The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

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

Honestly, none. Indiana's is unique. I'll have to dig for an article that explains it.

However, Pence could change it to be exactly like every other state's RFRA... but the damage is done. "Pence hates gays" will ring on for a while, and he's certainly done for politically.

Pulled from a very biased "Atlantic" article:

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

 

[JollyMon]

A bolt-action assault rifle? That would be a pretty neat trick.

I don't see any bolt action in that picture

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Honestly, none. Indiana's is unique. I'll have to dig for an article that explains it.

However, Pence could change it to be exactly like every other state's RFRA... but the damage is done. "Pence hates gays" will ring on for a while, and he's certainly done for politically.

Well ****. There goes my plan up in smoke. So essentially, Indiana's is the "most extreme" if you will?

As for Pence changing the law, hasn't he stated he working to "clarify" it? Do you think that means change it?

EDIT: That article would be nice if you could find it

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Well ****. There goes my plan up in smoke. So essentially, Indiana's is the "most extreme" if you will?

As for Pence changing the law, hasn't he stated he working to "clarify" it? Do you think that means change it?

EDIT: That article would be nice if you could find it

Here's someone's take on it: A balanced assessment of SEA 101 that identifies the important ways that Indiana's RFRA differs from the Federal statute, from someone with legal expertise : Indiana

And here's the, admittedly very biased, article: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation ? Atlantic Mobile

While I do think they're putting their own context on the lines in question, and stretching it... that is was makes it a bit different.

 

[chipbennett]

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

Honestly, none. Indiana's is unique. I'll have to dig for an article that explains it.

No. Indiana's law is not materially different from any other RFRA law. The differences:

1. Indiana includes businesses in the definition of "person" - which is entirely consistent with the SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case

2. Indiana allows the government the right to involve itself in litigation between two private parties, when one invokes the RFRA as a defense, so that the government can defend the underlying statute in question, using the strict-scrutiny standard required by the RFRA. (Likely in response to the New Mexico (IIRC) case where the courts did not allow the defendant to invoke RFRA, because the government was not a party to the case.)

That's it. Those are the only ways that the Indiana RFRA is different from the federal RFRA or any other state RFRA.

There are some other variations. Consider the CT RFRA, which requires the least-restrictive standard (rational basis), rather than the most-restrictive (strict scrutiny) in order for the government to justify a substantial burden on exercise of religion.

However, Pence could change it to be exactly like every other state's RFRA... but the damage is done. "Pence hates gays" will ring on for a while, and he's certainly done for politically.

No. Changing the Indiana RFRA to resolve the difference listed above would not prevent the complaints, and would provide less government restriction and less freedom.

What the opponents want is for the RFRA to have some sort of anti-discrimination language shoe-horned into a bill in which such language does not belong.

If they want Indiana to add homosexuals as a statutorily protected class, then they should push for such legislation. But that legislation would have absolutely nothing to do with the RFRA.

Well ****. There goes my plan up in smoke. So essentially, Indiana's is the "most extreme" if you will

No, it is not. It is merely consistent with court rulings that have transpired in the two decades since the federal RFRA became law.

 

[chipbennett]

Here's someone's take on it: A balanced assessment of SEA 101 that identifies the important ways that Indiana's RFRA differs from the Federal statute, from someone with legal expertise : Indiana

And here's the, admittedly very biased, article: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation ? Atlantic Mobile

While I do think they're putting their own context on the lines in question, and stretching it... that is was makes it a bit different.

On the first link: the author helpfully points out that his first issue with Indiana's RFRA is rendered moot by the SCOTUS decision in Hobby Lobby (though the author doesn't state it as such). Regarding the author's second point, claiming that Indiana's RFRA *prevents* employees from suing employers: I don't read Section 11 the same way:

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

It merely says that the RFRA itself cannot be used as the basis for a lawsuit by an employee against an employer. It does not state that another valid basis cannot be used for such a lawsuit.

On the second link: I've already addressed both points above. Hobby Lobby renders the first complaint moot, and the second point merely removes a procedural hurdle for defendants. People defending their right not to be substantially burdened in their religious exercise retain the rights of equal protection and due process, after all.

But let's cut to the chase: people are bringing up these differences in order to claim that, through them, the Indiana RFRA will allow for discrimination against accommodation of homosexuals on the basis of religion. That claim is absurd. I would challenge:

1. Where has a case in Indiana, prior to enactment of the RFRA, ever successfully resulted in a defense of discrimination against accommodation of homosexuals on the basis of religion?
2. Where has an RFRA ever been used successfully to defend discrimination against accommodation of homosexuals on the basis of religion?
3. If such a case exists, what differences between that state's RFRA and Indiana's RFRA would cause a different outcome?

So: homosexuals aren't being discriminated against in Indiana currently. RFRAs have not been used successfully to discriminate against homosexuals in other states. And nothing in the Indiana RFRA would allow for it to be used successfully to discriminate against homosexuals, in a manner that would not be successful under any other state's RFRA.

Again: they're simply trying to back-door an inclusion of homosexuals as a statutorily protected class under Indiana law.

