Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

[James Madison]

This is so confusing. Maybe we should just make it where it's not ok to discriminate against anyone.

It is attitudes like that which persecute the religious convictions of the James Madisons in this beautiful nation of ours!

This would be an entertaining comment if it were not so incorrect and erroneous as, well, the plethora of other comments you have made in this thread.

For the record, and for all to see and read, I do not support and neither do I believe in any public accommodation having the religious freedom to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, nationality, creed, etcetera. I hold the view anti-discrimination laws are a compelling state interest and/or serve a compelling state interest and if narrowly tailored/least restrictive means chosen to achieve the compelling state interest, then those laws are permissible as reasonable limitations, not abolishment of, but reasonable limitations on the exercise of religion and religious belief.

Your posts make for entertaining reading though and assist in passing the time on a slow day, so keep posting.

 

[James Madison]

It's nice that the Indiana legislature felt that business religious liberty needed protecting but that employee religious liberty did not need protecting.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee

Why would the employee religious liberty need protecting from the employer in a statute addressing governmental action in relation to the exercise of religion by the people? In other words, I read and understand this provision to assert the Indiana RFR does not create a justiciable claim or a cause of action by an applicant, employee, or former employee alleging the private employer engaged in conduct which substantially burdened the exercise of their religion.

Why is this provision so contentious to you?

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently, the O'Connors who own and operate Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, have not received Gov. Pence's message:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza in Walkerton explained to ABC57. O’Connor’s family, alleged Christians, have owned and operated Memories for nine years.....Kevin O’Connor, Crystal’s father, feels persecuted by the backlash he and others like him face for their support of a bill whose author admits intent to discriminate against the LGBT community.

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” the elder O’Conner complained.

The O’Conners say that they would never stop a gay couple or a couple of another religion from eating at their establishment — but as for catering weddings, the answer is a clear “no.”

(source: indiana-pizza-shop-is-first-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service-thanks-religious-freedom/

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Beat me to it dog.

I choose to be heterosexual.

How come he get's a choice? I didn't get a choice. It. Ain't .Fair.

 

[ksen]

It's nice that the Indiana legislature felt that business religious liberty needed protecting but that employee religious liberty did not need protecting.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

Why would the employee religious liberty need protecting from the employer in a statute addressing governmental action in relation to the exercise of religion by the people?

Read the statute again. Paragraph 9 doesn't limit it only to governmental action.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

But maybe I just don't understand plain words as used in a legal document.

In other words, I read and understand this provision to assert the Indiana RFR does not create a justiciable claim or a cause of action by an applicant, employee, or former employee alleging the private employer engaged in conduct which substantially burdened the exercise of their religion.

Why is this provision so contentious to you?

Why shouldn't an employee fired by an employer for religious reasons not be able to sue under this provision but a cakemaker selling a cake to a lesbian couple can?

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, the O'Connors who own and operate Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, have not received Gov. Pence's message:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza in Walkerton explained to ABC57. O’Connor’s family, alleged Christians, have owned and operated Memories for nine years.....Kevin O’Connor, Crystal’s father, feels persecuted by the backlash he and others like him face for their support of a bill whose author admits intent to discriminate against the LGBT community.

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” the elder O’Conner complained.

The O’Conners say that they would never stop a gay couple or a couple of another religion from eating at their establishment — but as for catering weddings, the answer is a clear “no.”

(source: indiana-pizza-shop-is-first-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service-thanks-religious-freedom/

lol, I guess pizza is a popular dish at weddings in Indiana?

 

[James Madison]

Apparently, the O'Connors who own and operate Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, have not received Gov. Pence's message:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza in Walkerton explained to ABC57. O’Connor’s family, alleged Christians, have owned and operated Memories for nine years.....Kevin O’Connor, Crystal’s father, feels persecuted by the backlash he and others like him face for their support of a bill whose author admits intent to discriminate against the LGBT community.

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” the elder O’Conner complained.

The O’Conners say that they would never stop a gay couple or a couple of another religion from eating at their establishment — but as for catering weddings, the answer is a clear “no.”

