Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I thought this was just about gays wanting to be able to get married... and served at stores. If gays were trying so hard to be "normal", they'd be flocking to Bachmann's Degayanater Service in order to become normal. Instead, they've accepted who they are, and the US Constitution says everyone else must as well.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I think it shows that these two items (RFRA and Anti-discrimination) are fundamentally in conflict with one another and that the courts are wrong to respect religious doctrine when that doctrine is wrong. You want to be wrong. Fine. Be wrong. But be wrong in your home. Be wrong in your church. Do not operate a business open to the general public and then expect to pick and choose whom to serve because your religious doctrine tells you to discriminate.
The courts go too far when they allow religion to tell others they are somewhat less of a person, less than human.
They drew the line too far. They allowed religion to seep out into the general public.
It's not boring. It's the general public and hopefully business interests telling the judiciary and legislature, they've gone too far.

 

[maxparrish]

Given the number of responses to my post, this post is my 'reply to'...

First, the "major premise behind such laws" is to require a "compelling State interest" when a right to exercise religion is prohibited. That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

Second, "why is it needed on the state level"? It is needed to clarify Indiana's minimal and ambiguous case law. There are 31 states with RFRA protections, 20 of them due to their specific RFRA legislation and 11 others due to their Constitutional and/or clear case law. The value of such laws are in their application to a wide variety of judicial disputes such as (in other states) the privacy of financial records, state taxes on businesses run for charitable purposes, the limits of State entanglements in contracts between individuals requiring religious procedures, and dozens of others (see case law examples in this summary: https://inadvancesheet.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rfra-state-by-state-listing.pdf). Such laws help define cases experienced elsewhere, such as whether or not you have a religious exemption if you feel obliged to help someone commit suicide, or a religious exemption to not testify against your partner, parent, or child.

Third, contrary to one comment, I know I live among "many" gay people, one of them being one of two closest friends (in the Bay Area). And contrary to that poster's image, I have other social associates that are gay and i have enjoyed attending their hosted social parties and celebrations (their Solstice Party being an annual ritual). And I no more want to "punish" my freind or gay associates for partnering than I do anyone who is straight. And I completely emphasized with those happy gays couples that waltzed out of the civil marriage office (my property title research cubicle was 10 ft from the marriage license-cermony section).

None the less, it is not an "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". Given the gay movements recent public face, that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (It certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

One such explanation of the irrationality is also true of any vocal and angry identity based minority, their collective subconscious understands that they will never be "normal", no more than any unusual fetish is thought of as "normal". One way to do deal with it is to accept it and move on. Another way is to expect others to constantly reassure them that they are NOT surrounded by homophobes and reassure that they are normal and equal - it is a reality that can never be attained and a need that can never be satisfied. Blacks will never be quite the same as whites, women the same as men, and gays the fully same as straights. Hence these grievances will never end; rest assured, in the year 2115 there will still be unimagined mico-carping whines, which to our contemporary ears would sound laughable.

Four, someone stated: "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."

But might it be that hate and belittling a social mania of value to that someone and it is his REAL gripe? I do not hate gays, but I do hate irrational mob mentalities, needless bullying, and widespread social hysteria due to ignorance. Be it the fury over Terry Schiavo or the fury over Eich or Indiana's RFRA - such folks who participate are a part of idiot mobs.

Last, someone mentioned "I thought this was just about gays wanting to be able to get married... and served at stores. If gays were trying so hard to be "normal", they'd be flocking to Bachmann's Degayanater Service in order to become normal. Instead, they've accepted who they are, and the US Constitution says everyone else must as well." If this is truly about gays getting married and getting store service, then how do you explain the benighted stupidity that is behind "dinner-bell" panic and rage?

Nope, that explanation won't do.

 

[laughing dog]

Given the number of responses to my post, this post is my 'reply to'...

First, the "major premise behind such laws" is to require a "compelling State interest" when a right to exercise religion is prohibited.

Except that no one is prohibiting the right to exercise religion by disallowing business owners to discriminate in commercial activities.

That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

So the stories of bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay couples or photographers refusing to photograph gay weddings are bogus?

 

[ksen]

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.

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, didn't you know that blacks only wanted to drink at white fountains because they desired the white man's respect?

The more you know.

 

[ksen]

Given the number of responses to my post, this post is my 'reply to'...

First, the "major premise behind such laws" is to require a "compelling State interest" when a right to exercise religion is prohibited. That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

Second, "why is it needed on the state level"? It is needed to clarify Indiana's minimal and ambiguous case law. There are 31 states with RFRA protections, 20 of them due to their specific RFRA legislation and 11 others due to their Constitutional and/or clear case law. The value of such laws are in their application to a wide variety of judicial disputes such as (in other states) the privacy of financial records, state taxes on businesses run for charitable purposes, the limits of State entanglements in contracts between individuals requiring religious procedures, and dozens of others (see case law examples in this summary: https://inadvancesheet.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rfra-state-by-state-listing.pdf). Such laws help define cases experienced elsewhere, such as whether or not you have a religious exemption if you feel obliged to help someone commit suicide, or a religious exemption to not testify against your partner, parent, or child.

Third, contrary to one comment, I know I live among "many" gay people, one of them being one of two closest friends (in the Bay Area). And contrary to that poster's image, I have other social associates that are gay and i have enjoyed attending their hosted social parties and celebrations (their Solstice Party being an annual ritual). And I no more want to "punish" my freind or gay associates for partnering than I do anyone who is straight. And I completely emphasized with those happy gays couples that waltzed out of the civil marriage office (my property title research cubicle was 10 ft from the marriage license-cermony section).

None the less, it is not an "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". Given the gay movements recent public face, that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (It certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

One such explanation of the irrationality is also true of any vocal and angry identity based minority, their collective subconscious understands that they will never be "normal", no more than any unusual fetish is thought of as "normal". One way to do deal with it is to accept it and move on. Another way is to expect others to constantly reassure them that they are NOT surrounded by homophobes and reassure that they are normal and equal - it is a reality that can never be attained and a need that can never be satisfied. Blacks will never be quite the same as whites, women the same as men, and gays the fully same as straights. Hence these grievances will never end; rest assured, in the year 2115 there will still be unimagined mico-carping whines, which to our contemporary ears would sound laughable.

Four, someone stated: "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."

But might it be that hate and belittling a social mania of value to that someone and it is his REAL gripe? I do not hate gays, but I do hate irrational mob mentalities, needless bullying, and widespread social hysteria due to ignorance. Be it the fury over Terry Schiavo or the fury over Eich or Indiana's RFRA - such folks who participate are a part of idiot mobs.

Last, someone mentioned "I thought this was just about gays wanting to be able to get married... and served at stores. If gays were trying so hard to be "normal", they'd be flocking to Bachmann's Degayanater Service in order to become normal. Instead, they've accepted who they are, and the US Constitution says everyone else must as well." If this is truly about gays getting married and getting store service, then how do you explain the benighted stupidity that is behind "dinner-bell" panic and rage?

Nope, that explanation won't do.

Can someone interpret this word salad? Google doesn't have a conservogobble to english option.

tia!

 

[arkirk]

Obama Orders Homosexual Chemtrail Missions Over Indiana Day After “Religious Freedom Bill” Passed

Obama administration sanctioned Homosexual chemtrail missions are being flown over Indiana. Reports of homosexual outbreaks have increased since 0657 Eastern time. It remains unconfirmed if the plane pictured is Air Force One itself flying over Indiana and leaking homosexual-inducing chemtrails on the male population.

Wait....this isn't an Onion article?!?

You are right. It is just another piece of crap. If you looked at the other offerings in the Big American News it all had a comical fundamental slant.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Given the number of responses to my post, this post is my 'reply to'...
First,
Second,
Third,
Four,
And on and on.

Can someone interpret this word salad? Google doesn't have a conservogobble to english option.

tia!

Nope. I read it twice and could not find anything of substance. Anything that addresses the issue. It's all perception. The World According To Maxparrish.

 

[NobleSavage]

Given the number of responses to my post, this post is my 'reply to'...

First, the "major premise behind such laws" is to require a "compelling State interest" when a right to exercise religion is prohibited. That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

Second, "why is it needed on the state level"? It is needed to clarify Indiana's minimal and ambiguous case law. There are 31 states with RFRA protections, 20 of them due to their specific RFRA legislation and 11 others due to their Constitutional and/or clear case law. The value of such laws are in their application to a wide variety of judicial disputes such as (in other states) the privacy of financial records, state taxes on businesses run for charitable purposes, the limits of State entanglements in contracts between individuals requiring religious procedures, and dozens of others (see case law examples in this summary: https://inadvancesheet.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rfra-state-by-state-listing.pdf). Such laws help define cases experienced elsewhere, such as whether or not you have a religious exemption if you feel obliged to help someone commit suicide, or a religious exemption to not testify against your partner, parent, or child.

Third, contrary to one comment, I know I live among "many" gay people, one of them being one of two closest friends (in the Bay Area). And contrary to that poster's image, I have other social associates that are gay and i have enjoyed attending their hosted social parties and celebrations (their Solstice Party being an annual ritual). And I no more want to "punish" my freind or gay associates for partnering than I do anyone who is straight. And I completely emphasized with those happy gays couples that waltzed out of the civil marriage office (my property title research cubicle was 10 ft from the marriage license-cermony section).

None the less, it is not an "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". Given the gay movements recent public face, that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (It certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

One such explanation of the irrationality is also true of any vocal and angry identity based minority, their collective subconscious understands that they will never be "normal", no more than any unusual fetish is thought of as "normal". One way to do deal with it is to accept it and move on. Another way is to expect others to constantly reassure them that they are NOT surrounded by homophobes and reassure that they are normal and equal - it is a reality that can never be attained and a need that can never be satisfied. Blacks will never be quite the same as whites, women the same as men, and gays the fully same as straights. Hence these grievances will never end; rest assured, in the year 2115 there will still be unimagined mico-carping whines, which to our contemporary ears would sound laughable.

Four, someone stated: "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."

But might it be that hate and belittling a social mania of value to that someone and it is his REAL gripe? I do not hate gays, but I do hate irrational mob mentalities, needless bullying, and widespread social hysteria due to ignorance. Be it the fury over Terry Schiavo or the fury over Eich or Indiana's RFRA - such folks who participate are a part of idiot mobs.

Last, someone mentioned "I thought this was just about gays wanting to be able to get married... and served at stores. If gays were trying so hard to be "normal", they'd be flocking to Bachmann's Degayanater Service in order to become normal. Instead, they've accepted who they are, and the US Constitution says everyone else must as well." If this is truly about gays getting married and getting store service, then how do you explain the benighted stupidity that is behind "dinner-bell" panic and rage?

Nope, that explanation won't do.

Can someone interpret this word salad? Google doesn't have a conservogobble to english option.

tia!

I understood two of his points: 1) this won't effect gay people. 2) there are valid reasons for such a law.

That was in the first paragraph or two. Then he completely lost me.

 

[arkirk]

You know, I am not sure that freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and act on that belief is particularly a good idea. It all depends on what you believe your belief entitles you to do to your fellow man...possibly against his wishes. I think religious institutions should all have to operate within the confines of their buildings and temples. What happens outside the church in the real world should be free from religion.

A special note to max: "Gay" is NOT A RELIGION.

 

[Metaphor]

None the less, it is not an "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". Given the gay movements recent public face, that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (It certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.

The motivations of those who have 'joined' the gay movement (is there a loyalty card?) requires no more explanation than their desire to see gays not be discriminated against by the State, and not be discriminated against in public accommodations.

Your characterisation of the gay rights movement as hateful was asserted without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence.

One such explanation of the irrationality is also true of any vocal and angry identity based minority, their collective subconscious understands that they will never be "normal",

When I was a teenager, I desperately desired to be heterosexual (though I've never desired 'normalcy'). God did not see fit to answer my prayers (which is fair enough, since She does not exist), so I remained not heterosexual.

A movement doesn't have a collective subconscious, because such a thing is a metaphysical absurdity. In any case, many of the people who identify as supporters of LGBT rights are not, in fact, gay -- they're the 'normal' people you seem to believe LGBT people want to be. Unless, of course, you count 'supporting LGBT rights' as a marker of someone who isn't normal, whatever their sexual orientation, so in fact by definition belonging to the movement means you're not 'normal'.

no more than any unusual fetish is thought of as "normal". One way to do deal with it is to accept it and move on. Another way is to expect others to constantly reassure them that they are NOT surrounded by homophobes

I don't need, nor would I desire, a false 'assurance' that there are not homophobes out there. That would, in fact, be a dangerous and pointless delusion. What I want is for the State not to make arbitrary discriminations, and for homophobes to be bound by the same laws as everyone else, without a 'get out of homophobia free' religious 'freedom' law.

and reassure that they are normal and equal - it is a reality that can never be attained and a need that can never be satisfied. Blacks will never be quite the same as whites, women the same as men, and gays the fully same as straights. Hence these grievances will never end; rest assured, in the year 2115 there will still be unimagined mico-carping whines, which to our contemporary ears would sound laughable.

