Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[OutHouse]

hell must have frozen over. there is pro-religion thread other than Islam in P&N.

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is needed - because those who discriminate are being discriminated against for not being allowed to discriminate.

Remember, in the conservative mind, THEY are the ones who are being assaulted, not the person they are actually assaulting.

 

[Engineer]

Big 10 conference considering pulling events from Indiana: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/3/27/8302393/indiana-law-big-ten-college-sports-ncaa

 

[Venix]

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

Not exactly. You described one potential ramification of the law and declared the entire law to be "outrageous" based solely on that. That's not a rational or objective way to judge a law, as practically any law will have at least some undesirable consequences.

For example, the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of due process and the presumption of innocence are inarguably responsible for allowing some criminals to avoid punishment. Should the Bill of Rights be deemed "outrageous" because it sometimes allows murderers and child rapists to escape justice? Or should we consider all its implications--good and bad--when judging its merit?

Again, what the law actually says is that the courts must apply strict scrutiny when deciding whether a law illegally burdens a person's exercise of religion. That's a fundamental change to the way Indiana's judicial system works, and I think it demands a considerably deeper analysis than simply identifying a few potential problems and rejecting it. Or worse, claiming that those problems are the sole effect of the law, as much of the media has done.

 

[EduCat]

Not exactly. You described one potential ramification of the law and declared the entire law to be "outrageous" based solely on that. That's not a rational or objective way to judge a law, as practically any law will have at least some undesirable consequences.

For example, the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of due process and the presumption of innocence are inarguably responsible for allowing some criminals to avoid punishment. Should the Bill of Rights be deemed "outrageous" because it sometimes allows murderers and child rapists to escape justice? Or should we consider all its implications--good and bad--when judging its merit?

So what are the positive parts of the bill, in your opinion? What are some of the other potential ramifications?

 

[Venix]

So what are the positive parts of the bill, in your opinion? What are some of the other potential ramifications?

Here's an example from Pennsylvania. Philadelphia passed a law that banned the feeding of homeless people in parks, a restriction that effectively destroyed a Christian charity's homeless outreach program. The charity sued under Pennsylvania's RFRA, and the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Philadelphia from enforcing the law against the charity.

In Florida, the ACLU used that state's RFRA to fight for a Muslim woman's right to not remove her niqab for a driver license photo.

Whether those cases are positive is a matter of opinion, but I think they demonstrate that state RFRA laws have implications far beyond cake shops not baking gay wedding cakes.

 

[werepossum]

hell must have frozen over. there is pro-religion thread other than Islam in P&N.

Lol

Not exactly. You described one potential ramification of the law and declared the entire law to be "outrageous" based solely on that. That's not a rational or objective way to judge a law, as practically any law will have at least some undesirable consequences.

For example, the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of due process and the presumption of innocence are inarguably responsible for allowing some criminals to avoid punishment. Should the Bill of Rights be deemed "outrageous" because it sometimes allows murderers and child rapists to escape justice? Or should we consider all its implications--good and bad--when judging its merit?

Again, what the law actually says is that the courts must apply strict scrutiny when deciding whether a law illegally burdens a person's exercise of religion. That's a fundamental change to the way Indiana's judicial system works, and I think it demands a considerably deeper analysis than simply identifying a few potential problems and rejecting it. Or worse, claiming that those problems are the sole effect of the law, as much of the media has done.

Well said.

 

[Phokus]

Indiana just fucked itself economically.

Salesforce and a bunch of other tech companies are reducing investment/pulling out of Indiana over the bill:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/

"As leaders of technology companies, we not only disagree with this legislation on a personal level, but the RFRA will adversely impact our ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest talent in the technology sector," the letter reads. "Technology professionals are by their nature very progressive, and backward-looking legislation such as the RFRA will make the state of Indiana a less appealing place to live and work."

The bill might affect Indy hosting the NFL combine every year (8 million dollars of local economic benefit a year):

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...freedom-rfra-nfl-indianapolis-colts/70543984/

It might also affect future NCAA events held in Indiana:

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...mark-emmert-final-four-indianapolis/70490096/

Good job conservatives. Even Jan Brewer vetoe'd Arizona's 'religious freedom bill' when the NFL even started TALKING about changing the superbowl location from arizona to somewhere else. She was smart enough to know that, however much her social consevative voters wanted that bill, her entire constituency would destroy her if business fled the state over such stupid bigotry.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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!

Conservatives pandering to their contributor's asshole agenda again?

 

[HomerJS]

Imagine the right wing media outrage let's say if the CEO of McDonalds was Muslim and enacted a rule any female who enters our restaurants must wear headscarves.

This has nothing to do with religious freedom, its about hating gay people.

BTW - For all of you who still thing is a freedom argument show me text from any religion that says something like...

"thou shalt not serve gay people"

If you can find it I'm on board.

 

[Phokus]

Indiana just fucked itself economically.

Salesforce and a bunch of other tech companies are reducing investment/pulling out of Indiana over the bill:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/



The bill might affect Indy hosting the NFL combine every year (8 million dollars of local economic benefit a year):

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...freedom-rfra-nfl-indianapolis-colts/70543984/

It might also affect future NCAA events held in Indiana:

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...mark-emmert-final-four-indianapolis/70490096/

Good job conservatives. Even Jan Brewer vetoe'd Arizona's 'religious freedom bill' when the NFL even started TALKING about changing the superbowl location from arizona to somewhere else. She was smart enough to know that, however much her social consevative voters wanted that bill, her entire constituency would destroy her if business fled the state over such stupid bigotry.

Angie's List is cancelling it's planned $40 million headquarters expansion in Indiana, which would have created another 1000 jobs over this.

http://www.indystar.com/story/money...t-canceling-eastside-expansion-rfra/70590738/

Good job religious conservatives.

 

[ivwshane]

If there is anything positive to be taken from this it is that people as well as businesses are willing to step up to the plate and show their disgust with laws like this by taking their business elsewhere.

I just wish people and businesses did this more often then when things negatively target gay people.

Indiana just fucked itself economically.

Salesforce and a bunch of other tech companies are reducing investment/pulling out of Indiana over the bill:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/



The bill might affect Indy hosting the NFL combine every year (8 million dollars of local economic benefit a year):

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...freedom-rfra-nfl-indianapolis-colts/70543984/

It might also affect future NCAA events held in Indiana:

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...mark-emmert-final-four-indianapolis/70490096/

Good job conservatives. Even Jan Brewer vetoe'd Arizona's 'religious freedom bill' when the NFL even started TALKING about changing the superbowl location from arizona to somewhere else. She was smart enough to know that, however much her social consevative voters wanted that bill, her entire constituency would destroy her if business fled the state over such stupid bigotry.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Seems the backlash may be working.

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“I support religious liberty, and I support this law,” Pence said in an exclusive interview. “But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there’s a way to clarify the intent of the law.”

http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...clarification-religious-freedom-law/70611906/

Could have done that all along but apparently the reality of the ramifications needed to sink in.

 

[ivwshane]

Exactly what needs to be clarified?

 

[sportage]

After watching news coverage of the protest Saturday in Indiana, I had a bit of a change of heart. Not that anyone cares.
But now I really feel sorry for those people that feel they need legal protections from anyone they find distasteful.
This thing in Indiana and other similar states isn't really the problem of any minority, nothing is wrong with being Gay or Black or Jewish or Muslim. And any person within a minority should never feel second class, because they are not.

Nothing has changed with any of the minorities in question, or that have been targeted by this bill passed by Indiana.
What has actually changed is within the heart of the so called religious God fearing poor fools that can no longer cope with modern society as it is.
And that is not only sad, but their problem only, not the problem of any minority man or woman.

Fast forward, in the end, the Jewish, Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, they all will be just fine. But those that feel they have some God given religious right or obligation to treat others as they feel they must, those misguided lost souls will in the end suffer from their own hate.

Those religious freedom fighters believe Gays, for instance, are second classed citizens and despised by the teachings of God.
Actually, it is the other way around.
What they do against others, in his name, is what their God would truly despise.
Not following the "word". Not to judge. Not to hate. Loving thy neighbor. Forgiveness.
I suspect most of these self appointed biblical justices will one day realize their lost, sadness, loneliness, and misguided works.
And if anyone is to be harshly judged by biblical scripture, it will be those that hate and those that judge others.

The Gays? They will be just fine.

Politics and religion never mix.
Believing in the mixing of the two, is like dancing with the devil.
And remember the bible and what it predicts.
There will be many believers that are misguided by not only false prophets, but misguided by worshiping false idols.
And the mixing of politics with religion? The perfect example of an false idol.

Let them have their little freedom of religion bill(s).
Let all the states pass such laws.
The only thing that proves is they have no idea of the true biblical teachings.
And while they might feel they are on the side of God, they are anything but.
They are indeed sad, lost, confused, misguided souls.
And God help them.
As for the Gays? The minorities?
They will be just fine.
They have not lost their way.
It is those that believe in passing such laws against others, that have lost their way.

