Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[EduCat]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-26/mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill-and-the-indiana-boycott-begins

So in a nutshell it basically gives businesses the right to discriminate against whoever they'd like, based upon their religion.

I mean, the only thing I could equate this to is right-wing fringe that don't want to have to serve the muslims, gays, mexicans and blacks. LOL

Applicably, I couldn't care less about the law, what one business discriminates against, another will pick up. I can vision some actual segregation going on though. Slowly, at first, but gaining momentum with time.

Seems some businesses are pulling out of Indiana all together. lolz :thumbsup:

Sorry if this is a repost!

 

[Subyman]

I thought religion was a protected class federally?

 

[MongGrel]

Got me, I grew up there.

Things like this are why I left there, and have lived in California, Hawaii, and Florida for 30 years of my 54 years of living so far.

I still go back, rarely.

Florida actually even does it to some degree with the right to work thing to be honest, I was at one company that honestly had increased profits for about a year and got 3 raises in that time, but because I wasn't a loyal tea bagger which the companies were and were petty anti-Obama and even left money to see that movie against him and left religious crap all over the break room and you had to sign you received it, I was told one day "we no longer require your services" one morning after I had upgraded a lot of their machinery.

My wife had thrown most of it away at the time, I asked her wtf did you do that.

Would have made a great way to sue, it I had wanted to, the way they are deburring parts in that place using Beryllium Copper dust all over I could probably sic OSHA on em and have them shut down permanently if I were to be really vindictive about it.

 

[Hugo Drax]

They should allow one segregrated state in the US. ie: Indiana. where you can have these laws, whites only etc..

All like minded individuals can move into this state and live as they want. Then they can leave the rest of us alone in the rest of the 49 states.

 

[MongGrel]

Any right to work state can do that actually I believe.

It allows Union busting also.

Just to inform some people that are for that.

 

[Venix]

SB 101 is Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill introduced by Chuck Schumer, passed with 97 votes in the Senate, and signed by President Clinton in 1993. Much of SB 101's text is lifted from the federal law.

The merit of these laws is certainly debatable, at least by people who bother to educate themselves on the laws' real implications. Unfortunately, the media is more interested in outrage than education, so most involved in this "debate" are rather poorly informed. As always.

 

[Subyman]

Unfortunately, the media is more interested in outrage than education, so most involved in this "debate" are rather poorly informed.

*Raises hand*

 

[MongGrel]

SB 101 is Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill introduced by Chuck Schumer, passed with 97 votes in the Senate, and signed by President Clinton in 1993. Much of SB 101's text is lifted from the federal law.

The merit of these laws is certainly debatable, at least by people who bother to educate themselves on the laws' real implications. Unfortunately, the media is more interested in outrage than education, so most involved in this "debate" are rather poorly informed. As always.

Separation of religion and state was one of the foundations of the US constitution to begin with I believe.

 

[EduCat]

What are the real implications, Venix? Why would Indiana pass something identical to an existing federal law? Please educate us.

 

[MongGrel]

What are the real implications, Venix? Why would Indiana pass something identical to an existing federal law? Please educate us.

This.

 

[Venix]

What are the real implications, Venix? Why would Indiana pass something identical to an existing federal law? Please educate us.

Because the Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores that Congress lacks the power to enforce the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the states, so it now only applies to the federal government. States must pass their own versions of the law if they want to apply similar restrictions to state or local government conduct.

 

[thraashman]

I'm going to start a religion that says I can't pay taxes and that I have to hit elected Republicans in the face with a baseball bat then move to Indiana. Bet they'll start infringing on my religious freedom real quick.

 

[Venix]

I'm going to start a religion that says I can't pay taxes and that I have to hit elected Republicans in the face with a baseball bat then move to Indiana. Bet they'll start infringing on my religious freedom real quick.

I know this is supposed to be a joke, but it's still pretty clear that you haven't actually read the bill. Certain infringements on religious freedom are explicitly allowed:

"A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

This is the same text as the federal law, and the courts have already rejected anti-tax arguments raised under that law. Preventing battery is inarguably also a compelling governmental interest.

 

[Engineer]

NCAA considers pulling future Final Fours and offices from Indiana over this: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-s...igious-freedom--law-is-perfect-203433125.html

 

[IndyColtsFan]

NCAA considers pulling future Final Fours and offices from Indiana over this: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-s...igious-freedom--law-is-perfect-203433125.html

I believe the law was completely unnecessary and am mad that our politicians wasted even 5 minutes debating it. Venix has done a nice job of explaining the law, its technicalities, and its relationship with the nearly identical federal law signed by Clinton (those evil, discriminatory Democrats!). All kidding aside, many of us are suspicious of Governor Pence (or as I like to call him, Governor Dense) and his motives because he is a hardcore social conservative and he is nothing but a pandering opportunist.

About the NCAA -- Mark Emmert is a first-class moron and should worry about his own trainwreck of an organization (largely of his own creation, I might add) before tackling other issues.

 

[EduCat]

Because the Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores that Congress lacks the power to enforce the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the states, so it now only applies to the federal government. States must pass their own versions of the law if they want to apply similar restrictions to state or local government conduct.

From what I've read, it was struck down as it should have been, at least IMO. I am going to assume you are in favor of the bill, no? I'll be honest, I need to practice when it comes to reading bills. They are difficult for me to understand and sometimes I need to read it several times. Reading about that case, I took away that this RFRA was essentially a way for individuals/organizations to loophole around a law using religion as the excuse. (state laws as well as fed)

Basically a 'I can do this because....religion.' I dont know why, in 2015, IN lawmakers would decide to bring this back. Like I said though, I could be way off and admit that I'm a noob @ dissecting bill writer talk.

 

[EduCat]

Venix has done a nice job of explaining the law, its technicalities, and its relationship with the nearly identical federal law signed by Clinton (those evil, discriminatory Democrats!). .

Can you point out where he explained the law? It's been a long day.

 

[CitizenKain]

Basically a 'I can do this because....religion.' I dont know why, in 2015, IN lawmakers would decide to bring this back. Like I said though, I could be way off and admit that I'm a noob @ dissecting bill writer talk.

Its all about hatred.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Can you point out where he explained the law? It's been a long day.

Post #13 for starters. He also provided direct links to the language of both the Indiana bill and the federal version and you'll find most of the text is close, if not identical. He also explained why the federal law doesn't apply to states.

As to why Governor Dense and his legislative cohorts decided to pass this law in 2015, your guess is as good as any, but some feel they were infuriated when their attempts to ban gay marriage were thwarted and this is a veiled attempt by them to enact part of their agenda. I don't know if that's true or not, but this issue notwithstanding, I can tell you one thing -- Mike Pence is a moron and if one good thing comes out of this, it is the fact that it probably will doom his already remote chances of winning the White House.

 

[EduCat]

So my layman's terms style definition above is essentially the bill in a nutshell, no? That's what I am looking for.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's just so that business don't have to decorate cakes for gay weddings if they hate the gay. The law's only purpose is to allow the promotion of hate under the protection of religion. Another reason religion needs to be eradicated.

 

[Venix]

From what I've read, it was struck down as it should have been, at least IMO. I am going to assume you are in favor of the bill, no? I'll be honest, I need to practice when it comes to reading bills. They are difficult for me to understand and sometimes I need to read it several times. Reading about that case, I took away that this RFRA was essentially a way for individuals/organizations to loophole around a law using religion as the excuse. (state laws as well as fed)

Basically a 'I can do this because....religion.' I dont know why, in 2015, IN lawmakers would decide to bring this back. Like I said though, I could be way off and admit that I'm a noob @ dissecting bill writer talk.

I'm mostly indifferent. It's a fine law--the federal version was passed by near-unanimous vote and was uncontroversial until the Hobby Lobby case--but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason for Indiana to pass it now. I also don't live there, so I really don't care.

The law simply says that the courts must apply the strict scrutiny standard when determining whether a law violates religious freedom. That means that a law that impacts religious practices must have a compelling government interest, must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I like strict scrutiny and would be happy to see it applied to almost everything the government does.

The practical implication is that a city could pass a law disallowing businesses to discriminate against gay people, and a business owner could sue because he believes that law violates his religious freedom. A wedding cake decorator might even win the case. A grocery store owner almost certainly would not, since ensuring access to food is a compelling government interest. In reality, I doubt that the law will have any measurable effect at all, but I'm not a lawyer and could certainly be mistaken or misunderstanding some key difference between it and the federal statute*.

Anyway, what I do care about is how the media outlets conspire to spread blatant misinformation and construct a false narrative about almost every legal topic. There was no such thing as the "Twinkie Defense." Florida did not pass a "Warning Shot Law." "Stand Your Ground" was not invoked or even related to the George Zimmerman trial. Practically everything the media spews about legal issues is complete nonsense, and it's frustrating that they continue to get away with it.

* Edit: Just saw this letter from a group of law professors opposed to an earlier version of the bill. They bring up some interesting points about how Indiana courts currently interpret religious freedom, and how RFRA is a significant change from the status quo. Do note that their third point about language differences between the state and federal laws is no longer relevant; the final version of the bill uses the same language as federal law in the "compelling governmental interest" section.

 

[us3rnotfound]

I'm mostly indifferent. It's a fine law--the federal version was passed by near-unanimous vote and was uncontroversial until the Hobby Lobby case--but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason for Indiana to pass it now. I also don't live there, so I really don't care.

The law simply says that the courts must apply the strict scrutiny standard when determining whether a law violates religious freedom. That means that a law that impacts religious practices must have a compelling government interest, must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I like strict scrutiny and would be happy to see it applied to almost everything the government does.

The practical implication is that a city could pass a law disallowing businesses to discriminate against gay people, and a business owner could sue because he believes that law violates his religious freedom. A wedding cake decorator might even win the case. A grocery store owner almost certainly would not, since ensuring access to food is a compelling government interest. In reality, I doubt that the law will have any measurable effect at all, but I'm not a lawyer and could certainly be mistaken or misunderstanding some key difference between it and the federal statute.

Anyway, what I do care about is how the media outlets conspire to spread blatant misinformation and construct a false narrative about almost every legal topic. There was no such thing as the "Twinkie Defense." Florida did not pass a "Warning Shot Law." "Stand Your Ground" was not invoked or even related to the George Zimmerman trial. Practically everything the media spews about legal issues is complete nonsense, and it's frustrating that they continue to get away with it.

I guess without the fun short cuts their stories make, the average American would be bored getting information from the media.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm mostly indifferent. It's a fine law--the federal version was passed by near-unanimous vote and was uncontroversial until the Hobby Lobby case--but I'm not aware of any particularly compelling reason for Indiana to pass it now. I also don't live there, so I really don't care.

The law simply says that the courts must apply the strict scrutiny standard when determining whether a law violates religious freedom. That means that a law that impacts religious practices must have a compelling government interest, must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I like strict scrutiny and would be happy to see it applied to almost everything the government does.

The practical implication is that a city could pass a law disallowing businesses to discriminate against gay people, and a business owner could sue because he believes that law violates his religious freedom. A wedding cake decorator might even win the case. A grocery store owner almost certainly would not, since ensuring access to food is a compelling government interest. In reality, I doubt that the law will have any measurable effect at all, but I'm not a lawyer and could certainly be mistaken or misunderstanding some key difference between it and the federal statute*.

Anyway, what I do care about is how the media outlets conspire to spread blatant misinformation and construct a false narrative about almost every legal topic. There was no such thing as the "Twinkie Defense." Florida did not pass a "Warning Shot Law." "Stand Your Ground" was not invoked or even related to the George Zimmerman trial. Practically everything the media spews about legal issues is complete nonsense, and it's frustrating that they continue to get away with it.

* Edit: Just saw this letter from a group of law professors opposed to an earlier version of the bill. They bring up some interesting points about how Indiana courts currently interpret religious freedom, and how RFRA is a significant change from the status quo. Do note that their third point about language differences between the state and federal laws is no longer relevant; the final version of the bill uses the same language as federal law in the "compelling governmental interest" section.

Excellent post, thanks for clarifying and providing actual information rather than the usual politically correct left wing drivel the media will spew out and gullible idiots will regurgitate.

I don't live in Indiana so I don't know what drives their need to pass the law, but in light of some of the examples we've seen elsewhere of people getting their religious freedoms trampled on by political correctness, this kind of law appears to be necessary.

 

[EduCat]

All Venix did was back up my description, further proving why this bill is outrageous. Religious freedom getting trampled on by PC? lol gtfo.