(source: indiana-pizza-shop-is-first-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service-thanks-religious-freedom/

Well, the Indiana RFR isn't necessarily the reason or cause for them to engage in this discriminatory behavior. As I stated previously, the plain text of the law itself does not authorize or permit discrimination as a matter of right under the law or as lawful in and of itself. This pizza shop quite possibly had the freedom to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation before Indiana's RFR was passed due to a lack of state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or a lack of any ordinance or local law in the jurisdiction in which the pizza place is located prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[James Madison]

Why would the employee religious liberty need protecting from the employer in a statute addressing governmental action in relation to the exercise of religion by the people?

Read the statute again. Paragraph 9 doesn't limit it only to governmental action.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

But maybe I just don't understand plain words as used in a legal document.

In other words, I read and understand this provision to assert the Indiana RFR does not create a justiciable claim or a cause of action by an applicant, employee, or former employee alleging the private employer engaged in conduct which substantially burdened the exercise of their religion.

Why is this provision so contentious to you?

Why shouldn't an employee fired by an employer for religious reasons not be able to sue under this provision but a cakemaker selling a cake to a lesbian couple can?

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, the O'Connors who own and operate Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, have not received Gov. Pence's message:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza in Walkerton explained to ABC57. O’Connor’s family, alleged Christians, have owned and operated Memories for nine years.....Kevin O’Connor, Crystal’s father, feels persecuted by the backlash he and others like him face for their support of a bill whose author admits intent to discriminate against the LGBT community.

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” the elder O’Conner complained.

The O’Conners say that they would never stop a gay couple or a couple of another religion from eating at their establishment — but as for catering weddings, the answer is a clear “no.”

(source: indiana-pizza-shop-is-first-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service-thanks-religious-freedom/

lol, I guess pizza is a popular dish at weddings in Indiana?

Why would the employee religious liberty need protecting from the employer in a statute addressing governmental action in relation to the exercise of religion by the people? In other words, I read and understand this provision to assert the Indiana RFR does not create a justiciable claim or a cause of action by an applicant, employee, or former employee alleging the private employer engaged in conduct which substantially burdened the exercise of their religion.
Response in quote tags immediately below:

Read the statute again. Paragraph 9 doesn't limit it only to governmental action.

Read the statute again because you have misread and misunderstand Section 9 of the statute and/or misread and misunderstood what I said.

Why shouldn't an employee fired by an employer for religious reasons not be able to sue under this provision but a cakemaker selling a cake to a lesbian couple can?

Under what circumstances do you think the cake maker can rely upon RFR to deny selling a cake to a lesbian couple? I ask because it is the difference between the circumstances which answers your query. So think about it for a moment.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently, the O'Connors who own and operate Memories Pizza of Walkerton, IN, have not received Gov. Pence's message:
(source: indiana-pizza-shop-is-first-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service-thanks-religious-freedom/

Well, the Indiana RFR isn't necessarily the reason or cause for them to engage in this discriminatory behavior. As I stated previously, the plain text of the law itself does not authorize or permit discrimination as a matter of right under the law or as lawful in and of itself. This pizza shop quite possibly had the freedom to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation before Indiana's RFR was passed due to a lack of state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or a lack of any ordinance or local law in the jurisdiction in which the pizza place is located prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I think it is a reasonably accurate inference that this law emboldened the O'Connors.

 

[James Madison]

Well, the Indiana RFR isn't necessarily the reason or cause for them to engage in this discriminatory behavior. As I stated previously, the plain text of the law itself does not authorize or permit discrimination as a matter of right under the law or as lawful in and of itself. This pizza shop quite possibly had the freedom to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation before Indiana's RFR was passed due to a lack of state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or a lack of any ordinance or local law in the jurisdiction in which the pizza place is located prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I think it is a reasonably accurate inference that this law emboldened the O'Connors.

I would say it is reasonable the O'Connors have misconstrued what this law says and allows them to do, like so many other people. I'd add the qualification to your inference the O'Connors misunderstanding of the law "emboldened" them to act as they did.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.yelp.com/biz/memories-pizza-walkerton

I had the single most horrific experience of my life!
I wanted some pizza after my klan rally so of course it was memories pizza. I know we are supposed to be anonymous and all that but whatever!
I ordered a nice hot and steamy not gay and extra mozzarella cause I only consume white cheese because it is the superior cheese. And resting on top of my pepperoni was a tooth! I was shocked, but relieved it was a white tooth. Apparently it belonged to the girl behind the counter.
I went to return it to her and she was making out with this woman and screaming it was a choice!
It seems to me this restaurant has gone downhill.
I plan to tell my klan friends about this and we will be eating our white cheese elsewhere!

