The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[AA&E]

So, a homosexual is going to sue a baker, under the claim that the baker created a cake for the re-married couple, but not for the homosexual couple, and you think that a court (i.e. the State) deciding the validity of the defendant's religious beliefs is going to pass constitutional muster?

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

I don't think it necessarily stops at the state level first...

second... the courts have already ruled on what you call the constitutional muster in the past and failed a religion and it's historically accepted practice. See the peyote example previously cited.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

and it's working.

 

[AA&E]

Huh, if only someone had been making that same point in this very thread all along...

Maybe if it comes from "legal experts", people will finally let it sink in.

Go back through the 80 pages of this thread and witness the references to refusing service to people whose lifestyles aren't agreed with... this is the perception because this is the opinion of the supporters of this legislation. These are the people the politicians were pandering to... and now we are to wonder why there would be some level of uncertainty.

 

[AA&E]

I could be getting my commentators mixed up in a thread of this length, and if so, mea culpa. That said: weren't you one of the ones calling for less government, and not more?

Homosexuals are already guaranteed equal protection under the law, via the Fourth Amendment. What rights of homosexuals are being violated, and sanctioned by the courts, that require additional laws? By contrast, the Federal RFRA was required, because the courts tried to trash first amendment-protected religious expression rights. State RFRA laws are required, because the courts suddenly found the tenth amendment, and narrowly limited the scope of the Federal RFRA.

The Indiana RFRA doesn't even invalidate Indianapolis's statutes regarding protection of homosexuals. All it does is require the government entity to use strict scrutiny in defending the statute if it is enforced by that government entity in such a manner that it violates first amendment-protected rights. That's it.

Indeed that was me. Not passing the bill would have been ideal, but never underestimate a conservative lawmakers ability to manufacture a crisis where there wasn't one. This union they have with the religious right (I feel) was largely to blame for their previous drops in electoral wins. I might be mistaken, but that is my perception. Most people do not want slimy snake oil peddlers trying to legislate morality to them. Even if there was a politician that would push through precisely what my beliefs dictate and only those, I would not want him to lead. Diversity is a part of what makes this nation as amazing as it is.

What part of the 4th amendment protects the homosexual person? I see no reference what so ever. One could argue the same were true for slaves when the Bill of Rights was composed, but we all know that isn't true and how long it took to correct.

 

[AA&E]

How would the Lanane Amendment have been a "fix"?

And aren't you another one who is generally opposed to more government? How would tacking on a non-sequitur such as the Lanane Amendment not have anything other than more unnecessary government?

It would have been an addition... to a solution where no problem existed. It certainly would have addressed the perception problem we are seeing today.

 

[D-Ric902]

It would have been an addition... to a solution where no problem existed. It certainly would have addressed the perception problem we are seeing today.

perception by definition is not law and not a reason to write law.

but it is a good campaign tool

 

[AA&E]

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.

I doubt we would hear you make similar arguments pertaining to the gun lobby.

Do you see homosexuals as human beings entitled to equal rights and protections under the law? I'd suggest they do, but wonder about your position. I suspect you would state they do, but might refuse to acknowledge the instances where that doesn't hold true.

 

[AA&E]

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

True.

While acceptance would be ideal, perhaps everyone would be better off if the bar were lowered to 'tolerance'.

The homosexuality movement has created animosity among many believers in regards to demanding acceptance. No one has the right to demand acceptance of anyone, tolerance is a more reasonable goal.

 

[AA&E]

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?

I can follow many stories at once, I doubt many have forgotten. We are patiently awaiting the subpoenas.

 

[AA&E]

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.

If they wish to maintain their tax-free status, they have to be extremely careful in regards to what is discussed politically.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Pence speaking live now, and said the law does not allow anyone to discriminate or to refuse service to anyone including members of the LGBT community. This is the first time I've heard him mention LGBT specifically. Presumably they were lumped in with "anyone", but he seemed loathe to mention it before.

 

[AA&E]

perception by definition is not law and not a reason to write law.

but it is a good campaign tool

The same could be said for a law written to resolve an issue that didn't exist....

 

[D-Ric902]

The same could be said for a law written to resolve an issue that didn't exist....

But the various lawsuits (baseless or not) made it an issue in need of addressing.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Pence speaking live now, and said the law does not allow anyone to discriminate or to refuse service to anyone including members of the LGBT community. This is the first time I've heard him mention LGBT specifically. Presumably they were lumped in with "anyone", but he seemed loathe to mention it before.

It's like he just said "Uncle".

 

[AA&E]

But the various lawsuits (baseless or not) made it an issue in need of addressing.

That's the point. This addresses Indiana law only, and to date there have been no lawsuits. You can't point to efforts in some court in liberal meccas of Washington State and Colorado and expect the end result would be the same here.

Do we need to pass legislation addressing means for dispensing recreational marijuana based upon Colorado's recent vote that legitimized the practice?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Here's an incredibly deep and vivid look into the whole "business rights" situation from a well-spoken Redditor.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Indiana/comments/30x3ga/house_speaker_bosma_says_a_fix_for_rfra_is_on_the/cpwq21s

(language)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If they wish to maintain their tax-free status, they have to be extremely careful in regards to what is discussed politically.

Churches should eschew whatever velvet-lined shackles the .gov has them in. We know what happened 200+ years ago when the churches were political and the power-that-be took exception.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence says he wants legislation clarifying that a new religious-freedom does not allow discrimination on his desk by the end of the week.

Indiana governor wants changes to religious-objections law

 

[PaulF]

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.

The revolution and the end of slavery were also opposed by many, many churches. There is no clear religious winner when we review American atrocity...none. One can spin, but that is all it is.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The revolution and the end of slavery were also opposed by many, many churches. There is no clear religious winner when we review American atrocity...none. One can spin, but that is all it is.

Paul, I am not saying "all". But to deny there were churches that played a role in moving people to action is wrong.

ETA: But that wasn't even the main crux of my point. That point being, the churches can be a great political motivator for those that wish to do the good and proper thing.