The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Kutnupe14]

There is no delicious indignation in actually having to pony up money out of your own pocket to show support for something. Their support is like the proverbial Missouri: a mile wide and an inch deep.




Did you mean to use purple mayhaps?

Frankly I can't conceive what it must feel like to be in the crosshairs of a national campaign to harass and intimidate a small-town business, with strangers making death threats, solely on the basis of one TV news story.

Perhaps you've walked in those shoes. Then judge away.

Sensitive much? Going to the "Riviera": a travel destination for the rich and famous. Comment made due to the massive monetary windfall due to their GoFundMe page.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They'll have to hold off on their vacation plans until they know what's left after defending themselves from the IRS audit we all know is coming.

Well yeah, the IRS is going to take their cut, but what will be left over ain't nothing to complain about.

 

[mrjarrell]

Indiana and the Constitution | Fox News

 

[Kutnupe14]

Indiana and the Constitution | Fox News

...and it's from Fox's legal expert

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I enjoy Judge Nap's opinioins. But I'm not sure he read this bill; I think he read some of the public opinion of it instead. This bill applies to the government, it restricts it.

Indiana has not added the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; yet its own RFRA statute, signed into law last week, provides a "my religion made me do it" defense to allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[printcraft]

We can't have the government restricted now can we? That's awful.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Taste the double standard: Colorado bakeries can refuse anti-gay cakes, but not gay wedding cakes | Twitchy

 

[mrjarrell]

I enjoy Judge Nap's opinioins. But I'm not sure he read this bill; I think he read some of the public opinion of it instead. This bill applies to the government, it restricts it.

So, you think he didn't read it and just went ahead and commented on it? Seriously? Just because he came to a different conclusion than those in favour of it? Or maybe he just knows something others don't. Like the history and the obvious goals of Indiana's bill.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, you think he didn't read it and just went ahead and commented on it? Seriously? Just because he came to a different conclusion than those in favour of it? Or maybe he just knows something others don't. Like the history and the obvious goals of Indiana's bill.

I know just as much about what he did or did not do as you.

 

[mrjarrell]

I know just as much about what he did or did not do as you.

I didn't say he commented on something without reading it, thereby tainting his conclusions with ignorance of the law. His Op/ed makes it quite clear that he did read the law, as well as the original and is more than passingly familiar with its history and courts decisions on it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I didn't say he commented on something without reading it, thereby tainting his conclusions with ignorance of the law. His Op/ed makes it quite clear that he did read the law, as well as the original and is more than passingly familiar with its history and courts decisions on it.

OK. I'm not going to argue with you whether some guy on TV read an article or not. You have your opinion and I have mine. I disagree with his interpretation of this no matter how he arrived at it. I believe any time we can restrain the government from interfereing with private property rights, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion, it's a good day--whether it conforms to somebodys' interpretation of the Constitution or not--others, not so much. Enjoy your day.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sounds about right.

Scott Walker: Indiana protests caused by people “chronically looking for ways to be upset”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sounds about right.

Scott Walker: Indiana protests caused by people “chronically looking for ways to be upset”

Lot of GOP guys falling on their swords. If I was a potential republican candidate, I wouldn't touch this issue with a 6ft pole. These guys care trying top hard to reach evangelicals, who over the past decade have waned in significant numbers to be thought of as being the group to put a candidate over the top.

 

[MisterChester]

Lot of GOP guys falling on their swords. If I was a potential republican candidate, I wouldn't touch this issue with a 6ft pole. These guys care trying top hard to reach evangelicals, who over the past decade have waned in significant numbers to be thought of as being the group to put a candidate over the top.

If you want to win an election, you need to attract the biggest groups of people you can instead of pandering to a group that will never get you a majority of votes. It is nonsensical to go for the Evangelical vote specifically if you're trying to become president. Their numbers are dwindling and are a very stubborn voting bloc. That might have flown in the 80's - early 2000's, but not anymore. They'll never vote democrat anyway, so what's the point?

 

[drillsgt]

If you want to win an election, you need to attract the biggest groups of people you can instead of pandering to a group that will never get you a majority of votes. It is nonsensical to go for the Evangelical vote specifically if you're trying to become president. Their numbers are dwindling and are a very stubborn voting bloc. That might have flown in the 80's - early 2000's, but not anymore. They'll never vote democrat anyway, so what's the point?

The gays and the welfare class are never going to vote republican so why pander to them?

 

[drillsgt]

Lot of GOP guys falling on their swords. If I was a potential republican candidate, I wouldn't touch this issue with a 6ft pole. These guys care trying top hard to reach evangelicals, who over the past decade have waned in significant numbers to be thought of as being the group to put a candidate over the top.

Why is what Walker said falling on his sword? What he said was true.

 

[chipbennett]

Indiana and the Constitution | Fox News

...and it's from Fox's legal expert

I enjoy Judge Nap's opinioins. But I'm not sure he read this bill; I think he read some of the public opinion of it instead. This bill applies to the government, it restricts it.

Yes, clearly Napolitano failed to read the Indiana RFRA.

Also: this just goes to show that all the claims of Fox News being "Faux" news in the tank for the right are ridiculous.

 

[terrehautian]

So the person who works at a TV station in Virginia either apparently got a talking to by their bosses or removed that that worked at the station because their twitter profile no longer says that they do.

 

[chipbennett]

So, you think he didn't read it and just went ahead and commented on it? Seriously? Just because he came to a different conclusion than those in favour of it? Or maybe he just knows something others don't. Like the history and the obvious goals of Indiana's bill.

There are no material differences between Indiana's RFRA and the RFRAs in any other state. The differences that exist only affirm SCOTUS decisions (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and prevent procedural technicalities (i.e. New Mexico) from preventing relief under the law. Such differences in no way represent an opportunity or intent to discriminate against homosexuals.

If you can point out where Napolitano has waxed critical of any other state's RFRA in a similar manner, I'll take back the assertion that he failed to read Indiana's RFRA before opining on it.

 

[chipbennett]

Sounds about right.

Scott Walker: Indiana protests caused by people “chronically looking for ways to be upset”

Walker/Cruz 2016. Please let it happen.