Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ummm, you sure you want to make that argument?

Yes, the notion that discrimination is illegal in the states is an erroroneous one. You can discriminate just not against a protected class.

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

[Ethel mermania]

You'd be surprised how much effort that takes.

I have some idea by now.

I would have thought so, but I didn't think you were giving it enough credit.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, the notion that discrimination is illegal in the states is an erroroneous one. You can discriminate just not against a protected class.

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

In the city of indianapolis, they do. and that is what I believe is the heart of the matter Behind the bill.

[Fartsniffage]

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

In the city of indianapolis, they do. and that is what I believe is the heart of the matter Behind the bill.

Indiana is larger than Indianapolis. And I'm not even sure they have it there...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

In the city of indianapolis, they do. and that is what I believe is the heart of the matter Behind the bill.

I would think that a state law would override that, but I admit that it gets murkier for me on a city to state basis.

[Ethel mermania]

In the city of indianapolis, they do. and that is what I believe is the heart of the matter Behind the bill.

I would think that a state law would override that, but I admit that it gets murkier for me on a city to state basis.

That's what I mean, the intent of the bill is to override the local city law. The interpretation is deliberately vague, so a judge could determine the city law is an undue burden on a "god fearing" citizen.

As I said earlier, if there were a state law that disallowed discrimination based on sexual orientation . I would be ok with the bill.

[Fartsniffage]

As I said earlier, if there were a state law that disallowed discrimination based on sexual orientation . I would be ok with the bill.

And this is what I don't understand. If there had been an anti-discrimination law then this bill could have been seen as an attack on it, trying to provide a defence for discrimination despite the anti-discrimination law. I could understand getting pissed off about that.

But since there was no state law then it has literally no effect on the state of gay rights in Indiana. No effect whatsoever. In the vast majority of the state, shop keepers are perfectly able to discriminate against gay people without having to offer any defence other than that the customer was gay.

And for all the people getting bent out of shape about the possibility that the RFRA might in some way be interpreted in a whole new way by the Indiana courts to allow discrimination on religious grounds, I would like to point out that the gay haters with the final say on that would be the 7th circuit. Those fag bashers that ummm.....struck down the Indiana ban on gay marriage. Wait, that doesn't seem right?

[Ashmoria]

oh dear don't make me say "you mean priests?" its just not right.

But seriously. Gays can be celibate or asexual can't they?

In fact, that seems to be what the Catholic church expects of gays:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Catechism

oh absolutely. BEING gay isn't a sin. it cant be. but having gay sex IS a sin. whether its a sin because its gay or because its outside of catholic marriage is a mystery to me.

[Ashmoria]

why should a private business not be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want? you cant make someone serve you. if a black electrician went to someones house to fix something, and sees the nazi and confederate flags and refuses to fix his wiring or whatever, are you going to make the electrician do the work?

that question was decided 50 years ago.

we aren't going back to jim crow even if its only jim crow for gay people.

[Ethel mermania]

As I said earlier, if there were a state law that disallowed discrimination based on sexual orientation . I would be ok with the bill.

And this is what I don't understand. If there had been an anti-discrimination law then this bill could have been seen as an attack on it, trying to provide a defence for discrimination despite the anti-discrimination law. I could understand getting pissed off about that.

But since there was no state law then it has literally no effect on the state of gay rights in Indiana. No effect whatsoever. In the vast majority of the state, shop keepers are perfectly able to discriminate against gay people without having to offer any defence other than that the customer was gay.

And for all the people getting bent out of shape about the possibility that the RFRA might in some way be interpreted in a whole new way by the Indiana courts to allow discrimination on religious grounds, I would like to point out that the gay haters with the final say on that would be the 7th circuit. Those fag bashers that ummm.....struck down the Indiana ban on gay marriage. Wait, that doesn't seem right?

If i remember right, you are not american.

In the states, state law trumps local law, so since the city of indianapolis has an anti discrimination law based on sexual orientation. The state law would supercede it.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70601584/

[AiliailiA]

Yes, the notion that discrimination is illegal in the states is an erroroneous one. You can discriminate just not against a protected class.

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

The revised law specifies that they ARE a protected class (trans* too). But see below.

And this is what I don't understand. If there had been an anti-discrimination law then this bill could have been seen as an attack on it, trying to provide a defence for discrimination despite the anti-discrimination law. I could understand getting pissed off about that.

But since there was no state law then it has literally no effect on the state of gay rights in Indiana. No effect whatsoever. In the vast majority of the state, shop keepers are perfectly able to discriminate against gay people without having to offer any defence other than that the customer was gay.

And for all the people getting bent out of shape about the possibility that the RFRA might in some way be interpreted in a whole new way by the Indiana courts to allow discrimination on religious grounds, I would like to point out that the gay haters with the final say on that would be the 7th circuit. Those fag bashers that ummm.....struck down the Indiana ban on gay marriage. Wait, that doesn't seem right?

If i remember right, you are not american.

In the states, state law trumps local law, so since the city of indianapolis has an anti discrimination law based on sexual orientation. The state law would supercede it.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70601584/

or not ...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70848994/

[AiliailiA]

I must say, I support Memories Pizza of Walkerton, Indiana which was forced to shut down from the co-owner simply answering a hypothetical question about this issue incorrectly and protestors even went after other people who are completely silent and haven't immediately jumped on the pro-gay bandwagon as activists expect them to. Acting as thuggish as Scientologists isn't going to convince anyone in the anti-gay crowd to give up their principles.

That's slightly misleading, which admittedly puts it head and shoulders above your other posts in terms of accuracy.

