Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" controversy

[Shady]

Well, first off I would point out that it's not 1993 anymore.

Secondly, I would point out that it's not just liberals outraged over this, this time. That was one of the interesting things that prompted me to start this topic. It's not just activists who've come out against it, it's business interests.

The CEO of Angie's List, for example, isn't a liberal. He's a Republican. He's so Republican that he ran the previous governor's election campaign. And he's not saying "I oppose this law because I'm pro-gay rights," he's saying "I oppose this law because it's bad for my company because it will make it harder for me to recruit professionals to come to Indiana."

-k

I see, so now you're a big CEO person huh? So when CEOs are troubled with high taxes, burdensome regulation, you brush that aside. But when a CEO reinforces you social standard were all suppose to take notice of what they say. Whatever. *holding my hands in a w shape*

[On Guard for Thee]

It has nothing to do with intimate connections. What Smallc is saying is correct. Being gay isn't normal in that it's abnormal, and not in line with our evolutionary process. You know, the whole science thing. You guys aren't denying science are you?

Apparently you subscribe to the very outdated idea I suggested in my post. Science will show you there are various species that are (gay). It looks like it is you who is against science. Or at least unversed in it.

[kimmy]

That's because dummies don't know what the law is even about, they are just riding the public wave in an attempt to look progressive.

Which dummies? The CEOs of corporations worth hundreds of millions (or billions in the case of Salesforce) of dollars? Those guys are dummies? I would think they know a bit about the issues of drawing talent to Indiana. The Cummins people said it's already an uphill climb to attract top engineers to the state.

I see, so now you're a big CEO person huh? So when CEOs are troubled with high taxes, burdensome regulation, you brush that aside. But when a CEO reinforces you social standard were all suppose to take notice of what they say. Whatever. *holding my hands in a w shape*

I have no doubt that CEOs are burdened by high taxes and regulations. We all are. Life would be pretty awesome if everybody could do whatever the hell they wanted and didn't have to pay any taxes. But that's not realistic.

I don't have a problem with CEOs saying they want lower taxes or less regulations. I just object when they're given what they ask for at the expense of everybody else. I understand why the fertilizer plant in West, Texas wanted less regulation, I just think it's unfortunate that the lack of inspection resulted in the town getting turned into a crater, for example.

I'm surprised that you of all people are so dismissive of what these CEOs are saying, however. When did your opinion of business leaders become so low?

-k

Edited March 30, 2015 by kimmy

[Bryan]

Which dummies?

Anyone who is joining the ignorant masses in opposing this bill.

[Smallc]

Anyone who is joining the ignorant masses in opposing this bill.

Opposing a bill doesn't automatically make you ignorant. It's your reasons that do that.

[Bryan]

Opposing a bill doesn't automatically make you ignorant. It's your reasons that do that.

Not having reasons would make you even more ignorant.

[Smallc]

Not having reasons would make you even more ignorant.

I'm saying there can be good reasons to oppose any bill.

[Bryan]

Bigotry is the only reason to oppose this one.

[kimmy]

The hysteria over this is another example of the drive-by media. That would rather incite people with headlines and question rather than reporting on actual facts. 20 states already have similar legislation in place, and Bill Clinton signed one of the original bills at the federal level. There's also strict scrutiny in place when it comes to this new legislation. 1- religious beliefs must be sincerely held. 2- if there's a compelling state interest, the religious objection can be overridden. 3- the states action in overriding the belief has to be the least intrusive, while still satisfying the state interest. States have been using these tests for decades. Anyways, I hope that helps. Honestly, some of you conduct yourself like Pavlovian dogs. The mere mention of something like this sends your hair on fire. Calm down and learn the facts. Not just what like-minded blog is telling you. Some of you are worse than teenagers.

In regard to prongs 1 and 2:

1) there's no specific definition for what a "sincerely held religious belief" actually is. The language of the bill doesn't limit it to core beliefs of recognized religions. It's pretty much whatever someone says they believe. There's no requirement, and no reason to assume, that Indiana judges would uphold the same standard as federal judges have used in evaluating what constitutes a sincere belief. If you look in the text of the Indiana bill, there's no elaboration on this issue. If you look at proposed amendments to the bill, amendments that would have specifically protected children from parental neglect were defeated, so obviously the law makers intend that faith healing and severe discipline are conceivably protected religious views. Mike Bower is a former Georgia Attorney General (and not a liberal either, this is a guy who once went to the Supreme Court to defend Georgia's anti-sodomy laws...) who in analyzing Georgia's bill concluded that a "sincerely held religious belief" could be virtually anything somebody claimed was part of their religion; Bower argues that it's so broad that it will "permit everyone to become a law unto themselves in terms of deciding which laws they will or will not obey".