 

[boomerang]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

 

[K1052]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

Given the row that the (eventually vetoed) law caused in Arizona last year I don't think the government in Indiana could have been totally taken unawares of what could happen in the court of public opinion.

Also, Illinois has law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that supersedes the religious freedom law.

Presumably when the SCOTUS is kind enough to knock down the objections of the last states holding out on gay marriage attention will turn to state and federal non-discrimination legislation efforts.

 

[trenchfoot]

Bah, just more drama from uneducated useful idiots.

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

I fully agree that those 19 other states are full of uneducated "useful" idiots.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans stepped in it. Local job creators aren't happy. But that's what you get for supporting a bunch of bigots because they dangled a tax cut in front of your face.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/pol...t-to-clarify-religious-objections-6165977.php

Pence did not answer directly when asked at least six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers.

Does he not know or is he ashamed to say what a bill he just signed would do? Which is worse?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Why do people think their religious freedom means anything more than to have thoughts and speak them out loud? It doesn't give you special privileges not afforded to those who disagree with you.

I wonder who got the contract to make all those "christians only!" signs for the businesses.

 

[Jimzz]

Look what happened when the GOP in Georgia tried to 'clarify' that their religious freedom measure was non-descriminatory:

During a Georgia House Judiciary Committee debate over the state’s new religious freedom bill, Rep. Mike Jacobs—a Republican!—called anti-gay legislators’ bluff. Jacobs proposed a simple amendment to the legislation clarifying that it must not be interpreted to legalize discrimination. Conservative representatives cried foul, asserting that an anti-discrimination amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill. When the amendment narrowly passed, conservatives quickly tabled the bill, postponing its consideration indefinitely. A religious freedom measure with an anti-discrimination provision, they decided, was not a real religious freedom measure at all.

​

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...ous_liberty_bill_is_about_discrimination.html

 

[Genx87]

Mark Emmert and Jim Delany are on their soapboxes about this law? I find that pretty amusing given their attitude toward stealing billions in wealth from the athletes they over see.

 

[soulcougher73]

Friend posted this one facebook about this issue and im pretty much in agreement with him and i think im starting to come around to this side of thinking on these types of issues.

"I want to offer a different take on the situation with Indiana's new attempt to make discrimination legal on religious grounds. I believe a private business owner has the right to hire who they want, and serve who they please. I believe a landlord has the right to determine who should be able to stay in their rental property. To me it doesn't matter if you discriminate based on religious grounds or just personal preference. Here is why I believe we should actually welcome this to be legally practiced.

First, it is a part if our freedom that is important but at the same time difficult for some to accept. We shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the freedom based on our own personal beliefs. If you are offended by something, it really doesn't matter. People's hurt feelings shouldn't be grounds for legislation to the contrary. I don't like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or a lot of other mindset that some people have in this country, but I believe they have the right to feel that way and practice that in their daily lives if they wish.

Now for why I feel this way. I want to know who the bigots are. I want to know who the racists are. I want to know who the homophobes and sexists are. I don't want them hiding behind a fake smile. I don't want them to be forced to hire someone based on a quota or fear of litigation. I don't want them forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I want them to be open and honest about who they are. This way I can spot exactly the people who I never want to give a single fucking penny to. I don't want to support their business or livelihood. I want their business to fail miserably because of their disgusting practices of discrimination. Because let me tell you something, if I found out that the owner of the local health food store refuses to serve blacks or gays, guess who will never get any of my money? You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

 

[Sunburn74]

You don't improve race relations by mandating that racists play along. You shame them and make it difficult for them to succeed by making the public aware of their practices."

I think its a nice thought but it wouldn't work. It gives too much credit to people in general.

People have too short memories, too much to do to, not enough time to research about every little place, and a general callousness for things that don't personally involve them. A few people would be turned off, but most people wouldn't care. Think for example with Hobby Lobby and their refusal to provide birth control. Or Chick fila and their continued support of anti-gay marriage legislation. Or papa johns in the same. All said companies have made their discriminatory views very clear and are thriving.

All these companies do just well because most people just don't care enough and most of the views of these bigots share something in part with the generally accepted views of most people (ie most christians really don't want to see gay marriage, but most of them aren't actively campaigning against it and would tolerate it if it arrived. Thats only a step or two away from the bigot who actively campaigns against it). There's a reason you need legislation to protect the rights of the minorities. Its because they are minorities and will not get the protections they need from the majorities by defacto.