mother who wanted a birthday cake for their child?

Yes I would. I would be happy to explain that in my religion, homosexuality is a damnable sin and I could not participate in it. I would then offer a list of other bakers in the town who would LOVE the extra business. Then I would hire an attorney because she would be running for the ACLU as fast as she could. It's not about the cake, son. It's about getting their agenda forwarded - no matter the cost.

As a black person, you should be able to recognize that as discrimination. And if the whole town happens to be Christian and hate gay people, this mother is SOL. Kind of like how blck people were in the south not so long ago.

That dog won't hunt sonny. I'm still waiting to see the first homosexual brought in chains from some other country against his will to serve as a slave for the next 100 years. Let me know when that happens. Until then, forget the guilt trip. Doesn't work on me. These are perverts who are demanding that their "cause" be legitimatized and nothing more. In other words - it's BS.

Fine that dog won't hunt for you. When courts legalize gay marriage across all of the states and this Indiana law is found unlawful, maybe that dog will hunt for you.

 

[boedicca]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I suppose the bigger question would be... Have you?

No. Would you turn away a lesbian mother who wanted a birthday cake for their child?

Yes I would. I would be happy to explain that in my religion, homosexuality is a damnable sin and I could not participate in it. I would then offer a list of other bakers in the town who would LOVE the extra business. Then I would hire an attorney because she would be running for the ACLU as fast as she could. It's not about the cake, son. It's about getting their agenda forwarded - no matter the cost.

As a black person, you should be able to recognize that as discrimination. And if the whole town happens to be Christian and hate gay people, this mother is SOL. Kind of like how blck people were in the south not so long ago.

That dog won't hunt sonny. I'm still waiting to see the first homosexual brought in chains from some other country against his will to serve as a slave for the next 100 years. Let me know when that happens. Until then, forget the guilt trip. Doesn't work on me. These are perverts who are demanding that their "cause" be legitimatized and nothing more. In other words - it's BS.

Fine that dog won't hunt for you. When courts legalize gay marriage across all of the states and this Indiana law is found unlawful, maybe that dog will hunt for you.

No sir. It will ALWAYS be a damnable sin. I didn't write the book.Because some "court" legalizes it doesn't change anything. Sorry. Take it up with God.

 

[boedicca]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

And others won't have the right to discriminate against religious people...or conservatives. I'm sure your side will love that.

 

[TheOldSchool]

No. Would you turn away a lesbian mother who wanted a birthday cake for their child?

Yes I would. I would be happy to explain that in my religion, homosexuality is a damnable sin and I could not participate in it. I would then offer a list of other bakers in the town who would LOVE the extra business. Then I would hire an attorney because she would be running for the ACLU as fast as she could. It's not about the cake, son. It's about getting their agenda forwarded - no matter the cost.

As a black person, you should be able to recognize that as discrimination. And if the whole town happens to be Christian and hate gay people, this mother is SOL. Kind of like how blck people were in the south not so long ago.

That dog won't hunt sonny. I'm still waiting to see the first homosexual brought in chains from some other country against his will to serve as a slave for the next 100 years. Let me know when that happens. Until then, forget the guilt trip. Doesn't work on me. These are perverts who are demanding that their "cause" be legitimatized and nothing more. In other words - it's BS.

Fine that dog won't hunt for you. When courts legalize gay marriage across all of the states and this Indiana law is found unlawful, maybe that dog will hunt for you.

No sir. It will ALWAYS be a damnable sin. I didn't write the book.Because some "court" legalizes it doesn't change anything. Sorry. Take it up with God.

I'll tell you what, if God knocks on my door tomorrow and tells me to discriminate against gays I'll start doing so.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

And others won't have the right to discriminate against religious people...or conservatives. I'm sure your side will love that.

Conservatives and religious people have not been denied the right to patronize anywhere. Though, ironically, they now can be discriminated in the state of Indiana.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yes I would. I would be happy to explain that in my religion, homosexuality is a damnable sin and I could not participate in it. I would then offer a list of other bakers in the town who would LOVE the extra business. Then I would hire an attorney because she would be running for the ACLU as fast as she could. It's not about the cake, son. It's about getting their agenda forwarded - no matter the cost.

As a black person, you should be able to recognize that as discrimination. And if the whole town happens to be Christian and hate gay people, this mother is SOL. Kind of like how blck people were in the south not so long ago.

That dog won't hunt sonny. I'm still waiting to see the first homosexual brought in chains from some other country against his will to serve as a slave for the next 100 years. Let me know when that happens. Until then, forget the guilt trip. Doesn't work on me. These are perverts who are demanding that their "cause" be legitimatized and nothing more. In other words - it's BS.

Fine that dog won't hunt for you. When courts legalize gay marriage across all of the states and this Indiana law is found unlawful, maybe that dog will hunt for you.

No sir. It will ALWAYS be a damnable sin. I didn't write the book.Because some "court" legalizes it doesn't change anything. Sorry. Take it up with God.

I'll tell you what, if God knocks on my door tomorrow and tells me to discriminate against gays I'll start doing so.

Well, I fairly well suspect that you already do your "share" of discriminating. You leftist have been famous for it since the days of slavery. Ain't that right, Massa?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

B-b-b-b-u-t ...

Pence said the law, as already written, didn't allow discrimination.

Was he lying then?

Or is he lying now?

