Indiana: It's A Great Place To Be A Bigot

The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

Quote :

On Friday, the Washington Post published an article titled “19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting.” The article snarks about organizations like the NCAA that have protested Indiana’s law, noting “the NCAA didn’t say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky’s RFRA when games were played there last week.” The piece concludes “Indiana might be treated as if it’s the only state with a bill like this, but it’s not.” The piece has been shared over 75,000 times on Facebook.

The Washington Post article largely mirrors the argument advanced by Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Pence claimed “Then state-Sen. Barack Obama voted for [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. The very same language.”

The same argument is parroted on Fox News and elsewhere.

It’s not true.

The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. This means it could be used as a cudgel by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. Indiana trial lawyer Matt Anderson, discussing this difference, writes that the Indiana law is “more broadly written than its federal and state predecessors” and opens up “the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate…”

This is not a trivial distinction. Arizona enacted an RFRA that applied to actions involving the government in 2012. When the state legislature tried to expand it to purely private disputes in 2014, nationwide protests erupted and Jan Brewer, Arizona’s Republican governor, vetoed the measure.

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. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs.”

Various federal courts have differing interpretations of the scope of the federal RFRA. The Indiana law explicitly resolves all those disputes in one direction — and then goes even further.

This is evident in Section 5 of the Indiana law which provides protections to religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” So entities can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.

This is not to say the federal RFRA — and the state laws that are actually modeled after it — don’t have problems. Indeed, “Nineteen members of Congress who voted for the passage of the law in 1993 have now withdrawn their support for the federal RFRA given that it has been interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended by the Congress at the time of the law’s passage.” Much of this rethinking was prompted by the Hobby Lobby case, where the Supreme Court expanded its interpretation of the federal RFRA to certain corporations.

Claiming that the Indiana law is just like the laws in 19 other states, however, is simply not true. Other states are following Indiana’s lead and broadening the language of the law.

Why the change? Beyond the substance, the politics of the RFRA has become much different. When the federal law was signed in 1993, it was thought “to be about benign and relatively uncontroversial matters, such as allowing Muslim jail inmates to wear closely trimmed beards, or assuring that churches could feed homeless people in public parks.” Today, Indiana’s law is driven “by the politics of anti-gay backlash. Their most ardent supporters come from an increasingly angry, marginalized, and shrill subset of Christian conservative activists.”

What a complete_fucking_blithering_idiot

edge540 wrote:

What a complete_fucking_blithering_idiot

Yep.and to make matters worse Indiana Democrats tried to get an amendment passed that would have clearly stated that the law could not be used to discriminate. It failed 40-10.

The silver lining in this is that this will now become a signifcant issue on the clown car circus tour as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have already praised it.

Picture a group of GOP clowns on a stage trying to outdo each other explaining to an audience of rabid bigots,how they really love the gays.

happy jack wrote:

Artie, what is your response to the following hypothetical situation, based upon the law prior to this most recent law going into effect?

The Christian owner of a BBQ joint attempts to hire a cleaning service that is owned and staffed by Muslims. The owner of the cleaning service refuses to accept the contract due to the fact that he and his staff feel that the chance that they may come into contact with pork or pork products goes against their religious beliefs. Should the Muslim-owned company be punished for discrimination to the full extent of the state and/or civil laws for its refusal to provide service, or should it be given an exemption due to the religious beliefs of its staff?

What is your response?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie, what is your response to the following hypothetical situation, based upon the law prior to this most recent law going into effect?

The Christian owner of a BBQ joint attempts to hire a cleaning service that is owned and staffed by Muslims. The owner of the cleaning service refuses to accept the contract due to the fact that he and his staff feel that the chance that they may come into contact with pork or pork products goes against their religious beliefs. Should the Muslim-owned company be punished for discrimination to the full extent of the state and/or civil laws for its refusal to provide service, or should it be given an exemption due to the religious beliefs of its staff?

What is your response?

I believe that the Muslim company should be able to opt out.
What is your response?

No, don't I think the Muslim company should be able to opt out.
A Muslim company should not be allowed to discriminate any more than a Christian company. Both should follow the law.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie, what is your response to the following hypothetical situation, based upon the law prior to this most recent law going into effect?

The Christian owner of a BBQ joint attempts to hire a cleaning service that is owned and staffed by Muslims. The owner of the cleaning service refuses to accept the contract due to the fact that he and his staff feel that the chance that they may come into contact with pork or pork products goes against their religious beliefs. Should the Muslim-owned company be punished for discrimination to the full extent of the state and/or civil laws for its refusal to provide service, or should it be given an exemption due to the religious beliefs of its staff?

What is your response?

I believe that the Muslim company should be able to opt out.
What is your response?

No, don't I think the Muslim company should be able to opt out.
A Muslim company should not be allowed to discriminate any more than a Christian company. Both should follow the law.

Yes, they should both follow the law, which reads:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

happy jack wrote:

[b]Artie, what is your response to the following hypothetical situation,

Stick your remanufactured circle jerk in your ass,troll.

happy jack wrote:

The way I see it, there are three options:

1. Substantiate your allegations of my bigotry.
2. Retract your allegations of my bigotry.
3. Continue to keep your lies on display for all to see.

The way I see it the only option is to ignore a lazy,simpleminded troll like yourself and your endless bullshit circle jerk questions. You bore me. Goodbye

Why is it that right wing extremists, jackasses, haters, conservative Bible thumping bigots and racists have a hard time understanding simple concepts like this one?

Quote :

When a person applies for a business licence, they must abide by the local, state, and federal laws that govern commerce while serving the public. Their business is not a vehicle for their religious beliefs. That's what churches are for. If they do not agree with the terms of their contract, they are more than welcome to not participate in said agreement. It's really quite simple.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/colorado-baker-gay-ruling-_n_4401050.html

Discrimination laws in this country apply to everyone, religious beliefs are irrelevant.
Thems the rules, you don't like it?...move.

.

Oh...Oh...Looks the business-minded repubs have lost another one:

Quote :

Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salesforce-ceo-were-helping-employees-035400444.html

That didn't take long, the idiot governor and the republican extremists in Indy saw the clusterfuck they produced and are now backing off looking like the idiots they are. Well done boys.

Indiana lawmakers announce proposed religious law changes

The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.
http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmakers-announce-proposed-religious-law-changes-132057903.html

Say what Mike?

"We are not going to change this law"- Mike Pence

happy jack wrote:

That is true. And the only thing the Indiana bill says is that a person may use his constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise his freedom of religion as a defense in the event that he is charged with running afoul of a local, state, or federal law. There is no guarantee whatsoever that that defense will absolve him of breaking said law, only that the judge/jury may consider it.

 That's not what the bigots say.

Legislature About To Destroy Religious Freedom Protection in Indiana!
Religious Freedom is in danger in Indiana!

Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That’s not right!
http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1859[/quote]

...and another one bites the dust....

Disciples Of Christ Church Moves 8,000 Member National Convention Out Of Indiana

Quote :

“(T)he recent passage in the state legislature of the RFRA bill is distressing to us. It is causing us to reconsider our decision to hold our 2017 gathering in Indianapolis.

http://reverbpress.com/news/disciples-of-christ-church-moves-convention-out-of-indiana/