The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[dusty88]

If the law is harmful, that's one thing. If we are operating outside the law and "trusting" men, then the laws are pointless anyway. (and the way our constitution has been trashed, we may be at that point)

I wasn't justifying this law, btw, merely addressing your statement about reverse discrimination.

It's a twisted web to discuss support for this law (imo) because you shouldn't need religion as a reason to make personal choices with your own business.



But as far as your trust of them "doing harm", I don't see how this law opens up any opportunities for harm that weren't already open in Indiana.

I should also clarify my position regarding your idea that "reverse discrimination" is OK.

Reverse discrimination violates 1 person's liberty. That's tyrannical and unacceptable.

In practical terms, it's also highly subject to corruption.

 

[Lebowski]

Are people really this ****ing dumb?

Has there been ANY case of any gay person being refused service in Indiana?

 

[Thor]

Are people really this ****ing dumb?

Pretty much so...

 

[Lebowski]

Pretty much so...

I've been relatively sympathetic with the gay community in the past in obtaining equal rights as I feel like they should be equal, and I feel that they are equal but their request for special rights and privileges that impede on other rights is starting to **** me off.

I'm actually very surprised to see how much attention this bill has gotten and how ignorant most people are. I've had to hold back and not rant on Facebook from even my conservative friends who are now all of a sudden 'ashamed' to be a Hoosier because we're now a state that I guess apparently hangs signs on the doors of businesses that say "No Gays Allowed" and are apparently we're now no different than Alabama was 200 years ago towards blacks... I think most of them just see Facebook images with text on them and think, "Herrrrrrrr derrrrr dat is funny and that is how i feel now hrrrr drrr ima share dis hrrrrr". Dolts.

Give me a break.

 

[cobber]

Dumped my Angie's List membership, FWIW. We'll see if boycotts have any effect.

 

[chipbennett]

You know, the more I think about these governors of other states now "boycotting" travel to Indiana, the more I think we should pursue a nuclear weapon. I mean look at all the sympathy the liberals have for Iran. They want to drop sanctions against them. I figure declaring that we are going to pursue a nuclear weapon probably wouldn't have drawn near the outrage as this bill.

I think Pence should issue an EO banning non-essential travel to NY, NJ, MD, CT, and CA, because of their long history of violating the civil right of residents and visitors to bear arms.

 

[chipbennett]

You guys would be Christians. And I have enough advantages as a straight white male already...

The liberal white guilt is strong with this one.

...that I don't really worry myself with whether someone else is getting an advantage from the law that I don't...

Yeah, all that nonsense in the fourteenth amendment about states not denying citizens equal protection under the law - just a bunch of noise, right?

The law should not give "advantages" to anyone. The law should not give disadvantages to anyone. The law should be objective, and blind to all the myriad ways that humans find to segment ourselves.

...for example, affirmative action, often called reverse discrimination, isn't something I have an objection to.

I still vividly remember the day that the financial advisers at Purdue told my parents, flat-out, that I would not be eligible for scholarships from the school, because I was a white male. All the hard work I put in, finishing 4th in my class, having academic achievements better than 99% of people who would enroll there, having about a half-semester worth of AP credits, athletic involvement, leadership accomplishments - all of it meant nothing, because I was a white male.

I went to Rose-Hulman instead. They base their scholarships on merit only.

It was a very good lesson for me, at the age of 17.

 

[chipbennett]

If the law is harmful, that's one thing. If we are operating outside the law and "trusting" men, then the laws are pointless anyway. (and the way our constitution has been trashed, we may be at that point)

I wasn't justifying this law, btw, merely addressing your statement about reverse discrimination.

It's a twisted web to discuss support for this law (imo) because you shouldn't need religion as a reason to make personal choices with your own business.

And as you know, here's where I differ with many, regarding the absolute nature of personal property rights as applied to property used for public business. Even so, the first amendment explicitly protects freedom of religious exercise, making a substantial burden on that exercise a valid reason to make business decisions.

But as far as your trust of them "doing harm", I don't see how this law opens up any opportunities for harm that weren't already open in Indiana.

That's because it doesn't. 1000 posts, and not one person has yet to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[chipbennett]

Are people really this ****ing dumb?

A bolt-action assault rifle? That would be a pretty neat trick. Also, go ahead and try to marry your cousin in Indiana. See how far you get.

Has there been ANY case of any gay person being refused service in Indiana?

And, no: in Indiana you cannot legally be refused a cheeseburger because you are gay.

 

[chipbennett]

I've been relatively sympathetic with the gay community in the past in obtaining equal rights as I feel like they should be equal, and I feel that they are equal but their request for special rights and privileges that impede on other rights is starting to **** me off.

I'm actually very surprised to see how much attention this bill has gotten and how ignorant most people are. I've had to hold back and not rant on Facebook from even my conservative friends who are now all of a sudden 'ashamed' to be a Hoosier because we're now a state that I guess apparently hangs signs on the doors of businesses that say "No Gays Allowed" and are apparently we're now no different than Alabama was 200 years ago towards blacks... I think most of them just see Facebook images with text on them and think, "Herrrrrrrr derrrrr dat is funny and that is how i feel now hrrrr drrr ima share dis hrrrrr". Dolts.

Give me a break.

Indeed. If anything, this episode has (sadly) demonstrated that far too many conservatives eschew critical thinking skills, and allow others to tell them what to think and to believe.

The only thing that gives me hope is that it has probably always been the case. That was part of the reason that the founders set up the republic the way they did, with States choosing the Electoral College electors, and State legislators electing State senators. The more we devolve from a constitutional republic into a democracy, the more quickly we bring about our country's demise - because the vast majority of people are too lazy to educate themselves, and to think for themselves.

 

[Lowe0]

But as far as your trust of them "doing harm", I don't see how this law opens up any opportunities for harm that weren't already open in Indiana.

Then why introduce it?

 

[chipbennett]

I apologize if these have been posted before. They are worth a read, and do an excellent job explaining why the opposition to Indiana's RFRA law are entirely unfounded.

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained | The Weekly Standard

Your Questions On Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

And how RFRA laws are actually used, and whom they protect (and don't protect):

10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's

 

[jamil]

And as you know, here's where I differ with many, regarding the absolute nature of personal property rights as applied to property used for public business. Even so, the first amendment explicitly protects freedom of religious exercise, making a substantial burden on that exercise a valid reason to make business decisions.



That's because it doesn't. 1000 posts, and not one person has yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Oh but you're wrong. What about the law carving out a new class of protected citizen that a certain progressive libertarian warned us about? Notwithstanding, of course, that this class was carved out in the 1A, and reaffirmed in the CRA in 1964. Nevertheless, what about the pending weeping and knashing of teeth? Surely all this ****storm must have some legitimate complaint behind it other than political operatives stoking the flames.

 

[jamil]

I apologize if these have been posted before. They are worth a read, and do an excellent job explaining why the opposition to Indiana's RFRA law are entirely unfounded.

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained | The Weekly Standard

Your Questions On Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill, Answered

And how RFRA laws are actually used, and whom they protect (and don't protect):

10 Americans Helped By Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's

Yep. Yep. And I don't remember seeing the last one posted.

 

[chipbennett]

Then why introduce it?

Why did the federal government introduce it? Why have 20 other states introduced it? Why do 12 other states have equivalent protections provided through court decisions?

Why is Indiana unique in challenging the need for an RFRA law?

 

[sdtech58]

Looks like Wally-World joined the stupidity as well. It wouldn't break my heart if I never saw another one of those places.

U.S. corporations accuse Indiana and Arkansas of curbing gay rights

 

[Lowe0]

Why did the federal government introduce it? Why have 20 other states introduced it? Why do 12 other states have equivalent protections provided through court decisions?

Why is Indiana unique in challenging the need for an RFRA law?

Originally, to protect an American Indian who was fired for using peyote during a religious ceremony. Are you telling me that Micah Clark and Eric Miller are motivated by a deep-seated need to help Indiana's Native Americans?

 

[chipbennett]

Originally, to protect an American Indian who was fired for using peyote during a religious ceremony. Are you telling me that Micah Clark and Eric Miller are motivated by a deep-seated need to help Indiana's Native Americans?

Really? 30+ states and the fed.gov needed RFRA, to protect one single American Indian?

 

[chipbennett]

Looks like Wally-World joined the stupidity as well. It wouldn't break my heart if I never saw another one of those places.

U.S. corporations accuse Indiana and Arkansas of curbing gay rights

But Wal-Mart has no qualms about operating in China and other countries that *actually* violate civil rights:

Walmart Locations Around the World

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I'm aware that 20 other states contain similar RFRA laws, but does anyone know which of those states are similar to Indiana's?