login
Religious freedom in Indiana (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2015-03-30 2:38 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
 Deep in the Heart of Texas |  Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
|
| 2015-03-30 3:14 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro  9391    Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by chirunner134 I been thinking a lot about freedom. not sure if there is any freedom that does not restrict someone else's freedom at least in the broadest of sense. Is there anything the law does other than trying to discriminate? My friend post this on her FB page. "Does that religious freedom law in Indiana mean business can refuse to serve anyone wearing a cross? Its now religious freedom to refuse service to someone you are morally opposed to." If you can do it then it would be an interesting side effect of the law. Then again I have Christian friends that welcome it because they are always looking to fight a holy war and always trying to find a way to be a martyr. . I think people just like to be outraged against anything that has "religion" in the title. I mean, it has to be bad right. |
| 2015-03-30 5:28 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by chirunner134 I been thinking a lot about freedom. not sure if there is any freedom that does not restrict someone else's freedom at least in the broadest of sense. Is there anything the law does other than trying to discriminate? My friend post this on her FB page. "Does that religious freedom law in Indiana mean business can refuse to serve anyone wearing a cross? Its now religious freedom to refuse service to someone you are morally opposed to." If you can do it then it would be an interesting side effect of the law. Then again I have Christian friends that welcome it because they are always looking to fight a holy war and always trying to find a way to be a martyr. . I think people just like to be outraged against anything that has "religion" in the title. I mean, it has to be bad right. Unfortunately.......mostly. |
| 2015-03-31 1:37 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Hook'em
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from. |
| 2015-03-31 4:13 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from. Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. |
| 2015-03-31 6:52 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from. Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-03-31 6:54 PM |
| 2015-04-01 8:17 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em Yeah, but that's where I feel that so much of the hypocrisy enters into this, as it relates specifcally to gays. If you, the wedding cake baker are so devoutly Christian and therefore so opposed to homosexuality that you can't bring yourself to bake a cake for a gay couple, shouldn't you, then, feel just as strongly about not baking a cake for a Bar Mitzvah, since Jews reject Christ as their savior? Or what about the woman who wants a cake for a baby shower but isn't wearing a wedding ring? Or the woman who's having a party to celebrate her divorce? If I believed for a minute that all of these so-called-Christian business owners were just as defiant about not serving people who act contrary to Christian teachings in ways other than being gay, I'd probably lean more towards being accepting of it. But I don't think that this is really about religious freedom at all-- it's about "I don't like gay people, and I don't want 'em in my place." Actual Bill Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) 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. So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton. As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds. Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution. This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays. Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so. If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled. I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises. I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry. Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.
I think you're right.....and you, and me, and everyone who doesn't agree with their position should stay the hell out of their cake store. The strategy seems to be working. Sounds like a lot of people are deciding to stay the hell out of the cake store that is the State of Indiana. The Governor is also requesting that the law be revised. Depending on whom you believe, he was either misinformed or misunderstood the law as it was explained to him and he never intended for it to be used to justify discrimination, or he's buckling under the firestorm of controversy and bad publicity that the law has caused. Or, more specifically, he's reacting to the potential loss of revenue that the boycots are likely to cause the state. |
| 2015-04-01 9:23 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from. Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. . |
| 2015-04-01 5:51 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from. Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. |
| 2015-04-02 9:08 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? |
| 2015-04-02 1:48 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. |
| 2015-04-02 8:04 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ |
| 2015-04-03 9:56 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana After reading through this thread, I found this news clip and thought it was interesting.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hidden-camera-trying-buy-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakeries
After seeing this I had to look up to see who this guy was and I found it interesting and he is nothing like I thought he was.
|
| 2015-04-03 5:16 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ tuwood + ChineseDemocracy + 2 extra large pairs of sequined yoga pants emblazoned with the phrase "JUICY" on the buttocks = Barriers Broken!!! We can be the agents of change Tony!  |
| 2015-04-03 5:35 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by tuwood tuwood + ChineseDemocracy + 2 extra large pairs of sequined yoga pants emblazoned with the phrase "JUICY" on the buttocks = Barriers Broken!!! We can be the agents of change Tony! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ I'm in! The worse part, is there's probably only one locker room, but because I love you and want to protect you CD I will go in first. |
| 2015-04-03 5:45 PM in reply to: jford2309 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jford2309 After reading through this thread, I found this news clip and thought it was interesting.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hidden-camera-trying-buy-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakeries
After seeing this I had to look up to see who this guy was and I found it interesting and he is nothing like I thought he was.
I was reading some of the comments on that link and thought this one was a little interesting. If a Christian went into a gay bakery and demanded they make a cake with Leviticus 18:22, " You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" written on it, do you believe, as I do, that the homosexual baker should have every right under the law to refuse to make that cake if they don't want to?? I honestly have no issues whatsoever with a gay baker refusing to make that cake in this case, but I don't have a problem with a christian baker refusing to make a cake for anyone either as long as they don't violate the law. I think they're misguided singling out one form of sin, but I still feel they have the right to do it. I think I used the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" example earlier but businesses do have the right to refuse service in just about any way they want as long as it doesn't violate the individuals rights. So, refusing to serve somebody because they are a minority, old, or disabled is absolutely off limits, but who they shack up with (right or wrong) hasn't been elevated to that status yet. |
| 2015-04-03 6:22 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Hook'em ... I don't think a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker should be compelled to provide service to gays, Jews, or unwed mothers - no hypocrisy here. Whoa! Being gay isn't a choice. You know what IS a choice? Your religious beliefs. If your religion teaches you to treat others as evil, sub-human or otherwise not deserving of your respect... perhaps it's time to find a new religion. |
| 2015-04-03 6:55 PM in reply to: morey000 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana I still say the answer is not patronizing a business like that. It's been my experience that laws are pretty useless in stopping asinine behavior.......watching your business fail is a good reason to stop being an idiot. I'm afraid most of us will give up our convictions in order to serve our convenience.....so we try to make laws to make people behave the way we want. They won't. |
| 2015-04-03 7:42 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by Left Brain I still say the answer is not patronizing a business like that. It's been my experience that laws are pretty useless in stopping asinine behavior.......watching your business fail is a good reason to stop being an idiot. I'm afraid most of us will give up our convictions in order to serve our convenience.....so we try to make laws to make people behave the way we want. They won't.
That is, in effect, exactly what has happened. A whole slew of companies announced to Indiana that they would stop doing business there. Pence caved, and the law was changed. This works well if you are creating laws that the majority or otherwise powerful/monied constituency doesn't like. However, when it's an underprivileged minority being discriminated against- this tact doesn't work so well. you need a bill of rights and a constitution to protect them. Sadly, we've been through this in the US. |
| 2015-04-03 7:51 PM in reply to: morey000 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by morey000 Originally posted by Left Brain I still say the answer is not patronizing a business like that. It's been my experience that laws are pretty useless in stopping asinine behavior.......watching your business fail is a good reason to stop being an idiot. I'm afraid most of us will give up our convictions in order to serve our convenience.....so we try to make laws to make people behave the way we want. They won't.
That is, in effect, exactly what has happened. A whole slew of companies announced to Indiana that they would stop doing business there. Pence caved, and the law was changed. This works well if you are creating laws that the majority or otherwise powerful/monied constituency doesn't like. However, when it's an underprivileged minority being discriminated against- this tact doesn't work so well. you need a bill of rights and a constitution to protect them. Sadly, we've been through this in the US. Sort of.......but we've still given up much of our personal responsibility.....sometimes happily. But yeah, the end justifies it in this case.
|
| 2015-04-04 2:19 PM in reply to: jford2309 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jford2309 After reading through this thread, I found this news clip and thought it was interesting.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hidden-camera-trying-buy-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakeries
After seeing this I had to look up to see who this guy was and I found it interesting and he is nothing like I thought he was.
Oh, whew. I was afraid we'd get all the way through this thread without the "See!? Minorities can be bigots too!!" argument. |
| 2015-04-04 2:37 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ Where would affluent Christian white guys be without guys like you to stick up for them? Fight the power, brother Tony!  |
| 2015-04-06 8:04 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Where would affluent Christian white guys be without guys like you to stick up for them? Fight the power, brother Tony! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ I believe I was just correctly pointing out the error of your statement. |
| 2015-04-06 11:58 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Where would affluent Christian white guys be without guys like you to stick up for them? Fight the power, brother Tony! Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Hook'em We already had this conversation in this country fifty years ago. You don't get to choose who sits at your lunch counter or drinks from your water fountains. Even if it's your name on the awning. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Jackemy1 Nevertheless, many people have claimed that this Indiana law is exactly the same as the one championed by Schumer and Obama, and it clearly is much broader in its scope. Suggesting that, simply because this law is "based on" the federal law, they are the same, is far from the truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn His statement regrading emboldening individuals is pure conjecture on the behalf of Mr. Baier and not within the text of the legislation as you are claiming. Again, no one has cited a court case where a business has successfully used this similar law in 19 other states to discriminate against the LGBT community. I might agree the law is a solution looking for a problem but it is far from the open season on gay discrimination that is being claimed here. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Oh really? I don't see how, that's possible, since they obviously wrote the bill in an effort to be as transparent as possible about their true intentions. Here, see if this helps. It's quoting Fox, so you know it must be true. "Even Fox News is backing away from Indiana’s anti-LGBT law. Fox anchor Bret Baier told “Happening Now” host Eric Shawn that the Indiana law is far broader than either the federal "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” signed in 1993 or RFRAs in 19 other states -- one of Indiana governor Mike Pence's talking points in defending the measure. “Indiana's law deals with a person who can claim religious persecution but that includes corporations, for profit entities and it could also be used as a defense in a civil suit that does not involve the government,” Baier explained. “That is broader than the other laws.” Indiana’s law “may embolden individuals and businesses who now feel that their religious liberty is 'burdened' by treating a member of the LGBT community equally and that their 'burden' trumps others' rights to be free from discrimination,” Baier added." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Here the text of the law: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indiana... No where so I see language that 'gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons" I do see where a business can use the free exercise of religion as a defense in the court of law. That is far different that the legal right to discriminate against someone who is gay. Originally posted by Hook'em That's not exactly true. The laws are similar, but there are some important differences. The Schumer law was designed to protect businesses from the government. The Indiana law adds language that gives businesses the right to refuse service to individuals based on religious reasons, and that's where the "legalized discrimination" accusations are (rightly) coming from.
The federal law upon which the Indiana law is based was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and championed by the ACLU. The government's infringement of religious practices by Native Americans (sacred lands and use of peyote) was the original focus of the law. The hype about the law is based upon misunderstanding or deliberate misinformation. Here is a letter from legal scholars regarding the Arizona version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (note that the Indiana law is substantially similar to the Arizona law, as opposed to the Kansas law): Letter to Jan Brewer
The Indiana law codifies the federal RFRA as interpreted by SCOTUS as it relates to the definition of a person and by four of the circuit courts as allowing it's use as a defense in a civil case (two circuits have ruled otherwise). If the First Amendment's freedom of speech includes both the protection of hate speech and the right not to speak, why wouldn't freedom of association include freedom not to associate? Regardless of the reason? You might want to send a memo to these guys, to let them know they can't do what they're doing because it's um... against the law... Oh wait, no it's not... http://www.rockbrookwomensgym.com/ I believe I was just correctly pointing out the error of your statement. So you're equating segregation, where millions of American citizens were systematically denied basic human rights for no reason other than the color of their skin, with women-only Zumba classes? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, do you go to Las Vegas and root for the casinos? |
| 2015-04-06 2:36 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Religious freedom in Indiana Those who have not actually experienced systemic or institutionalized discrimination often have trouble understanding why we have to protect those who are victims of it. Its not "I can't go to a zumba class." Its, because of my color and where I was born I am ten times as likely to end up in jail, or be unable to get a job, or get shot during a traffic stop. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK