The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[AA&E]

I think there were just minor misunderstandings about how the GoFundMe was created. We've all settled it, and we all understand it now. It's not a topic for anyone else to throw jabs about. Let's move on to the RFRA changes, or back to the previous topic.

Thanks, some people look for anything, anywhere.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It was about $140k before Rush mentioned it.

Now it's $166k 20 minutes later.

Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

 

[Thegeek]

So where does one right begin and another end? This whole discussion, I've been thinking that there needs to be some open carry to those liberal businesses posting the "we serve everyone".... everyone but the guy with a gun! Some would argue that it's the difference between choice... you choose to carry a gun, you don't choose to be gay. Should how you exercise your right depend on choice? Are civil rights absolute and enumerated rights not?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So where does one right begin and another end? This whole discussion, I've been thinking that there needs to be some open carry to those liberal businesses posting the "we serve everyone".... everyone but the guy with a gun! Some would argue that it's the difference between choice... you choose to carry a gun, you don't choose to be gay. Should how you exercise your right depend on choice? Are civil rights absolute and enumerated rights not?

That's debatable.

I was born with a gun.

 

[printcraft]

As far as the threats aspect of this goes..... are the FBI and police involved in this?

Also, what happens when they **** with somebody that won't back down?
You can't have your cake and eat it too in some instances......

 

[miguel]

You can't have your cake and eat it too in some instances......

I'd suggest adding some salt to the next cake made, but they might enjoy it too much. "Why, this cake tastes like home!"

 

[ArcadiaGP]

As far as the threats aspect of this goes..... are the FBI and police involved in this?

Also, what happens when they **** with somebody that won't back down?
You can't have your cake and eat it too in some instances......

The police were there yesterday. Dunno how much further it's going though. I read somewhere that it was being "investigated"

Over $173k now. The owners are live on Dana show right now.

Also, here's a notable contribution. Live and let live.

 

[JTScribe]

As far as the threats aspect of this goes..... are the FBI and police involved in this?

Also, what happens when they **** with somebody that won't back down?
You can't have your cake and eat it too in some instances......

When they shoot the person with the Molotov trying to burn down their business they'll be charged with a Federal hate crime.

 

[miguel]

The police were there yesterday. Dunno how much further it's going though. I read somewhere that it was being "investigated"

Over $173k now. The owners are live on Dana show right now.

Also, here's a notable contribution. Live and let live.

This is a fantastic post. Just because people don't agree, doesn't mean they have to burn the bridges to the other side.

[video=youtube;cTBx-hHf4BE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTBx-hHf4BE[/video]

p.s. I still stand for my "**** you!" post, however.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So where does one right begin and another end? This whole discussion, I've been thinking that there needs to be some open carry to those liberal businesses posting the "we serve everyone".... everyone but the guy with a gun! Some would argue that it's the difference between choice... you choose to carry a gun, you don't choose to be gay. Should how you exercise your right depend on choice? Are civil rights absolute and enumerated rights not?

I fail to understand why anyone is getting their shorts in a bind over the stickers.

If I ran a business it would be decidedly conservative in nature, and you get bet there would be such a sticker in my window.

Have we gotten so touchy that it's now regarded as a liberal attack on conservative values to say out loud that you won't turn inoffensive people away from your business?

 

[AA&E]

So where does one right begin and another end? This whole discussion, I've been thinking that there needs to be some open carry to those liberal businesses posting the "we serve everyone".... everyone but the guy with a gun! Some would argue that it's the difference between choice... you choose to carry a gun, you don't choose to be gay. Should how you exercise your right depend on choice? Are civil rights absolute and enumerated rights not?

Excellent point.

 

[MisterChester]

So where does one right begin and another end? This whole discussion, I've been thinking that there needs to be some open carry to those liberal businesses posting the "we serve everyone".... everyone but the guy with a gun! Some would argue that it's the difference between choice... you choose to carry a gun, you don't choose to be gay. Should how you exercise your right depend on choice? Are civil rights absolute and enumerated rights not?

I'll be sure to OC into a business with that sticker to test this...

 

[dusty88]

I had a very witty comment to make about today's political climate and pre-WWII Germany, but it probably wouldn't be appreciated by some.
Just make up your own.

I don't know what you were thinking, but I'll make a more universal one. Tyrants need scapegoats; they'll take them in whatever current form the majority will hand them over.

 

[dusty88]

The police were there yesterday. Dunno how much further it's going though. I read somewhere that it was being "investigated"

Over $173k now. The owners are live on Dana show right now.

Also, here's a notable contribution. Live and let live.

thank you for sharing that

Too often (including this and the gun control debate) we see only the worst face of one side, not the rational face

 

[Thegeek]

I fail to understand why anyone is getting their shorts in a bind over the stickers.

If I ran a business it would be decidedly conservative in nature, and you get bet there would be such a sticker in my window.

Have we gotten so touchy that it's now regarded as a liberal attack on conservative values to say out loud that you won't turn inoffensive people away from your business?

It's not the sticker. Is their definition of everyone that bothers me. Apparently everyone to them just means "everyone we agree with".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Now they seem to be threatening those that are donating?

https://twitter.com/LawrenceBJones3/status/583687843668566016

https://twitter.com/LawrenceBJones3/status/583689532639322112

 

[dusty88]

I fail to understand why anyone is getting their shorts in a bind over the stickers.

If I ran a business it would be decidedly conservative in nature, and you get bet there would be such a sticker in my window.

Have we gotten so touchy that it's now regarded as a liberal attack on conservative values to say out loud that you won't turn inoffensive people away from your business?

