Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[The Rabbi]

The Mormons lost A LOT of religious freedom when polygamy was outlawed.

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

They have liberals doing that for them right now.
But your deflection in the face of losing the argument is noted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?

The governor is now claiming it doesn't provide protection for ANY discrimination. He is lying of course.

Again, the supporters of the bill know exactly what it was intended to do:

Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch

no !really!
his body language betrayed him .

His body language now is that of a governor who got fucked in the ass by the Christian Right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Mormons lost A LOT of religious freedom when polygamy was outlawed.

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

They have liberals doing that for them right now.
But your deflection in the face of losing the argument is noted.

What's your position? Is polygamy a religious right or not?

 

[Ravi]

it will all be moot very soon as the governor of Indiana says they( the legislator) will amend the law to state unequivocally "no one can be refused service."

LOL! So then what exactly is the point of the law?????????????????????????????????

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,

whose rights get upheld?

Thats a clown question, bro.

You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?

I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.

The question had nothing to do with gays. The question is about religious freedom. Can it be limited when it tries to infringe on the rights of others?

The answer is yes it can.

With that established as fact, all that's left is to decide where and when that infringement goes too far.

You sound lke an idiot because you have no idea what's in the bill.

I've told you several times. The bill makes religious beliefs an affirmative defense against liability from having discriminated against someone.

 

[daws101]

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?

The governor is now claiming it doesn't provide protection for ANY discrimination. He is lying of course.

Again, the supporters of the bill know exactly what it was intended to do:

Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch

no !really!
his body language betrayed him .

His body language now is that of a governor who got fucked in the ass by the Christian Right.

and liked it!
he only caved when businesses threatened to not do business in the state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it will all be moot very soon as the governor of Indiana says they( the legislator) will amend the law to state unequivocally "no one can be refused service."

LOL! So then what exactly is the point of the law?????????????????????????????????

If it is truly amended like that, it will actually make gay rights even more enforceable in Indiana.

IOW, it will make things worse for the anti-gay lobby that originally supported the bill.

I doubt it will go that way though.

 

[Mertex]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Obama signed one too.

SNIP:

PolitiFact Sunday disputed Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's assertion about President Obama's support for a religious freedom law when he was an Illinois politician — but the fact-checking site's argument relies heavily on assumptions about the "intent" of a highly similar law Pence signed last week, and the site does not refute Pence's claim that the two laws (along with a 22-year-old federal law) have the "same language."

PolitiFact Yes Obama supported Illinois religious freedom bill but that was different WashingtonExaminer.com

You all are not listening........or ignoring the facts...it isn't the same law, quit trying to justify it.



“Then-state Sen. Barack Obama voted for [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] when he was in the state Senate of Illinois,” Pence said. “The very same language."

Those claims rate Half True.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama did vote for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It passed the Illinois Senate 56-0 and became law on July 1, 1998.

However, the language isn’t the “very same,” and the claim is not as simple as lining up one vote next to the other and declaring them equal, experts told us.

Fact-Checking the Sunday Shows March 29 - The Daily Beast

 

[Ravi]

it will all be moot very soon as the governor of Indiana says they( the legislator) will amend the law to state unequivocally "no one can be refused service."

LOL! So then what exactly is the point of the law?????????????????????????????????

If it is truly amended like that, it will actually make gay rights even more enforceable in Indiana.

IOW, it will make things worse for the anti-gay lobby that originally supported the bill.

I doubt it will go that way though.

Good point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?

The governor is now claiming it doesn't provide protection for ANY discrimination. He is lying of course.

Again, the supporters of the bill know exactly what it was intended to do:

Indiana Activist Don t Clarify That Religious Freedom Law Won t Allow Discrimination Right Wing Watch

no !really!
his body language betrayed him .

His body language now is that of a governor who got fucked in the ass by the Christian Right.

and liked it!
he only caved when businesses threatened to not do business in the state.

Kind of like eating hot peppers. The real discomfort hit later on.

 

[Mertex]

If no one can come up with one example of how this law does anything other than to create a right to discriminate on religious grounds,

than it's fair to conclude that is the ONLY purpose of the law.

Anyone dispute this yet?

You're not going to get an answer..........just like Pence couldn't answer Stephanopoulos.

 

[daws101]

it will all be moot very soon as the governor of Indiana says they( the legislator) will amend the law to state unequivocally "no one can be refused service."

LOL! So then what exactly is the point of the law?????????????????????????????????

to keep those faggots and dykes from buying flowers and cake!
(before anyone goes batshit that was an imitation of a stereotypical homophobe. )

 

[NYcarbineer]

If no one can come up with one example of how this law does anything other than to create a right to discriminate on religious grounds,

than it's fair to conclude that is the ONLY purpose of the law.

Anyone dispute this yet?

You're not going to get an answer..........just like Pence couldn't answer Stephanopoulos.

Well, we know what the purpose of the law was. They just got caught at it.

Times have changed. Years from now when gay rights are such a non-issue that even conservatives (except for the deadenders) have accepted them as the norm,

Republicans will start claiming they were the party that got gays their rights.

 

[daws101]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:

Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:

From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):

(a)In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

Bill Clinton was really a republican. Everyone knew that.

Which "everyone" was it who knew that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey, I hear Asa Hutchinson is about to sign the same law in Arkansas. You guys better hop on those buses and protest!

The absurdity of this behavior gets more and more hard to bear. Nobody, no liberal, has demonstrated how this law would discriminate against anyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

Everyone wants laws passed based on their own understanding of right and wrong, fuckstain. You advocate it every time you flap your gob.

You're just pissed that influencing legislation isn't a privilege granted only to the politically correct left.

Why are people so ignorant to think there is no religious representation of religious folks in the Democratic Party?

Oh, we know there are people in the Democrat Party who think they're religious. We just also know that they tend not to do it very well, because their political beliefs are at odds with their professed religious beliefs. And leftists are lazy, so . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

Leftists are so used to living in a haze of ignorance.

The Bible is not exactly a piece of non-fiction literature...

I refuse to believe YOU are a representation of reality, either, so we're even.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is it that believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman (based on ones religious convictions) be considered hate?
It's a difference of opinion and has nothing to do with hate.

I might believe you if gays were afforded the same opportunities to marry that straights are. But they are not.
No one is asking that Christians or anyone else that believes marriage is only between a man and a woman give up their beliefs. You can believe what ever you want.

You just can't hate that someone else has a different belief and then try and use the government as the instrument of imposing your beliefs. Because what it is you are believing is discriminatory. And you are asking to use the government to validate your beliefs by allowing you to discriminate against others who don't share your same belief. That won't work.

"Quack quack quack". No matter how much you try to define the parameters of the debate by your worldview, it's not going to work, at least not around here.