 

[PistolBob]

I still say if you are a business owner, you should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Period.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't disagree with you, but why not say these things where people are being loudest? Twitter, Reddit, etc...

Would love to see you contribute to the Indiana subreddit and maybe try to weed out some of the trash.

 

[miguel]

I don't see any bolt action in that picture

I think the Frankenstein-like "bolt" on the SKS threw him. Brother's fighting the good fight, so I'm gonna cut him some slack.

 

[chipbennett]

I think the Frankenstein-like "bolt" on the SKS threw him. Brother's fighting the good fight, so I'm gonna cut him some slack.

I've also been up since 4, with no coffee...

You are right. Mea culpa.

(It's still not an assault rifle.)

 

[chipbennett]

I don't disagree with you, but why not say these things where people are being loudest? Twitter, Reddit, etc...

Would love to see you contribute to the Indiana subreddit and maybe try to weed out some of the trash.

I don't engage in these kinds of discussions on social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). I've found, through hard experience, that doing so is entirely unproductive.

At least here, people can disagree, and still discuss matters in a civil manner. And I have friends with whom I would have such discussions (and in some cases, have).

 

[mrjarrell]

Are people really this ****ing dumb?

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

Yes, by a bakery last year. They refused to make a cake for a wedding or some such. Since there are no laws that accord LGBT Hoosiers any legal recourse for denial of service they went about their business and bought a cake elsewhere. The bakery later closed their doors and went out of business, (they apparently weren't very good at the business part). Have we had any cases of denial of servce since this POS law went into effect? No. But we have had at least one announcement from a hypocrite that they would deny service. The pizza parlour in question says they'll serve LGBT people on a daily basis, but not for a wedding. Seems they're picking and choosing when gays are icky or not. Here's a business that is ready and rarin' to go.

RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service - ABC57 News - See the Difference Michiana

 

[Dead Duck]

Yes, by a bakery last year. They refused to make a cake for a wedding or some such. Since there are no laws that accord LGBT Hoosiers any legal recourse for denial of service they went about their business and bought a cake elsewhere. The bakery later closed their doors and went out of business, (they apparently weren't very good at the business part). Have we had any cases of denial of servce since this POS law went into effect? No. But we have had at least one announcement from a hypocrite that they would deny service. The pizza parlour in question says they'll serve LGBT people on a daily basis, but not for a wedding. Seems they're picking and choosing when gays are icky or not. Here's a business that is ready and rarin' to go.

RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service - ABC57 News - See the Difference Michiana

Oh No -
You mean there IS a business that refused service just because they wanted to? Crazy!

They had a right to do this before the law.
And they still have a right to do this after the law.

And so.........

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, by a bakery last year. They refused to make a cake for a wedding or some such.

Which is absolutely not the same thing as being refused a burger, and you know it.

Since there are no laws that accord LGBT Hoosiers any legal recourse for denial of service...

Side note: this is the real goal, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Indiana's RFRA.

...they went about their business and bought a cake elsewhere. The bakery later closed their doors and went out of business, (they apparently weren't very good at the business part).

So, it sounds like there was no harm to the person refused a wedding cake, and market forces took care of an inefficient business. Win-win.

Have we had any cases of denial of servce since this POS law went into effect? No. But we have had at least one announcement from a hypocrite that they would deny service. The pizza parlour in question says they'll serve LGBT people on a daily basis, but not for a wedding.

Sounds like the owner of that pizza parlor understands both the RFRA, and discrimination, far better than you do

Seems they're picking and choosing when gays are icky or not.

All you have is ad hominem. They said they would never refuse service to gays. There is zero evidence from the article that they think gays are "icky" - and even if they did, they've said that they'd serve them anyway. They merely assert their right not to be involved in a gay wedding.

Here's a business that is ready and rarin' to go.

RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service - ABC57 News - See the Difference Michiana

FTA:

The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The O'Connor's say they just don't agree with gay marriages and wouldn't cater them if asked to.

There is no legal, moral, or logical basis to oppose such a stance. In fact, this stance puts the lie to the "refused a burger" canard.

Thanks for posting the link. It just demonstrates that your opposition to the Indiana RFRA is full of hot air.

 

[Lowe0]

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

You asked what it was passed for. Don't like it, take it up with the federal bill's authors and sponsors.

 

[chipbennett]

You asked what it was passed for. Don't like it, take it up with the federal bill's authors and sponsors.

And you gave me an incomplete-at-best answer. The single American Indian may have been the impetus for the federal RFRA, but he had nothing to do with the rest of the state RFRAs.

Why is Indiana uniquely questioned regarding the need for a state RFRA? How is Indiana any different from 30+ other states?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Indiana RFRA deal sets limited protections for LGBT

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Indiana RFRA deal sets limited protections for LGBT

About damn time

 

[Jomibe]

Indiana RFRA deal sets limited protections for LGBT

Good to see our leaders have the backbone to stand by their convictions...

 

[miguel]

Good to see our leaders have the backbone to stand by their convictions...

No wonder some people don't vote...