Log in or Sign up

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Indiana

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by mancha, Mar 30, 2015.

Page 3 of 16

Tiger Exile Long time lurker

Joined:

Sep 12, 2013

Messages:

1,239

Likes Received:

690

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

and if you dont believe in serving some one because of what color or race they are, where does it stop?

"my version of Christianity as a Klan member allows me the right not to serve blacks, jews, etc"
this is how this law is written in its form right now.
just claim religious belief and you are in the clear.
Click to expand...

She sold him flowers regularly but didn't want to be part of a same-sex wedding and gave him the name of another florist.

Tiger Exile, Mar 31, 2015

#21
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

Tiger Exile said: ↑

She sold him flowers regularly but didn't want to be part of a same-sex wedding and gave him the name of another florist.
Click to expand...

based on his sexual orientation, where is the line?

LSUMASTERMIND, Mar 31, 2015

#22
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

uscvball said: ↑

Not entirely true.
"Indiana was an outlier before the new law because neither its laws nor courts unambiguously protected religious liberty. Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.

In February, 16 prominent First Amendment scholars, some of whom support same-sex marriage, backed Indiana’s legislation. “General protection for religious liberty is important precisely because it is impossible to legislate in advance for all the ways in which government might burden the free exercise of religion,” they explained.

That hasn’t stopped the cultural great and good from claiming Indiana added the religious defense in private disputes as a way to target gays. If this is Indiana’s purpose, and there’s no evidence it is, this is unlikely to work.

The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened."

For someone claiming religious reasons, "would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent, a tribute to the increasing tolerance of American society toward gays, lesbians, the transgendered, you name it.

The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage."
Click to expand...

im not pushing for gay tolerance, i hold traditional views as well, i have a problem with the broadness of the law. Where does it begin and end in being able to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. This has been done before federal laws were written, they called it Jim Crow.

LSUMASTERMIND, Mar 31, 2015

#23
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

Tiger Exile said: ↑

What is funny is your "Progressive Side" taking issue with a state law that mirrors federal law, written by Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. There are plenty of blue states with the same law, one even expressing outrage against Indiana. If you guys were truly honest, you would actually listen to what Pence said, not bloviate on what your version of the media tells you. It isn't anti-gay, it isn't changing discrimination laws - which Pence stated were very important, but it is protecting citizens from Government overreach.
Click to expand...

Pence has done little but dodge the issue and refuse to answer questions. His right-wing politics are on record--a former talk radio host who ran for office on the platforms of anti-abortion, banning same-sex marriage, and has an anti-civil rights, anti-immigration reform and anti-environment voting record. The media is not making up the skepticism of this law he promotes.

This law has a lot of potential to create more trouble than it solves because it blurs the lines between the rights of religious freedom and the right not to be discriminated against. There is a proper balance point to be found here, if all sides would be accommodating.

Tiger Exile said: ↑

You may or may not be religious, but if you think it is ok to force/sue people to go against their religious values then we as a country are lost.
Click to expand...

This country is stronger than ever, is not based on religious values and is far from "lost".

Tiger Exile said: ↑

The best but extreme example is can you force a religious school to hire the opposite based upon discrimination? How would it go over if you forced Muslims to hire Christians to work in their mosque? How about forcing LBGT Organizations to hire devout Muslims who believe that they should be stoned to death? You want to talk about a Pandora's box, should the Government be able to force an Orthodox Jew Bakery make birthday cakes for skinheads and Neo-Nazis? The law was passed to protect people from the court of political correctness.
Click to expand...

But, as written, it can also be used to conveniently discriminate in a public business, something that has long been illegal. People objected to desegregation based on religious reasons once. Same with womens right to vote. Nobody is forcing a Jew to operate a bakery open to the public. But if he operates one, he can't discriminate on the basis of color, religion, sexual preference, politics, creed, or language.

It doesn't mean that he has to do a good job of designing that cake. It doesn't mean that he has to charge a reasonable price for it. Nazi cakes cost $1,500, OK? It just means that he can't turn them away because he disagrees with their politics.

red55, Mar 31, 2015

#24
gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

Joined:

Sep 29, 2011

Messages:

2,001

Likes Received:

717

The law is based on a federal law from 1993. Signed by Bill Clinton himself. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

If he was a democrat y'all wouldn't be saying shit. You would give him your full support most likely.

gyver, Mar 31, 2015

#25
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

uscvball said: ↑

"Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party. That’s the only way to explain the born-again opportunism of Hillary Clinton, who tweeted: “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc of who they love.”

By that standard, Mrs. Clinton discriminated against gays because she opposed gay marriage until March 2013. But now she wants to be seen as leading the new culture war against the intolerant right whose views she recently held.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality on March 18, 2013. That’s 46 days after she stepped down from a job that required her to stay out of domestic politics for four years. Clinton’s expressed support for domestic partnerships as far back as 1999--sixteen years ago. By 2006, as the junior senator from New York, Clinton supported civil unions and said, “I support states making the decision” when asked if she would oppose a law legalizing same-sex marriage in that state.

red55, Mar 31, 2015

#26
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

gyver said: ↑

The law is based on a federal law from 1993. Signed by Bill Clinton himself. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Click to expand...

That law prevents the government from forcing a citizen to violate his religious principles. This new state law permits citizens to discriminate against other citizens based on religious principles.

red55, Mar 31, 2015

#27
gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

Joined:

Sep 29, 2011

Messages:

2,001

Likes Received:

717

So?

red55 said: ↑

That law prevents the government from forcing a citizen to violate his religious principles. This new state law permits citizens to discriminate against other citizens based on religious principles.
Click to expand...

So?

gyver, Mar 31, 2015

#28
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

gyver said: ↑

So?

So?
Click to expand...

So . . . its not going to fly. Discrimination is illegal under federal law.

red55, Mar 31, 2015

#29
gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

Joined:

Sep 29, 2011

Messages:

2,001

Likes Received:

717

If I don't want to have dealings with a person or group of people based on my personal views and beliefs it's my right. To force me to would be a violation of my rights.

gyver, Mar 31, 2015

#30

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 3 of 16

Share This Page