What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different? Mostly TWO Provisions!

[Lakhota]

Mike Pence Says Indiana's Religious Freedom Law 'Simply Mirrors' Federal Statute

Pence is lying - because it does not mirror federal statute.

 

[Lakhota]

NaziCon bigots circle the wagons.

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Rise To Defend Indiana Law That Many See As Anti-Gay

 

[Lakhota]

Gee, is this thread too technical?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL This is too funny but a dumb downed left loon will never grasp it .

Governor Of Connecticut Bans All State Travel To Indiana Over RFRA. But There's One Problem...

But when you get past the rush to judgement in 140 characters or less, you find out that - SURPRISE! - Connecticut signed a law similar to Indiana's in 1993. And, according to The Daily Caller, the Connecticut law has even more strict language than Indiana's does.

While Indiana’s law includes language prohibiting the state from creating a “substantial” burden against an individuals’ exercise of their religion, Connecticut’s does not use the “substantial” qualifier. It reads that “The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

I guess Gov. Malloy just wanted to be on Miley Cyrus's good side or something?

Governor Of Connecticut Bans All State Travel To Indiana Over RFRA. But There s One Problem... - Chicks on the Right

 

[PredFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

 

[Lakhota]

Pence is speaking live.

 

[PratchettFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

 

[Lakhota]

So, if there is nothing wrong with the Indiana law - why is Pence now saying they will "fix" it?

 

[bodecea]

LOL This is too funny but a dumb downed left loon will never grasp it .

Governor Of Connecticut Bans All State Travel To Indiana Over RFRA. But There's One Problem...

But when you get past the rush to judgement in 140 characters or less, you find out that - SURPRISE! - Connecticut signed a law similar to Indiana's in 1993. And, according to The Daily Caller, the Connecticut law has even more strict language than Indiana's does.

While Indiana’s law includes language prohibiting the state from creating a “substantial” burden against an individuals’ exercise of their religion, Connecticut’s does not use the “substantial” qualifier. It reads that “The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

I guess Gov. Malloy just wanted to be on Miley Cyrus's good side or something?

Governor Of Connecticut Bans All State Travel To Indiana Over RFRA. But There s One Problem... - Chicks on the Right

Your English lesson for today...."Similar" does not mean "Same".

 

[PratchettFan]

So, if there is nothing wrong with the Indiana law - why is Pence now saying they will "fix" it?

Still haven't read it, have you.

 

[Anathema]

The more I read on this, the more I want to start looking at moving to Indiana.

There was a time in civilized society when the word "Disriminating" was considered one of the highest forms of PRAISE an individual could have..... Discriminating Tastes, a Discriminating Palatte, etc.... Hell, the Founding Fathers of this nation wrote a document (the Constitution) that expressly discriminated against women, foreigners, and africans. Unfortunately two of those three discriminatory policies have been done away with in the last century and I don't doubt the third will die within this century.

We all discriminate on a daily basis. We choose who our friends are. We choose what to eat. We choose where to live. The idea that Discriminating is a bad thing totally baffles me. Always has and always will.

 

[Lakhota]

Why don't they just repeal the discriminatory law - instead of trying to "fix" it?

 

[PratchettFan]

Why don't they just repeal the discriminatory law - instead of trying to "fix" it?

And you still haven't read it.

 

[PredFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why don't they just repeal the discriminatory law - instead of trying to "fix" it?

That would make them look bad, irony noted.

 

[martybegan]

You cannot only advocate for the rights and liberties that you approve of. The far right and the far left are both guilty of this absurdity.

You should have the liberty to marry anyone you choose, and you should have the right to conduct business with anyone you choose, or not.

I don't agree with that last bit. I think there is a compelling state interest to prevent people from being banned from obtaining goods and services just because of who they are. OTOH, I am not convinced this needs to be all encompassing. I can certainly see that a grocery store should not be allowed to discriminate, or an apartment complex..., but a flower arranger? There should be some rational line if you are going to decide one person's rights are more important than another person's rights. This is not a one sided issue.

A right or a Liberty doesn't depend on whether someone agrees or approves.

A private business should have the right to serve anyone they want to or not to serve them. They should have that right but they also have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That includes boycotts and loss of business. Certainly they should have the right to not be forced to operate in a manner that conflicts with their religion.

No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.

So that means a restaurant can't put up a sign that says "no shirt, not shoes, no service"?

What about a place that charges $200 for a meal? Aren't they discriminating against poor people?

And i guess women's colleges shouldn't be allowed to exist, or black muslim mosques that deny membership to whites shouldn't exist either.

 

[protectionist]

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

The Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.

So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’sdefinition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.

Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?

No.

The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.

As the story of Maurice Bessinger shows us, even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.

More: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation - The Atlantic

I hope this helps to make the differences clearer.

Homosexuals should not HAVE "equality". They are not equal. They are lucky they are not all tossed into insane asylums.

 

[orogenicman]

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

The Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.

So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’sdefinition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.

Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?

No.

The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.

As the story of Maurice Bessinger shows us, even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.

More: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation - The Atlantic

I hope this helps to make the differences clearer.

It doesn't make the differences clear to me. What the law says is the state must demonstrate a compelling interest. Now, I can see a compelling interest when it comes to housing. You have to have a roof over your head. How does it apply to having someone take a picture of you?

States have an interest in how commerce is conducted within their borders.

 

[martybegan]

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

The Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.

So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’sdefinition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.

Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?

No.

The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.

As the story of Maurice Bessinger shows us, even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.

More: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation - The Atlantic

I hope this helps to make the differences clearer.

It doesn't make the differences clear to me. What the law says is the state must demonstrate a compelling interest. Now, I can see a compelling interest when it comes to housing. You have to have a roof over your head. How does it apply to having someone take a picture of you?

States have an interest in how commerce is conducted within their borders.

By that logic Idaho can force everyone in the state to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes every week, or Wisconsin could mandate cheese purchases.