The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[dusty88]

Completely unpersuasive - especially his third point, which boils down to, "the people who wrote it hate teh gay".

Also, being that I'm someone who can read the plain language of the constitution, as opposed to being a lawyer, I am opposed in principle to the establishment of any sort of "protected classes" of people. Creation of "protected classes" is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Being a "protected class" also tends to drop either the employment or salary of said "class".

It's much "safer" to hire a middle age white male, who is less able to sue you for discrimination.

(possible correction for middle age white heterosexual male)

 

[10mmMarc]

I didn't realize we needed a bill allowing a business to refuse service, I've seen those signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service".
The easiest way out of this one was, the bakery could have simply said, "we can't meet that deadline because we are really busy" , problem solved.
My guess is this will really change nothing, but it did accomplish a few things thanks to the media, it made our state look bad, and I think it might have ended Mike Pence's political career , I had high hopes for this guy , and when rumors started last year about a presidential run I was liking the idea, not anymore.

 

[Roadie]

 

[AA&E]

All I can say is that I'm anxious to see how many business owners place a sign on their door expressing their support for this new law, and would hope that they have the honesty to list those "kinds of people" or "kinds of things" that their business chooses not to be involved with.

After all, if the majority of Hoosiers really do support the new law, such a sign would only serve to keep those very few from wasting the businesses time.



I'll bet a box of bullets that we will see many more signs expressing that all are welcome.

I want in on this action. Let me know if you find anyone gullible enough to bet against you.

 

[AA&E]

I don't know. Maybe ask the cupcake baker who got dragged into court.

(And as most people paying attention know: it's not always the *conviction* that is the most devastating. The legal process itself is punitive, and can be financially and personally devastating, regardless of the verdict.)

Pretty sure that didn't happen here.... does our new law protect those bakers in Washington state and Colorado?

 

[jamil]

Pretty sure that didn't happen here.... does our new law protect those bakers in Washington state and Colorado?

Keep up. The gay wedding cake incident was in Co. There was a similar incident in Wa state. The gay cupcake incident was in Indianapolis. For the latter incident no one sued. The business was in a very "gay friendly" area according to reports, and the clientele took care of the matter. That bakery is no longer in business. If people are going to go ape**** about a business choosing its clients, I'd prefer they do it that way instead of pursuing ways to have the might of government do it for them.

I'd post a link but it's not worth the 15 seconds to google it, click the top of many hits, copy the link, and paste it here.

 

[jamil]

The same way the government or a business can't discriminate based on race, sex, age, religion.

Context is one thing, but I wouldn't call them militant. ISIS warriors are militants. These are people expressing their 1st amendment right. Most of them, anyway. I can't say that I've seen LGBT activists who push the ethical envelope to a point where they're labeled militant, but I'm sure it's happened at one point or another. Every group has their crazies I suppose.

No, 'militant' does not refer to people just expressing their 1st amendment right. As I said, it's not literal. It's just a figure of speech. One might consider Westboro Baptist Church militant though they're not taking up arms. But pop culture is at a point where it can easily identify Westboro's 'militant' behavior while excusing LGBT and other progressive "militant" activist groups. Both radical groups want to transform society socially, and both groups employ tactics that are not above board, but neither are literally militant. And I'm not saying all LGBTs who want to transform society are 'militant' (I prefer calling them 'rabid' because it's more descriptive of their behavior).

 

[El-Cigarro]

Kinda the same as the scientific proof that climate change exists. Proof based on the opinions of those with a financial interest in it existing.

Yeah. JUNK Science!!!!!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well since the FIRST mention of Marriage in in Genesis 29:26 and Genesis was written around 1400 BC Pre-dating your Avalon Project by almost 800 years, please try again. Oh and another thing for you to peruse:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

How about the Hammurabi code? "151. If a woman who lived in a man's house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor." is just one example of several where the term marry or marriage is used. And dates back to around 1750 B.C.

But more to the point, I wasn't aware that the Old or New Testimate or the code of Hammurabi were written in modern English. If you wish to claim the original Aramaic word for marriage as only applying to a man and a woman (or multiple women).....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

For those saying it wasn't needed, I'm sure you also agree that the firearm premption law passed a couple years ago in IN wasn't needed either correct?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The easiest way out of this one was, the bakery could have simply said, "we can't meet that deadline because we are really busy" , problem solved.

