• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

J

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
Anybody live in Indiana familiar with this bill and what it is actually likely to do? Is it just a bunch of political posturing or does it truly restrain same-sex freedoms?

Can Satanists or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster play with this to make it backfire beautifully in the face of christian bigots?

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/

Article said:
Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving it. It takes effect July 1.

Although the bill does not mention sexual orientation, opponents fear it could allow business owners to deny services to gays and lesbians for religious reasons.

Pence signed the bill during a private ceremony in his Statehouse office just before 10 a.m. Thursday. He was joined by supportive lawmakers, Franciscan monks and nuns, orthodox Jews, and some of the state's most powerful lobbyists on conservative social issues.
Click to expand...
 
I used to live there. I also called it the most southern state in the north. Unless you're in downtown Indianapolis, down south in Bloomington (school town), or way up north near Chicago, there's a lot of racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it. It's awful from my experience, and being from Chicago myself originally, and also living in Texas for several years, I didn't encounter real, open racism until I moved In Indiana.

Anyway, yes, this bill is really all about the gays and using it to keep them in their place. It will be struck down by the courts, as all the rest have. Then the governor can say "See the liberals undid what I done"; he can be a good guy with his base, and all is well.
 
Congress passed a  Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. It was passed to restore the notion that general laws not written specifically to constrain religion can also be found unconstitutional because they too can constrain religion. It was in response to a Supreme Court decision that declared that for laws to be found to constrain religion they must be written explicitly about religion. The law restored the Sherbert test "mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated." according to Wikipedia. The legislation was non-controversial and passed both houses with only three 'no' votes total.

In 1997, SCOTUS ruled the federal RFRA couldn't apply to the states. Each state would have to pass their own RFRA.

Not too surprisingly the largely reactionary forces in the Republican party, that currently number about 85% of the party, have used this relatively non-controversial bill as a vehicle to allow businesses to be counted as "persons" under the law so that they wouldn't have to obey any local government LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Governor Brewer of Arizona vetoed a similar bill last year. The supporters claim that it wasn't the intent of the bills to allow businesses to escape the anti-discrimination ordinances, but of course, they are lying. In Georgia the legislature lost interest in their RFRA bill when an amendment was successfully attached to the bill saying exactly that, that the bill couldn't be used by businesses to avoid the local government LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. The bill was killed.
 
In a rare sensible move by the NCAA, they came out and said they are highly concerned about this Bill and will watch it very closely for any indication that it is used to justify discrimination on LGBT issues. They said they would consider moving their headquarters and all major events (including basketball final 4) out of Indiana.
 
I've been told repeatedly that atheism is a religion. Time for some ground rules.

No services to be provided to Conservative Christians because their lack of faith in Jesus's teachings disturbs me and makes me feel uncomfortable.

Oh, and I'll shoot your dog if it wanders onto my yard because I fear it will try to spread the gospel.
 
INDIANA: Restaurant Owner Tells Radio Show That He'll Refuse Gay Customers

From a morning chat radio show in Indianapolis:

Kyle & Rachel were discussing the ‘Religious Freedom’ bill today when they received a call from a local business owner, Ryan, who not only supports the bill 100% but refused service to a gay couple before. Ryan was so honest with his answers that he mentioned he once blamed a mechanical failure in the kitchen in order to refuse service to a gay couple! Listen to the call that had all circuits busy this morning for an entire hour!
you can hear the call here http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyl...00-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/
 
I read through the legislation; it's very similar to what other states have proposed at various points in time. It basically comes down to how it is interpreted in practice. The thing about various religions and belief systems is that most of them have at least a few over-the-top practices which would never fly in civilized society. For instance, refusing business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation may be a murky legal matter for some, but stoning someone to death over it is pretty uncontroversially prohibited. The legislation recognizes that limits have to be set on religious behaviour and that the state ultimately does have the right to do so, but it doesn't draw a precise line on where that limit should be set.

So even if public and economic pressure cannot crush the law, I wonder if a court ruling could render it near useless, even without going into whether or not the law is constitutionally sound.

But, I'm not even from America let alone Indiana, so I'm just commenting as a curious on-looker.
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
I read through the legislation; it's very similar to what other states have proposed at various points in time. It basically comes down to how it is interpreted in practice. The thing about various religions and belief systems is that most of them have at least a few over-the-top practices which would never fly in civilized society. For instance, refusing business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation may be a murky legal matter for some, but stoning someone to death over it is pretty uncontroversially prohibited. The legislation recognizes that limits have to be set on religious behaviour and that the state ultimately does have the right to do so, but it doesn't draw a precise line on where that limit should be set.

So even if public and economic pressure cannot crush the law, I wonder if a court ruling could render it near useless, even without going into whether or not the law is constitutionally sound.

But, I'm not even from America let alone Indiana, so I'm just commenting as a curious on-looker.
Click to expand...