I'm ANGRY and will never order pizza from these people again because they're simply not discriminatory enough! I mean, just "gays"? What about anyone who works on Sundays (Leviticus 23:3)? People who wear makeup (Jeremiah 4:30)? Hungry people (Proverbs 23:2)? Men without beards (Leviticus 19:27)? Tattooed people (Leviticus 19:28)? People who eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)? People with messy hair (Leviticus 10:6)? New mothers (Leviticus 12:4-5)? Psychics or mediums (Leviticus 20:27)?

Also, I hope there's absolutely NO FAT in your food! (Leviticus 3:17) Because that would surely be sinful!!

And, lastly, you'd better not eat your own pizza, because if you've read the Bible, you certainly understand that in 1 Peter 2:1, God specifically instructed you to "rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." (That means you're supposed to lay aside ALL malice or ill will, like denying certain people service, you morons.)

 

[ksen]

Read the statute again. Paragraph 9 doesn't limit it only to governmental action.

Read the statute again because you have misread and misunderstand Section 9 of the statute and/or misread and misunderstood what I said.

Are you seriously not going to elaborate and make someone have to ask?

Why shouldn't an employee fired by an employer for religious reasons not be able to sue under this provision but a cakemaker selling a cake to a lesbian couple can?

Under what circumstances do you think the cake maker can rely upon RFR to deny selling a cake to a lesbian couple?

Pretty much any fringe religious idea they can think up. Maybe they don't want to participate in the lesbian couple's fornicatin' ways. Maybe the cakemmaker doesn't want to be a participant in the lesbian couple's scheme to recruit and subvert good chrisitan kids.

As you said, Indiana doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation so the sky's the limit.

I ask because it is the difference between the circumstances which answers your query. So think about it for a moment.

Nah, how about you just start giving full answers?

 

[James Madison]

Read the statute again because you have misread and misunderstand Section 9 of the statute and/or misread and misunderstood what I said.

Are you seriously not going to elaborate and make someone have to ask?

Why shouldn't an employee fired by an employer for religious reasons not be able to sue under this provision but a cakemaker selling a cake to a lesbian couple can?

Under what circumstances do you think the cake maker can rely upon RFR to deny selling a cake to a lesbian couple?

Pretty much any fringe religious idea they can think up. Maybe they don't want to participate in the lesbian couple's fornicatin' ways. Maybe the cakemmaker doesn't want to be a participant in the lesbian couple's scheme to recruit and subvert good chrisitan kids.

As you said, Indiana doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation so the sky's the limit.

I ask because it is the difference between the circumstances which answers your query. So think about it for a moment.

Nah, how about you just start giving full answers?

Are you seriously not going to elaborate and make someone have to ask?

There isn't much elaboration needed for the following:

Why would the employee religious liberty need protecting from the employer in a statute addressing governmental action in relation to the exercise of religion by the people? In other words, I read and understand this provision to assert the Indiana RFR does not create a justiciable claim or a cause of action by an applicant, employee, or former employee alleging the private employer engaged in conduct which substantially burdened the exercise of their religion.
​

And your response of:

Read the statute again. Paragraph 9 doesn't limit it only to governmental action.

The very plain text of section 9 illuminates your error. The language above it quote tags is not consistent with the language in section 9. No elaboration is needed but a simple and careful reading of section 9 will illuminate for you how your statement above is not correct in regards to section 9.

Pretty much any fringe religious idea they can think up. Maybe they don't want to participate in the lesbian couple's fornicatin' ways. Maybe the cakemmaker doesn't want to be a participant in the lesbian couple's scheme to recruit and subvert good chrisitan kids.

As you said, Indiana doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation so the sky's the limit.

No, this would not by itself permit the cake maker to invoke Indiana's RFR. Re-read Indiana's RFR.

 

[ksen]

I don't think I will reread it because I obviously don't understand the legal nuances of plain english words and no one wants to take the time to spell it out for a dummy like me.

 

[James Madison]

I don't think I will reread it because I obviously don't understand the legal nuances of plain english words and no one wants to take the time to spell it out for a dummy like me.

You aren't a dummy, which is why I am confident you can read the statute and figure it out. However, I will, later today, give you the explanation. I cannot right now because, well, I am due in court soon.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Thank you for the explanation. Some examples would be helpful to me on this issue.

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.

What is interesting about your two examples here are that they both demonstrate an "exercise of religion". As far as I know, running a bakery shop that sells wedding cakes is not a part of any religion's formal exercise. Correct me if there's a "Church of the Holy Oven" out there that demands its adherents to own businesses that sell cakes for heterosexual couples' weddings. If a bakery shop owner does not want to provide services to all segments of society, he or she has the option of not running a business that serves the public. I have yet to hear what aspects of the owners religious freedom is actually being impinged upon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I admire your efforts, Krypton, but please save yourself the energy. Certain posters will always twist any story of discrimination into a claim of persecution of whites, the rich, police, or Christians, pretty much any person or group that enjoys some level of power, especially when the power is used to discriminate.

And certain posters will always twist anything that looks bad for a minority into evidence of discrimination, whether it actually is or not.

 

[Angry Floof]

I admire your efforts, Krypton, but please save yourself the energy. Certain posters will always twist any story of discrimination into a claim of persecution of whites, the rich, police, or Christians, pretty much any person or group that enjoys some level of power, especially when the power is used to discriminate.

And certain posters will always twist anything that looks bad for a minority into evidence of discrimination, whether it actually is or not.

Really? Like who? In any power vs. powerless situation, I simply do not automatically side with power. Since few of these situations that we've ever talked about here have been clear cut or come with complete information, my conscience will not allow me to just follow along with childhood programming. Do you understand how power works? Do you get that we are all conditioned to trust and respect authority?

Given that you DO automatically side with power (excepting a few lame attempts to appear to be fair minded, which is a joke), I wonder if you've ever even entertained the possibility that "might is right" can be questioned.

But it's good that you're here. We all need an occasional reminder that there will always be at least a few right wing authoritarians among us and not to take free thinking for granted.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

What is interesting about your two examples here are that they both demonstrate an "exercise of religion". As far as I know, running a bakery shop that sells wedding cakes is not a part of any religion's formal exercise. Correct me if there's a "Church of the Holy Oven" out there that demands its adherents to own businesses that sell cakes for heterosexual couples' weddings. If a bakery shop owner does not want to provide services to all segments of society, he or she has the option of not running a business that serves the public. I have yet to hear what aspects of the owners religious freedom is actually being impinged upon.

In order to get an answer to that, they'd have to admit that their religion is inhumane and degraded, and not reflective of the supposedly inclusive message of Christ.

That is the only thread of imagined decency believers like Pence can conjure up when they find themselves accountable for their callous, childish behavior - the claim that they represent the nicer messages of Christianity, but without having to actually live those aspects. It's blatantly hypocritical and duplicitous, but with enough fellow believers supporting you, you can ignore any fact or logic, no matter how obvious to everyone else.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

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.

As usual, your have less regard for reality than making a pointless point. You know a figure of speech or metaphor when you read one, as I am sure that you know that in calling them "thugs" I am alluding to the brutal assassination on his reputation and his career at a company he founded.

But if you want to be literal, how is anyone 'indeed thuggish' when they donate the princely sum of 1,000 dollars to a state wide initiative that spent about the same 30 million spent by opponents? His contribution amounting to (roughly) .00003 of the pro-Prop 8 Budget makes him a brutal ruffian or assassin? (MW Def)

Neither his donation nor the EQUAL donation to anti-Prop 8 by another Mozilla executive contributed a parsley sprig of difference in the outcome. The real effect on people's lives were zero point zero.

On the other hand the ring leaders and mob, and hit team of several tech-left journalists DID do something , it had a 100 percent effect of ending his career at the company he co-founded and, by all accounts, treasured. You are correct, he did not boycott companies to fire and demote executives who had their beliefs exposed via a leaked donation.

And therein is the difference between decency and those taking pleasure in seeing someone's personal destruction for a donation.

 

[laughing dog]

James Madison:
So, if I understand this correctly, the owners and operators of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, In, currently are not prohibited from acting on their bigoted religious beliefs towards gay people under Indiana state law and federal law. But if the city of Walkerton, IN miraculously passed an ordnance forbidding the discrimination against gay people, this religious freedom law in Indiana would permit the owners to litigate and have the ordnance overturned.