Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Idzequitch]

It means that people can use their so-called 'religious liberty' as justification for not serving LGBT people because it is against their religion, for example. That is not okay. I don't care about your religious views, they can not and should not be used to exclude someone from a public establishment.

But business are not public establishments, they are private. Business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

So, businesses are above the law? That's a terrible idea, and fortunately not true.

[Mavorpen]

It means that people can use their so-called 'religious liberty' as justification for not serving LGBT people because it is against their religion, for example. That is not okay. I don't care about your religious views, they can not and should not be used to exclude someone from a public establishment.

But business are not public establishments, they are private.

Actually, no, they're public accommodations.

Business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

Nope. If they would like to, open a private club. They're entirely free to revoke their status as a public accommodation and not lie to the public.

[The Black Forrest]

It means that people can use their so-called 'religious liberty' as justification for not serving LGBT people because it is against their religion, for example. That is not okay. I don't care about your religious views, they can not and should not be used to exclude someone from a public establishment.

But business are not public establishments, they are private. Business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

Actually they are. That little "Open" sign. Also; your rights are not absolute.

[The Black Forrest]

But business are not public establishments, they are private. Business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

So, businesses are above the law? That's a terrible idea, and fortunately not true.

You big silly the magical free market faery will fix all problems.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Where, exactly? Are we talking about that religious amendment? What was it... The first one, I believe. here's the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, look at the law. See what it does. It's actually a very basic law, it only has one real article, which is actually quite a good one. Actually read the legal document, it will tell you everything you need to know.

I read the law.

Just because the state government infringes on the rights of citizens as opposed to the federal government doesn't make it right.

You're only thinking of the religious liberty of the Christians to be prejudiced towards the homosexual population. What about the religious liberty of the homosexual population? What if they disagree with the Christian interpretation that they are dead in the eyes of God?

Listen, I am an atheist myself, a big proponent of gay rights in any sense, and I am appalled by Christian fundies trying to keep these people from loving each other. But aside from being an atheist, I'm also a legal student, and when looking at this law, I see nothing that would inherently make religious bias towards other people possible. That's just one interpretation, one I do not share with many of you here. How this law will turn out will be decided by judge and jury, and I hope they choose the right path, the path the governor seems to have taken. This law is not about discrimination. It can be used in that way, but so can any law. Inherently, this law is a good protection of the freedom of religion on its own. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and atheists can all benefit from this law. If the court interprets this law the way it should, there will be no problem.

[The Black Forrest]

That's just one interpretation, one I do not share with many of you here. How this law will turn out will be decided by judge and jury, and I hope they choose the right path, the path the governor seems to have taken. This law is not about discrimination.

Actually it is about discrimination.

This law is not needed to "protect" Religion.

[The Rich Port]

It means that people can use their so-called 'religious liberty' as justification for not serving LGBT people because it is against their religion, for example. That is not okay. I don't care about your religious views, they can not and should not be used to exclude someone from a public establishment.

But businesses are not public establishments, they are private. Private business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

I am sickened that, nowadays, private enterprise can be used to justify and PROTECT prejudice and discrimination.

I read the law.

Just because the state government infringes on the rights of citizens as opposed to the federal government doesn't make it right.

You're only thinking of the religious liberty of the Christians to be prejudiced towards the homosexual population. What about the religious liberty of the homosexual population? What if they disagree with the Christian interpretation that they are dead in the eyes of God?

Listen, I am an atheist myself, a big proponent of gay rights in any sense, and I am appalled by Christian fundies trying to keep these people from loving each other. But aside from being an atheist, I'm also a legal student, and when looking at this law, I see nothing that would inherently make religious bias towards other people possible. That's just one interpretation, one I do not share with many of you here. How this law will turn out will be decided by judge and jury, and I hope they choose the right path, the path the governor seems to have taken. This law is not about discrimination. It can be used in that way, but so can any law. Inherently, this law is a good protection of the freedom of religion on its own. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and atheists can all benefit from this law. If the court interprets this law the way it should, there will be no problem.

It just really pisses me off that we afford businesses this much protection when whom we should be protecting is the consumer.

But consumers don't have lobbying power... So they're fucked.

[Atlanticatia]

It means that people can use their so-called 'religious liberty' as justification for not serving LGBT people because it is against their religion, for example. That is not okay. I don't care about your religious views, they can not and should not be used to exclude someone from a public establishment.

But businesses are not public establishments, they are private. Private business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

They are public accommodations and I disagree that them being privately owned somehow means they should be free from regulation.

