Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What you really mean is > Why don't they repeal a law that discriminates against sex perverts, and put in its place one that discriminates against Christians ? You don't care one iota about "discrimination". You just don't want YOUR guys to be the ones getting discriminated against, and you're fully willing to throw others under the discrimination bus in the process. This is called HYPOCRISY.Why don't they just repeal the discriminatory law - instead of trying to "fix" it?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.
The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law
Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
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.
As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.
Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.
As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.
The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law
Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.
PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
Only if they are customers.
Oh yeah man. They "know what they're talking about." They're good at demanding tolerance for homos, all the while that they blast machine gun fire at the very idea of tolerance for Christians, and those who wish to not have the whims of sex perverts imposed upon them. Do these fools have any idea how blatantly stupid they look ? I mean really.Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.
The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law
Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom should know what they're talking about. Read their letter.
PHEEEEEEEEEEWWW!!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)
How is purchasing a cake or a photograph imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout? Do you have any idea how bigoted your statement looks to others? I mean really?
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.
As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.
Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.
As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.
But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!
and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).
Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE
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.
As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.
Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.
As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.
But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!
and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).
Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE
I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.
As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
Only if they are customers.
Really? So "customer" is now some superduper right enhancement if you belong to a "special" class?
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.
and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.
and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.
At least be honest about that.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
Only if they are customers.
Really? So "customer" is now some superduper right enhancement if you belong to a "special" class?
No. If the government is the customer they can buy what they wish. If they wish to buy Idaho potatoes, either the business sells Idaho potatoes or they don't get the contract.
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.
Straw man. Idaho cannot force someone to buy a 5 pound bag of potatoes, nor can Wisconsin mandate cheese purchases. But they can demand that companies that conduct business within their borders not discriminate against their citizens when conducting said business.
Ah, now you qualify your original statement. Can they force businesses to only use Idaho Potatoes in Idaho, or Wisconsin Cheese in Wisconsin?
The issue here is not the product. The issue is the human rights of the parties conducting the business.
and in your book the weight of the government must be brought to suppress the religious convictions of a business owner, instead of the purchasers finding another supplier for a non-critical, easily obtainable item.
and lets be hones, you only care about the human rights of ONE party, to you the Christians in this situation should submit or fuck off.
At least be honest about that.
People have a right to their religious freedoms, but those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. Otherwise, a religious business owner could deny services to minorities based on religious "convictions". We saw that in the south for hundreds of years until the civil rights act put a stop to it. The state not only has a right, it has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against human rights violations.
