Read the damn law!! A pseudo rant on the Indiana "Religious Freedom" law

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Mar 30, 2013
49,999
13,428
2,190
The Land of Sanctuary
Right, so, I've been watching discussion over Indiana's religious freedom law. Many people have been misconstruing the nature of the law to overtly discriminate against gays and homosexuals, others insist this law only protects Christians.

Well, if you're one of those folks, you'd be wrong. To be succinct, why can't you just read the law in it's entire context? It gets really tiresome when someone outrightly condemns or endorses a law as "this" or "that" without ever reading it. Just read the damned law! It protects any religious belief, not just Christianity. It does not call for discrimination. Pretty cut and dry.

Below is a complete citation of the the statute as listed in the Indiana Code. Nowhere in said statute does it call for open discrimination against homosexuals. This law mirrors that of the Federal Law, which consequently does not call for open discrimination against homosexuals also. The simple intention of this law is to prevent government from unreasonably burdening the religious practices of a person (as defined in this law). As such, if the government can in fact prove a compelling interest, then this law cannot be used as a defense. Really, it isn't too hard to understand, just read the damned law.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
 
Last edited:
Who are you and what did you do with the real TK?

Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Is our little boy growing up?

Whatever. Keep it up Sonny Boy. There just might be hope for you yet.




























Get a job.












:)
 
Who are you and what did you do with the real TK?

Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Is our little boy growing up?

Whatever. Keep it up Sonny Boy. There just might be hope for you yet.




























Get a job.












:)

It's lonely in the center.
 
Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Indeed I am. But I won't stand by while people willfully and spitefully twist the meaning of the law. You can also stop with the job stuff. Its an old meme.


You realize that intent need not be explicit to be intent.

And as for you:

You do realize that made no sense at all.
 
"This law mirrors that of the Federal Law"

If that were true, why is the state law needed?


Isn't equal service covered by the current law?

I remember yon olden days when the law was passed that real estate sales could not discriminate on the basis of race. Fine and good but the discrimination continues to this day.

Same with employment discrimination. Its well known that "you're over-qualified" is code for "you're too old" and only a fool wears a religious talisman, such as a cross, pentacle, etc, to a job interview.

If we don't enforce the current law, should we pass new laws?
 
Isn't equal service covered by the current law?

The Federal Accommodation Law in fact does not cover sexual orientation. Believe me, I've checked.

If we don't enforce the current law, should we pass new laws?

...

I had to restrain myself from laughing out loud at the complete and utter irony of this statement. Why pass laws if you don't enforce them? Why do liberals pass laws they don't enforce? Hmm? Why does Obama completely ignore the law to dictate his own through executive fiat?

Good question.
 
Dude. If they're told not to like it then they won't like it. It really isn't even worth trying to engage with these people. They'll just throw a tantrum and tell you that you're racist against gay people because you don't vote blue.
 
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.

here it is. This means serving gay people, blacks, asians ( if your religion said it was a sin, which in 99% it doesnt) or providing certain types of healthcare to certain people ( women ) .

More over this was past because the religious right are loosing the gay marriage debate.
 
Isn't equal service covered by the current law?

The Federal Accommodation Law in fact does not cover sexual orientation. Believe me, I've checked.

If we don't enforce the current law, should we pass new laws?

...

I had to restrain myself from laughing out loud at the complete and utter irony of this statement. Why pass laws if you don't enforce them? Why do liberals pass laws they don't enforce? Hmm? Why does Obama completely ignore the law to dictate his own through executive fiat?

Good question.


Well, it didn't take long for the real TK to show up and try to drag Obama into this while willfully "misunderstanding" what I wrote.

TK, that was not a "statement". If you look closely, you will see a question mark at the end of the sentence.

Further, I misjudged the readers in that I thought the irony and sarcasm of that question would be obvious.

The law gives people carte blanche permission to discriminate for any (non)-reason bigots like Pence can think up.

The law is wrong.
 
Dude. If they're told not to like it then they won't like it. It really isn't even worth trying to engage with these people. They'll just throw a tantrum and tell you that you're racist against gay people because you don't vote blue.

Pedro de San Patricio

Not to make this too complicated for you but homosexuality is not related to race.

The US was founded on the principal of equality for all.

Or, are you saying to can point out where, in the Constitution, it reads, "... except gays ..."?
 
Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Indeed I am. But I won't stand by while people willfully and spitefully twist the meaning of the law. You can also stop with the job stuff. Its an old meme.


You realize that intent need not be explicit to be intent.

And as for you:

You do realize that made no sense at all.

On the contrary, it made all the sense in the world.
 
Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Indeed I am. But I won't stand by while people willfully and spitefully twist the meaning of the law. You can also stop with the job stuff. Its an old meme.


You realize that intent need not be explicit to be intent.

And as for you:

You do realize that made no sense at all.

"You can also stop with the job stuff. Its an old meme."

Its doubtful those who support you would agree.
 
Right, so, I've been watching discussion over Indiana's religious freedom law. Many people have been misconstruing the nature of the law to overtly discriminate against gays and homosexuals, others insist this law only protects Christians.

Well, if you're one of those folks, you'd be wrong. To be succinct, why can't you just read the law in it's entire context? It gets really tiresome when someone outrightly condemns or endorses a law as "this" or "that" without ever reading it. Just read the damned law! It protects any religious belief, not just Christianity. It does not call for discrimination. Pretty cut and dry.

Below is a complete citation of the the statute as listed in the Indiana Code. Nowhere in said statute does it call for open discrimination against homosexuals. This law mirrors that of the Federal Law, which consequently does not call for open discrimination against homosexuals also. The simple intention of this law is to prevent government from unreasonably burdening the religious practices of a person (as defined in this law). As such, if the government can in fact prove a compelling interest, then this law cannot be used as a defense. Really, it isn't too hard to understand, just read the damned law.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

The loons see religion and the knee jerk reactions and comments come pouring out
 
Is this the same knee jerk RW who recently said he had made the magnanimous decision that we should "allow" gays the same right to marry the rest of us enjoy?

Indeed I am. But I won't stand by while people willfully and spitefully twist the meaning of the law. You can also stop with the job stuff. Its an old meme.


You realize that intent need not be explicit to be intent.

And as for you:

You do realize that made no sense at all.

On the contrary, it made all the sense in the world.

To you perhaps.
 

Forum List

Back
Top