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

Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

maxparrish said:
Hell ya he was being lynched, THAT was the whole point of the campaign. And yes, I not only know the difference between the real gestapo and the gaystapo, I also know the difference between a private citizen quietly exercising his right to donate to a proposition AND a bunch of thugs acting like he is an existential threat to the moral and political order of the high tech industry.
Click to expand...

Thugs use violence and the threat of violence to intimidate and bully people out of their property and freedom. Boycotting a company is not thuggish. Indeed, the freedom to withhold your financial resources from a private company is surely a freedom even a right winger would agree with.

What Eich did, on the other hand, was indeed thuggish. He used his financial resources in a (successful) attempt to get the State to continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Eich did not threaten to boycott companies that supported same-sex marriage, he wanted to directly ensure the State outlawed it. One cannot escape the violence of the State -- or perhaps someone with the towering financial resources as Eich could.

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

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

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

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

So then, it's about the failure of gays finding a "whites only Woolworth counter", and their need to find someone, somewhere, in a nation of 310,000,000 who can prove their "oppression" by someone, be it a small baker in Oregon or a lone Photographer in New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Good gawd, you'd think halfway through he would have noticed the similarity of this rant to every "lefty" rant posted for the last 6 years about the rightwingnut media machine.

:rolleyes:
 
You know, despite the self-righteous rhetoric and the disingenuous protestations, this particular law has always been intended to discriminate against the LBGT community. Always.
 
+or-1 said:
You know, despite the self-righteous rhetoric and the disingenuous protestations, this particular law has always been intended to discriminate against the LBGT community. Always.
Click to expand...
Now, let's keep a proper perspective. It isn't like someone put an amendment for the bill up to a vote saying that this bill's language wouldn't be applicable against civil rights law or any state/local law "that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" and it was voted down 40 to 10. Then and only then would we be able to establish that this bill was clearly, without a single doubt, being put forth to restrict Civil Rights or the rights of gays.

*shifty eyes*
 
James Madison said:
laughing dog said:
James Madison:
Can you give examples of what actions or activities this law will address?
Click to expand...

The accurate answer is the law provides the analytical framework the courts are to apply when evaluating a claim some state law, or government action, regulation, administrative rule, action, is alleged to substantially burden the exercise of religion.
Click to expand...
Let me translate this into English.

Create a framework to allow conservative judges the ability to overrule local city or state laws that protect Civil Rights in order to allow individuals and corporations to violate Civil Rights under the guise of "religious convictions".
 
I have a question:

Yesterday and today I heard people complaining that without this law cakemakers would be forced to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. How is the act of baking a cake for someone and delivering even remotely considered "participating in the ceremony?"

When we had my daughter's wedding I didn't consider the baker or photographer as participants in the ceremony. Am I missing something?
 
James Madison said:
laughing dog said:
James Madison:
Can you give examples of what actions or activities this law will address?
Click to expand...

The accurate answer is the law provides the analytical framework the courts are to apply when evaluating a claim some state law, or government action, regulation, administrative rule, action, is alleged to substantially burden the exercise of religion. Prior to the passage of this law the Indiana judiciary was not required to analyze claims a state law/govt action/regulation or administrative rule through the analytical framework of requiring the govt./law/etcetera, to have a compelling state interest and there aren't alternative means to accomplishing the state interest.

So this law informs the judiciary of the analytical framework it is to apply and follow for those claims the exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the government.

Would you like some examples of some of causes of action that could be raised under the statute?
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation. Some examples would be helpful to me on this issue.
 
I'd like to hear from James Madison what the new analytical framework is.
 
ksen said:
I'd like to hear from James Madison what the new analytical framework is.
Click to expand...
  1. Look at case involving Discrimination.
  2. Are you a conservative?
  3. If yes, continue "reviewing the case on its merits". If no, resign.
  4. Identify if group (individual) being discriminated against is a group that is still socially acceptable to discriminate against in your political clique. If No, don't allow discrimination.
  5. If Yes, are your values "conservative" enough to overlook Civil Rights protections in other existing local laws?
  6. If Yes, say discrimination is based on "religious convictions" and deny Civil Rights of person being discriminated
  7. If No, resign, you aren't conservative enough.
 
Will this apply of a Protestant cakemaker refuses to to make a cake for a dirty Catholic wedding?
 
ksen said:
Will this apply of a Protestant cakemaker refuses to to make a cake for a dirty Catholic wedding?
Click to expand...
Not socially acceptable to discriminate against the Catholics, so according to Rule 4, no. Pretty much just gays and women who want access to birth control.
 
This is so confusing. Maybe we should just make it where it's not ok to discriminate against anyone.
 
ksen said:
This is so confusing. Maybe we should just make it where it's not ok to discriminate against anyone.
Click to expand...

If you need to ask, you`re pretty much one of the ones it`s OK to discriminate against.
 
Hahaha, no I'm not. As a good christian I can never be discriminated against even though I'm told I'm being horribly persecuted.
 
ksen said:
This is so confusing. Maybe we should just make it where it's not ok to discriminate against anyone.
Click to expand...
It is attitudes like that which persecute the religious convictions of the James Madisons in this beautiful nation of ours!
 
ksen said:
I'd like to hear from James Madison what the new analytical framework is.
Click to expand...

What "new" analytical framework? I never used the word "new" in relation to the analytical framework under the Indiana RFR. I did say, however, the analytical framework of the Indiana RFR and the federal RFRA are the same.

Now, what is your query? Are you wanting some examples of claims which can be raised under this law?
 
My query is, what is the analytical framework?

You've said a bunch times there is an analytical framework . . . ok, what is it? How does it work? Would it allow the violation of someone's civil rights based on someone else's religious convictions?
 
laughing dog said:
James Madison said:
The accurate answer is the law provides the analytical framework the courts are to apply when evaluating a claim some state law, or government action, regulation, administrative rule, action, is alleged to substantially burden the exercise of religion. Prior to the passage of this law the Indiana judiciary was not required to analyze claims a state law/govt action/regulation or administrative rule through the analytical framework of requiring the govt./law/etcetera, to have a compelling state interest and there aren't alternative means to accomplishing the state interest.

So this law informs the judiciary of the analytical framework it is to apply and follow for those claims the exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the government.

Would you like some examples of some of causes of action that could be raised under the statute?
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation. Some examples would be helpful to me on this issue.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose a woman is a devout Muslim and an adherent of Islam. She does not wanting to unveil her face for photo identification at the BMV. She could challenge the requirement she reveal her face alleging she has a devout and sincere religious belief and practice to not show her face, and the requirement to show her face substantially burdens her religious practice of not doing so. The court would then engage in the analytical framework of requiring the government would to show 1.) they have a compelling state interest for people to show their face and 2.) the requirement they show their face is narrowly tailored, least restrictive means, to meeting their compelling interest. Failure of the government to establish either one or two results in the Muslim woman winning. The government establishing both 1 and 2 means the Muslim woman loses.

Another example could be devout Catholics, particular kids under the age of 21, seeking to challenge the application of the minor consumption law of Indiana as applied to their mass and other religious ceremonies. Under Indiana law a violation of the underage drinking statute occurs when, quite naturally as the phrase implies, someone under the age of 21 consumes alcohol or liquor. The Indiana RFR provides the analytical framework the court is to utilize to assess the challenge to the minor consumption law. The analytical framework is the same for the Muslim lady and the BMV example above.
 
ksen said:
My query is, what is the analytical framework?

You've said a bunch times there is an analytical framework . . . ok, what is it? How does it work? Would it allow the violation of someone's civil rights based on someone else's religious convictions?
Click to expand...

The analytical framework is as follows.

1. Some government, governmental agency, law, regulation, administrative rule, ordinance, substantially burdens the exercise of religion. (The substantially burdens exercise of religion would have to be demonstrated by the plaintiff alleging injury or the person invoking a violation of the law as a defense under section 9 of the Indiana statute).
2. The substantial burden to the individual, groups, or entities' exercise of religion by the governmental action as enumerated in number 1 above, is permitted when A.) the government demonstrates it has a compelling state interest and 2.) the government action is the least restrictive means.

So the analytical framework is:
1. Substantial burden to the exercise of religion by the government/governmental action of some kind
2. Whether there is a compelling state interest
3. Whether the government/governmental action is the least restrictive means to achieving the compelling state interest.

Failure of a plaintiff to demonstrate the burden to their exercise of religion is substantial results in the government prevailing.

Failure of the government to establish it has a compelling state interest results in the plaintiff prevailing.

Failure of the government to establish the governmental action is the least restrictive means to achieving its compelling state interest results in the plaintiff prevailing.

The government showing it has a compelling state interest and the government action is the least restrictive means results in the plaintiff losing and the government action/law, prevailing and remaining as lawfully permissible and valid as applied to substantially burdening the exercise of religion of someone or some group or entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom