The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[PistolBob]

Well afterall....pizza isn't just food, for some of us it's a way of life!

 

[Dead Duck]

I looked up that pizza place and Google maps got hacked.
When I would zoom in or out, the pointer shows "Gay Memories Pizza" and if you hover over it, other stuff pops up.

Real Classy stuff - Morons.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...2sMemories+Pizza!3m1!1s0x0:0x636268b94a1f4f81

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Running dissenters out of business should help get more people to embrace gay marriage. Thought crime is a real threat.

 

[rw02kr43]

I thought bullying was bad. Guess it's not if you're the bully. Are you sure Google was hacked or did they pay one of their employees to do it?

 

[JTScribe]

Running dissenters out of business should help get more people to embrace gay marriage. Thought crime is a real threat.

Yep. My concern going forward, with the amended bill is, how do you disprove a negative?

I used to have a computer repair business, the only customer I ever told I couldn't do any more work for was a lesbian. That wasn't the reason I didn't want to do any more work for her; it was the three inches of cat hair that were in the computer I worked on that made me sick for a week*. But she knew well and full I was a Christian, who's to say she wouldn't get a bug up her butt and file a complaint against me if the same situation happened nowadays?

* And then, to add insult to injury, after I sucked all the cat hair out of her old computer and reloaded Windows so she could give it to her niece, she went around telling everyone she could that I "stole" the modem out of a computer I worked on for her because Windows didn't have drivers for it.

 

[chipbennett]

I looked up that pizza place and Google maps got hacked.
When I would zoom in or out, the pointer shows "Gay Memories Pizza" and if you hover over it, other stuff pops up.

Real Classy stuff - Morons.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...2sMemories+Pizza!3m1!1s0x0:0x636268b94a1f4f81

But Christians aren't targeted for their beliefs. Or so I'm told.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I have seen this asserted, but I don't believe it to be true. Designation as a "protected class" isn't necessary to seek relief on equal protection grounds. Has anyone tried? If so, what was the result, and what was the legal basis for that result?

 

[rw02kr43]

This is from the church I used to belong to. One of their main arguments is timing. Not that there is language in the bill targeting gays. But timing.

Why I Think My Church Is Upset About Indiana's RFRA | Rick Lowery, Ph.D.

 

[miguel]

After over 1,000 posts, now I know why the ISIS guys are so pissed off. They don't have forums through which to work it all out...

 

[Dead Duck]

After over 1,000 posts, now I know why the ISIS guys are so pissed off. They don't have forums through which to work it all out...

That's what all the goats are for.

 

[JTScribe]

This is from the church I used to belong to. One of their main arguments is timing. Not that there is language in the bill targeting gays. But timing.

Why I Think My Church Is Upset About Indiana's RFRA*|*Rick Lowery, Ph.D.

I'll pass on Biblical advice from a church that cheers 'progressivm'.

 

[jamil]

I'm not all that fond of this law. And though I'd rather the assembly had worked on something more productive, I don't really disagree with it. And that makes me evil, I guess.

I'm really pissed that this whole issue has been made into a false dichotomy. It's like if you don't publicly disagree with this law you're a homophobe. It's crazy. It's like homophobe-aphobea.

The way I see it, when rights collide, someone's going to get their feelings hurt. Society decides by pop culture. The in-crowd decides. Before gayness became okay, the in-crowd decided gays should have their feelings hurt. The in-crowd is changing and so are its preferences. So now the in-crowd says it's the Christians who should have their feelings hurt.

My answer to this is caste-less. Society should stay out of what's not its business. It is an issue between the business and the customer, and they need to work it out amongst themselves civilly. I don't agree with establishing positive rights, saying that special classes of society are entitled to someone else's labor.

If a customer, regardless of race, color, sex, preference, height, weight, toenail length, whatever, can't come to an agreement with a business owner on services provided, for whatever reason, they just part company. THAT is not being homophobic. It has nothing to do with sexuality, race, religion, or any contrived class of people.

On the other hand, the pop-culture solution of protecting classes, IS preferential. It requires the least-protected class to have their feelings hurt whenever rights collide.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

South Bend Police just arrived at Memories Pizza shop, and it's closed until 4pm.

 

[D-Ric902]

Running dissenters out of business should help get more people to embrace gay marriage. Thought crime is a real threat.

the idea is not to get people to support it.
but to not oppose it

 

[JTScribe]

the idea is not to get people to support it.
but to not oppose it

Conform or be cast out.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

the idea is not to get people to support it.
but to not oppose it

... If only that were true.

You will be made to care. Neutrality is not good enough.

 

[rob63]

Are people really this ****ing dumb?

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

Ok, so is it wrong to tell people who they can marry, or not? I'm getting confused.

 

[brotherbill3]

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 Altantic (and other stressing the little bit of detail in the words) are leaving out that as soon as you make the claim - the "GOVERMENT ENTITY" is brought in and given the right to testify ...

Sec. 9. 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. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

I would add / note that

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015

Perhaps one of our intrepid - and more trained Legal people can point out where I am wrong - but - Sec 1 says this legislation /law - applies to these items - NOT to a personal dispute / etc.
and sec. 9 says if a person invokes this - you've just invited big brother to testify ...

if the >GOV ENTITY ("law")< in question is not the one causing the burden - then SEC 1 is not met; and poof goes the claim of defense (or the case);
OR if the >GOV ENTITY< is not able to "justify" the burden and that it is "minimized" - then relief will be given from SEC 1 ...

I still do not see where this adds a legality to discriminate?

 

[Hawkeye]

Ok, so is it wrong to tell people who they can marry, or not? I'm getting confused.

Its wrong if you must have two cousins of hte opposite genders to marry. If both are male or both are female, then its OK. At least with the current "progressives" or "liberals".

 

[brotherbill3]

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.



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.



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

Virtual Rep Chip as it is all I can do. I see you had the same assessment of section 9 that is left out of the arguments from those opposed.
and I believe also to the applicability of the whole thing (sec 1.)
Thanks.
Well said.