The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[rob63]

Incoherent fool

Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Orders City Employees to Ignore Religious Freedom Restoration Act

This is Michael Moore-levels of disregard of facts. Pathetic demagoguery. There's no possible scenario where his droll reasoning makes a bit of sense.

It makes sense solely because perception is reality and he has to do something to fight the backlash. Yes, it makes no sense from a logical standpoint, but we are far past logic at this point. I support the law and wholeheartedly agree that the way it has been spun it outrageous, but I think there will have to be dramatic changes to the law to fix the perception. It sucks, but it is reality.

 

[AA&E]

That would depend upon his knowledge of the situation, and his own conscience.

(And despite what you would say otherwise, the first amendment protects freedom of conscience, whether or not you think someone's conscience is hypocritical.)

That is yet to be seen, once we have challenges in court that withstand scrutiny you will be able to say that, until... not so much.

 

[AA&E]

On another forum I am on, someone said that no business has the right to refuse service to anyone. I took the time to bait them into seeing if it is only "protected classes" or they mean everyone by asking if it means people who carry guns also. Waiting to see if anyone says that doesn't count.

I am hearing the same from legal experts on the news. Not sure who or what to believe. The wording would lead you to believe refusal of service to be ok. But legal experts this morning on Fox News were saying you could refuse flowers for a gay wedding, but not to the same gay couple for a regular daily purpose... so.. who the hell knows.

 

[AA&E]

It's been my experience that most people seem to think that they're "center". So, if they're actually fairly left of center they might think MSNBC is centrist. CNN leans right. FOX is far right wing radical nutjob crazy. Of course the same goes for people right of center who think they're fairly centrist.



Huh? the bill limits what the government can limit and that's more government? That may be on par with help, help, the wacky republicans just made Christians a protected class! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!



Tell ya what. Why don't you just pry yourself into everyone else's lives and report back on who all we should throw stones at. K? We can draw straws on who gets to throw first.



Hmmm. Got yer stones ready?



You're just going to have your righteous indignation one way or another, no matter what, aren't you.

I am playing devils advocate. Trying to illustrate the trouble with allowing anyone to state a religious exemption based upon their personal beliefs which is really what this is. The SCUSA once ruled a group of men taking peyote in accordance with their religion wasn't sufficient to allow them a waver to practice. But here we are to turn a blind eye to a much larger groups belief system allowing them to take aim at one group of sinners, while turning a blind eye to others? Seems contradictory to me, that is all.

I was joking with Kut, he missed that as well. You sure are a sensitive bunch.

My point is that you should not be able claim religious exemption when you aren't abiding by your religious beliefs. So many Christians walk through this world and persecute those around them for various sins without acknowledging they too are not without fault in this world. It is neither a persons right nor responsibility to judge anyone else. You'd think a Christian would have learned the lesson from John 8:7. I've seen comments in this thread referring to me as being a person that hates religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am active in a Christian church that teaches the bible. Regarding homosexuality we are told it is a sin. But it is not our duty to judge our fellow man. We too have sinned. And by judging these people we drive them, those most in need of God's presence in their lives, further away from him. When people that wish to proclaim a religious objection based upon Christianity actually start practicing Christianity, it will be a nonissue because such nonsense won't occur.

Carry on... I assure you judgment isn't only reserved for those your find distasteful. Someday we will all answer for our actions.

 

[AA&E]

How do you know what my religious beliefs are? Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I believe everything every church preaches. I had a discussion with my Pastor yesterday because I disagreed with what he said from the pulpit. He agreed that I could be right, and was right on one thing. He was talking about how Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and how it was a show of humility and that warriors rode horses. I disagreed and told him that I believed it was a sign of confidence, a way of saying send your warriors on horses. I'll still triumph while riding a donkey. Same as turning the other cheek isn't a sign of humility or meekness. He agreed on turning the other cheek.

We will have to agree to disagree on this matter. To me being Christian means you believe and live by the teachings Jesus and words written within the bible. While you have every right to believe whatever you choose, to alter the belief system of a religion and claim you are still a follower of "whatever" doesn't pass the sniff test. There has been cases in court systems where genuine religious practices were deemed not protected (Taking peyote during a religious ceremony)... I wouldn't count on some random assortment of beliefs handpicked would withstand such scrutiny.