If the bakery simply didn't want to do the job, then yes, that would have solved the problem. Kindof makes you wonder if simply not doing the job is what that bakery was after.....or maybe it was something a little more.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

check out this thread on the Indiana subreddit. They post a sign, and an alleged LGBT-person outraged about it. The friend that made the thread claims they were discriminated.

1. Money was exchanged, and services were performed. That's not discrimination.
2. This is literally a non-issue. The person chose to make the sign about RFRA. This is why it doesn't matter what they do with the law, people will create outrage out of nothing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Indiana/comments/30r6ku/big_apple_bagels_in_brownsburg_shows/

 

[jamil]

For those saying it wasn't needed, I'm sure you also agree that the firearm premption law passed a couple years ago in IN wasn't needed either correct?

If the problem before the preemption law passed, was that many local communities passed different gun laws such that it's difficult for people who carry to know, just passing through, if you're violating the law; and the problem deminished after the law passed, one could easily argue the law was needed.

If the problem before the RFRA passed was that local ordinances were causing business owners to violate their religeous conscience; and the problem deminishes after the law has been in effect, I suppose one could as easily argue that the law was necessary.

So, I don't know. Have many communities in aindiana passed ordinances that require people to violate their religeous conscience before the law passed?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the bakery simply didn't want to do the job, then yes, that would have solved the problem. Kindof makes you wonder if simply not doing the job is what that bakery was after.....or maybe it was something a little more.

I don't know why people of conscience should have to pretend to be something they're not just to placate somebody else's sensibilities in these cases. Should we alternately be just as accepting of the line of thinking of a homosexual couple pretend not to be just so they can get waited on? No. People should not treat others unfairly or offensively but you do not have a right not to be treated so.

We need to realize there's a moral component and an inherent right component in all of these issues. Just because I have a right to discriminate doesn't necessarily mean I should. And just as you may not want somebody forcing their morality on you, let's don't force (under law) your morality on them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the problem before the preemption law passed, was that many local communities passed different gun laws such that it's difficult for people who carry to know, just passing through, if you're violating the law; and the problem deminished after the law passed, one could easily argue the law was needed.

If the problem before the RFRA passed was that local ordinances were causing business owners to violate their religeous conscience; and the problem deminishes after the law has been in effect, I suppose one could as easily argue that the law was necessary.

So, I don't know. Have many communities in aindiana passed ordinances that require people to violate their religeous conscience before the law passed?

It's all about democrat and republican politics now.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana's Religious Freedom Law | The Weekly Standard


I'd bet money this was a fake call:

INDIANA RESTAURANT OWNER ALREADY TURNING AWAY GAYS WITH NEW ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY’ LAW

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It's all about democrat and republican politics now.

I can't help but wonder if all this hullabaloo would have ensued if a democrat had proposed this bill and a democrat governor had signed it into law. Since there do seem to be a lot of states that have similar, if not identical laws on the books I am thinking that much of the outrage is because it was passed by the eeeeeeeeevil Republicans.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana's Religious Freedom Law | The Weekly Standard


I'd bet money this was a fake call:

INDIANA RESTAURANT OWNER ALREADY TURNING AWAY GAYS WITH NEW ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY’ LAW

I would agree. If he were that fired up, and seemingly proud to discriminate, why would he refuse to name his business? My guess is it's because that business doesn't exist. If it is legitimate and he did/does openly discriminate, then I would liken him to the terrorists that only appear in their videos with their faces covered. It's a sign of cowardice.

 

[jamil]

I can't help but wonder if all this hullabaloo would have ensued if a democrat had proposed this bill and a democrat governor had signed it into law. Since there do seem to be a lot of states that have similar, if not identical laws on the books I am thinking that much of the outrage is because it was passed by the eeeeeeeeevil Republicans.

Wouldn't have maybe made local headlines but national news would have ignored it. But let's be honest. The Democratic party today is nothing like the Democratic party of the '90s that authored and signed the national RRFA. It simply couldn't happen in today's Democratic party.

 

[AA&E]

Keep up. The gay wedding cake incident was in Co. There was a similar incident in Wa state. The gay cupcake incident was in Indianapolis. For the latter incident no one sued. The business was in a very "gay friendly" area according to reports, and the clientele took care of the matter. That bakery is no longer in business. If people are going to go ape**** about a business choosing its clients, I'd prefer they do it that way instead of pursuing ways to have the might of government do it for them.

I'd post a link but it's not worth the 15 seconds to google it, click the top of many hits, copy the link, and paste it here.

It appears I have kept up, there was no lawsuit involving a baker in Indiana. Yes?