The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[silverspoon]

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.

This ^^

I don't think they knew it would blow up as big as it has. Nevertheless, it has cast a unwanted dark shadow over the state as a whole.

 

[Lowe0]

And what "governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof" would be involved in that proceeding?

A court order, presuming that the two parties have failed to work things out between themselves.

 

[chipbennett]

A court order, presuming that the two parties have failed to work things out between themselves.

But a court order, presumably, must be pursuant to some legal basis. What is the legal basis underlying the court order?

 

[MisterChester]

What I've been more angry about is the handling of the perception of the bill to the public. Whether people have read the bill or not, they are still angry. Businesses are angry. The perception that Indiana is a backwoods hillbilly state has been reinforced by the public outcry and the media hasn't helped. There is a HUGE image problem and the people that overnighted the bill didn't care at all about it. What they SHOULD have done was explain the purpose and the meaning of the bill before it was even voted on to the public. And make a reasonable effort considering how controversial the bill is.They should have shown leadership and acknowledged that it may be unpopular but we feel the need to present our case for it. But they didn't do that. They fast tracked it like the Patriot Act without a second thought. Not to mention the timing couldn't be worse.

Mike Pence comes out and says we need even MORE legislation to clarify the bill that he signed in a private ceremony, closed to the public and the media? Who is he kidding? Maybe I expect too much logic from the state government. S.N.A.F.U.

 

[Lowe0]

But a court order, presumably, must be pursuant to some legal basis. What is the legal basis underlying the court order?

Court has to give the kid to someone; presumably, they already have the legal basis to do that (how else would they have done it up to now?). At that point, the non-custodial parent could argue that the decision prevents them from raising them in their religion as proscribed. If the other parent's religion says that the children are to be raised in their religion, conflict.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't think they knew it would blow up as big as it has. Nevertheless, it has cast a unwanted dark shadow over the state as a whole.

With respect, to the contrary, the gay lobby made it abundantly clear to every single member of the General Assembly of what would happen. Every single member of the General Assembly can read polls and see that gay marriage is increasingly popular. Every single member of the General Assembly knows the influence that homosexuals have in the popular culture and media.

It was a giant middle finger when the Senate fix was voted down. They have made the bed, but we must sleep in it.

 

[rw02kr43]

I've cancelled my church membership over this whole thing. About the bill I really don't care. I believe a business should be able to refuse service to whoever they want. Religious or not. Let the market decide. But the church got involved in threatening to move out of state. They claim to be open to everyone's opinions and beliefs. Obviously they are not. They crow on and on about how open and accepting they are of everyone. As long as you believe just as they do apparently. One of the main gripes about churches is hypocrisy. This one claims they aren't hypocritical and then they are hypocritical about that. I doubt they'll care either way.

Jason

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Please quote the part of the law that allows discrimination, on any basis.

The law itself doesn't but it is my understanding (however imperfect that may be) that because Indiana does not include "sexual orientation" in its civil rights legislation as a "protected class" (and I'm not fond of that term either, but it is what it is) it is what has caused the LGBT community, backed by the media to interpret it as such. The states that have similar laws have provisions for sexual orientation in their civil rights laws, and that is the difference. Again, I agree with the law, but I think it was rushed through and poorly executed. A little PR might have gone a long way in preventing the backlash we're seeing now.

 

[chipbennett]

With respect, to the contrary, the gay lobby made it abundantly clear to every single member of the General Assembly of what would happen. Every single member of the General Assembly can read polls and see that gay marriage is increasingly popular. Every single member of the General Assembly knows the influence that homosexuals have in the popular culture and media.

It was a giant middle finger when the Senate fix was voted down. They have made the bed, but we must sleep in it.

What does this law have anything to do with gay marriage? And why should anyone be beholden to the gay lobby?

When my girls were toddlers, I didn't let their threats of fit-throwing dictate my actions. The gay lobby are behaving the same way, and should be treated similarly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've cancelled my church membership over this whole thing. About the bill I really don't care. I believe a business should be able to refuse service to whoever they want. Religious or not. Let the market decide. But the church got involved in threatening to move out of state. They claim to be open to everyone's opinions and beliefs. Obviously they are not. They crow on and on about how open and accepting they are of everyone. As long as you believe just as they do apparently. One of the main gripes about churches is hypocrisy. This one claims they aren't hypocritical and then they are hypocritical about that. I doubt they'll care either way.