This bill has opened the door to an argument nobody was having... but now that it is open you can bet your backside that the boundaries will be tested.

 

[AA&E]

And can you tell me that those particular religious business owners made products celebrating other sins but not the one you seem so enamored with. Your straw man is on fire.

It might seem a strawman to some, but having grown up in a small community in a catholic church I can assure you the sins of the community were very visible. You state celebrating other sins, but many people are suggesting the right to refuse service in general... not just for services such as weddings. Look back over the 70+ pages and see for yourself. According Catholicism remarrying in itself is a sin unless your first marriage has been annulled. So would a Catholic be right to refuse a wedding cake to a gay couple, but ok to a second marriage? This isn't something the courts should even be involved in.. in fact, it is not something the courts in Indiana HAVE been involved in. Due to the wording of this bill, I can assure you that won't be the case for long. This is something that is going to be testing and stretched into ways the writers never even imagined.

My hope is that those that would claim religious exemption would do so against all that go against God's word. But I would not betting on it.

 

[AA&E]

Incoherent fool

Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Orders City Employees to Ignore Religious Freedom Restoration Act

This is Michael Moore-levels of disregard of facts. Pathetic demagoguery. There's no possible scenario where his droll reasoning makes a bit of sense.

I can't get the link to open, but is there something wrong with proclaiming city services paid for by taxpayer funds should be available to everyone equally? Maybe you can give me the cliffnotes of what he is saying? You aren't an evil person.. I know you aren't clamoring for refusal of police of fire services to gays... so what did he say that resonanted improperly within your mind?

 

[AA&E]

well the RFRA is now a success:

Jesse Jackson says he's not coming here for the Final 4

I might have just changed my opinion on the impact of this legislation...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It makes sense solely because perception is reality and he has to do something to fight the backlash. Yes, it makes no sense from a logical standpoint, but we are far past logic at this point. I support the law and wholeheartedly agree that the way it has been spun it outrageous, but I think there will have to be dramatic changes to the law to fix the perception. It sucks, but it is reality.

Dramatic changes? Not as I understand it. A simple blurb indicating that sexual orientation is among the things that cannot be used to discriminate, and all of this crap would never have happened. That's the primary difference between our law and the laws in the other 19 (or 30 depending on which account you read) other states that have similar (but not identical) laws. As for the mayor's reaction, he is watching his city potentially bleed out $$$ so of course he's going to react that way. While I agree with the law for the most part, it was horribly executed and much of this hubub could have been avoided IMHO.

 

[AA&E]

It makes sense solely because perception is reality and he has to do something to fight the backlash. Yes, it makes no sense from a logical standpoint, but we are far past logic at this point. I support the law and wholeheartedly agree that the way it has been spun it outrageous, but I think there will have to be dramatic changes to the law to fix the perception. It sucks, but it is reality.

What would you do to fix it? Many states have similar laws but also have a civil rights law granting equal protection under the law for homosexuals. I seriously doubt that would pass here. Gov. Pence has already stated on national TV he wouldn't pursue that. I don't believe this is something carefully rewording will fix. The language and how it would be perceived is something that should have been considered before it was voted on. Not after. The damage is done regarding the potential impact on the economy and how this state is perceived nationally. At this point sticking to your guns and dealing with the repercussions is about all that can be done. Nothing will change the perception, facts matter very little once a mob has gathered. We just witnessed that in Ferguson this past several months...

 

[cobber]

I can't get the link to open, but is there something wrong with proclaiming city services paid for by taxpayer funds should be available to everyone equally? Maybe you can give me the cliffnotes of what he is saying? You aren't an evil person.. I know you aren't clamoring for refusal of police of fire services to gays... so what did he say that resonanted improperly within your mind?

If you were in Dallas a few years ago ignoring RFRA would NOT have meant making city services available to all. It would have meant the city shutting down churches that were feeding the homeless. So I would be a bit leery of a government that says 'trust us' to protect the people.