It just draws that line deep in fundamentalist territory. We need to keep abortion legal and available to those who need it. Clowns like this legislator are just playing games with peoples' lives based on his own fundamentalist views.
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
I read through the legislation; it's very similar to what other states have proposed at various points in time. It basically comes down to how it is interpreted in practice. The thing about various religions and belief systems is that most of them have at least a few over-the-top practices which would never fly in civilized society. For instance, refusing business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation may be a murky legal matter for some, but stoning someone to death over it is pretty uncontroversially prohibited. The legislation recognizes that limits have to be set on religious behaviour and that the state ultimately does have the right to do so, but it doesn't draw a precise line on where that limit should be set.

So even if public and economic pressure cannot crush the law, I wonder if a court ruling could render it near useless, even without going into whether or not the law is constitutionally sound.

But, I'm not even from America let alone Indiana, so I'm just commenting as a curious on-looker.
Click to expand...

Providing a loophole to discriminate and for using government resources to promote religion are the sole motivations for this Bill and its wording was carefully crafted to allow for these. The fundamentalist Christians who wrote and are exclusively responsible for the Bill's content were not any way whatever restricted in their religious practice or expression, unless it clearly harmed others or was a clear 1st Amendment violation. Thus, the Bill has nothing to do with that. It is designed to allow Fundies to harm homosexuals and others in ways that they ERA prohibits.
 
The Indianapolis-based NCAA has expressed concerns about the law and has suggested it could move future events elsewhere; the men's Final Four will be held in the city next weekend.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to see pressure from the NCAA and business interests. Pence et al can yield and still save face in the eyes of his cave-dwelling constituents.
 
Sajara said:
http://www.indystar.com/story/money...t-canceling-eastside-expansion-rfra/70590738/

Angie's list has cancelled plans to expand in Indiana because of the law...so there are some companies that are standing up for what is right even if it means lost business.
Click to expand...

In addition:
  • A couple of cities in the NW have cancelled all personnel travel to Indiana.
  • Charles Barkley called for the NCAA to boycott Indiana.
  • George Takei is using every bit of his massive social media influence to condemn the law and to challenge Pence to prove he opposes discrimination by passing a law that protects LGBT individuals.
Oh, and Miley Cyrus called Pence an asshole. lol
 
ronburgundy said:
krypton iodine sulfur said:
I read through the legislation; it's very similar to what other states have proposed at various points in time. It basically comes down to how it is interpreted in practice. The thing about various religions and belief systems is that most of them have at least a few over-the-top practices which would never fly in civilized society. For instance, refusing business to someone on the basis of sexual orientation may be a murky legal matter for some, but stoning someone to death over it is pretty uncontroversially prohibited. The legislation recognizes that limits have to be set on religious behaviour and that the state ultimately does have the right to do so, but it doesn't draw a precise line on where that limit should be set.

So even if public and economic pressure cannot crush the law, I wonder if a court ruling could render it near useless, even without going into whether or not the law is constitutionally sound.

But, I'm not even from America let alone Indiana, so I'm just commenting as a curious on-looker.
Click to expand...

Providing a loophole to discriminate and for using government resources to promote religion are the sole motivations for this Bill and its wording was carefully crafted to allow for these. The fundamentalist Christians who wrote and are exclusively responsible for the Bill's content were not any way whatever restricted in their religious practice or expression, unless it clearly harmed others or was a clear 1st Amendment violation. Thus, the Bill has nothing to do with that. It is designed to allow Fundies to harm homosexuals and others in ways that they ERA prohibits.
Click to expand...

The bill is far less interesting than the gay lobby drama queen hysterics and their bandwagon fellow-travelers. The boring part is that bill is very much like the other 19 state RFRA laws (and the federal law). Each state has its nuances and varying text, but all cover the core points - to require their State courts to review laws on the basis of having a compelling state interest to override religious liberty. There is nothing in Indiana's law that 'threatens' anti-discrimination law any more, or less, than the 31 other states that have either laws or case law requiring same. It's an embarrassingly stupid concern over a faux threat to 'anti-discrimination' laws, given that Indiana has no anti-discrimination law protecting gays to begin with.

So then what is it really about? Well, its starts with a few 'sky is falling' headlines by the likes of the NYTimes and CNN, prompting a 'calling all gay activists' dinner bell to the mob of ignorati, sending the gay identity threatened and liberal guilt mongers onto the virtual world streets.

Predictably, thought leaders and social philosophers like Miley Cyrus and the place kicker of the Colts chime in, and soon the bandwagon "upright" fellow travelers (Clinton, Cooke, etc.) are on board with the hysterics. Rest assured, not one of these nitwits has a clue as to what is actually written in this or any other RFRA law...nor do they care. NOBODY wants to be caught failing to denounce the unspeakable evils that may or may not be true.

