The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[DoggyDaddy]

It's like he just said "Uncle".

Eh, I didn't take it that way. I did like the fact that he said that politicians get paid to be in the national spotlight, but that the people of the state don't deserve the criticism that has ensued as a result of this.

 

[miguel]

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

Then he should resign, run for a House or Senate seat, and introduce some once he wins said seat.

 

[miguel]

On a side note, I think it is very interesting that a mod hasn't had to warn anyone about being nasty in this thread. Good job making your points without being nasty, peeps.

 

[chipbennett]

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

I don't think I understand your question. I will take this as a valid excuse to procure more coffee.

 

[MisterChester]

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

Interesting. I wonder how that will play out.

 

[rw02kr43]

Most of the comments I've seen about his speech are about his breathing. I guess if there's no substance to your complaining then make fun of him

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;N8i5NLyXZdc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8i5NLyXZdc[/video]

 

[miguel]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

Rolling Stones announce support for racism and homophobia by scheduling a concert in Indy on, wait for it, July 4: The Rolling Stones at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway

#weepingfromshameasahoosier

[video=youtube;N8i5NLyXZdc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8i5NLyXZdc[/video]

We may not, but the GOP sure as hell appears to be.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

Rolling Stones announce support for racism and homophobia by scheduling a concert in Indy on, wait for it, July 4: The Rolling Stones at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway

#weepingfromshameasahoosier

Well, rock 'n roll IS the devil's music you know...

 

[KG1]

Tell me this whole uproar isn't fueled by the media when they start to phrase the new law as the..

" anti-LGBT religious freedom law"

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/cnn-chris-cuomo-grills-anti-lgbt-indiana-law-135008835.html

 

[D-Ric902]

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?

No, but maybe we can pass a law reinforcing the federal ban and illegality of marijuana. Waiting for an almost sure lawsuit before addressing the issue is playing into the hands of the political activists.


Jeez, do we need to go back 50 pages and start over.

 

[chipbennett]

...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.

That is a completely different scenario from the first one you posed. Non sequitur. That is a case where the court determined that the State had a compelling interest in a law that substantially burdened the exercise of religion, not a case where the court determined which of two parties' interpretation/implementation of religious beliefs is more accurate/correct.

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.

You're painting with far too broad a brush, and merely parroting what the law's opponents are ascribing to its supporters. To be sure, there may be some supporters who believe that the law adds a special protection to refuse service to people whose lifestyles aren't agreed with - but they would be wrong. But more importantly, I hear a bunch of the law's opponents claiming that supporters of the law hold that opinion, with little-to-no evidence that any of the law's supporters actually hold such an opinion.

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

The gun lobby: a) has solid constitutional footing for redress of grievances, b) represents about 100,000,000 firearm-owning adults (at least 5,000,000 of whom are dues-paying members of NRA), and c) does not act like bullies or petulant children when not getting its way.

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.

Subtle ad hominem, that is utterly specious and bears no resemblance to everything I've said in this thread. I have stated unequivocally that all people have the constitutionally protected right to equal protection under the law, that "we don't serve your kind here" blanket discrimination is actionable discrimination (on the basis of the right of public accommodation, the right to the pursuit of happiness through engagement in public commerce, etc.), and that the state should have no involvement in marriage and should instead recognize State-defined civil unions, in order to ensure equal protection under the law.

So, I can only conclude that either you've missed my posts, haven't understood my posts, or are simply ignoring my posts in order to reply with ad hominem.

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.

My mistake. Typing too fast. "Fourth" was meant to be "Fourteenth", specifically: "nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

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.

And by and large, Christians tolerate homosexuals. Most Christians are live-and-let-live types (as are most homosexuals). Speaking for myself, I don't care how anyone else lives their lives. I don't care who they're in a relationship with, or what they do in that relationship. If they're my friends, I would wish them well, and all happiness in their lives. I would attend their wedding, if invited.

But for some - the ones making the most noise over IRFRA - such tolerance is not enough. They demand society to accept/condone their lifestyle - a demand to which they have no right. Such people turn tolerance into a matter of what one believes - if someone holds a contrary belief, regardless of how that person acts (or doesn't) on that belief, that person is "intolerant."

 

[chipbennett]

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

Now THIS is pure pandering.

The scope of the law is government entities, and government laws. The scope of the law does not in any way include the actions of non-government entities.

FTA:

The law signed by Pence last week prohibits state laws that "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs. The definition of "person" includes religious institutions, businesses and associations.

Absolutely untrue. Perhaps the AP needs to learn to read, too. Once again (for the reading comprehension-challenged):

"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."

"May substantially burden" is the exact opposite of "prohibits state laws that substantially burden".

 

[Lowe0]

Tell me this whole uproar isn't fueled by the media when they start to phrase the new law as the..

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/cnn-chris-cuomo-grills-anti-lgbt-indiana-law-135008835.html

Can you honestly say that this bill isn't a bad thing for GLBT individuals?

 

[Dead Duck]

Can you honestly say that this bill isn't a bad thing for GLBT individuals?

Again - This bill has nothing to do with gays. Is it to protect the business owners.

 

[chipbennett]

Can you honestly say that this bill isn't a bad thing for GLBT individuals?

Can you provide any factual basis for how the law IS a "bad thing" for LGBT individuals? Can you cite any examples?

 

[chipbennett]

Again - This bill has nothing to do with gays. Is it to protect the business owners.

More precisely, the purpose of the law is to constrain the state, and to define the manner through which the state may substantially burden first amendment-protected rights to exercise of religion. With respect to persons (including businesses), it merely defines the manner in which persons may seek relief from such substantial burden.

 

[Lowe0]

Again - This bill has nothing to do with gays. Is it to protect the business owners.

I'm not asking about the text; I'm asking about the results. What possible upside is there for GLBTs?

 

[jamil]

First, a general warning, if you're offended by slightly suggestive mental images, skip the example hypocrisy narrative.

To AA&E: On the hypocrisy thing, I'm sure you understand that a person doesn't have to believe all the doctrines a given church teaches. Your example of remarrying doesn't necessarily suggest hypocrisy because a lot of people don't believe that. People do pick and choose what to believe, and it is their right to do so. That said, this law should still handle actual hypocrisy.

Let's use an example of a white male named Fred (since we know every white male is evil, especially ones with white names). Fred is a deacon in his local Church, very outspoken against sexual sins, fornication, porn, adultery, homosexuality, etc. Tom, his best friend since childhood, is putting together a bachelor party complete with strippers, for a mutual friend, and wants Fred to make a cake depicting a certain female body part. This is offensive to Fred, and initially he refuses. But Tom has always been a master manipulator, and convinces him to do it. So Fred reluctantly agrees to make the cake as specified, but still feels guilty about it and decides not to attend the party. But starts making the cake anyway.

While he's decorating his friend's cake, Adam comes in and, as he awkwardly tries to ignore the obvious shape of the cake that Fred is working on, asks Fred to make a cake for he and Steve's wedding. Fred stops working on the cake long enough to inform Adam that his Christian conscience does not allow him to participate in accommodating sinful behavior. Adam exclaims, "But you're maKING A ***** CAKE! THAT doesn't offend your Christian conscience?" Fred just repeats the same manipulative lines that Tom had used to rationalize it. Adam takes out his phone and snaps a photo of the ***** cake and storms out of the bakery.

So Adam and Steve sue Fred for discrimination. Fred's defense is based on this sparkling fresh new law.

The law says that "substantially burdened", or something like that, is the standard. In response to Fred's attorney claiming that Fred's conscience is substantially burdened by making a cake for a gay wedding, the opposing attorney props up a poster sized glossy photo of Fred making the ***** cake. He then shows documentation of the bachelor party, complete with midget strippers (wait, was that on the "stuff INGO says thread?"). And then parades scores of witnesses through, who all admit to hearing Fred speak often against all sexual sin.

How could the gay couple's request have burdened his conscience any more than making a ***** cake for his buddies' bachelor party? I'm not an attorney, but if I were and had that going on, I'd be beating that drum all day long.

And that's the point. Two parties' rights are at stake. And a court has to decide, given the all the relevant laws, does the baker's right to choose associations trump the gay couple's right to a wedding cake? Whose rights prevail? Who will get their feelings hurt + damages, mental anguish, and so on?

If this law serves any real purpose at all, it would be to give the religious side some very limited standing to enable a natural right to association. I'm against the fact that it only does this for religious reasons. In a world that values individual liberty, the baker has the right to be a hypocrite. And that does make him an immoral person. And the gay couple has a right to mock him for it. But in this world we live in now, this law would probably not help Fred at all, because 1) he's white, male and straight, and therefore automatically wrong, and especially 2) his claim that making a cake for a gay wedding substantially burdens his conscience is pretty silly given that he made a ***** cake for a bachelor party featuring midget strippers.

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

I'm not judging. But why would I be judged for saying this law doesn't cause the sky to fall? Is that a sin? Is it sinful to advocate not using government might to enforce social standards?

If I were a baker, according to my beliefs and values, I would serve everyone. Their money all spends the same. Except I'd draw the line at douche bags. Their money is obviously icky. I'd have a sign on the door. "I don't serve douche bags." AFAIK, douche bags are not yet a protected class.

Lighten up cupcake... it was a joke. I am one of the only ones in this thread against this new law.

I'd like you to understand that this is a false dichotomy happily passed on by the media....and progressive libertarians, that you're ether against the law, or you're a homophobe.

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.

Yes. But I just can't bring myself to laugh. So we'll need to "carve out a protected class", or some such nonsense, to protect a class from a protected class. I mean, at some point isn't it all just a wash anyway?

 

[KG1]

Can you honestly say that this bill isn't a bad thing for GLBT individuals?

You are operating under the false premise that this new laws sole purpose was specifically written as to discriminate against LBGT as the phrasing in the article implies. You buy into that framing and that's exactly what they want.