I see: from your sentence construction, it is Whites that are normal, men that are normal, and heterosexuals that are normal. Anyone else need not apply.

As for 'the same'? No, I don't want to be the same as the median, White heterosexual male. I want to be better.

Also, the religious freedom "restoration" laws is one hand of government being unaware of what the other hand is doing. Either it's a good idea that we want the law to prevent business owners from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation, or it isn't a good idea. If the State has decided down the 'not allowed to discriminate' path, what's certainly not a good idea is to then give people who believe breathtaking fantasies (that is, religious people) a 'get out of complying with the law free' card.

 

[Angry Floof]

Have you guys figured out yet that a person whose mental framework of the world includes authority, group identity, and us vs. them is not going to have the capacity to understand that a lot of other people don't think like that?

This thread reminds me of the days when I spent a lot of time on scientology news groups. The messages from the scientologists varied little and focused on things like looking for critics' crimes, looking for who was paying the critics, looking for a hierarchical organization to attack. They couldn't seem to ever get it through their heads that they were dealing with a bunch of disparate free agents, basically a bunch of cats without a ruler or rules.

It's interesting how these cultish, closed mental frameworks are reflected in the very accusations lobbed at whomever the group thinks is the enemy.

 

[maxparrish]

Except that no one is prohibiting the right to exercise religion by disallowing business owners to discriminate in commercial activities.

Except that in Indiana the law's purpose had little to do with the right to exercise religion in cases of discrimination. It is for many other purposes, including but not limited to the examples I already provided.

With or without this law Indiana citizens have a general right of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In those few urban areas where they cannot do so, the RFRA will be as effective in checking anti-discrimination protections in commercial activities as it has been elsewhere - which is to say, not at all.

That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

So the stories of bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay couples or photographers refusing to photograph gay weddings are bogus?

No, the stories that RFRA laws have had any effect on selling wedding cakes or photographers services are bogus.

For better or worse, courts repeatedly find that "anti-discrimination" is a compelling state interest and, therefore, meet the laws criteria.

 

[laughing dog]

With or without this law Indiana citizens have a general right of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In those few urban areas where they cannot do so, the RFRA will be as effective in checking anti-discrimination protections in commercial activities as it has been elsewhere - which is to say, not at all.....

For better or worse, courts repeatedly find that "anti-discrimination" is a compelling state interest and, therefore, meet the laws criteria.

Seems as if you contradict yourself in the same response.

 

[maxparrish]

Can someone interpret this word salad? Google doesn't have a conservogobble to english option.

tia!

I understood two of his points: 1) this won't effect gay people. 2) there are valid reasons for such a law.

That was in the first paragraph or two. Then he completely lost me.

Then in the future I will not attempt to extensively reply to numerous posters in a single post. But the other points, in sum:

- Contrary to the impressions of one poster, I do know that I live among "many" gay people, one of them being one of two closest friends (in the Bay Area).

- The gay movements recent public face (e.g. that of the lynching of Brendan Eich, or the Indiana lunacy), is that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (Because it certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

- One such explanation of the irrationality is that, like any angry identity based minority, their collective sub unconscious understands that they will never be "normal", no more than any unusual fetish is thought of as "normal". Some deal with it by being angry, and expect others to constantly reassure them that they are NOT surrounded by homophobes and reassure that they are normal and equal - it is a reality that can never be attained and a need that can never be satisfied.

- I do not hate gays, but I do hate irrational mob mentalities, needless bullying, and widespread social hysteria due to ludicrous ignorance. Be it the fury over Terry Schiavo or the fury over Eich or Indiana's RFRA - such folks who participate are a part of shameless idiot mobs.

That should suffice, a thread outbreak of A.D.D. not-with-standing.

 

[maxparrish]

With or without this law Indiana citizens have a general right of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In those few urban areas where they cannot do so, the RFRA will be as effective in checking anti-discrimination protections in commercial activities as it has been elsewhere - which is to say, not at all.....

For better or worse, courts repeatedly find that "anti-discrimination" is a compelling state interest and, therefore, meet the laws criteria.

Seems as if you contradict yourself in the same response.

As you don't seem to understand, I shall restate with added detail:

"With or without this law Indiana citizens have a general right of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (because there is not a law at State level that prevents it). In those few urban areas where citizens cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (because of local ordinances that prohibit it), the RFRA will be as effective in checking anti-discrimination protections in commercial activities as it has been elsewhere - which is to say, not at all."