Plenty of local ordinances still affecting such church-based operations. I would not count on the restraint of city governments to do the right thing by the people (look to Chicago and Detroit for two shining examples).

All due respect to Mayor Ballard, I'm sure he's a most benevolent generalissimo.

 

[rob63]

I am playing devils advocate. Trying to illustrate the trouble with allowing anyone to state a religious exemption based upon their personal beliefs which is really what this is. The SCUSA once ruled a group of men taking peyote in accordance with their religion wasn't sufficient to allow them a waver to practice. But here we are to turn a blind eye to a much larger groups belief system allowing them to take aim at one group of sinners, while turning a blind eye to others? Seems contradictory to me, that is all.

I was joking with Kut, he missed that as well. You sure are a sensitive bunch.

My point is that you should not be able claim religious exemption when you aren't abiding by your religious beliefs. So many Christians walk through this world and persecute those around them for various sins without acknowledging they too are not without fault in this world. It is neither a persons right nor responsibility to judge anyone else. You'd think a Christian would have learned the lesson from John 8:7. I've seen comments in this thread referring to me as being a person that hates religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am active in a Christian church that teaches the bible. Regarding homosexuality we are told it is a sin. But it is not our duty to judge our fellow man. We too have sinned. And by judging these people we drive them, those most in need of God's presence in their lives, further away from him. When people that wish to proclaim a religious objection based upon Christianity actually start practicing Christianity, it will be a nonissue because such nonsense won't occur.

Carry on... I assure you judgment isn't only reserved for those your find distasteful. Someday we will all answer for our actions.

I actually agree with you, even though I think Christians should have the right to abstain from being involved in a gay wedding, I don't quite understand why they would think that Christianity requires it. It seems to me like you could simply view it as a great opportunity to witness for Christ if you are convinced they are sinners. I would guess that if you were a wedding photographer and you told the couple upfront that you are excited about the chance to witness for the Savior at their wedding that you would likely be uninvited most of the time anyway.

 

[rob63]

What would you do to fix it? Many states have similar laws but also have a civil rights law granting equal protection under the law for homosexuals. I seriously doubt that would pass here. Gov. Pence has already stated on national TV he wouldn't pursue that. I don't believe this is something carefully rewording will fix. The language and how it would be perceived is something that should have been considered before it was voted on. Not after. The damage is done regarding the potential impact on the economy and how this state is perceived nationally. At this point sticking to your guns and dealing with the repercussions is about all that can be done. Nothing will change the perception, facts matter very little once a mob has gathered. We just witnessed that in Ferguson this past several months...

Sticking to your guns at this point is kind of like staying on-board the Titanic because it is unsinkable.

I don't see how they get around adding exemptions for gays, the other side won the perception war. It is truly comically ironic.

 

[silverspoon]

The conservatives got in such a pompous rush to pass a crappy bill and prove they are good conservatives they have painted themselves in a corner with no way out. If they repeal the law the liberals have won. If they stay the course the backlash will continue to be so obnoxious and nationwide in effect the liberals win. If they add language to the bill to protect the gay community they will have effectively nullified the bill and the liberals win.

What. a. bunch. of. dumbarses.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What. a. bunch. of. dumbarses.

Finally, a voice of reason.

Anywho last night at the reloading press I was thinking how we can turn this political suicide/debacle to our advantage. This may be a great opportunity to seek constitutional carry.

As the Republicans have damaged themselves deeply with this statute, they will need to appeal to the base for 2016. Why not us?

Perfect opportunity for Constitutional Carry, drafted in consultation with NRA, to go forward in January of 2016. Republicans will really need a win for the base and we get an opportunity to abolish the license requirement.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The language and how it would be perceived is something that should have been considered before it was voted on.

It was. The amendment granting homosexuals protected class status failed 10-40 The "Lanane Amendment".

This is how stupid this whole thing is. The Republicans knew what would happen, knew the fix, yet plunged the state into this crap despite having been forewarned.

 

[ashby koss]

Why? Because there exist two types of people. Those that are logical and able to make decisions on their own about patronizing a business.

