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

[Ravi]

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

ravi, rmk brown nose is always wrong...

Not always.

These people seem to think clarifying the law will destroy the law.

"What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. (“The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)"

Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law -- NYMag

I think they are correct, it will destroy the intent of the law, which is a good thing. So basically the Republicans in Indiana made a needless law and once more showed us all just how much they love big government.

SCOTUS decided that the federal law signed by Billy Boy does not apply to the states. Thus, the states are each, one by one passing the federal law passed by billy boy to protect said citizens from the state governments.

This law, however, gives church status to businesses, individuals, etc. And I betcha every state already has a non-discrimination law against religious peoples if not a constitutional amendment spelling that out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

I'm a constitutional conservative, and I do defend a mormon's right to polygamy. IMO the anti-poligamy laws are just as bad as the anti-gay marriage laws, and now defunct anti-mixed marriage laws.

Well then argue with your rightwing pals who think gay marriage rights are a horrifying slippery slope to polygamy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

I'm a constitutional conservative, and I do defend a mormon's right to polygamy. IMO the anti-poligamy laws are just as bad as the anti-gay marriage laws, and now defunct anti-mixed marriage laws.

Well then argue with your rightwing pals who think gay marriage rights are a horrifying slippery slope to polygamy.

Well that cinches it. It is impossible for a leftwing loon to stick to any subject.

You don't think religious freedom is the topic?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's what one prominent Indiana group thought they were getting in this law:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

1. 
   Now, given that, PLEASE tell us why the intent of this law was not to discriminate against homosexuals.

1. 
   

1. 
   Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's what one prominent Indiana group thought they were getting in this law:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

1. 
   Now, given that, PLEASE tell us why the intent of this law was not to discriminate against homosexuals.

1. 
   Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this proves the discriminatory nature of the law how?

 

[RKMBrown]

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

Again, I provided valid examples. You are assuming no government will try to stop you from putting a religious symbol on private property. This law is to prevent said example by providing a line of defense in a court case for said grievance if said government does in fact try to stop you from putting your religious symbol on said private property.

You didn't like the Obama Care examples that are being fought right now. Hobby lobby was just one example of a valid case for this law. Only now you don't have to go to the supreme court to argue for constitutionality based on the first amendment. A lower court may look at the grievance and ask the government why they did not allow for the person to practice his religious freedom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

And polygamy has what to do with this thread?

Since you've dodged every other point I've made, what's the difference?

Polygamy was a Mormon religious practice. The Supreme Court said the states could ban it, religious or not.

Did they get that wrong?

Yes or no, with reasons you answer yes or no.

Shut up.

Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional Adam Winkler

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

Prove that I lied. Prove that I said something that wasn't true. Prove that this bill did not provide an affirmative defense for those who would discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

ravi, rmk brown nose is always wrong...

Not always.

These people seem to think clarifying the law will destroy the law.

"What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. (“The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)"

Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law -- NYMag

I think they are correct, it will destroy the intent of the law, which is a good thing. So basically the Republicans in Indiana made a needless law and once more showed us all just how much they love big government.

SCOTUS decided that the federal law signed by Billy Boy does not apply to the states. Thus, the states are each, one by one passing the federal law passed by billy boy to protect said citizens from the state governments.

This law, however, gives church status to businesses, individuals, etc. And I betcha every state already has a non-discrimination law against religious peoples if not a constitutional amendment spelling that out.

No it does not give church status to businesses, individuals, etc. The laws for "becoming" a church are quite clear. This law merely echoed the recent decision of the SCOTUS that an individual does not give up his first amendment rights when he joins a group, such as a business, union, or other type of group.

 

[Seawytch]

So if there is no clarification of this law needed, why is Governor Pence crafting legislation to clarify this law?

What A Fix In Indiana Would Look Like - NationalJournal.com

 

[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?

And polygamy has what to do with this thread?

Since you've dodged every other point I've made, what's the difference?

Polygamy was a Mormon religious practice. The Supreme Court said the states could ban it, religious or not.

Did they get that wrong?

Yes or no, with reasons you answer yes or no.

Shut up.

Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional Adam Winkler

Don't dodge the point.

Answering only yes or no should polygamy be legally recognized as legitimate marriage because it's a religious practice and the Constitution protects freedom of religion?

 

[TemplarKormac]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if there is no clarification of this law needed, why is Governor Pence crafting legislation to clarify this law?

What A Fix In Indiana Would Look Like - NationalJournal.com

The anti-gay interests are furious that he might 'clarify this law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

And polygamy has what to do with this thread?

Since you've dodged every other point I've made, what's the difference?

Polygamy was a Mormon religious practice. The Supreme Court said the states could ban it, religious or not.

Did they get that wrong?

Yes or no, with reasons you answer yes or no.

Shut up.

Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional Adam Winkler

Don't dodge the point.

Answering only yes or no should polygamy be legally recognized as legitimate marriage because it's a religious practice and the Constitution protects freedom of religion?

Shut up.

Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional Adam Winkler

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

Prove that I lied. Prove that I said something that wasn't true. Prove that this bill did not provide an affirmative defense for those who would discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron? If you don't think you are a moron, prove I'm wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.

Prove a falsehood? Are you a moron?

Yes. NYC is also largely ignored by the intelligentsia of this site.

 

[daws101]

So if there is no clarification of this law needed, why is Governor Pence crafting legislation to clarify this law?

What A Fix In Indiana Would Look Like - NationalJournal.com

asked that same question early and it was pull our skirts up and run away time for the consevobots!

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would be the point do you need some positive stimulus to be more bigoted and homophobic?

What would be the point of having to kick your butt in another debate again?

You've lost this debate. The intent of the law was to legalize discrimination against gays.

Let me show you what one of the laws most zealous supporters thought they were getting:

Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana:

1. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.
2. Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church.
3. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group.
4. A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees.
5. A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom.

Advance America Blog Archive INDIANA S NEW RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IS UNDER ATTACK

And this is by far not a legal opinion of the law. How desperate can you be if you're citing advocacy sites, Carbine?

Because they are the people who pushed this legislation through.

You tell us, specifically and in detail, what is the purpose of this law if anti-gay discrimination is not its purpose.

Cite ONE example of how this law would apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

ONE