And its about what causes this particular lunacy. It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions and their bottomless need for social affirmation; its about their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal", and because they are not fully normal or typical (and can never be), its about their insecurity driving them to find, blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.

So then, it's about the failure of gays finding a "whites only Woolworth counter", and their need to find someone, somewhere, in a nation of 310,000,000 who can prove their "oppression" by someone, be it a small baker in Oregon or a lone Photographer in New Mexico.
 
maxparrish said:
ronburgundy said:
Providing a loophole to discriminate and for using government resources to promote religion are the sole motivations for this Bill and its wording was carefully crafted to allow for these. The fundamentalist Christians who wrote and are exclusively responsible for the Bill's content were not any way whatever restricted in their religious practice or expression, unless it clearly harmed others or was a clear 1st Amendment violation. Thus, the Bill has nothing to do with that. It is designed to allow Fundies to harm homosexuals and others in ways that they ERA prohibits.
Click to expand...

The bill is far less interesting than the illustration of the gay lobby drama queen hysterics and their bandwagon fellow-travelers. The bill is very much like the other 19 state RFRA laws (and the federal law). Each state has its nuances and varying text, but all cover the core points - to require their State courts to review laws on the basis of having a compelling state interest to override religious liberty. There is nothing in Indiana's law that 'threatens' anti-discrimination law any more, or less, than the 31 other states that have either laws or case law requiring same. And it's an embarrassingly stupid concern about protecting 'anti-discrimination' laws from RFRA, given that Indiana has no "anti-discrimination of gays" law to begin with.

So what is it really about? Well, its starts with a few 'sky is falling' headlines by the likes of the NYTimes and CNN, prompting a 'calling all gay activists' dinner bell to the mob of ignorati, sending the gay identity threatened and liberal guilt mongers onto the virtual world streets.

Predictably, thought leaders and social philosophers like Miley Cyrus and the place kicker of the Colts chime in, and soon the bandwagon "upright" fellow travelers (Clinton, Cooke, etc.) are on board with the hysterics. Rest assured, not one of these nitwits has a clue as to what is actually written in this or any other RFRA law...nor do they care. NOBODY wants to be caught failing to denounce the unspeakable evils that may or may not be true.

And its about what causes this particular lunacy. It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions and their bottomless need for social affirmation; its about their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal", and because they are not fully normal or typical (and can never be), its about their insecurity driving them to find, blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.

So then, it's about the failure of gays finding a "whites only Woolworth counter", and their need to find someone, somewhere, in a nation of 310,000,000 who can prove their "oppression" by someone, be it a small baker in Oregon or a lone Photographer in New Mexico.
Click to expand...
How ironic - the major premise behind such laws is "The sky is falling because of teh gays". And then adding to the irony is your rush to defend such ignorant bigotry with such rhetoric.
 
maxparrish said:
The bill is far less interesting than the gay lobby drama queen hysterics and their bandwagon fellow-travelers.
Click to expand...

Then why is it needed on the state level right now other than to legalize discrimination? And why do supporters of the law tote the idea that it will allow them to discriminate?

It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions and their bottomless need for social affirmation; its about their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal", and because they are not fully normal or typical (and can never be), its about their insecurity driving them to find, blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.
Click to expand...

You probably don't know that you live among many gay people. It has always fascinated me why someone would care who slept with who. If a man is gay, it doesn't affect me. Why would anyone care? But once again we have self-proclaimed libertarians wanting to pass laws to punish someone for their personal choice of partners. This is why I believe most libertarians are just fascists in disguise, wanting freedom for themselves but wanting government interfering in everyone else's lives.
 
maxparrish said:
And its about what causes this particular lunacy. It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions and their bottomless need for social affirmation; its about their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal", and because they are not fully normal or typical (and can never be), its about their insecurity driving them to find, blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.
Click to expand...

A ludicrous rant predicated on the absurd notion that gays are desperate for the social 'approval' of homophobes, as if we respect and crave the moral judgments of the wickedly deluded.
 
Metaphor said:
maxparrish said:
And its about what causes this particular lunacy. It's about the few percent of the American people who were (most likely) born with abnormal longings and attractions and their bottomless need for social affirmation; its about their incessant demands that others pretend and then repeatedly affirm they are totally "normal", and because they are not fully normal or typical (and can never be), its about their insecurity driving them to find, blame and demonize fictional oppressors. It is a psychological void that can never be filled.
Click to expand...

A ludicrous rant predicated on the absurd notion that gays are desperate for the social 'approval' of homophobes, as if we respect and crave the moral judgments of the wickedly deluded.
Click to expand...

I believe people pick up prejudices innocently, but some grow to adulthood not only never questioning the prejudice, but actually using their intellectual capacity to make up reasons to keep hating and belittling people. Maxparrish has no idea how his shallow, infantile, and simplistic assessments of others' motivations reveal his own methods of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom