The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[rw02kr43]

cause no one cared until the media started to whip up "discussion"

 

[AA&E]

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.



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.



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.



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?

Your cited example perfectly demonstrates the absolutely lunacy we are about to see unfold before our eyes. I don't agree these issues should be settled in court, but now I feel it is more likely than before. This law shines a spot light on matters that more often then not were overlooked. Organizations like the ACLU are going to get behind every perceived injustice for legal challenge. This is just the beginning. This will be front page news for a very long time. You know the saying there is no such thing as bad publicity? I think they were wrong.

 

[ashby koss]

barefoot rights!!

Putin would not get served without a shirt on, I demand a partial nakedness protection provision be added!

I'm all for barefoot rights as there are no laws that restrict it. No health codes or anything. Only ones are really OSHA and that only covers employees, not customers.

 

[ghitch75]

what does this have to do with gay's????.....i see nothing about gay's........copied from General Assembly site......what i'm i missing

"Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applyingthe law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.View less "

 

[chipbennett]

Correct; the law restricts the government from finding that a plaintiff's civil rights have been violated if a religious practices defense exists. In other words, the government can't use it against GLBTs - but anyone who wants to violate GLBTs' civil rights now has free rein to do so.

The law does no such thing. The law merely requires the government to demonstrate a strict-scrutiny standard for why a government law (etc.) may be used to substantially burden the free exercise of religion.

Yes, I've read the law. You guys really need a new catchphrase; " have you read the law " is getting played out.

You appear to have mis-read it. Let me quote the relevant part:

"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 explicitly allows the government to substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. It merely requires that the state apply strict scrutiny in defending that substantial burden.

 

[KG1]

And how would this law enable or facilitate such endeavors? Specifics, please.



And yet, thus far neither you nor anyone else has cited what in the law can be "used against them". The law directs/restricts/regulates what the government can do; not what individuals can do.

Have you even read the law?

They don't want you to read the law and what it applies to. They want you to focus on the LGBT sideshow and claims that this is what the law is really about.

 

[AA&E]

This law has nothing, nothing, did I say nothing, by that I mean nothing at all to do with gays.
the laws against driving without a license don't have a provisions against gay discrimination, does that mean they are a license to discriminate?

I have to keep my lawn mowed, there is no gay provision in that ordinance. Should they protest?

all of these "allow gay discrimination" as much as this law does.

the "issue de jour" for today is for sheep

This could have been prevented with a simple addition someone actually suggested during debate. Voted down 10-40. Nobody to blame but your legislators.

 

[chipbennett]

This bill deals directly with private parties NOT just businesses. Why is everyone stuck on "it only applies to businesses". THat is a lie. If you read the bill it says ANY sue-able entity.

You're talking about a definition included in the law.

The law itself applies directly to government entities.

 

[AA&E]

You're talking about a definition included in the law.

The law itself applies directly to government entities.

I think you are overlooking what he is saying. this doesn't just 'protect' a business... it also 'protects' private individuals... the portion of the law you have quoted does state 'person', not 'business'. He is suggesting that is the key difference between Indiana's law and other states. I can not comment on that, because I don't know.

 

[jamil]

Correct; the law restricts the government from finding that a plaintiff's civil rights have been violated if a religious practices defense exists. In other words, the government can't use it against GLBTs - but anyone who wants to violate GLBTs' civil rights now has free rein to do so. You really think an Indiana court is going to tell them no? Yeah, right.

Yes, I've read the law. You guys really need a new catchphrase; " have you read the law " is getting played out.

Free rein? It seems the burden of proof is on Fred to prove that this is a substantial burden to his religious conscience. I imagine the other side will get to speak about that too.

Your cited example perfectly demonstrates the absolutely lunacy we are about to see unfold before our eyes. I don't agree these issues should be settled in court, but now I feel it is more likely than before. This law shines a spot light on matters that more often then not were overlooked. Organizations like the ACLU are going to get behind every perceived injustice for legal challenge. This is just the beginning. This will be front page news for a very long time. You know the saying there is no such thing as bad publicity? I think they were wrong.

Do you honestly believe that after this ****storm, ANY business owner would try to use this law for that purpose?

And no. These issues shouldn't be settled in court. If it's settled in court, one side will have its feelings hurt. Okay, so outside of settling this in court, Fred says he's not going to serve Adam. Adam says he's going to paste the photo of the ***** cake all over the interwebs. That will probably resolve itself, probably with less hurt feelings than going through court.

 

[Lowe0]

The law does no such thing. The law merely requires the government to demonstrate a strict-scrutiny standard for why a government law (etc.) may be used to substantially burden the free exercise of religion.



