Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Christian Democrats]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

[The Black Forrest]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

So we need to protect Christian's right to discriminate against LGBT?

[The balkens]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

So we need to protect Christian's right to discriminate against LGBT?

"Muh Religious fridom."

[Christian Democrats]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

So we need to protect Christian's right to discriminate against LGBT?

Will you cite the section of the law that would permit this?

[The Black Forrest]

So we need to protect Christian's right to discriminate against LGBT?

Will you cite the section of the law that would permit this?

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

[The balkens]

Will you cite the section of the law that would permit this?

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

Indiana is as about culturally south as it fucking gets despite being as north as it is.

This is coming from a Michigander.

[Christian Democrats]

Will you cite the section of the law that would permit this?

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

I'll be waiting on my citation: a copy of the Indiana RFRA

[Ashmoria]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

if all it is for is to make sure that no church that bans gay marriage in its denomination will be forced (in the future dystopia) to perform gay marriages, then FINE.

but if it is to make sure that "Christian" businesses can discriminate against gay people (and only gay people, not adulterers or heathen) then its NOT fine.

and I think we both know which one it is for.

[Kelinfort]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

It lowers the legal defence line for a violation of religious freedom from a "burden" to a "likely burden." This is too broad and vague. Not to mention, it allows corporations to use this defence, not just small enterprises.

[The Black Forrest]

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

I'll be waiting on my citation: a copy of the Indiana RFRA

Pssst. That isn't the Indiana law.

You still didn't answer my question.

Ash and Kelin basically wrote what I was going to write.

Again why is the Indiana law needed?

[Kelinfort]

That's not an answer.

Care to explain why the law was even needed. Where has the evil government been preventing adherence to Religious beliefs?

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

I'll be waiting on my citation: a copy of the Indiana RFRA

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding

So this basically expands the focus to individuals who violate "religious freedom."

[Christian Democrats]

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the federal RFRA in Holt v. Hobbs.

I'll be waiting on my citation: a copy of the Indiana RFRA

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding

So this basically expands the focus to individuals who violate "religious freedom."

You're taking Section 9 out of context; read what Section 8 says.

[Kelinfort]

So this basically expands the focus to individuals who violate "religious freedom."

You're taking Section 9 out of context; read what Section 8 says.

Section 8 merely states governmental bodies cannot impose a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. Nowhere does it prevent counter suits against plaintiffs.

This is also nebulous. Is anti-discrimination legislation a "substantial burden"?

[Gauthier]

All it'll take is Muslims having a field day with this Act and before you know it, every single Republican who pushed for it in the first place will backpedal faster than the Tour de France.

[The balkens]

All it'll take is Muslims having a field day with this Act and before you know it, every single Republican who pushed for it in the first place will backpedal faster than the Tour de France.

"Hey! the Muslims are doing it! We have to stop them!" "Uh...we were doing it too, i mean, what makes us better then th-" "Shut up, Gary."

[Genivaria]

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.

"Get out nigger we don't serve your kind here."
FREEDOM!

[Genivaria]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

if all it is for is to make sure that no church that bans gay marriage in its denomination will be forced (in the future dystopia) to perform gay marriages, then FINE.

but if it is to make sure that "Christian" businesses can discriminate against gay people (and only gay people, not adulterers or heathen) then its NOT fine.

and I think we both know which one it is for.

I take issue with the notion that a business can be religious.
No you have religious institutions and you have business's.
If a Church starts a business they have to follow the law pike everyone else.

[Page]

If I were in an establishment that turned away a gay couple I would walk out without paying and say "it's against my conscience to give money to homophobes."

[The Orson Empire]

Honestly, I am not surprised. With the large amount of homophobic people in the United States, such a law was bound to happen eventually.

[Fartsniffage]

Honestly, I am not surprised. With the large amount of homophobic people in the United States, such a law was bound to happen eventually.

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

[Page]

Honestly, I am not surprised. With the large amount of homophobic people in the United States, such a law was bound to happen eventually.

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Like voter ID laws, they were passed in response to an imaginary problem to make bigots' lives easier.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Like voter ID laws, they were passed in response to an imaginary problem to make bigots' lives easier.

Have you read the legal text? Do you have any idea what is says? Can you explain to me what in this law makes bigotry so easy?

[Fartsniffage]

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Like voter ID laws, they were passed in response to an imaginary problem to make bigots' lives easier.

Yep. Totally makes sense. Chuck Schumer is a total bigot, as is Bill Clinton.

[The balkens]

Honestly, I am not surprised. With the large amount of homophobic people in the United States, such a law was bound to happen eventually.

You mean like back in '93 when it was introduced at the federal level, or when the other 20 states that already have this law on their books did it?

Which is why i am proposing that we divide the country up into too. Like here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... isions.svg

Religious "freedom" exercisers in the red, Human rights advocates in the blue.

[Greed and Death]

I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.

if all it is for is to make sure that no church that bans gay marriage in its denomination will be forced (in the future dystopia) to perform gay marriages, then FINE.

but if it is to make sure that "Christian" businesses can discriminate against gay people (and only gay people, not adulterers or heathen) then its NOT fine.

and I think we both know which one it is for.

IT is none of the above.

It i about when an where exceptions to laws are granted. For instance take social security it is by and large considered an overall net social good, however the Amish felt it violated their religion. The Amish refused to pay, and the IRS began seizing Amish assets such as horses, plows, and farmland. Now as much of a net social good social security may be impoverishing the Amish who would otherwise be contributors to society is not a net social good. So a religious exemption was mad.

Another instance is head gear int he court room most courts require you to move your head gear but make an exception for religious head gear so Jewish persons and Muslims who believe their head must be covered can have their day in court too.

Also laws that require people be available to work Monday through Saturday to get unemployment insurance would prevent large numbers of Orthodox Jewish persons and Seven day Adventist from receiving unemployment insurance.

There are many ways to ensure accommodation you can draft the law in a way that it does not effect religion as many unemployment laws now require available to work 6 days a week. You can write Ad hoc exemptions as was done with the Amish and social security. And lastly you can craft generic exemption rules for the other 99% of cases that public sentiment will not rise to a certain level to force the Legislature to grant an exemption.

All this law does is craft a generic exemption rule and no discrimination laws are not one of those items subject to an exemption the Supreme court has already addressed this in Bob Jones University v. United States 461 U.S. 574 (1983).