And those that can't, and need to vilify anyone that disagrees with them. Again, I say, fascists.

Much like many supporting this bill. There are people on both sides that are not listening to the other side. Many "Christians" I know won't even talk about lifestyles outside their own nor their beliefs. When they do talk about things "outside" their beliefs and lifestyle, they turn to how "wrong" others are. When asked serious questions they get offended. I've also seen this from Atheists, although not as badly.

Some people are dug in so deep that they can only see the far right as being correct. They vote straight ticket without research, and refuse to even listen. I have no problem with anybodies beliefs or lifestyles, but do some research, listen, and show people you aren't close minded is how everyone should move forward.

For this bill, Im all for the "idea" of what it gives, but the problem lies int he fact that it is VERY loosely written and can be used UN-intentionally and with broad sweeping terms to discriminate. It's not even just businesses, it clearly states "any sue-able entity". And faith is so loosely defined it can be anything that 1 single person believes or a group of people.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you think that Brian Bosma would rather be discussing Constitutional Carry rather than IRFRA every waking moment?

Hey, Bri Guy, how's this "economic session" working out for ya?

 

[chipbennett]

Incoherent fool

Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Orders City Employees to Ignore Religious Freedom Restoration Act

This is Michael Moore-levels of disregard of facts. Pathetic demagoguery. There's no possible scenario where his droll reasoning makes a bit of sense.

FTA:

In a press conference Monday, Ballard announced that he had issued an executive order that "no vendor, contractor, grant recipient or anyone receiving public funds or benefits of any kind shall discriminate on the basis of...sexual orientation [or] gender identity."


The mayor's order is in contravention of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Governor Mike Pence has said is designed to protect the religious liberty of Hoosiers.

Here's the problem: no, it most certainly is NOT in "direct contravention" of the IRFRA. This sort of disinformation is exactly what is fueling the flames of ignorant caterwauling against the law.

Indianapolis includes sexual orientation in its civil rights protections. The state of Indiana does not. Some Indianapolis city council members feared that the new state law would override the local provision, but Ballard has called on any businesses that receive money from the city to ignore the state law in favor of the city statute. He has also called on Indiana's General Assembly to add sexual orientation to the state's civil rights law.

First of all, the very concept of "protected classes" is a violation of the Equal Protection clause. We live in a constitutional republic, not on Animal Farm. No animals are more equal than others.

Second, Mayor Ballard: let us know how that works for you.

Third, Mayor Ballard: the law that you're instructing businesses to "ignore" applies to the State, and not to businesses. I suppose we can count you among the number of willfully ignorant people who haven't read the bill. Here, let me help you. Here is the "money graph":

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.

The law restricts what a government entity may do, not "businesses that receive money from the city".

 

[Mark 1911]

Much like many supporting this bill. There are people on both sides that are not listening to the other side. Many "Christians" I know won't even talk about lifestyles outside their own nor their beliefs. When they do talk about things "outside" their beliefs and lifestyle, they turn to how "wrong" others are. When asked serious questions they get offended. I've also seen this from Atheists, although not as badly.

Some people are dug in so deep that they can only see the far right as being correct. They vote straight ticket without research, and refuse to even listen. I have no problem with anybodies beliefs or lifestyles, but do some research, listen, and show people you aren't close minded is how everyone should move forward.

For this bill, Im all for the "idea" of what it gives, but the problem lies int he fact that it is VERY loosely written and can be used UN-intentionally and with broad sweeping terms to discriminate. It's not even just businesses, it clearly states "any sue-able entity". And faith is so loosely defined it can be anything that 1 single person believes or a group of people.

I agree with you Ashby. I have no problem with people being left free to live their lives as they choose, and that should apply equally to folks on both sides. As long as Christians are not forced to participate in activities they do not want to participate in, whether by baking a cake, being a photographer, renting their facilities, etc, I have no problem with homosexuals living their lives according to their choices. I think the concept of equality is still the model, not special classes. As far as the possibility of people using the law as an opportunity to practice bigotry, time will tell. That should not be allowed to happen, and if necessary, hopefully adjustments can be made to address those situations.