Indiana's 'Religious Freedom Bill'

[VRAMdemon]

Watching some of these Gov. Pence interviews it doesn't seem like he's really for this bill as he should be. In one interview he seems to blame this on Obamacare (shocking!). In others,he doesn't mention things like this is what god wants or it's to help Christianity. Instead, he just dodges the question all the time, like he doesn't really have an answer. Yet, when asked about equal rights for LGBT in Indiana, he clearly says it's not on his agenda.

It's almost like he knows that he has to be for civil rights if he want to be president, but against them if he wants to be nominated. The overall impression I am getting is not one of a person who thinks of himself as a servant of the voters, charged with making Indiana a better place. The impression I am getting is of a man who is IN CHARGE, dammit, and whose first impulse upon getting busted is to double down, regardless of the wisdom of signing this law. He's a pol who wants to be liked, or at least simply not hated, by most of his electorate, and possibly a national one too. He knows he needs to straddle some rails to do that. But he just isn't very good at it.

 

[werepossum]

"Right to equality" is vague, and thus problematic. In balancing these rights, you'd almost have to go on a case by case basis. I'm not necessarily sure the right to a gay wedding cake is such a fundamental right that the law needs to protect it. [I'm assuming here that bakeries seeking the 'religion' exemption would otherwise serve gay customers' other baked good needs - birthday cakes and what have you.] The baker's refusal to make a wedding cake has no effect whatsoever on a gay couple's right to marry or otherwise take their business elsewhere.

*Just to be clear, if I owned a small business (I don't), I'd have no problems having gay customers. But that's beside the point - as Alan Dershowitz used to say, if you're going to defend a specific freedom, you have to defend it in all forms.

A case by case basis sounds suspiciously like rule by man, where an identical action can be legal during one administration yet illegal under the next, even though no law changed. I dislike that greatly. In principle I think we should all be under the exact same laws. I can bend a bit, as per the federal law and those in that vane that restrict government in favor of minorities. But when we protect religious freedom to the extent that we sanction disenfranchising some people, even acknowledging that they can be served elsewhere, I think that's a giant step back. Equal protection should mean just that, and if increasing one person's right to religious freedom begins decreasing another person's equality, then we've gone too far.

Pence is also the one who decided to cut $2.5 million from the Indiana State Library, which basically would eliminate the genealogical archive section. Meanwhile, he has $55 MILLION allocated to Indiana's bicentennial celebration. WTF

WTF indeed. I've never been a fan of exorbitant celebrations. The justification is that it brings more economic activity to the area, but seems to me that is seldom the case.

To be fair the law also wasn't passed on the grounds that it is purposely to be used to refuse service. There is concern that given past incidents that it will be used for that reason.

The initial reasoning for these laws was to ensure no government encroachment on the free exercise of religion. Had nothing to do with allow people to refuse anything.

True, and that's arguably a good thing. If a Blackfoot needs to smoke peyote for his religious ceremony, no one else is harmed. (Unless they amend their ceremony to include driving through downtown in search if their animal spirit guide.) If that is extended to allow someone to not serve another person based on his religious beliefs, now we have conflicting rights.

 

[finglobes]

Indiana's bill doesn't even mention homosexuals. Now states like CT are banning travel to Indiana when they have same basic law (that doesn't specify homosexuals)



Connecticut General Statutes section 52-571b
(current as of 2001)

Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion.

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.

(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term "granting" does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "state or any political subdivision of the state" includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

 

[zinfamous]

Indiana's bill doesn't even mention homosexuals. Now states like CT are banning travel to Indiana when they have same basic law (that doesn't specify homosexuals)



Connecticut General Statutes section 52-571b
(current as of 2001)

Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion.

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
.....

You strike me as someone who doesn't read a lot.

 

[Blackjack200]

Indiana's bill doesn't even mention homosexuals. Now states like CT are banning travel to Indiana when they have same basic law (that doesn't specify homosexuals)



Connecticut General Statutes section 52-571b
(current as of 2001)

Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion.

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.

(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term "granting" does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "state or any political subdivision of the state" includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Nobody has banned travel to Indiana you liar.

http://appealinglybrief.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-is-not-indiana/

 

[MongGrel]

To be fair the law also wasn't passed on the grounds that it is purposely to be used to refuse service. There is concern that given past incidents that it will be used for that reason.

The initial reasoning for these laws was to ensure no government encroachment on the free exercise of religion. Had nothing to do with allow people to refuse anything.

Hardly, religious freedom is all ready covered in the Bill of Rights to begin with.

 

[MongGrel]

Nobody has banned travel to Indiana you liar.

http://appealinglybrief.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-is-not-indiana/

Some states have started banning politically oriented business trips to it, that, are paid out of their state coffers, more or less from what I had seen.

Sure if you want to pay for it yourself go for it in that case I guess.

 

[DrDoug]

Nobody has banned travel to Indiana you liar.

http://appealinglybrief.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-is-not-indiana/

Actually...

Excellent decision!

 

[sportage]

Indiana's bill doesn't even mention homosexuals. Now states like CT are banning travel to Indiana when they have same basic law (that doesn't specify homosexuals)

WOW. Someone else repeating republican talking points.
That's a first. Ya think?

First of all, CT already had a specific law giving specific protections for sexual orientation.
Indiana DOES NOT.
And...
A similar non-discrimination measure was introduced along with this Indiana bill, but was shot down by Indiana republicans.

And CT's law is basically the very same as the US Constitution, where it gives the right to "freedom of religion".
Which means people are free to worship the religion and God of choice. Even Satan. Oooooh!
Also, CT freedom of religion law was passed AFTER their sexual orientation protections law passed.
Quite different from this turkey passed and the process from Indiana.

So it was quite clear exactly what CT intentions were.
And it is also quite clear exactly what Indiana legislators intention was.
Both the different of night and day.

And when the Indiana governor signed the law, he was flanked by the most anti-Gay homophobic folks available.
With one standing right behind the governor for the signing, that earlier specifically stated this law would protect any business that chose to refuse service to Gays and Lesbians.
And another fellow standing behind the governor, that compared homosexually to bestiality.

Quite clear the targeted bigotry that this Indiana passed bill intended, plain and simple.

 

[cubby1223]

I just don't get "the left".

(1) Do I believe this bill is enabling businesses to openly discrimination? No.
(2) Do I believe a business who does discriminate will be given a pass by Indiana gov't? No.

If the second happens and the state gives them a pass, I'll join in the outrage. Until then, I just cannot muster a care.

 

[DrPizza]

NY's hated governor, Andrew Cuomo, has banned all non-essential official travel to Indiana. http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/poli...ans-non-essential-travel-to-indiana/70733346/

"Now that Andrew Cuomo has banned travel to Indiana, he can cancel his upcoming trip to Cuba, where gay marriage is illegal, political dissidents are imprisoned and tortured, and the Castro regime is on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list," Cox said in a statement. "Or he can admit that both moves are political stunts meant to bolster his national profile with no grounding in reality or substance."

It would suck a lot less in NY if he'd stop this posturing and try doing what's best for the state once in a while.

 

[werepossum]

I just don't get "the left".

(1) Do I believe this bill is enabling businesses to openly discrimination? No.
(2) Do I believe a business who does discriminate will be given a pass by Indiana gov't? No.

If the second happens and the state gives them a pass, I'll join in the outrage. Until then, I just cannot muster a care.

If not allowing businesses to openly discriminate, what is its point? Why not mirror the federal law's text like other states?

NY's hated governor, Andrew Cuomo, has banned all non-essential official travel to Indiana. http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/poli...ans-non-essential-travel-to-indiana/70733346/

It would suck a lot less in NY if he'd stop this posturing and try doing what's best for the state once in a while.

That will happen just as soon as what's best for the state aligns with what's best for Andrew Cuomo. Wait for it . . .

 

[HomerJS]

I just don't get "the left".

(1) Do I believe this bill is enabling businesses to openly discrimination? No.
(2) Do I believe a business who does discriminate will be given a pass by Indiana gov't? No.

If the second happens and the state gives them a pass, I'll join in the outrage. Until then, I just cannot muster a care.

Then include gays in the protected class under Indiana civil rights laws. Problem solved, but Pence refused.

Because that is exactly what this law is about.

 

[nyker96]

I just don't get "the left".

(1) Do I believe this bill is enabling businesses to openly discrimination? No.
(2) Do I believe a business who does discriminate will be given a pass by Indiana gov't? No.

If the second happens and the state gives them a pass, I'll join in the outrage. Until then, I just cannot muster a care.

I don't know about a left v right issue here. but the problem is all the parties that sponsored this bill, and lobbyist who helped to write the bill, the ones standing behind Pence when he signed it have all represent organizations who have made strong anti-gay/lesbian statements. Why do you think they want to pass this bill for? why do you think they push this bill so hard right after the supreme court recognized same sex marriage?

just look at the timing, the groups supporting it, you can figure this out for yourself why it's came up now, this urgency. Is it just to ensure religious freedom like the name says?

I think we should care, as Americans, as humans beings, esp. on something this important. No matter how we sugar coat the result, if we denegrade other human beings using every oz of power in our hands, what does that make us? is this a blue print of a society that we want to live in?

 

[fskimospy]

NY's hated governor, Andrew Cuomo, has banned all non-essential official travel to Indiana. http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/poli...ans-non-essential-travel-to-indiana/70733346/

It would suck a lot less in NY if he'd stop this posturing and try doing what's best for the state once in a while.

He has a 50% approval rating?

 

[Blackjack200]

NY's hated governor, Andrew Cuomo, has banned all non-essential official travel to Indiana. http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/poli...ans-non-essential-travel-to-indiana/70733346/

"Now that Andrew Cuomo has banned travel to Indiana, he can cancel his upcoming trip to Cuba, where gay marriage is illegal, political dissidents are imprisoned and tortured, and the Castro regime is on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list," Cox said in a statement. "Or he can admit that both moves are political stunts meant to bolster his national profile with no grounding in reality or substance."

It would suck a lot less in NY if he'd stop this posturing and try doing what's best for the state once in a while.

It's good that Mr. Cox compares the government of Indiana to the government of Cuba, which has an even more pronounced problem with civil rights. I disagree with Mr. Cox, I don't think Indiana is quite so bad, but they would do well to consider the direction they're moving in.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I just don't get "the left".

(1) Do I believe this bill is enabling businesses to openly discrimination? No.
(2) Do I believe a business who does discriminate will be given a pass by Indiana gov't? No.

If the second happens and the state gives them a pass, I'll join in the outrage. Until then, I just cannot muster a care.

All the focus has been on LGBT, but as far as I know, the bill could allow people to discriminate in a variety of other ways in the name of religion, the popular example being Christians or Jews refusing to serve Muslims (or Hindus, Buddists, etc). Do I think it will happen? No. Do I even think refusal of service against LGBT people would happen? Probably not, or at least to the degree it is being portrayed in the media. However, the fact that the law can be interpreted that way is a HUGE problem IMO.

Of course, I also live in the Indianapolis metro area, which is fairly diverse and tolerant. I may be wrong and there may be huge pockets of people in rural areas of the state who would abuse this law and deny services to gays, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or to whomever their "religion" or prejudices dictate.

EDIT: This is a pretty good piece about Pence:
http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...01/tully-mike-pence-league-governor/70746540/

My favorite quote:

A few months later, Pence became a national punchline when word leaked that he was attempting to create his own government-run news service. While it has become abundantly clear why he needs such a propaganda machine, the taxpayer-funded effort enraged both the left and the right and was soon spiked.

Sigh, maybe Mitch Daniels or Evan Bayh will run again in 2016.

 

[FerrelGeek]

My view? Someone doesn't want my business, fine; I'll go to a place that does and not scream and cry about it. I'm secure enough in who I am that I don't need to garner national attention for self validation. I would never ask someone to violate their convictions to pander to me.

And btw, I have been the recipient of prejudice and discrimination - to the extent of violence. And I'm NOT talking about the 'I don't like conservative white males' kind that I'm sure some of you are thinking that's what I'm referring to.

 

[umbrella39]

 

[Jimzz]

All the focus has been on LGBT, but as far as I know, the bill could allow people to discriminate in a variety of other ways in the name of religion, the popular example being Christians or Jews refusing to serve Muslims (or Hindus, Buddists, etc). Do I think it will happen? No. Do I even think refusal of service against LGBT people would happen? Probably not, or at least to the degree it is being portrayed in the media. However, the fact that the law can be interpreted that way is a HUGE problem IMO.

Of course, I also live in the Indianapolis metro area, which is fairly diverse and tolerant. I may be wrong and there may be huge pockets of people in rural areas of the state who would abuse this law and deny services to gays, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or to whomever their "religion" or prejudices dictate.

EDIT: This is a pretty good piece about Pence:
http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...01/tully-mike-pence-league-governor/70746540/

My favorite quote:



Sigh, maybe Mitch Daniels or Evan Bayh will run again in 2016.

Not really. Religion is one of the federal protected classes. This bill is pretty much a full on anti-gay bill as the Fed Gov and Indiana do not have LGBT as one of its protected classes.

 

[Blackjack200]

Not really. Religion is one of the federal protected classes. This bill is pretty much a full on anti-gay bill as the Fed Gov and Indiana do not have LGBT as one of its protected classes.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

As others have pointed out, I think it could allow businesses to require that women weark burkas or cover themselves.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Not really. Religion is one of the federal protected classes. This bill is pretty much a full on anti-gay bill as the Fed Gov and Indiana do not have LGBT as one of its protected classes.

Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that the law could possibly allow a Christian to refuse services to a Muslim, but apparently not.

 

[JD50]

My view? Someone doesn't want my business, fine; I'll go to a place that does and not scream and cry about it. I'm secure enough in who I am that I don't need to garner national attention for self validation. I would never ask someone to violate their convictions to pander to me.

And btw, I have been the recipient of prejudice and discrimination - to the extent of violence. And I'm NOT talking about the 'I don't like conservative white males' kind that I'm sure some of you are thinking that's what I'm referring to.

This has already been addressed multiple times. Why do people jump into a thread without actually reading it?

 

[dawheat]

My view? Someone doesn't want my business, fine; I'll go to a place that does and not scream and cry about it. I'm secure enough in who I am that I don't need to garner national attention for self validation. I would never ask someone to violate their convictions to pander to me.

And btw, I have been the recipient of prejudice and discrimination - to the extent of violence. And I'm NOT talking about the 'I don't like conservative white males' kind that I'm sure some of you are thinking that's what I'm referring to.

I think we all should want our country, the greatest country in the world, to be better than this. Principles matter, even when no one is hurt.

 

[realibrad]

I think we all should want our country, the greatest country in the world, to be better than this. Principles matter, even when no one is hurt.

If you goal is to improve this country, then you need to ask yourself why there are rules, and how they actually work out.

If your goal is to end discrimination, will telling people they cant for x reason but not y really do much?

Look at chick fil a. The head of the company does not like gay people. Do you think that the company sells to gay people because they have to, or because they want to make money?