Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

[Jimmy Higgins]

The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.

Another observation, typically when Democrats have been involved in the passing of RFRA's it has been about the extension of rights beyond the law. IE allowing the overlooking of a particular restriction based on religious beliefs. When Republicans support it, it has been about the extending a power to people to withdraw rights within the law of others.

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.

The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

 

[James Madison]

The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.

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.

The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

What laws regarding sexual orientation?

Evansville's ordinance prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation qualifies as a sufficient answer to your query.

The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

Indiana's RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to rule any particular state law substantially burdening the exercise of religion to be a compelling state interest and alternatives do not exist, thereby allowing the state law to burden the exercise of religion. So, Indianapolis seeks to pass a law protecting a right, and Indiana's RFRA permits the Indiana judiciary to find the law is valid although the Indianapolis law substantially burdens the exercise of religion, just as has been done in other states with a similar or identical RFRA, see below.

The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.

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.

The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

What laws regarding sexual orientation?

Evansville's ordinance prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation qualifies as a sufficient answer to your query.

The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

Indiana's RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to rule any particular state law substantially burdening the exercise of religion to be a compelling state interest and alternatives do not exist, thereby allowing the state law to burden the exercise of religion. So, Indianapolis seeks to pass a law protecting a right, and Indiana's RFRA permits the Indiana judiciary to find the law is valid although the Indianapolis law substantially burdens the exercise of religion, just as has been done in other states with a similar or identical RFRA. See below.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The one thing I find comical is how this has become a gay thing. I believe this has more to do with Hobby Lobby than gays.
The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections. The law allows the courts to look the other way regarding any number of potential "religious" based objections to any law. Indianapolis wants to pass a law protecting a right, this bill gives the State Courts the power to over rule it over bogus religious objections

Indiana's RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to rule any particular state law substantially burdening the exercise of religion to be a compelling state interest and alternatives do not exist, thereby allowing the state law to burden the exercise of religion. So, Indianapolis seeks to pass a law protecting a right, and Indiana's RFRA permits the Indiana judiciary to find the law is valid although the Indianapolis law substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in. This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds. This is a Hobby Lobby bill.

 

[James Madison]

Indiana's RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to rule any particular state law substantially burdening the exercise of religion to be a compelling state interest and alternatives do not exist, thereby allowing the state law to burden the exercise of religion. So, Indianapolis seeks to pass a law protecting a right, and Indiana's RFRA permits the Indiana judiciary to find the law is valid although the Indianapolis law substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in. This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds. This is a Hobby Lobby bill.

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

 

[+or-1]

If I had a shop in Indiana I'd stop serving Presbyterians. The bastards.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in. This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds. This is a Hobby Lobby bill.

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

How odd that there is all of this misunderstanding about how this wasn't about allowing discrimination, when in fact, they rejected an amendment that would have noted specifically that a specific discrimination was outside the bounds of this bill.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rocky Mountain Mike - Indiana Bite Me

https://soundcloud.com/rockymountainmike

 

[James Madison]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

The difference you illuminated between the state of Washington's RFRA and Indiana's does not change the analytical framework between the statutes or preclude Indiana from ruling as Washington in determining the law is valid because it serves a compelling state interest and there aren't alternatives to achieving the states interest.

So the difference between the two statutes doesn't diminish my point.

The proposed amendment doesn't address or reduce my prior comments or point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

The difference you illuminated between the state of Washington's RFRA and Indiana's does not change the analytical framework between the statutes or preclude Indiana from ruling as Washington in determining the law is valid because it serves a compelling state interest and there aren't alternatives to achieving the states interest.

So the difference between the two statutes doesn't diminish my point.

In Washington, a corporation wouldn't have the ability to say they have a religious objection. In Indiana they do now. I know you want to minimize the relevance of this, but the fact is that the Court in Indiana can go "meh" over the case in Washington because the Corporation has a right to religious freedom.

The proposed amendment doesn't address or reduce my prior comments or point.

Interesting comment. In order to ignore the relevance and the legislative intent it offers, you just want to push it to the side and ignore it. I understand why.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

I am not talking of "hysteria", I am talking of an over-the-top "hysterical social and moral mania" - the sudden creation of mass hatred, intolerance, and the promotion of mass shaming based on imaginary hobgoblins. In the common figure of speech, the Eich affair was a public lynching, few other manias are more deserving of that label (only the Bork lynching, and perhaps that of Thomas might qualify).

Eich, creator of Javascript and a co-founder of Mozilla held a private and personal view of marriage. By all accounts his conduct and support of diversity in the company, as well as his support of employee rights and benefits (including partner benefits) was undisputed. However in 2012 the LA Times published that Eich contributed (in 2008) a grand to prop 8 (and they also published the names of his co-workers who made similar contributions against prop 8).

In 2012 the gay group and techie left vituperation started, and they called for his punishment...that died away. After the board asked him to take the CEO job in 2014, the lynching movement restarted the same day. OkCupid and two gay application developers (outside of Mozilla) declared a boycott of Mozilla, and demanded termination (or failing that, at least his removal from top posts).

What followed was a modern replay of the dynamics behind all social and moral witch hunts (be it Salem or Moscow 1938) - a bandwagon explosion of savage and intolerant condemnation of the "evil" and sinister wrongdoer, incessant calls for punishment, threats if punishment is not forthcoming, and calls for a full confession and recantation by the wrongdoer or ELSE.

For such fanaticism there is NO room for conversation, arguments, or reason. It's not about the need to work alongside others who have different political, religious, or social views. It's about deferring to offended feelings and anger, and then exterminating heretics. And even ONE heretic and one contribution in this culture war is ginned into hysteria.

Eich was hounded from this company for only one reason: his off-work place political view was discovered and in spite of shaming he failed to grovel and recant. In the end he had no choice but to resign, given the demands of the lynch mob and Mozilla's spineless handling of the issue with its own employees.

Andrew Sullivan, a gay who has championed gay marriage longer than most put it aptly: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/06/the-quality-of-mercy/

I’m then informed that opposition to marriage equality is not just a political belief. It’s a profound insight into whether someone is a decent moral person or a bigot. And this belief is also held with absolute certainty – the same absolute certainty of righteousness that many Christianists have. ...

And one ugly manifestation of absolute certainty in near-theological movements is their approach to dissidents. Dissidents in these absolutist groups are outlawed, condescended to, pressured, bullied, lied about, trashed, slandered, and distorted out of any recognition. In this case, a geeky genius who invented Javascript and who had pledged total inclusivity in the workplace instantly became the equivalent of a Grand Master in the Ku Klux Klan. And yes, that analogy was – amazingly – everywhere! The actual, complicated, flawed human being was erased by thousands who never knew him but knew enough to hate him. Because that’s all they need to know. No space was really given for meaningful dialogue; and, most importantly, no mercy was given without total public repentance.

A "lynching".

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.

No state RFRA is identical to another state or the federal RFRA, but that is not why the gay crazies and the straight left is throwing a giant hissy-fit of rage. It is because someone rang the dinner bell and the low reasoning emotive drones launch. They don't really care what the law says - someone, somewhere, screamed it is going to cause discrimination against gays and idiots are eager to believe anything that starts a crusade...in this case against Indiana.

Gay marriage advocate and legal blogger Johnathan Adler tries to enlighten the fools:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-indiana-religious-freedom-law-really-do/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No state RFRA is identical to another state or the federal RFRA, but that is not why the gay crazies and the straight left is throwing a giant hissy-fit of rage. It is because someone rang the dinner bell and the low reasoning emotive drones launch. They don't really care what the law says - someone, somewhere, screamed it is going to cause discrimination against gays and idiots are eager to believe anything that starts a crusade...in this case against Indiana.

Actually, as I've already cited, an amendment was proposed in the Indiana Senate to indicate that this bill would not support "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". The amendment failed 10 to 40.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jimmy, don't confuse him with facts.

 

[maxparrish]

No state RFRA is identical to another state or the federal RFRA, but that is not why the gay crazies and the straight left is throwing a giant hissy-fit of rage. It is because someone rang the dinner bell and the low reasoning emotive drones launch. They don't really care what the law says - someone, somewhere, screamed it is going to cause discrimination against gays and idiots are eager to believe anything that starts a crusade...in this case against Indiana.

Actually, as I've already cited, an amendment was proposed in the Indiana Senate to indicate that this bill would not support "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". The amendment failed 10 to 40.

I stated that the hissy-fit rage mongers really don't care what he law says and you confirmed that the hissy-fit rage mongers ONLY care about what the Indiana Senate didn't say.

That is, in part, my point.

 

[James Madison]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

How odd that there is all of this misunderstanding about how this wasn't about allowing discrimination, when in fact, they rejected an amendment that would have noted specifically that a specific discrimination was outside the bounds of this bill.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

Once again, we have Higgins venturing a legal opinion on a legal issue where, no surprise, he is wrong. The federal RFRA was the statute Hobby Lobby used to litigate the case and the statute was relied upon by the majority to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. In addition, the Court made the argument the word "person" in the federal RFRA included "for profit" companies, thereby permitting Hobby Lobby to make claims under the federal RFRA.

Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. (Pg. 13).


As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very
broad protection for religious liberty. By enacting RFRA,
Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is
constitutionally required. (pg. 17).

...Congress provided protection for people
like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal
fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition
of “persons.” (pg. 18)

We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “[in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.
Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms,
partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well
as individuals.” (pg. 19)

We see nothing in RFRA that suggests a congressional
intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition (pg. 19).
​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Dictionary Act for federal law:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals​

You are incorrect to assert the Hobby Lobby decision didn't involve the federal RFRA and to suggest a difference between the two is the federal RFRA does not protect for profit companies whereas Indiana law does protect for profit companies. But please Higgins, do not feel deterred from providing in the future your vaunted but erroneous legal opinion of what a prior case said or what a statute says.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

How odd that there is all of this misunderstanding about how this wasn't about allowing discrimination, when in fact, they rejected an amendment that would have noted specifically that a specific discrimination was outside the bounds of this bill.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

Once again, we have Higgins venturing a legal opinion on a legal issue where, no surprise, he is wrong. The federal RFRA was the statute Hobby Lobby used to litigate the case and the statute was relied upon by the majority to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. In addition, the Court made the argument the word "person" in the federal RFRA included "for profit" companies, thereby permitting Hobby Lobby to make claims under the federal RFRA.

Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. (Pg. 13).


As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very
broad protection for religious liberty. By enacting RFRA,
Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is
constitutionally required. (pg. 17).

...Congress provided protection for people
like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal
fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition
of “persons.” (pg. 18)

We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “[in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.
Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms,
partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well
as individuals.” (pg. 19)

We see nothing in RFRA that suggests a congressional
intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition (pg. 19).
​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Dictionary Act for federal law:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals​

You are incorrect to assert the Hobby Lobby decision didn't involve the federal RFRA and to suggest a difference between the two is the federal RFRA does not protect for profit companies whereas Indiana law does protect for profit companies.

The Federal RFRA didn't introduce the concept that corporations are people. It'd be erroneous to say otherwise. Without the incredibly insane jump by 5 Justices on SCOTUS, it wouldn't have applied.

But please Higgins, do not feel deterred from providing in the future your vaunted but erroneous legal opinion of what a prior case said or what a statute says.

You are trying to draw attention away from the Senate Amendment and what this bill is really about. Feel free to continue to try.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, as I've already cited, an amendment was proposed in the Indiana Senate to indicate that this bill would not support "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". The amendment failed 10 to 40.

I stated that the hissy-fit rage mongers really don't care what he law says and you confirmed that the hissy-fit rage mongers ONLY care about what the Indiana Senate didn't say.

That is, in part, my point.

What the Senate didn't say? They did say something "No" to incorporating language in the bill to make it clear this wasn't about being able to interfere with Civil Rights. They voted 40 to 10 against adding such language. That says a lot. The rage seems to be coming from the side that is upset they are being called out on their intolerance.

 

[James Madison]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

The difference you illuminated between the state of Washington's RFRA and Indiana's does not change the analytical framework between the statutes or preclude Indiana from ruling as Washington in determining the law is valid because it serves a compelling state interest and there aren't alternatives to achieving the states interest.

So the difference between the two statutes doesn't diminish my point.

In Washington, a corporation wouldn't have the ability to say they have a religious objection. In Indiana they do now. I know you want to minimize the relevance of this, but the fact is that the Court in Indiana can go "meh" over the case in Washington because the Corporation has a right to religious freedom.

The proposed amendment doesn't address or reduce my prior comments or point.

Interesting comment. In order to ignore the relevance and the legislative intent it offers, you just want to push it to the side and ignore it. I understand why.

In Washington, a corporation wouldn't have the ability to say they have a religious objection. In Indiana they do now. I know you want to minimize the relevance of this, but the fact is that the Court in Indiana can go "meh" over the case in Washington because the Corporation has a right to religious freedom.

My goodness you do not get it. The Indiana judiciary can, under the state RFRA, follow the state of Washington's approach and rule 1.) The law prohibiting discrimination is a compelling state interest 2.) There aren't any alternatives to achieving the compelling state interest and therefore, 3.) The corporation loses and cannot find refuge for its action under Indiana's RFRA.

Second, the Washington case involved a business and the lady asserted the state's RFRA as refuge for her business' refusal of service and the Washington judge applied the analytical framework for evaluating in the state's RFRA as applied to her business. So it is not at all clear the Washington law does not protect corporations or for profit corporations but the Indiana law does when quite possibly they both do and in the Washington case, the business lost.

 

[James Madison]

The RFRA allows the courts to butt in.

The courts were already open and capable to adjudicate claims between religious freedom and a conflict with state law prior to RFRA.

This is a Hobby Lobby bill

What is the Hobby Lobby bill? I am quite certain the federal RFRA law, passed in 1993, had absolutely nothing to do with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case of 2014 such that it is erroneous to reference the federal RFRA as the "Hobby Lobby bill."

Erroneous if that is what I meant, which it wasn't.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

This has everything to do with giving the State Court the power to rubber stamp burdens in the lives of people, as long as the person making the burden can claim religious grounds.

The Indiana RFRA allows the Indiana judiciary to approve of laws and ordinances substantially burdening the exercise of religion, which has occurred in other states with a similar or identical law.

More interesting was the judge’s discussion of the state’s religious freedom law, which provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Similar to the statutory language of RFRA laws, Washington law allows a substantial burden on free exercise only when necessary to further a compelling interest. Here, the judge found the law preventing discrimination arguably does not substantially burden the religious exercise of the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, but that even if it did, the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination, which the law is necessary to address.
​

http://bjconline.org/judge-rejects-wa-florists-religious-freedom-argument-021915/

Did Washington give corporations personhood? Because that is one of the main differences between Washington's and Indiana's RFRAs.

But lets cut the crap, shall we.

Indiana Senate Motion - Proposed Amendment 101

ADAM PRESIDENT: I move that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1 Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert " (a) ".
2 Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3 " (b) This chapter does not apply to:
4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)

Odd, that the proposed amendment failed.

How odd that there is all of this misunderstanding about how this wasn't about allowing discrimination, when in fact, they rejected an amendment that would have noted specifically that a specific discrimination was outside the bounds of this bill.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with the Federal RFRA because there wasn't the portion as contained in the Indiana Bill that gives For Profit companies personhood and the ability to have religious faith and create exclusions (religious based, of course) that interfere with other people's rights.

Once again, we have Higgins venturing a legal opinion on a legal issue where, no surprise, he is wrong. The federal RFRA was the statute Hobby Lobby used to litigate the case and the statute was relied upon by the majority to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. In addition, the Court made the argument the word "person" in the federal RFRA included "for profit" companies, thereby permitting Hobby Lobby to make claims under the federal RFRA.

Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. (Pg. 13).


As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very
broad protection for religious liberty. By enacting RFRA,
Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is
constitutionally required. (pg. 17).

...Congress provided protection for people
like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal
fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition
of “persons.” (pg. 18)

We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “[in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.
Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms,
partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well
as individuals.” (pg. 19)

We see nothing in RFRA that suggests a congressional
intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition (pg. 19).
​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Dictionary Act for federal law:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals​

You are incorrect to assert the Hobby Lobby decision didn't involve the federal RFRA and to suggest a difference between the two is the federal RFRA does not protect for profit companies whereas Indiana law does protect for profit companies.

The Federal RFRA didn't introduce the concept that corporations are people. It'd be erroneous to say otherwise. Without the incredibly insane jump by 5 Justices on SCOTUS, it wouldn't have applied.

But please Higgins, do not feel deterred from providing in the future your vaunted but erroneous legal opinion of what a prior case said or what a statute says.

You are trying to draw attention away from the Senate Amendment and what this bill is really about. Feel free to continue to try.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, as I've already cited, an amendment was proposed in the Indiana Senate to indicate that this bill would not support "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". The amendment failed 10 to 40.

I stated that the hissy-fit rage mongers really don't care what he law says and you confirmed that the hissy-fit rage mongers ONLY care about what the Indiana Senate didn't say.

That is, in part, my point.

What the Senate didn't say? They did say something "No" to incorporating language in the bill to make it clear this wasn't about being able to interfere with Civil Rights. They voted 40 to 10 against adding such language. That says a lot. The rage seems to be coming from the side that is upset they are being called out on their intolerance.

The Federal RFRA didn't introduce the concept that corporations are people. It'd be erroneous to say otherwise. Without the incredibly insane jump by 5 Justices on SCOTUS, it wouldn't have applied.

Incorrect for reasons previously stated.

Second, your comment is irrelevant because the fact is RIGHT NOW the federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA provide protection to for profit corporations. You were wrong to claim otherwise.

You are trying to draw attention away from the Senate Amendment and what this bill is really about. Feel free to continue to try.

No, I am attempting to provide some rationality to your irrational diatribe about this law.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I am not talking of "hysteria"

The word 'hysteria' is in play to the same extent as 'hysterical'. I'm not here to address the fine-point semantics of rhetoric; your phrasing is over-the-top.

Eich, creator of Javascript and a co-founder of Mozilla held a private and personal view of marriage.

No, Eich financially supported a campaign for a state ballot measure on marriage, which was his right, yet is stronger than merely holding a view.

After the board asked him to take the CEO job in 2014, the lynching movement restarted the same day. OkCupid and two gay application developers (outside of Mozilla) declared a boycott of Mozilla, and demanded termination (or failing that, at least his removal from top posts).

They had the right to disapprove and boycott, which ultimately was less offensive than supporting Prop. 8, not because of the stance on gay rights, but because the boycott only required people exercising their own right not to support the company in connection with Eich; they didn't campaign for legislation to prejudicially disqualify from serving as CEO, as far as I recall.

What followed was a modern replay of the dynamics behind all social and moral witch hunts (be it Salem or Moscow 1938) - a bandwagon explosion of savage and intolerant condemnation of the "evil" and sinister wrongdoer, incessant calls for punishment, threats if punishment is not forthcoming, and a full confession and recantation by the wrongdoer or ELSE.

No, what followed was people expressing dissent and refusing to support a company they had no obligation to support.

For such fanaticism there is NO room for conversation, arguments, or reason.

Sounds nice, but in practical terms an untenable argument. What am I supposed to do with that? Say "Nuh-uh"? I've yet to encounter any social/ political movement where some of its membership doesn't fit that description, yet the bulk of people supporting the boycott likely never got to voice their line of reasoning or meaningfully engage in the conversation. I, personally, did not support the boycott, but I can only address arguments made and not some convenient and cartoonish characterization of the people making those arguments or supporting the boycott in general.

Eich was hounded from this company for only one reason: his off-work place political view was discovered and in spite of shaming he failed to grovel and recant. In the end he had no choice but to resign, given the demands of the lynch mob and Mozilla's spineless handling of the issue with its own employees.

He had the choice to step down into a position which would pay a shit load more than I make and probably have better job security.

No state RFRA is identical to another state or the federal RFRA, but that is not why the gay crazies and the straight left is throwing a giant hissy-fit of rage. It is because someone rang the dinner bell and the low reasoning emotive drones launch. They don't really care what the law says - someone, somewhere, screamed it is going to cause discrimination against gays and idiots are eager to believe anything that starts a crusade...in this case against Indiana.

You are presuming motives which is a useless path to take. On one hand you fault the overreactions of gay rights advocates for mischaracterizing the legislation, and on the other you're using outlandish characterizations which are based on what? Anecdotal experience? Opinions voiced in popular media and social media? Some uncannily deep understanding of the human psyche? Just saying shit 'cause you don't like them or want to be contrarian? What? You know what, scratch that. I don't care. It's a dead end conversation with no resolution in sight.

Regardless of those people, religious opposition and religious rights arguments have been at the heart of the LGBT rights debate. RFRAs may not have proven the best tactic against anti-discrimination policy in modern history, they have at times been part of the narrative. Look, if a thief tries fails to break into my house and fails, I may laugh if he keeps trying the exact same identical approach. If he keeps modifying it subtly, I may show a bit more concern and want him to fuck off with that shit. Now I agree that the RFRA is not quite the monster it's made out to be, but that doesn't mean people are idiots for having at least some measure of concern. In a time where it makes more sense to strengthen anti-discrimination measures, Indiana chose to enact legislation with somewhat fuzzy limits which won't settle until the legislation is scrapped, better legislation is written, or courts settle the matter. It was an unwise course of action at best.

 

[ksen]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ligious-freedom-law-wont-allow-discrimination

[Micah Clark] told AFA President Tim Wildmon today that conservatives should call Pence and other state officials and demand that they oppose any effort to clarify that the law does not legalize discrimination: That could totally destroy this bill.

But it's not about legalizing discrimination . . .

 

[James Madison]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ligious-freedom-law-wont-allow-discrimination

[Micah Clark] told AFA President Tim Wildmon today that conservatives should call Pence and other state officials and demand that they oppose any effort to clarify that the law does not legalize discrimination: That could totally destroy this bill.

But it's not about legalizing discrimination . . .

What part of this Youtube video is the law in Indiana?