Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[miguel]

We need a cake baking version of Rosa Parks.

 

[chipbennett]

Sorry, Eric, but it does not mirror the federal version. You should read and compare the two. The Indiana version has additional language that was added at the behest of the TEAvangelicals like Eric Miller. They are substantially different.

The Indiana RFRA does mirror the federal RFRA.

The Indiana RFRA expands the definition of "person" to include businesses, which is consistent with the SCOTUS decision in Hobby Lobby (making that SCOTUS decision binding on the federal RFRA as well).

The Indiana RFRA allows the government to join in a lawsuit between persons, as a third party, when the respondent invokes the Indiana RFRA to claim substantial burden on religious exercise, which is in response to the New Mexico ruling that RFRA could not be invoked in a private lawsuit, because a "government entity" was not a party to the lawsuit.

That's it. Those are the differences. The differences have nothing to do with "TEAvangelicals", whatever the heck that means. You should try being less blinded by your anti-religion views. It clouds your analytical ability.

TEAvangelicals. If you're going to quote it at least get it right. It's a very descriptive word for a very specific kind of agenda pusher here in Indiana. I can't claim credit for it, though. It came from elsewhere. It's hardly bigoted, either. Just descriptive. Sorry if you think you fall under that umbrella.

"TEA" = Taxed Enough Already. The TEA party movement is an effort to redress grievances regarding fiscal irresponsibility by the government, and has nothing to do with religion.

 

[chipbennett]

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

What religion is "established" by the federal or any state RFRA?

Please read the law. You're far too intelligent to make yourself look like a fool for making a claim such as this one. All the RFRA does is require the government to use strict scrutiny in order to defend a law (etc.) that substantially burdens religious exercise.

 

[chipbennett]

That I am in agreement with.... but what about non-religious entities, are they covered by this legislation?

Are people who don't own guns protected by the second amendment? Are people not accused of crimes protected by the fifth and sixth amendments?

 

[dusty88]

What religion is "established" by the federal or any state RFRA?

Please read the law. You're far too intelligent to make yourself look like a fool for making a claim such as this one. All the RFRA does is require the government to use strict scrutiny in order to defend a law (etc.) that substantially burdens religious exercise.

I agree with Kutnupe. This gives special privileges to those with a religious claim over other beliefs, feelings, concerns etc that people have. It's not really surprising because when government oversteps its bounds (by regulating private business) we are bound to create conflicts in personal rights.

 

[chipbennett]

A business ought to be able to accept or refuse contracts (and a sale of a good or service is a contract with the buyer) based upon their own judgement. But civil rights enter into it when the goods or services are offered to the general public. If the seller is willing to make pizza for you, he should be willing to make pizza for me, or the gay hairdresser down the block. To do less is economically insane and also discriminatory. Like it or not, that hairdresser probably cuts and dyes the pizza owner's spouse's hair. He's good enough to touch your wife, but not enter your business?

That, to me, is outright bigotry and deserves to be held up to public ridicule.

And I believe that the vast majority of people (even people who oppose gay marriage) agree with you. There are some (usually - but not always - with strong libertarian views regarding property rights trumping all others) who believe in the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Are there any instances of someone generally refusing service to someone because they are homosexual? In the case of the bakers, all were willing to sell baked goods available for sale, but would not participate in a homosexual wedding. In the case of the pizza parlor, the owners explicitly said that they serve everyone who walks in the door. They were asked (by a stupid, pot-stirring reporter) if they would cater a homosexual wedding, and the owners said that they would not cater the wedding. There are the cases of the florist and the photographer - but again, both stated that the issue was participating in the wedding ceremony, not a blanket refusal to sell flowers or photographs to homosexuals. None of these is an example of bigotry.

If someone actually did what these people have been wrongly accused of - a blanket refusal to sell goods to someone because of sexual orientation - you would find a lot of people, including many Christians who oppose gay marriage, agreeing that such discrimination is bigoted, and wrong.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with Kutnupe. This gives special privileges to those with a religious claim over other beliefs, feelings, concerns etc that people have. It's not really surprising because when government oversteps its bounds (by regulating private business) we are bound to create conflicts in personal rights.

Did the first amendment of the constitution get amended while I wasn't looking?

Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].

Exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The RFRA merely constrains the government to a standard of strict scrutiny when making laws that would be a substantial burden on the constitutionally protected right of religious exercise. No "special privileges" are given.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Announcement is live now.

Lawmakers, business leaders make RFRA announcement | WISH-TV

 

[Lowe0]

If someone actually did what these people have been wrongly accused of - a blanket refusal to sell goods to someone because of sexual orientation - you would find a lot of people, including many Christians who oppose gay marriage, agreeing that such discrimination is bigoted, and wrong.

Isn't sarcasm supposed to be in purple?

 

[chipbennett]

Isn't sarcasm supposed to be in purple?

Isn't resorting to ad hominem a tacit admission that you have lost the argument?

 

[Lowe0]

Isn't resorting to ad hominem a tacit admission that you have lost the argument?

I just find it amusing that you insisted that I provide evidence that people would be inclined to discriminate, but you're perfectly happy claiming the exact opposite without providing evidence.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just find it amusing that you insisted that I provide evidence that people would be inclined to discriminate, but you're perfectly happy claiming the exact opposite without providing evidence.

The onus of proof has always been on the one to make the initial claim.

You're not Harry Reid, are you?

 

[chipbennett]

I just find it amusing that you insisted that I provide evidence that people would be inclined to discriminate, but you're perfectly happy claiming the exact opposite without providing evidence.

The nation is 80%+ Christian. LGBT people aren't being turned away from Christian-owned businesses. More importantly for this point, LGBT-owned businesses aren't going out of business due to lack of business support from all of the Christians boycotting them for being LGBT-owned.

And given that I *am* a Christian, associate with Christians, and discuss beliefs with Christians, I will take the credibility/likelihood of my previously stated stance over the credibility of someone who bases his opinion upon some bigoted caricature of Christians. I understand that the straw-man "Christian" you envision in your imagination would act the way you think; but your imagination bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[dusty88]

Did the first amendment of the constitution get amended while I wasn't looking?

Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].

Exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The RFRA merely constrains the government to a standard of strict scrutiny when making laws that would be a substantial burden on the constitutionally protected right of religious exercise. No "special privileges" are given.

Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to harming others.

If you support the reasoning behind public access laws, you can't then claim that your religion would make the difference in what type of work you would do or who you would serve. If there is some "reason" that I am required to sell everyone pork at the same price, to offer everyone who asks the same photography service etc, then you claim someone is harmed if I don't do that.

So now if you claim your "religious practice" prevents you from doing that, you are claiming you want to use your religion to harm someone or take away their rights.



This is one of those times where rights appear to conflict. They only appear that way because government took away the rights of the business owner by falsely stating that people have a "right" to demand services of others.


RFRAs restore business rights, but only if your reasoning is religion. Or RFRA restores your right to put peyote in your body, but only if your reasoning is religion.

 

[Lowe0]

The onus of proof has always been on the one to make the initial claim.

You're not Harry Reid, are you?

I already discussed the political trends that lead me to draw the conclusions I do about evangelical voters.

 

[funeralweb]

The nation is 80%+ Christian. LGBT people aren't being turned away from Christian-owned businesses. More importantly for this point, LGBT-owned businesses aren't going out of business due to lack of business support from all of the Christians boycotting them for being LGBT-owned.

And given that I *am* a Christian, associate with Christians, and discuss beliefs with Christians, I will take the credibility/likelihood of my previously stated stance over the credibility of someone who bases his opinion upon some bigoted caricature of Christians. I understand that the straw-man "Christian" you envision in your imagination would act the way you think; but your imagination bears no resemblance to reality.

+2 Well said.

 

[Lowe0]

The nation is 80%+ Christian. LGBT people aren't being turned away from Christian-owned businesses. More importantly for this point, LGBT-owned businesses aren't going out of business due to lack of business support from all of the Christians boycotting them for being LGBT-owned.

And given that I *am* a Christian, associate with Christians, and discuss beliefs with Christians, I will take the credibility/likelihood of my previously stated stance over the credibility of someone who bases his opinion upon some bigoted caricature of Christians. I understand that the straw-man "Christian" you envision in your imagination would act the way you think; but your imagination bears no resemblance to reality.

You're talking about a group of people who believe I deserve to suffer for all eternity, for having done... nothing. Starting from there, promising you'll treat everyone fairly is a tough sell.

 

[chipbennett]

You're talking about a group of people who believe I deserve to suffer for all eternity, for having done... nothing. Starting from there, promising you'll treat everyone fairly is a tough sell.

Clearly, your straw man is an easier target for you to hate, too.

 

[Lowe0]

Clearly, your straw man is an easier target for you to hate, too.

How is that a straw man? Was that tenet of Christianity repealed?

 

[mrjarrell]

You linked it here.

Please cite the added text.

Here's the federal version. Look it up and compare the two. They are different, as even a cursory reading will show you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B