Jason

I'm sorry you had to make this decision. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of your circumstance (because I certainly don't know) but just to use your plight as take off, I've found utter ignorance and up to contempt for Constitutional principles to be scaringly frequent among many pastors, priests, and members of numerous congregations.

 

[chipbennett]

The law itself doesn't but it is my understanding (however imperfect that may be) that because Indiana does not include "sexual orientation" in its civil rights legislation as a "protected class" (and I'm not fond of that term either, but it is what it is) it is what has caused the LGBT community, backed by the media to interpret it as such. The states that have similar laws have provisions for sexual orientation in their civil rights laws, and that is the difference. Again, I agree with the law, but I think it was rushed through and poorly executed. A little PR might have gone a long way in preventing the backlash we're seeing now.

Honestly, I hope the militant wing of the LGBT community keeps it up. Eventually, they'll make plain the reason that the very concept of "protected classes" is as unwise as it is unconstitutional.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Honestly, I hope the militant wing of the LGBT community keeps it up. Eventually, they'll make plain the reason that the very concept of "protected classes" is as unwise as it is unconstitutional.

I hope you're right. What tends to happen is the next group to be able to generate a "civil rights" movement will claim their place among the some-more-equal-than-others protected class list.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With respect, to the contrary, the gay lobby made it abundantly clear to every single member of the General Assembly of what would happen. Every single member of the General Assembly can read polls and see that gay marriage is increasingly popular. Every single member of the General Assembly knows the influence that homosexuals have in the popular culture and media.

It was a giant middle finger when the Senate fix was voted down. They have made the bed, but we must sleep in it.

How far we've sunk when the likes of Miley Cyrus, Aston Kutcher (sp?), and Mr. Sulu have the ability to rile the army up against a bill that protects rights of others--even their own.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've cancelled my church membership over this whole thing. About the bill I really don't care. I believe a business should be able to refuse service to whoever they want. Religious or not. Let the market decide. But the church got involved in threatening to move out of state. They claim to be open to everyone's opinions and beliefs. Obviously they are not. They crow on and on about how open and accepting they are of everyone. As long as you believe just as they do apparently. One of the main gripes about churches is hypocrisy. This one claims they aren't hypocritical and then they are hypocritical about that. I doubt they'll care either way.

Jason

This isn't unique to churches. Happens in political parties as well.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Honestly, I hope the militant wing of the LGBT community keeps it up. Eventually, they'll make plain the reason that the very concept of "protected classes" is as unwise as it is unconstitutional.

I think we're basically in agreement. The equal protection clause should cover it, but in reality it has not historically (which was the crux of the civil rights movement, was it not?)

 

[MisterChester]

I'm sorry you had to make this decision. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of your circumstance (because I certainly don't know) but just to use your plight as take off, I've found utter ignorance and up to contempt for Constitutional principles to be scaringly frequent among many pastors, priests, and members of numerous congregations.

That is a big reason why I stopped attending church and do not belong to any religious organization. I got sick of how political they were getting. I'm going to vote how I want to vote, and they can go pound sand if they think because I belonged there I had to vote their way.

 

[Doug]

I confess I didn't read all 875 posts, but has anyone pointed out this is just "something shiny" to draw attention away from Hillary's Emails?

 

[D-Ric902]

This law has about as much to do with gay rights as the traffic code.
Its a political topic to protest and further an agenda. It doesn't have to be true, just loud and covered by the press.

 

[dusty88]

What does this law have anything to do with gay marriage? And why should anyone be beholden to the gay lobby?

When my girls were toddlers, I didn't let their threats of fit-throwing dictate my actions. The gay lobby are behaving the same way, and should be treated similarly.

Well in what context? morality, constitutionality, equal protection? or politics?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That is a big reason why I stopped attending church and do not belong to any religious organization. I got sick of how political they were getting. I'm going to vote how I want to vote, and they can go pound sand if they think because I belonged there I had to vote their way.

Nothing wrong with them being political. To a large degree, from my reading, our revolution was fueled by the churches; abolition of slavery was too. Personally, if they're coming from a position at odds to constitutional principles, I would probably question my membership as well.