"That (ineffectiveness in checking anti-discrimination protections) is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that (Indiana's RFRA) is going to materially affect gay marriage (in Indiana) or access to store purchases (in Indiana) they are mistaken."

"the stories that RFRA laws (which are in 19 other states and at the federal level) have had any effect on selling wedding cakes or photographers services are bogus." Because, "for better or worse, courts have repeatedly found that IF there is "anti-discrimination protection" in law, THAT law's protection is a compelling state interest.

Under all RFRA provisions, a court finding of a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination prevents religious protection.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The gay movements recent public face (e.g. that of the lynching of Brendan Eich, or the Indiana lunacy), is that of a hysterical social and moral mania, with many well-known personas openly gushing their enjoyment for joining a righteous, absolutely certain, and hateful movement - well, that begs for an explanation, does it not? (Because it certainly isn't based on substantive discrimination in public accommodations).

It's odd in the same breath you talk of hysteria, you resort such bizarre hyperbole as the 'lynching' of Brendan Eich. He supported a ballot measure to attack the rights of a certain portion of the population. That measure was later deemed unconstitutional and negatively impacted the lives of many of Mozilla's customers and (probably) employees. It's not so surprising it hurt the company's image given he was the CEO. While I'm sure people said some really mean things and possibly hurt his feelings, he was not fired, but merely encouraged to step down while being offered a different position within the company (which he declined). That this is akin to being seized by a mob and killed is over-the-top nonsense.

While the Indiana situation is probably more amped up than it should be, it is not at the level of "lunacy". Indiana's RFRA is not identical to other such acts at the federal level or in other states such as the RFRA in New Mexico, which is probably why some people are nervous at the thought of seeing the limitations of the act tested out in a courtroom. Personally, I think people would do better to lobby for firm anti-discrimination protections rather than fret about an awkward RFRA, but lunacy? Not really. While LGBT discrimination has declined in severity especially within the last decade, it's been a very protracted legal and social battle which is still at a simmer. It's only natural that those campaigning for LGBT rights in America are going to want to go with the momentum to secure... less ambiguous assurances of legal equality. It would be silly not to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that it is going to materially affect gay marriage or access to store purchases they are mistaken.

So the stories of bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay couples or photographers refusing to photograph gay weddings are bogus?

No, the stories that RFRA laws have had any effect on selling wedding cakes or photographers services are bogus.

For better or worse, courts repeatedly find that "anti-discrimination" is a compelling state interest and, therefore, meet the laws criteria.

It is just like the Stand Your Ground law. Florida didn't legalize murder, they just kind of made it easier and helped gray it up a bit. The existing law was fine. Self-defense was protected. This law is the exact same type of thing, smudge up the lines.

...religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law.

This is where these defensive arguments are failing. This law was passed to protect religious liberty? What exactly was the problem before? Were churches being closed, Christians being fired from their jobs? This bill had a purpose and now the Republicans don't have the nuts to back it up.

 

[James Madison]

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/

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.

The plain text of the law does not lawfully authorize discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and/or legalize denial of service by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The plain text of the law does allow the Indiana judiciary to find laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be a compelling state interest and there not existing any alternatives to achieving the state's compelling state interest. In other words, the plain text of the law does permit the Indiana judiciary to rule and decide the law does not provide refuge from anti-discriminator laws for those public accommodations wanting to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[laughing dog]

Seems as if you contradict yourself in the same response.

As you don't seem to understand, I shall restate with added detail:

"With or without this law Indiana citizens have a general right of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (because there is not a law at State level that prevents it). In those few urban areas where citizens cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (because of local ordinances that prohibit it), the RFRA will be as effective in checking anti-discrimination protections in commercial activities as it has been elsewhere - which is to say, not at all."

"That (ineffectiveness in checking anti-discrimination protections) is as true of the federal RFRA (supported by Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.) as it is of Indiana's new law. If anyone believes (pro or con) that (Indiana's RFRA) is going to materially affect gay marriage (in Indiana) or access to store purchases (in Indiana) they are mistaken."

"the stories that RFRA laws (which are in 19 other states and at the federal level) have had any effect on selling wedding cakes or photographers services are bogus." Because, "for better or worse, courts have repeatedly found that IF there is "anti-discrimination protection" in law, THAT law's protection is a compelling state interest.

Under all RFRA provisions, a court finding of a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination prevents religious protection.

What real problem(s) does this law, as written, actually address? From what I can tell, you are claiming it addresses nothing. I strongly suspect that the Indiana Legislature and Governor Pence disagree with your penetrating legal analysis of the law.