You appear to have mis-read it. Let me quote the relevant part:

"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 explicitly allows the government to substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. It merely requires that the state apply strict scrutiny in defending that substantial burden.

You cannot possibly think that the government of Indiana has any desire to defend the rights of homosexuals, compelling or otherwise. If they did, we wouldn't have just had a court case over the freedom to marry. Sure, they'll do whatever minimum they're forced to by the federal government, but that's it.

 

[PistolBob]

Steve and Bob are husband and husband, together they own the "Cupcakes R Us" bakery. This morning a person came in and ordered a pile of cupcakes, each with the following letters on them.

O, F, G, S, T, H, E, D, S, A, A

Steve and Bob agree, they price the order and collect the money. The next day the customer comes back, and rearranges the cupcakes so they say GOD HATES F*GS. Steve and Bob are shocked, so they bash the customer in the head and hide his body in basement until the stink wears off.

How are Steve and Bob protected by this law?

 

[ghitch75]

​HELLO!!!!!! what does this have to do with gay's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what does this have to do with gay's????.....i see nothing about gay's........copied from General Assembly site......what i'm i missing

"Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applyingthe law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.View less "

 

[chipbennett]

I think you are overlooking what he is saying. this doesn't just 'protect' a business... it also 'protects' private individuals... the portion of the law you have quoted does state 'person', not 'business'. He is suggesting that is the key difference between Indiana's law and other states. I can not comment on that, because I don't know.

If I understand the general complaints, that's exactly backward. As I understand the complaints, the Indiana law *expands* the definition of "person" from individuals and private businesses, to include more/larger business entities. So, that's why I was confused.

 

[chipbennett]

You cannot possibly think that the government of Indiana has any desire to defend the rights of homosexuals, compelling or otherwise. If they did, we wouldn't have just had a court case over the freedom to marry. Sure, they'll do whatever minimum they're forced to by the federal government, but that's it.

And this law changes absolutely nothing in that regard, whether your assertion about the desire of government entities in Indiana is true or not.

 

[ashby koss]

​HELLO!!!!!! what does this have to do with gay's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bill does NOT directly target a sexual preference. It is coming after so close of a debate and ban on same-sex marriage that its getting the LBGT hate (or whatever acronym you wish). It also does not help that it was sponsered and backed by the same people trying to ban- same sex marriage in indiana.

This bill in reality can be used against everyone. EVERYONE should be offended. What if Shapiro's deli no longer served Christians? There are plenty of people out there that would use this law to hide behind and even treat Christians as second class. It is no stretch of the imagination that it will be used however we humans can skew it.

 

[Lowe0]

And this law changes absolutely nothing in that regard, whether your assertion about the desire of government entities in Indiana is true or not.

Correct. It just reiterates the state's position (that is, **** 'em) while tossing red meat to the political base.

 

[indiucky]

My brother just sent me a text...He and the wife had tickets, hotel reservations, and a babysitter for the Wilco concert in Indianapolis....Just got word that they cancelled the concert due to this law....

Brother is mad at Wilco...."Agree with me or I will cancel my concert..."

Remember when rockers rebelled instead of threw hissy fits over laws they did not like????

 

[ghitch75]

The bill does NOT directly target a sexual preference. It is coming after so close of a debate and ban on same-sex marriage that its getting the LBGT hate (or whatever acronym you wish). It also does not help that it was sponsered and backed by the same people trying to ban- same sex marriage in indiana.

This bill in reality can be used against everyone. EVERYONE should be offended. What if Shapiro's deli no longer served Christians? There are plenty of people out there that would use this law to hide behind and even treat Christians as second class. It is no stretch of the imagination that it will be used however we humans can skew it.

i'm not offended.......i'm self employed and if i don't want to do work for someone i don't have to........and if someone doesn't want to do work for me so be it......there are more people out there that will want my money.......

this whole thing is utterly STUPID!!!!!!!

 

[ashby koss]

i'm not offended.......i'm self employed and if i don't want to do work for someone i don't have to........and if someone doesn't want to do work for me so be it......there are more people out there that will want my money.......

this whole thing is utterly STUPID!!!!!!!

Oh no. I'm all for the theory on what this bill is TRYING to do. Private businesses should absolutely reserve the right to serve who they want. BUT, that doesnt mean you have to tell them WHY you arent serving them. THis bill is badly written. It has very loose wording that can trigger some very nasty circumstances, THey are now tryign to fix the bill..

The other nail in the coffin is that Pence has made it clear that he "will not pass any legislature barring discrimination" why would he say this IF the bill wasn't really about discrimination? Either way it sends the wrong idea wabout indiana.