One look at this photo of the signing ceremony answers that question:

 

[boedicca]

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

And others won't have the right to discriminate against religious people...or conservatives. I'm sure your side will love that.

Conservatives and religious people have not been denied the right to patronize anywhere. Though, ironically, they now can be discriminated in the state of Indiana.

They've just been denied the right to organize non-profits by the IRS. I'm sure you're fine with that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. Would you turn away a lesbian mother who wanted a birthday cake for their child?

Yes I would. I would be happy to explain that in my religion, homosexuality is a damnable sin and I could not participate in it. I would then offer a list of other bakers in the town who would LOVE the extra business. Then I would hire an attorney because she would be running for the ACLU as fast as she could. It's not about the cake, son. It's about getting their agenda forwarded - no matter the cost.

As a black person, you should be able to recognize that as discrimination. And if the whole town happens to be Christian and hate gay people, this mother is SOL. Kind of like how blck people were in the south not so long ago.

That dog won't hunt sonny. I'm still waiting to see the first homosexual brought in chains from some other country against his will to serve as a slave for the next 100 years. Let me know when that happens. Until then, forget the guilt trip. Doesn't work on me. These are perverts who are demanding that their "cause" be legitimatized and nothing more. In other words - it's BS.

Fine that dog won't hunt for you. When courts legalize gay marriage across all of the states and this Indiana law is found unlawful, maybe that dog will hunt for you.

No sir. It will ALWAYS be a damnable sin. I didn't write the book.Because some "court" legalizes it doesn't change anything. Sorry. Take it up with God.

By no stretch of the imagination does this have anything to do with "god" or true Christianity. Its the fundie hate groups who are pushing this. They're just exactly like Westboro slime.

 

[RandallFlagg]

President Bill Clinton signed the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Here were his words in the Rose Garden:

"We are a people of faith. We have been so secure in that faith that we have enshrined in our Constitution, protection for people who profess no faith. And good for us, for doing so. That is what the First Amendment is all about. But let us never believe that Freedom of Religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us, instead, respect one another's faiths, fight to the death to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has."

Hmmm....Interesting. Guess Bill Clinton would be mocked today.....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

President Bill Clinton signed the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Here were his words in the Rose Garden:

"We are a people of faith. We have been so secure in that faith that we have enshrined in our Constitution, protection for people who profess no faith. And good for us, for doing so. That is what the First Amendment is all about. But let us never believe that Freedom of Religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us, instead, respect one another's faiths, fight to the death to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has."

Hmmm....Interesting. Guess Bill Clinton would be mocked today.....

Read them.

They're very different.

VERY different.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That is the same argument people used to discriminate against black people in this country. Religious people are not being discriminated against. If they don't want to put a rainbow flag on their cake it's perfectly legal for them to say no. But if they want to sell cakes they have to sell cakes to everyone. Whether they're Christian, Muslim, Black, Gay, Hindu, etc. if they don't want to put a certain message on that cake it's perfectly within their rights.

The Little Sisters of Charity who the Feds are trying to force to pay for contraceptives will be so relieved to know that you think they are not being discriminated against.

The court said they didn't have to. Just like they'll say this law is unconstitutional.

You wish. Indiana is clarifying its law in exactly the way you would want, if you were honest. But as you are a shrill hack, it doesn't matter what the law says. You are engaged in character assault and will misquote and misinterpret anything that Pence says.

Oh okay so once they clarify it religious people won't have a special right to discriminate against others anymore? Sounds good to me.

And others won't have the right to discriminate against religious people...or conservatives. I'm sure your side will love that.

Oh is Lois Lerner still going to be arrested any day now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, that ended quickly.

 

[auditor0007]

Notice how that law pertains to how the GOVERNMENT interacts with religious people and not how a PERSON interacts with another person.

The spirit of that law was to allow things like Muslims having beards in prison and churches holding events in public places.

The Indiana law is there to allow discrimination. So cons, please stop with this bullshit about "19 other states."

So, answer me this....If I get you folks correctly here....it's perfectly fine to discriminate against someone for their beliefs in order to NOT discriminate against gays. Is this your stance?

I'll go ahead and answer your question. Yes it is. And why is that? Because people of faith have no "rights"? But perverts do?.....seems like the tail wagging the dog here. One more nail in America's coffin.

Being gay only makes one a pervert in the eyes of homophobic religious zealots. BTW, this country has no national religion at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Below is once again, a comparison of the Federal RFRA and the Illinois RFRA, 775 ILCS 35:

42 USC 2000bb-1

(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.



775 ILCS 35/10

Section 10 (6)(b)(1)(2)

(6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
(b) The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.
(2) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.

775 ILCS 35/15

Section 15 (i)(ii)

Sec. 15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

775 ILCS 35/20

Section 20

Sec 20. Judicial relief. If a person's exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this Act, that person may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in an action to enforce this Act against a government is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining the claim or defense.

And (thanks to mudwhistle for finding this) the vote tally for Indiana HB2370 in which it clearly shows Obama voting for the exact same thing Indiana passed last week:

The same law, the same exact law. Obama voted for it, with his pen and his phone was not required. The silence on his part, thus far, on this issue is testament enough to that fact.

You're wrong. The law above is only directed at government. The Indiana law extends to individuals.

Please give us a ballpark figure on how many times we will have to repeat that before you'll shut up about it?

Just an estimate, you know, so we'll have a goal to work towards.