They weren't forced to "shut down", at least not permanently. Some random asshole out there made a comment about burning down the restaurant, and they understandably closed up shop for a couple of days for security reasons. Don't feel too bad for them, though: They've managed to parlay the "We were only standing up for our beliefs" bigoted bullshit into a tidy sum raised through various suckers supporters, nearly half a million dollars in just a few days.

It's up to $800 thousand since then.

It would be amusing if this ultimately leads to the closing of the pizzeria, as the family no longer need the income.

[Ethel mermania]

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals do not constitute a protected class in this example.

The revised law specifies that they ARE a protected class (trans* too). But see below.

If i remember right, you are not american.

In the states, state law trumps local law, so since the city of indianapolis has an anti discrimination law based on sexual orientation. The state law would supercede it.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70601584/

or not ...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70848994/

That's the new "fix" it seems, and it appears only to cover areas that already Ha e anti discrimination laws.

[AiliailiA]

The revised law specifies that they ARE a protected class (trans* too). But see below.



or not ...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70848994/

That's the new "fix" it seems, and it appears only to cover areas that already Ha e anti discrimination laws.

For some reason I can't find the updated law OR the bill on the Indiana government website. Not updated yet I guess. Other sources assure me it contains this:

This chapter does not:
(1) 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 services;
(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

(bolding mine)

Which looks good (for LGBT). But these experts are saying it will only have effect where local government ordinances support it.

Which would be bad. Better than RFRA v1, but worse than before it.

[Ethel mermania]

That's the new "fix" it seems, and it appears only to cover areas that already Ha e anti discrimination laws.

For some reason I can't find the updated law OR the bill on the Indiana government website. Not updated yet I guess. Other sources assure me it contains this:

This chapter does not:
(1) 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 services;
(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

(bolding mine)

Which looks good (for LGBT). But these experts are saying it will only have effect where local government ordinances support it.

Which would be bad. Better than RFRA v1, but worse than before it.

The language you posted, should I would think apply everywhere. But the article I read sad the same as you did., only where existing local law protects it.

[Ifreann]

That's the new "fix" it seems, and it appears only to cover areas that already Ha e anti discrimination laws.

For some reason I can't find the updated law OR the bill on the Indiana government website. Not updated yet I guess. Other sources assure me it contains this:

This chapter does not:
(1) 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 services;
(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

(bolding mine)

Which looks good (for LGBT). But these experts are saying it will only have effect where local government ordinances support it.

Which would be bad. Better than RFRA v1, but worse than before it.

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

[Ashmoria]

For some reason I can't find the updated law OR the bill on the Indiana government website. Not updated yet I guess. Other sources assure me it contains this:

(bolding mine)

Which looks good (for LGBT). But these experts are saying it will only have effect where local government ordinances support it.

Which would be bad. Better than RFRA v1, but worse than before it.

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

its politics. they may have put it in so that anyone voting against it doesn't support our troops.

[Ifreann]

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

its politics. they may have put it in so that anyone voting against it doesn't support our troops.

Makes sense.

[Fartsniffage]

For some reason I can't find the updated law OR the bill on the Indiana government website. Not updated yet I guess. Other sources assure me it contains this:

(bolding mine)

Which looks good (for LGBT). But these experts are saying it will only have effect where local government ordinances support it.

Which would be bad. Better than RFRA v1, but worse than before it.

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

Veterans are a protected class at Federal level. Gays aren't.

Tells you a lot really....

[Ifreann]

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

Veterans are a protected class at Federal level. Gays aren't.

Tells you a lot really....

At least they've gone and pre-empted Gattaca.

[AiliailiA]

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

its politics. they may have put it in so that anyone voting against it doesn't support our troops.

It seems redundant. Surely the government could easily establish a "compelling government interest" in preventing discrimination against veterans.

I suppose it's better to cut such a claim off at the pass, than to waste government resources proving the government interest.

I wonder if the Vietnam War had anything to do with this. There was discrimination (from liberals who should know better) against veterans then.

[Arcanda]

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

Veterans are a protected class at Federal level. Gays aren't.

Tells you a lot really....

What would happen if we're talking about a gay veteran?

[AiliailiA]

"or United States military Service"
Haha, what?

Veterans are a protected class at Federal level. Gays aren't.

Tells you a lot really....

In your source two bills are mentioned: Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (1994).

So, good guess on my part. It was something to do with the Vietnam War

[AiliailiA]

Veterans are a protected class at Federal level. Gays aren't.

Tells you a lot really....

What would happen if we're talking about a gay veteran?

They'd be protected against discrimination, if that discrimination was based on their being a veteran.

It's important to note though, that discrimination can still be found illegal even if it's not on the basis of a "protected class". Unfair dismissal laws in some states for instance. The protected class just makes it easier to prosecute discrimination, by essentially reversing the burden of proof.

Er, I think. Damn do I miss Alien Space Bats. He's be all over this thread.

[Arcanda]

On the subject, here's a recent article which makes pretty good points, I think:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... omplicity/

[Quoted from the article above]
Would you support this amendment?

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pd ... NEM-AM.PDF

“B. Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set
forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender
identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such
refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of
business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person’s
religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business
does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation,
gender identity or race.

---

I used to be rather anti-RFRA, but that article from Reuteurs did change my mind about it.Race and sexuality is not the same thing, and people- Buisness owners and buyers, in this case, must learn to live together.I don't call being forced to serve someone as "living together".Those people should seek to better understand each other and establish dialogue as to better understand each other {This should be up to them, I don't see any law doing this}.

To close that small paragraph, I believe it is up to the people to find a compromise themselves by establishing a dialogue rather than the state, ideally speaking.