2) there's no specific definition for what a "compelling interest" of the state is, either, and once again there's no requirement and no reason to assume Indiana judges will adhere to the standards that federal judges use. Preventing discrimination is considered by federal judges to be a "compelling interest", but in Indiana sexual orientation is not protected by anti-discrimination laws, so clearly protecting gay people from anti-discrimination laws isn't a "compelling interest" as far as Indiana lawmakers are concerned. Governor Pence was asked on TV this morning whether Indiana would consider adding sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws, and he said "no" in unequivocal terms. Governor Pence pointed out that Obama voted for an RFRA when he was an Illinois senator, but neglected to mention that unlike in Indiana, Illinois anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation.

-k

[Smallc]

Bigotry is the only reason to oppose this one.

Some would argue that's the only reason to support it.

[Bryan]

Some would argue that's the only reason to support it.

That argument is the ignorance I'm referring to.

[Michael Hardner]

I understand the philosophy behind the bill. I can see not forcing deeply religious people to do things which go against their religion.

Since you pointed out that religious headgear is not part of the Muslim religion, I will point out that shunning sinners is a direct violation of Christian tenets. But people interpret these things differently, so I wouldn't presume to interpret scripture for people either.

[Mighty AC]

SNL perfectly summed up Indiana's bigotry bill in 30 seconds.

[cybercoma]

Being as I had a gay best friend that was murdered, I doubt it. Being gay isn't normal. There's nothing wrong with it, but it isn't normal.

lmfao. There it is! I don't hate gay people, "I had a gay friend!"

[cybercoma]

Society determines what is normal.

You're reifying society. This is meaningless drivel.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited March 30, 2015 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

lmfao. There it is! I don't hate gay people, "I had a gay friend!"

...and?

[Mighty AC]

That's because dummies don't know what the law is even about, they are just riding the public wave in an attempt to look progressive.

Do you understand the bill Bryan? Do you know why this bill is considered worse than other RFRA's and more akin to the Arizona bill that was denounced and ultimately vetoed?

* Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

* Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs.”

* The Indiana law which provides protections to religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” So entities can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

* Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.

http://bit.ly/1CCDl0X

[kimmy]

So for people who believe this law is a good idea, how would you feel about requiring businesses whose beliefs prevent them from serving gay customers to display signage to that effect? It would save gay customers from the embarrassment of being turned away. It would save business operators from a confrontation and potential court battle. It seems like win-win.

(for the record a house amendment to this effect was proposed, but defeated.)

-k

[Bryan]

So for people who believe this law is a good idea, how would you feel about requiring businesses whose beliefs prevent them from serving gay customers to display signage to that effect? It would save gay customers from the embarrassment of being turned away. It would save business operators from a confrontation and potential court battle. It seems like win-win.

(for the record a house amendment to this effect was proposed, but defeated.)

-k

As well it should be, as that would open those businesses up to be targets of the kind of hateful BS we are already seeing over this bill.

[Bryan]

Do you understand the bill Bryan? Do you know why this bill is considered worse than other RFRA's and more akin to the Arizona bill that was denounced and ultimately vetoed?

* Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

* Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs.”

* The Indiana law which provides protections to religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” So entities can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

* Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.

http://bit.ly/1CCDl0X

So it's a very good law, and bigots hate it. Yeah, I already got that.

[Mighty AC]

So it's a very good law, and bigots hate it. Yeah, I already got that.

Thankfully you're a dying breed.

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

<satire alert>

/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

Holtz began to suspect that Bachmann was perhaps a homosexual man, and because it is now within her rights to refuse service based on religious beliefs, informed Bachmann she would be unable to serve him, and asked him to leave.

...

Marcus reacted with shock when he realized he had fallen victim to the very measure he had come to Indiana to support. I was gobsmacked! I never realized a law meant to protect individuals religious freedoms would be twisted in such a way as to discriminate! Clearly, people are mis-applying this well-intentioned law.

Edited March 30, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

If only karma was real.. Unfortunately, National Report is a fake news comedy site.

[Argus]

And exactly who gave you the authority, or more importantly the insight to decide what is normal...

Normality is not a judgement call, you know. It's not open to ideological views. If 98% of the population is heterosexual then heterosexuality is what is normal. If only 1 or 2% or gay than that is, contrarily NOT normal. There is no inference of right or wrong, of good or bad here.