Indiana has no law on the books mandating that LGBT people shall be publicly accommodated so this could certainly lead to discrimination. For example, a Christian landlord could not rent to a gay person because of their religion. A Christian baker could not bake a cake for two gay people who are getting married because of their religion. A Christian establishment could ban a trans person from using the bathroom of their choice because of their religion. etc etc
That is not okay -- no one should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. 'Religious liberty' means that people can freely practice their religion - not that they can prevent other people from their right to visit places of public accommodation, or expect equal and fair treatment.

[Parhe]

So I'm confused, a business can not serve someone if the person does something they disagree with? I read the actual link, was still confused, and got this feel from the thread. This seems really vague and in the end allows people to reject anyone they want, be it for being a different sexuality, prostitute, liar, or whatever. Why not just make a rule saying businesses do not have to serve someone for whatever reason unless "fill in with the exceptions in the link"

And what exactly is meant by "burden?" That is what really confused me.

[The Black Forrest]

And what exactly is meant by "burden?" That is what really confused me.

Bad laws use words that are left to anybodies interpretation.

Burden could be for example the fag made me so uncomfortable I just couldn't serve my customers that way they should be served.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's just one interpretation, one I do not share with many of you here. How this law will turn out will be decided by judge and jury, and I hope they choose the right path, the path the governor seems to have taken. This law is not about discrimination.

Actually it is about discrimination.

This law is not needed to "protect" Religion.

No, perhaps, but if you read the legal text, nothing in it really makes discrimination more possible. It looks more like a token law, of anything. Just passed for the appeasement of the right, or something. If judges use this law well, it can be a huge motor for social change, for the betterment of every community. If the courts decide that discrimination based upon religion is not protected by this law, it will prove once and for all that discrimination in Indiana must end. It truly has good potential, and while I see how it could be misused, it can also be used for good. Like with every law, a lot depends upon the courts.

But businesses are not public establishments, they are private. Private business owners should be able to do whatever they please.

I am sickened that, nowadays, private enterprise can be used to justify and PROTECT prejudice and discrimination.

Listen, I am an atheist myself, a big proponent of gay rights in any sense, and I am appalled by Christian fundies trying to keep these people from loving each other. But aside from being an atheist, I'm also a legal student, and when looking at this law, I see nothing that would inherently make religious bias towards other people possible. That's just one interpretation, one I do not share with many of you here. How this law will turn out will be decided by judge and jury, and I hope they choose the right path, the path the governor seems to have taken. This law is not about discrimination. It can be used in that way, but so can any law. Inherently, this law is a good protection of the freedom of religion on its own. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and atheists can all benefit from this law. If the court interprets this law the way it should, there will be no problem.

It just really pisses me off that we afford businesses this much protection when whom we should be protecting is the consumer.

But consumers don't have lobbying power... So they're fucked.

Also, there is nothing business/consumer going on here. Really, read the legal text again. What is says is, and I'm paraphrasing:

"Indiana shall make no laws infringing on religious liberties, as long as these liberties are not contrary to the duties of the state"

That's it. No business, no consumer, that's a story for another day.

[Fartsniffage]

And what exactly is meant by "burden?" That is what really confused me.

Bad laws use words that are left to anybodies interpretation.

Burden could be for example the fag made me so uncomfortable I just couldn't serve my customers that way they should be served.

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... ration_Act

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Bad laws use words that are left to anybodies interpretation.

Burden could be for example the fag made me so uncomfortable I just couldn't serve my customers that way they should be served.

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... ration_Act

Besides, 'burden' is defined in the law itself, like any good law would do. A pretty clear definition as well.

[Mavorpen]

So um... I'm still confused about the amount of outrage of certain people in this thread given that precedent indicates that this law won't be used to discriminate against LGBT individuals. Is the law stupid and unnecessary? Yes. But the chances of a business successfully wining a case where they're allowed to reject a person because they're gay is minimal at best.

[Atlanticatia]

Either way, states should be banning discrimination and exclusion of LGBT people. States should be passing laws that allow trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. States should be passing laws allowing same-sex marriage. States should be improving access to health services for trans people. States should be banning conversion therapy. etc

What they should not be doing is passing laws dubbed 'religious freedom protection laws' that are obviously meant to be a way to exclude LGBT people from the community, make the environment unsafe for LGBT people, and tolerate bigotry.

[Pope Joan]

Christians have such weak faith. It's funny sometimes; most of the time sad.

Bad people for whatever reason need these kind of laws.

Oh well. I canceled Gencon and wrote them the reason why. A couple buds did the same.

Salesforce.com has now made an edict that no employees will travel or do business there due to the possibility of discrimination.

Good! Let them get the South Carolina treatment in Indiana.

It looks as though the NCAA will no longer hold any playoff games there, either.

Whatever the ostensible purpose of this legislation claims to be, most of us can see that the latent purpose is bigotry.

