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

[The Rabbi]

That's a laugh.

Name one.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.

Religious rights CAN be infringed. You don't see much human sacrifice around do you? You don't see too much polygamy around do you? You don't see much legalized segregation around do you?

Red herring argument. No one is suggesting religious rights are absolute.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

Then in fact it would be. It doesn't mean such a defense would be successful, in fact just like religious objection, it doesn't hold weight in the courts. The law simply allows a person their rights under substantive due process to defend themselves and their actions in the court of law using whatever legal means at their disposal.

But the real problem here is that once you make religion a trump card over other rights, what happens then?

There are such things as legally legitimate defenses and those that aren't.

Religious beliefs are personal. And what a person happens to consider his religious belief can be anything.

Once you make them legal defenses you create a condition where every person is his own legal system.

The law specifically addresses that issue. Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.

Are you special? You seem to think so. You seem to think that everyone should take your baseless claims as irrefutable fact.

Why do you think that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name one.

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.

Religious rights CAN be infringed. You don't see much human sacrifice around do you? You don't see too much polygamy around do you? You don't see much legalized segregation around do you?

Red herring argument. No one is suggesting religious rights are absolute.

You're the one who claimed that the law was designed to protect religious rights from infringement.

Now you admit that infringement is an area of contention.

Give us an example of a religious right the law was designed to protect from infringement.

Be specific.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

Then in fact it would be. It doesn't mean such a defense would be successful, in fact just like religious objection, it doesn't hold weight in the courts. The law simply allows a person their rights under substantive due process to defend themselves and their actions in the court of law using whatever legal means at their disposal.

But the real problem here is that once you make religion a trump card over other rights, what happens then?

There are such things as legally legitimate defenses and those that aren't.

Religious beliefs are personal. And what a person happens to consider his religious belief can be anything.

Once you make them legal defenses you create a condition where every person is his own legal system.

The law specifically addresses that issue. Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.

Are you special? You seem to think so. You seem to think that everyone should take your baseless claims as irrefutable fact.

Why do you think that?

Because I am right? Just a guess here.
Bet you still havent read the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Been done over and over. The Hobby Lobby case was exactly the kind of case this bill was designed for.
When you can't win you deflect or ask childish questions. You've seriously lost this debate because you dont understand the law.

My point has been that this law was designed to give individuals a religious license to discriminate.

No one has proven that wrong.

It is obviously wrong. No proof needed. It was designed to protect religious rights of people from infringement. Every other similar law and the federal law all do the same thing.
Please show me all those cases of gays or anyone discriminated against legally under existing laws in 25 states.

Religious rights CAN be infringed. You don't see much human sacrifice around do you? You don't see too much polygamy around do you? You don't see much legalized segregation around do you?

Red herring argument. No one is suggesting religious rights are absolute.

You're the one who claimed that the law was designed to protect religious rights from infringement.

Now you admit that infringement is an area of contention.

Give us an example of a religious right the law was designed to protect from infringement.

Be specific.

I did that already. You simply ignore it.

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

So tell me...what does this law allow for that you are against? Now, do me a favor...do not tell me it gives a company the right to discriminate. It does not. I have read the law and nowhere does it say a company has the right to discriminate.

What it DOES do, however, is it allows a company/company owner the right to apply his/her first amendment rights if brought into a court of law with a charge of discrimination levied against him.

He has the right to claim he was following his religious tenets...BUT AS WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVE IT AT HIS/HER COST OF MONEY AND TIME.

Do you feel that an owner of a company should not have the same rights as you as it pertains to your day in court?

it depends, is it personal or company related?

 

[The Rabbi]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

So a law that protects free exercise of religion has jack shit to do with the first amendment, which protects free exercise of religion?
Are you on drugs?

 

[daws101]

To 'encourage'? How about 'this law cannot be used under any circumstances to defend anyone from a charge of anti-gay discrimination'?

Because that's not what it says? Denying someone of substantive due process is unconstitutional.

If a law was passed that said 'religion is a legitimate defense against a criminal charge of bigamy' what would think of that?

I'd love it.

Government has no business in marriage at all, it is a religious rite.

Let civil contracts between any number of consenting adults be the law of the land, and let religions marry only who they want to marry.

Government is in marriage. That is the reality. PS civil contracts ARE government.

But civil contracts are not marriage.

false
Marriage is a civil contract, not a church issue

• Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:19 am

Marriage is a civil contract, not a church issue

Marriage equality is about the right to obtain civil marriage. Regardless of religious definitions, civil marriage is a contract with the government. That's why couples are able to go to a judge, and aren't required to go to a church to validate it.

Our government has streamlined the process for those opting to have religious acknowledgement, by allowing priests/pastors to conduct ceremonies, act as a civil officiant. This is an option, not a requirement. Atheists, after all, can marry.


Churches will, and should, retain the right to decide for themselves what ceremonies they want to perform, just as they do now. No amount of legislation can change the tenets of any religion. Some religions won't perform ceremonies for someone who's divorced, but that person is still allowed to enter into the civil contract of marriage.

There are churches who still refuse to perform weddings for interracial couples, but they can still enter into the civil contract. Claiming churches will be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples is a smokescreen, a scare tactic, to influence others to vote for this harmful amendment.

The fact that we're even voting on this is disgusting. Putting the rights of any marginalized group to popular vote, especially based on religious doctrine, is un-American. It's not what this nation stands for, and definitely not what the founding fathers intended.

Mike Hughes

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

So a law that protects free exercise of religion has jack shit to do with the first amendment, which protects free exercise of religion?
Are you on drugs?

that's not what it does ...... if it did there would be no need to fix it....

 

[TemplarKormac]

To be fair, to shut the critics up, I want Governor Pence to pass a law preventing discrimination against LGBT couples, make them a protected class. If people didn't notice already, discrimination was already legal in Indiana before this furor erupted. Legal then, legal now, unless that changes.

Why should they be a protected class? WHo is discriminating against them right now?

Nobody. It's a pure matter of strategy. Give them nothing to argue about.

 

[JFK_USA]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

So tell me...what does this law allow for that you are against? Now, do me a favor...do not tell me it gives a company the right to discriminate. It does not. I have read the law and nowhere does it say a company has the right to discriminate.

What it DOES do, however, is it allows a company/company owner the right to apply his/her first amendment rights if brought into a court of law with a charge of discrimination levied against him.

He has the right to claim he was following his religious tenets...BUT AS WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVE IT AT HIS/HER COST OF MONEY AND TIME.

Do you feel that an owner of a company should not have the same rights as you as it pertains to your day in court?

But to bring about the affirmative defense of religious freedom, you have to essentially admit you discriminated.

Here is how affirmative defenses work. You admit you did something wrong but you admit that you had a good reason to do it. The classic example is self-defense. The person claiming self-defense isn't arguing he didn't kill anyone, he just had a good reason to do it.

So in a discrimination case, the business owner would have to admit that yes, they discriminated against that customer but they had a good reason, it violates their religion to serve that customer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

So tell me...what does this law allow for that you are against? Now, do me a favor...do not tell me it gives a company the right to discriminate. It does not. I have read the law and nowhere does it say a company has the right to discriminate.

What it DOES do, however, is it allows a company/company owner the right to apply his/her first amendment rights if brought into a court of law with a charge of discrimination levied against him.

He has the right to claim he was following his religious tenets...BUT AS WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVE IT AT HIS/HER COST OF MONEY AND TIME.

Do you feel that an owner of a company should not have the same rights as you as it pertains to your day in court?

But to bring about the affirmative defense of religious freedom, you have to essentially admit you discriminated.

Here is how affirmative defenses work. You admit you did something wrong but you admit that you had a good reason to do it. The classic example is self-defense. The person claiming self-defense isn't arguing he didn't kill anyone, he just had a good reason to do it.

So in a discrimination case, the business owner would have to admit that yes, they discriminated against that customer but they had a good reason, it violates their religion to serve that customer.

And?
Businesses discriminate all the time. No shoes, no shirt, no service. No concealed guns allowed. No pets except service animals. Your point?

 

[RKMBrown]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

 

[boedicca]

The Libs and the Law played by Calvin's Mom:

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

 

[daws101]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

So tell me...what does this law allow for that you are against? Now, do me a favor...do not tell me it gives a company the right to discriminate. It does not. I have read the law and nowhere does it say a company has the right to discriminate.

What it DOES do, however, is it allows a company/company owner the right to apply his/her first amendment rights if brought into a court of law with a charge of discrimination levied against him.

He has the right to claim he was following his religious tenets...BUT AS WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO PROVE IT AT HIS/HER COST OF MONEY AND TIME.

Do you feel that an owner of a company should not have the same rights as you as it pertains to your day in court?

But to bring about the affirmative defense of religious freedom, you have to essentially admit you discriminated.

Here is how affirmative defenses work. You admit you did something wrong but you admit that you had a good reason to do it. The classic example is self-defense. The person claiming self-defense isn't arguing he didn't kill anyone, he just had a good reason to do it.

So in a discrimination case, the business owner would have to admit that yes, they discriminated against that customer but they had a good reason, it violates their religion to serve that customer.

And?
Businesses discriminate all the time. No shoes, no shirt, no service. No concealed guns allowed. No pets except service animals. Your point?

not relevant.
those rules are their because of health and safety issues.
religion is not in the same category.
epic fail.

 

[RKMBrown]

Except the Indiana law is nothing like the 1993 law.

If others have explained it, great but here is the biggest difference. The religion defense can be used in lawsuits when individuals sue business. Meaning, if they get sued by a person, not the state, they can use the defense. That doesn't apply to the federal RFRA at all.

Just because a law has the same name doesn't mean it is the same law.

Why don't you want people to be able to use first amendment rights for defense?

the law has jack shit to do with the first amendment .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

You don't see word religion in there? What a moron. Here I'll bold it for you.

yes I do, what you fail to see is that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights as in discrimination.

Fail to see? WTF are you talking about? The very fact that the free exercise of religion cannot infringe on other rights, as is done by discrimination against others through hiring practices and public access, is and was my point. Not sure how you missed it.

The "religious freedom" bill is to protect the free exercise... not to protect said discrimination.

 

[Mertex]

It is very sad new laws like this are necessary. But the Communists/Democrats did declare war on Christians. They've been waging it for years. Christians and people of faith have no choice but to fight back. Religious persecution is Un-American. Simple as that.

It's not "Christians" that are making these laws. True Christians would not look for ways to make less of others. It's pseudo christians that are coming up with these laws that do nothing but spew hatred and allow them under the law to discriminate people based on something that doesn't affect them.

Wouldn't be necessary if you Communists/Democrats hadn't declared war on Christians. You're persecuting them.

That's BS. I happen to be a Christian and I have never been persecuted. Quite exaggerating. You don't know persecution. Go the to the Middle East and proclaim you're a Christian....that's persecution. Quit being a panty-waist.

You're not respecting and protecting their rights. You're just picking & choosing which people and rights you wanna defend. But it's vital we respect and protect all citizens' rights.

Everybody's rights deserve to be protected, and wanting a bill to give you permission to be hateful to people because you don't like their lifestyle is not approved by the majority of people. If you have a business and only want to serve other Christians, then do a word of mouth business, don't use public roads, police, and fire departments that are paid by all tax payers unless you are willing to serve everyone. Jesus said you should shun sin, not the sinner.

 

[Mertex]

I wonder how this is going to play out.........


Addicting Info Indianapolis Mayor Defies State Bans Religious Discrimination VIDEO