The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[phylodog]

Burn Her! She Would Act Like a Witch in a Situation That Will Never Come Up! - Hit & Run : Reason.com

"He (Sen. Arnold) said this kind of thinking has no place in this town"

Wow. Now those sound like the words of a man who values the freedoms this country is supposed to offer. I need to vote for this guy, he's pointing the state in right right direction for sure.

 

[Ericpwp]

They should just repeal it at this point.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Reports I saw were thousands of calls, three of a threatening nature. None substantiated as a legitimate threat. But what the hell, it gives him a convenient reason to panhandle electronically.

So showing support is now panhandling?? Criminy... Maybe you should tell baldguy and hoosierdoc that they are panhandlers. Are you trying to out eye-roll Kutnupe now?

 

[Denny347]

I love it when 2 percent tells 98 percent how they are going to think and act.

There may be 2 percent but I think they have like 50%ish of the support. Not quite the same.

 

[chipbennett]

There may be 2 percent but I think they have like 50%ish of the support. Not quite the same.

What you're really saying, then, is that our constitutional republic is well and truly dead. Our rights are now subject to mob rule.

 

[phylodog]

They should just repeal it at this point.

They pretty much did. If you're a Christian and run a bakery, you will make rainbow cupcakes. If you're Muslim and own a grocery store or restaurant, you will sell bacon, ham and pork chops. If you're a Catholic priest you will marry gay couples.

A win for individual liberty. We should be proud.

 

[Denny347]

I read about the changes... sounds like the whole law has been gutted.

Which was the inevitable outcome I predicted when this bill was made public. The fact that the bill's authors didn't see this coming is sad.

 

[Denny347]

They pretty much did. If you're a Christian and run a bakery, you will make rainbow cupcakes. If you're Muslim and own a grocery store or restaurant, you will sell bacon, ham and pork chops. If you're a Catholic priest you will marry gay couples.

A win for individual liberty. We should be proud.

All this bill did was stir the pot on an issue that had little support (LGBT rights). Now they've managed to whirl up so much support that they've turned in into a Juggernaut. I still don't think it is going to be as bad as you think.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I wish I'd said this.

Back when the first window opened up for a few days and gays were able to get married in Indiana I served as a combination best man/ring bearer (an office I last filled when I was seven years old) for two gay lady friends as they got married in the living room of their clergyman.

I am still deeply moved by the fact that they feel such affection for this old gun-toting flatfoot ultra-conservative neanderthal they they honored me in such a personal way.

I have no use for those who are so high-handed as to try to harm or interfere with people who are harming or interfering with no one.

You haters feel free to flame away. I have my asbestos skivvies on.

If the pizza shop were the ONLY pizza shop in the world, then you might have a point. How is the pizza shop harming or interfering with anyone in any kind of meaningful way?

 

[KG1]

If the pizza shop were the ONLY pizza shop in the world, then you might have a point. How is the pizza shop harming or interfering with anyone in any kind of meaningful way?

They hypothetically harmed someones non-existent gay wedding.

 

[chipbennett]

[video=youtube;AJaroR_qTNs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJaroR_qTNs[/video]

 

[miguel]

How appropriate this happened on Maundy Thursday! Pence and his boys got their 30 pieces of silver.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/indiana-pizzeria-at-center-of-religious-115307450604.html


250k. nice.

 

[Ericpwp]

$260,000

 

[mrjarrell]

Brian Bosma on the RFRA fix.

https://soundcloud.com/indypolitics/speaker-bosma-on-rfra-passage

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/indiana-pizzeria-at-center-of-religious-115307450604.html


250k. nice.

$260,000

Good for them. I heard the owner being interviewed by Glenn Beck today. He certainly seems quite shaken by hate directed his way.

 

[KG1]

Would you cater a gay wedding Speaker Bosma?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Signed by Pence.

 

[chipbennett]

Someone just told me something that is making me reconsider the "fix". I may be completely wrong about it. It is possible that the "fix" doesn't actually change anything of substance.

Here's the key part of the "fix":

This chapter does not:


(I) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;


(2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service; or


(3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.

Here's what's interesting to me, and currently make me re-think things:

"This chapter does not...establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service"

But what have I been pointing out all along? This law does not apply to or constrain persons, but rather government entities. So, in its original form, the law didn't "establish a defense" for "providers".

The question is, does this "fix" change the calculus?

1. Someone claims discrimination, and sues another
2. Person being sued claims that the law under which he is being sued represents a substantial burden to his religious exercise
3. Court determines if the substantial burden standard is met
4. If so, the government entity then must justify the law on the basis of strict scrutiny

So: does invoking "substantial burden" under RFRA constitute "establishing a defense"?

Here's where my analysis fails be. IANAL, and all that.

 

[MisterChester]

If we want to be super technical, the old bill wasn't even in effect yet until July 1st? And this new signed amendment to it as well?