Did you know that Indiana has a notable record of bigotry? http://abhmuseum.org/2012/01/an-iconic- ... the-north/
http://genealogytrails.com/ind/howard/lynchings.html

Indiana is home to 16 hate groups. http://www.splcenter.org/hate-map#s=IN

[The Black Forrest]

So um... I'm still confused about the amount of outrage of certain people in this thread given that precedent indicates that this law won't be used to discriminate against LGBT individuals. Is the law stupid and unnecessary? Yes. But the chances of a business successfully wining a case where they're allowed to reject a person because they're gay is minimal at best.

Well look at the fox comment from 16 law professors who support it.

“business owners refusing to serve gays and lesbians, is a myth.”

[Mavorpen]

Either way, states should be banning discrimination and exclusion of LGBT people. States should be passing laws that allow trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. States should be passing laws allowing same-sex marriage. States should be improving access to health services for trans people. States should be banning conversion therapy. etc

What they should not be doing is passing laws dubbed 'religious freedom protection laws' that are obviously meant to be a way to exclude LGBT people from the community, make the environment unsafe for LGBT people, and tolerate bigotry.

What makes me glad about this is the vocal outcry of businesses in the state who recognize the stupidity of the law.

[Mavorpen]

So um... I'm still confused about the amount of outrage of certain people in this thread given that precedent indicates that this law won't be used to discriminate against LGBT individuals. Is the law stupid and unnecessary? Yes. But the chances of a business successfully wining a case where they're allowed to reject a person because they're gay is minimal at best.

Well look at the fox comment from 16 law professors who support it.

“business owners refusing to serve gays and lesbians, is a myth.”

Well, yeah. Those people are idiots and if they seriously think that this law is a big success for enabling the legal discrimination of the LGBT community, then they're not very good at their job considering the precedents that have taken place as of late.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Either way, states should be banning discrimination and exclusion of LGBT people. States should be passing laws that allow trans people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. States should be passing laws allowing same-sex marriage. States should be improving access to health services for trans people. States should be banning conversion therapy. etc

What they should not be doing is passing laws dubbed 'religious freedom protection laws' that are obviously meant to be a way to exclude LGBT people from the community, make the environment unsafe for LGBT people, and tolerate bigotry.

I agree with all the first bits. Yes, all those laws should be passed. But for now, we don't know what this law actually is. No-one does. That will be decided in courts. This law, as signified by the preamble and the words of the governor, is not meant to exclude gays from the community. If I had any reason to believe it would, I would have opposed it with all my heart. But from a legal perspective, this law really is not meant for bigotry. It might be a political ploy, trying to get support from republicans to introduce aforementioned laws. We don't know, and we will find out soon enough.

[Siburria]

If fox is against it then this bill must be a good thing. Not that my opinion is credible, I just don't trust fox news.

[The Cobalt Sky]

If fox is against it then this bill must be a good thing. Not that my opinion is credible, I just don't trust fox news.

That's an interesting take on this issue!

[Greed and Death]

So um... I'm still confused about the amount of outrage of certain people in this thread given that precedent indicates that this law won't be used to discriminate against LGBT individuals. Is the law stupid and unnecessary? Yes. But the chances of a business successfully wining a case where they're allowed to reject a person because they're gay is minimal at best.

Because certain figures in the media and the left want to remind LGBT people that they need the Democrats as the supreme court is likely to strike down gay marriage bans before the 2016 election.


Also look at Hillary's criticism of the law, her response is not that it allows discrimination against LGBT people it is that invites discrimination. What she is saying is people will misread the law and discriminate even when they are not allowed to.

[The Black Forrest]

So um... I'm still confused about the amount of outrage of certain people in this thread given that precedent indicates that this law won't be used to discriminate against LGBT individuals. Is the law stupid and unnecessary? Yes. But the chances of a business successfully wining a case where they're allowed to reject a person because they're gay is minimal at best.

Because certain figures in the media and the left want to remind LGBT people that they need the Democrats as the supreme court is likely to strike down gay marriage bans before the 2016 election.


Also look at Hillary's criticism of the law, her response is not that it allows discrimination against LGBT people it is that invites discrimination. What she is saying is people will misread the law and discriminate even when they are not allowed to.

And you are suggesting they won't?

Seriously now. The governor said this law was to protect religion and give them legal routes. Protect from what? What happened that required this "law"

[Ashmoria]

then why bother passing their own?

The Federal RFRA does not apply to the states, so if states want a general rule on religious exemptions and they do not already have the same rule from the state constitution then states will have to pass their own RFRA.

so why bother passing it NOW? what is suddenly so important that they have to rush this through? might it be gay marriage and the horror of wedding shops having to serve whoever comes in the door?