Well it's gone one step further. It's now suggested that if you DONT have the sticker why don't you have it.... hmmmm???

It's a pressure to take sides. Everyone who has been following this knows it's more than a notice that you don't discriminate. It's a statement of opposing the RFRA. And therefore it's also potentially a jab at your customers who think they should have the right to refuse service.

If I tell most people "I don't support RFRA exactly but I support a business owners right to refuse service." They might say "OH! So you want to control who sits at the lunch counter huh?" My answer would be "No, I don't want you to control who sits at the other guy's lunch counter." This debate though hasn't been about logical thought. It's been about choosing sides.

 

[jamil]

Not at all, but there are many diverse religious beliefs. We don't need an official state religion where the government rubber stamps every of your beliefs. It's not anyone's job to legislate morality to the masses... yet it happens (on some level) everyday. Gay marriage ban is specifically a religious judgment of morality. Chip? mentioned earlier stop the government from acknowledging marriages all together and have them instead recognize civil unions for everyone. Suddenly the reason for the disagreement goes away.

How does this bill create a state religion, or rubber stamp anyone's beliefs? Rubber stamp implies some process of approval/disapproval. It has never been this government's role to approve or disapprove of anyone's beliefs. Why do you think it should be now? It is a legitimate role of government to set standards for what to do when rights collide.

So why must the preference now go to the one asking for service, rather than to the provider? And, actually, even that's not the effective criteria today. The effective criteria is, the preference goes to the side the in-crowd favors most. If I can think of a reason this law should ever be necessary is that.

I think everyone has a right to be who they are. If a person is gay, straight, republican, democrat, christian, atheist, whatever, no one has a right to deny them the right to be that and to practice that. But like my right to swing my fist should end before it hits your nose, the person's right to be who they are should not impose their practice on other people, business owners or not. But that's exactly what pop culture is demanding now.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It's not the sticker. Is their definition of everyone that bothers me. Apparently everyone to them just means "everyone we agree with".

​Uh...I've yet to see one of them, but as I understand it they actually say "everyone," not "everyone except you."

 

[chipbennett]

Religion doesn't belong in politics if your goal is influencing your beliefs upon others. That is where we issue with Islam comes in, but we have so many examples where precedent has been set that is will be a difficult argument to make in the future when things aren't going the way you'd like them to be.

But you said "constituency", which means people. If you instead mean "belief", then I would certainly agree in part, and would disagree in part. All legislators create, approve, or reject legislation based upon their own beliefs - religious beliefs or otherwise. It would be nearly impossible for people not to do so. And doing so is not inherently wrong or harmful.

Personally, I believe that trying to legislate morality is ineffective, and wrong. So, to that extent, I agree with you.

But all laws, regardless of the beliefs from which they are derived, are subject to the constraints put in place through the Constitution.

Perhaps in this instance religious influence isn't true, but it is certainly the argument being made and the perception. You are the one being disingenuous if you can not acknowledge this bill was an attempt to garner support and energize the Christian conservative electorate. That is by definition pandering.

I believe that the law was necessary. I also believe that there are likely some supporters in the legislature who supported the bill because doing so would please their constituents. I fail to see how legislating in a manner consistent with the desires of one's constituents is somehow a bad thing.

Regardless, no matter what religious influence factored into the drafting or approval of the legislation, the impact of the law is limited to what is actually written in the legislation. If someone wrote or supported the bill as a way to "get back" at gay marriage support, then such people will be sorely disappointed, because the law has zero effect on gay marriage.

Your argument regarding constitutional amendments... Certainly you recognize there are example of laws on the books past and present which were fabricated with religious influence. In this current case there was no constitutional convention, due to it's local/state area of influence. Indiana law was simply presented, voted upon and signed. The same could happen down the road on matters favoring something you might not be as willing to support.

Oh, this is quite true. I think all laws that restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens are unconstitutional. I think that immigration checkpoints 100 miles away from an international border are unconstitutional.

My point, if I'm following you correctly, was that complaints that religious exercise is somehow improperly singled out for protection are specious, because religious exercise is explicitly protected by the constitution. I'm not opposed to people challenging that. But the way to do so is to amend the constitution, not to rail against a constitutional law such as the RFRA.

The RFRA doesn't just constrain the government, it might even preempted the judiciary via legislative oversight. Quelling a problem where one didn't exist. Potentially preventing the ability for numerous issues to even have their day in court.

By my reading of the law, it is *more*, not less, likely that an issue would have its day in court. In fact, that's one of the reasons for one of the much-maligned differences between the federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA: establishing the right of the government entity to join a proceeding in order to defend a law (etc.).

One of your previous posts made comment regarding passing the muster on the legitimacy of a religion that had marijuana as a sacrament seeking protection under this bill. You implied they wouldn't (shouldn't) pass. Why? Does the government get to acknowledge this religion and deny another? Do you not see the potential for abuse in such a system? This is a group that is largely suspicious of government involvement in their lives.. but when it's a lifestyle they don't agree with, approve of, isn't popular, or just strikes them as weird... we shrug our shoulders and don't give a ****?

Are you certain that you're referring to a comment of mine? I don't remember discussing marijuana in this topic, and tend to avoid its discussion whenever it comes up in various topics, so I would be highly surprised if it was me.

I don't see any inherent reason why someone could not claim a sincere religious belief involving the use of marijuana as a sacrament. There may be other reasons to find against such a claim (I posted a link to an article that discussed a related case).

I certainly wouldn't shrug my shoulders or fail to give a **** to others' right to liberty, whether I agree with their beliefs, choices, lifestyles, etc. or not.