The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[A 7.62 Exodus]

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

According to Pence, the bill was "never about discrimination" If that's the case, than this is just clarification. They're not caving, they're just getting the world off of their backs

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Let's be honest here, what gay couple is going to serve pizza for their wedding.

 

[rw02kr43]

I would serve pizza at my wedding. :-) But this just stinks of hey lets exploit a business for an overall gain for our agenda

 

[chipbennett]

Indiana RFRA deal sets limited protections for LGBT

FTA:

The clarification would say that the new "religious freedom" law does not authorize a provider – including businesses or individuals -- to refuse to offer or provide its services, facilities, goods, or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity.


The proposed language exempts churches or other nonprofit religious organizations -- including affiliated schools – from the definition of "provider."

Two points:

1. This establishes sexual orientation/gender identity as an exclusively protected class, as applicable to the RFRA. Beware the law of unintended consequences. By adding this language, one could argue that it implies legislative intent that RFRA *not* apply to other protected classes defined elsewhere, and in that regard, could potentially cause the entire law to be considered to be unconstitutional. It could also be used to imply legislative intent that providers can discriminate on grounds other than the RFRA.

2. Given that this is a solution in search of a problem, with no evidence whatsoever of homosexuals having been discriminated in Indiana nor any evidence of anyone claiming substantial burden on religious exercise as a defense for such discrimination, I fully expect everyone here who has been complaining that the law was "unnecessary law" in the first place to complain even more loudly that this amendment is even more unnecessary.

 

[MisterChester]

Let's be honest here, what gay couple is going to serve pizza for their wedding.

Pizza doesn't know discrimination. It only knows delicious.

 

[Dead Duck]

FTA:


Two points:

1. This establishes sexual orientation/gender identity as an exclusively protected class, as applicable to the RFRA. Beware the law of unintended consequences. By adding this language, one could argue that it implies legislative intent that RFRA *not* apply to other protected classes defined elsewhere, and in that regard, could potentially cause the entire law to be considered to be unconstitutional. It could also be used to imply legislative intent that providers can discriminate on grounds other than the RFRA.

2. Given that this is a solution in search of a problem, with no evidence whatsoever of homosexuals having been discriminated in Indiana nor any evidence of anyone claiming substantial burden on religious exercise as a defense for such discrimination, I fully expect everyone here who has been complaining that the law was "unnecessary law" in the first place to complain even more loudly that this amendment is even more unnecessary.

Oh Boy -
They're on the radar just like they wanted. But now they WILL be discriminated on. All the whiners out there crying for attention are going to get it, just not like they were expecting.

 

[Denny347]

Given that this is a solution in search of a problem, with no evidence whatsoever of homosexuals having been discriminated in Indiana nor any evidence of anyone claiming substantial burden on religious exercise as a defense for such discrimination, I fully expect everyone here who has been complaining that the law was "unnecessary law" in the first place to complain even more loudly that this amendment is even more unnecessary.

This only reinforces my stance that the original law is totally unnecessary and this amendment doesn't change that. Both are about worthless.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Nice. Threat to burn the pizza place down


https://twitter.com/dooley_11/status/583088448103399424?s=09

 

[rw02kr43]

That's one of the coaches at the school. Just retweeted it to the schools twitter. Oops

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I called Concord High School. reported it to their main office.

 

[chipbennett]

Nice. Threat to burn the pizza place down


https://twitter.com/dooley_11/status/583088448103399424?s=09

I hope you screen-capped it, because it's been memory-holed already.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I hope you screen-capped it, because it's been memory-holed already.

Yep. She deleted her account. I've got it capped, will post when I get back into office.

 

[Dead Duck]

Yep. She deleted her account. I've got it capped, will post when I get back into office.

Office?
Wait - You have a JOB?

Oh -It's April Fools Day.......Good one.

 

[rw02kr43]

I have it capped too as do many others.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Here's one cap

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBhN0NVVEAEJWxN.jpg:large

This may bring my tally of "people I've assisted in getting fired over things they said online" into double-digits.


Also, of note:

https://twitter.com/alyssa_marino/status/583281382933291008

Person from ABC57:

I just walked into their shop and asked how they feel. They've never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.

 

[chipbennett]

Here's one cap

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBhN0NVVEAEJWxN.jpg:large

This may bring my tally of "people I've assisted in getting fired over things they said online" into double-digits.


Also, of note:

https://twitter.com/alyssa_marino/status/583281382933291008

Person from ABC57:

But no, Christians are not targeted for their beliefs. Or so I'm told.

 

[miguel]

Nice. Threat to burn the pizza place down


https://twitter.com/dooley_11/status/583088448103399424?s=09

Excellent.

I love affirmation. I don't need it, but I love it.

 

[Dean C.]

But no, Christians are not targeted for their beliefs. Or so I'm told.

Fixed it for you..... That being said if someone in the state of Indiana were to run a company with less than 6 employees they can discriminate however they want except on age, totally legal at the Federal and State level. Also you could always discriminate against people of different orientations in Indiana, as sexual preference is not a protected class under the civil rights law (but it might soon be!)

 

[chipbennett]

Fixed it for you.....

So, a threat to burn someone's business down, because the business owner has done nothing other than expressed a belief, is not targeting?

That being said if someone in the state of Indiana were to run a company with less than 6 employees they can discriminate however they want except on age, totally legal at the Federal and State level. Also you could always discriminate against people of different orientations in Indiana, as sexual preference is not a protected class under the civil rights law (but it might soon be!)

Refusing to cater a gay wedding is not discrimination. Refusing to serve a homosexual person pizza in your pizza establishment would be discrimination - but the proprietor explicitly stated that they would serve anyone, including homosexuals.

Further, lack of defining sexual orientation as a "protected class" does not prevent seeking relief for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That pizza place isn't in a jurisdiction w/ a public accommodation law that protects gays. And because there is no public accommodation law protecting gays there, the owners could discriminate against gays *even before RFRA was enacted.*

But they aren't. And said they wouldn't. And people are screaming online that they "denied gays service", and media is pushing it, and it's absolutely false.