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

[PredFan]

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.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

And with this ridiculous law, it will become systematic, government enforced, and targeted against anyone you religious bigots declare to be offensive to your faith. Wft is it with you people, anyway? Have you joined teams with ISIS, or what?

Incredibly ignorant bull shit.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

Have you? The discriminatory parts are clearly defined in the OP.

 

[Lakhota]

Indiana really sounds like a fucked up state.

Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics And Got An HIV Outbreak

 

[orogenicman]

Indiana really sounds like a fucked up state.

Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics And Got An HIV Outbreak

Yeah, big surprise, eh?

 

[tinydancer]

Oh give it freaking up and deal with it.

The Holly Lobby ruling ups the ante for the RFRA.

You don't like it then go after the Supremes.

"The RFRA figured prominently in oral arguments in the case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, heard by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Alito stated, that the RFRA did not just restore the law as before Smith but contains a new regulation that allows to opt out of federal law based on religious beliefs."

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

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?

Very simple how it is imposing the "whims of sex perverts" on the devout. They want the cake or photograph to be homosexual. Like with 2 guys shown on the top of the wedding cake, or 2 guys (Ugh!) kissing each other in the photograph. That is having the business person participate in the sick perversion.

As for how it looks, it looks perfectly correct and not bigoted in any way. It is merely a reflection of the normal meeting the abnormal. I mean really.

 

[protectionist]

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 honest, 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.

That about sums it up. But the protestors have go it figured that if they show up in big crowds, and yell loud enough, they'll force society to accept their stupid cause. Some people HAVE actually caved in to them. Nothing could be dumber.

 

[Lakhota]

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 honest, 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.

That about sums it up. But the protestors have go it figured that if they show up in big crowds, and yell loud enough, they'll force society to accept their stupid cause. Some people HAVE actually caved in to them. Nothing could be dumber.

Sounds like the anti-choice abortion protesters.

 

[protectionist]

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 other 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 those rights do not extend to discriminating against others in matters of state commerce. .

Interesting how you theorize, but you completely ignore that your theory also means that the rights of homos does not extend to discriminating against the Chrisitians, who want no part of the activities of sex perverts.
And the state IS acting to protect its citizns (the Christians) from being discriminated against by the queers who wish to take their freedom away.

 

[protectionist]

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 honest, 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.

That about sums it up. But the protestors have go it figured that if they show up in big crowds, and yell loud enough, they'll force society to accept their stupid cause. Some people HAVE actually caved in to them. Nothing could be dumber.

Sounds like the anti-choice abortion protesters.

Or the Ferguson idiot, cop-hater protestors. Or the anti-military protestors. Or the Islamist lunatics. Or the immigration protestor loons.

 

[tinydancer]

Hobby Lobby case shows the distinction between for profit and non profit corporations is non existent on the question fo rights.
The Indiana law is substantially the same as all the others. Thus no fuss. A fauxrage episode from the Dums.

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.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

This non issue is quickly becoming a duplicate case of the fairy tale of Michael Brown's "hands up don't shoot".

That was never the truth but the left ran with it.

This piece of legislation will not allow discrimination against anyone.

But the left will run with their lies that it will.

 

[protectionist]

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.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

FALSE! Wrong analogy. Queers should be discriminated against because they are exactly what they call themselves > QUEER. If you act abnormal, you will be treated abnormal. There is no free for all. Nice try.

 

[protectionist]

Hobby Lobby case shows the distinction between for profit and non profit corporations is non existent on the question fo rights.
The Indiana law is substantially the same as all the others. Thus no fuss. A fauxrage episode from the Dums.

Man are they over the top or what these days with the lies and the talking points?

This issue is becomi

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.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

This non issue is quickly becoming a duplicate case of the fairy tale of Michael Brown's "hands up don't shoot".

That was never the truth but the left ran with it.

This piece of legislation will not allow discrimination against anyone.

But the left will run with it.

It should allow discrimination against queers, and I hope it does.

 

[dblack]

Indiana’s Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis

An enterprising Indiana marketing consultant has opened up the First Church Of Cannabis, thanks to anti-gay Hoosier lawmakers.

It's pretty clear that when anti-gay lawmakers and anti-gay lobbyists drafted and passed the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) they intended it to be used as a license to discriminate against the LGBT community. But the law, which GOP Governor Mike Pencesigned last Thursday, has already had at least one unintended consequence.

Because the language is so wide reaching and poorly-written, one Indiana libertarian marketing consultant has already filed for and received from the Indiana Secretary of State a license for the First Church Of Cannabis.

Bill Levin, whose Facebook page says he believes God "is A Good Thing," says he sees his attempts to legalize marijuana as a "crusade."

Levin is also the founder of the First Church Of Cannabis. On the Church's Facebook page, the announcement reads:

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CANNABIS INC. - Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!"​

Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love,Understanding and Good Health.

The Raw Story reports that Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz says at Indy Politics, "I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free."

More: Indiana's Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Law Ushers In First Church Of Cannabis - The New Civil Rights Movement

Another law of unintended consequences.

Yep, that's pretty much where these kinds of laws take us. Universal, individual rights are giving way to group privilege.

 

[protectionist]

There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.

and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.

Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.

So you enjoy ruining other people's lives?

So let me get this straight. It ruins people lives to sell a product to someone they don't like? They are compensated for the product just like any other business transaction. So where is the harm?

The harm is when government can fine the $15,000 a pop when they don't sell said product.

You don;t consider that harm?

People who discriminate against others based on their own bigotry deserve nothing less than a hefty fine.

Then fine THESE PEOPLE. >>>

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Bull shit. That is no different than the individual. The owners get those benefits wether they own a business or not.

One does not have a right to another person's life or time or effort. Otherwise why would they have to pay for something they have a right to.

In a free country, a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Then I guess this is not a free country. You'll just have to live with the pain.

Yeah I'm sure YOU are fine with that but people and states like Indiana are trying to keep us from losing more freedoms.

Sigh... have you read the law? So many people have so many opinions about it but hardly any have actually read it.

Have you? The discriminatory parts are clearly defined in the OP.

Yes, I have. And no, they weren't. No parts of the law were in the OP. Not a single line of it. I'll bet you still haven't read it.

 

[protectionist]

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.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

And with this ridiculous law, it will become systematic, government enforced, and targeted against anyone you religious bigots declare to be offensive to your faith. Wft is it with you people, anyway? Have you joined teams with ISIS, or what?

And without this law, it will become systematic, government enforced, and targeted against anyone you homosexual bigots declare to be offensive to your sex perversion. Wft is it with you people, anyway? Have you joined teams with ISIS, or what?

 

[protectionist]

Enough to gag a maggot.

I could post a picture of 2 guys kissing, but I'd get sick if I did.

 

[protectionist]

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.

I feel my human rights have been violated by your post, the government should shut you down. Why is this different than what you support with fascist like glee?

That's pretty much the kind of "right" you would give to religious business owners - the right to discriminate against people you don't like when conducting business. Not only is that bad business (as Indiana is now finding out), it is a can of worms that will invariably backfire and cause untold civil strife. If you, as a religious business owner, can deny gays their right to conduct business in your state, then Jews have the right to discriminate against you when conducting business, and Catholics would have a right to deny you the right to buy their products. And you would have a right to discriminate against African Americans or Asians simply because doing so hurts your "religious sensibilities". And it becomes a sectarian free for all. This is what the founders tried to avoid when writing the Constitution, bubba. Careful what you wish for.

See, you a problem with that, I see people finally being honest with each other. The market can handle it, government has no business getting involved with something as petty as wedding cakes.

When it came to the South during Jim Crow, the discrimination was systemic, government enforced, and targeted at crucial business services and products used by a large number of people.

Two gays having to go to another baker for a cake, or another photographer for pictures does not elevate to that level.

Now, if only you would be honest. Your position isn't about bakers or photographers. You think grocery stores should be able to turn people away. You think neighborhoods should be segregated. You basically want a return to pre-1950 conditions. You want to allow wholesale discrimination of entire classes and call it freedom. Well, I live in those conditions and it wasn't freedom by any stretch. And if a baker has to bake a cake as a balance of not returning to them, then so be it. If that bugs you, I really don't care.

That's the problem here. As you openly admit, you don't care about the discrimination victimization of Christians (and normal people). So why should they care about your fags being discriminated against.? To hell with you.