Indiana's new "Religious Freedom" Law

[Metaphor]

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.

Yes, you certainly have a penchant for figurative turns of phrase, so smackingly inappropriate and hyperbolic it would make a drama queen like me blush.

I am not blind to your attempts to flavour the narrative either, but your language is all ornament and no substance. Let's examine the second half of your last sentence above. First, the 'brutal' 'assassination' on his 'reputation' and 'career'. Eich does not own his reputation; a reputation is built up by a set of beliefs about him by others.

An assassination refers to the killing of something. Did the 'gay-stapo' kill his reputation (figuratively speaking, of course)? How did they do it? It appears to me they did it by spreading truths about his actions. Are you generally shocked and morally saddened by the spreading of truths? I am not, but it's clear our moral compasses are very differently aligned.

Of course, someone's reputation can't be destroyed (unless all knowledge of a person is erased from existence). Rather, his reputation was changed from positive to negative. If someone's reputation can be changed from positive to negative by the mere spreading of truth, isn't it morally good that these truth-hoods were spread? Surely a reputation informed by the truth is better than a reputation informed by falsehoods and delusions?

And the final few words: the fact that he co-founded the company has zero bearing on the situation. I'm sure you know that, and I'm sure it won't stop you mentioning it over and over.

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)

Oh, I get it. Because his donation was neither sufficient nor necessary, for his cause to succeed the malice in his heart that motivated the donation can all be forgiven?

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.

The difference is quite profound, though. Eich's donation was immoral, and the other Mozilla executive's wasn't.

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.

If Eich had donated to ISIS, would it be indecent to call for him to step down? Would it be indecent to boycott a company that supported him?

Would it be indecent to make the truth known?

No, maxparrish, it would not. You are either mistaken about, or are deliberately lying about your knowledge of, the moral facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The key legalese above is this part: "if narrowly tailored/least restrictive means chosen to achieve the compelling state interest"

If narrowly tailor/least restrictive means is almost entirely without any tangible meaning and almost abuses the term subjective. A person that would be for laws against discrimination would say thusly, "I'm for laws that protect people's Civil Rights". Instead, the response is full of amorphous caveats into the mix and restricts it from actually meaning anything.

Simply put, an amendment was offered to explicitly state that this new law would not be applicable against Civil Rights laws or to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That amendment was voted down 40-10. That gives one all the legislative intent they need to understand the point of this legislation.

 

[James Madison]

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.

The key legalese above is this part: "if narrowly tailored/least restrictive means chosen to achieve the compelling state interest"

If narrowly tailor/least restrictive means is almost entirely without any tangible meaning and almost abuses the term subjective. A person that would be for laws against discrimination would say thusly, "I'm for laws that protect people's Civil Rights". Instead, the response is full of amorphous caveats into the mix and restricts it from actually meaning anything.

Simply put, an amendment was offered to explicitly state that this new law would not be applicable against Civil Rights laws or to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That amendment was voted down 40-10. That gives one all the legislative intent they need to understand the point of this legislation.

If narrowly tailor/least restrictive means is almost entirely without any tangible meaning and almost abuses the term subjective.

More non-sense from someone who is, once again, venturing an opinion on a legal term of art while simultaneously lacking sufficient information to make an informed opinion at all. The phrase "narrowly tailored/least restrictive means" has been in use in the legal field and by the state and federal judiciary for many, many years and the phrase, for those familiar with the law in regards to phrase, how the courts have conceptualized the phrase and applied the phrase and its meaning in many cases, the phrase has "tangible meaning." Your uninformed opinion to the contrary, which is not surprising wrong once again, does, not almost, but does constitute as the "abuse."

A person that would be for laws against discrimination would say thusly, "I'm for laws that protect people's Civil Rights". Instead, the response is full of amorphous caveats into the mix and restricts it from actually meaning anything.

Well, since you are speculating and guessing as to what should have been said by X person, I speculate any rational person would not have said the plethora of erroneous, incorrect, wrong and inaccurate statements you have made in this thread and in this post.

Do yourself a profound favor Higgins, do not venture your opinion on legal matters in which you do not have sufficient information to render an informed opinion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I don't automatically side with power. The problem is your side generally automatically sides against power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The key legalese above is this part: "if narrowly tailored/least restrictive means chosen to achieve the compelling state interest"

If narrowly tailor/least restrictive means is almost entirely without any tangible meaning and almost abuses the term subjective. A person that would be for laws against discrimination would say thusly, "I'm for laws that protect people's Civil Rights". Instead, the response is full of amorphous caveats into the mix and restricts it from actually meaning anything.

Simply put, an amendment was offered to explicitly state that this new law would not be applicable against Civil Rights laws or to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That amendment was voted down 40-10. That gives one all the legislative intent they need to understand the point of this legislation.

If narrowly tailor/least restrictive means is almost entirely without any tangible meaning and almost abuses the term subjective.

More non-sense from someone who is, once again, venturing an opinion on a legal term of art while simultaneously lacking sufficient information to make an informed opinion at all. The phrase "narrowly tailored/least restrictive means" has been in use in the legal field and by the state and federal judiciary for many, many years and the phrase, for those familiar with the law in regards to phrase, how the courts have conceptualized the phrase and applied the phrase and its meaning in many cases, the phrase has "tangible meaning." Your uninformed opinion to the contrary, which is not surprising wrong once again, does, not almost, but does constitute as the "abuse."

I'm sorry, but did you actually show how the term isn't subjective? Because that was the claim you quoted, yet you didn't actually counter the claim. The subjectiveness is the absolute crux to the power of such a rule or law.

Do yourself a profound favor Higgins, do not venture your opinion on legal matters in which you do not have sufficient information to render an informed opinion.

I'm informed enough to see what this law was trying to allow. I'm informed enough to see how this law has evolved from other states trying to do the same thing... and learning from their mistakes when it failed to allow discrimination.

You want to look at this law as if it is just words in a vacuum. I see the law, the rejected amendment, the recent history of the Republicans on the subject and see something that quite obvious. I'm not the only one.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

I don't automatically side with power. The problem is your side generally automatically sides against power.

Wait, I thought you were the Libertarian?

 

[Arctish]

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.

Bisexuality - the best of both worlds.

 

[laughing dog]

So does this mean that no locality in Indiana or the State can legislate against sharia law?

 

[Angry Floof]

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?

I don't automatically side with power. The problem is your side generally automatically sides against power.

We hold power accountable.

 

[Ford]

Anybody live in Indiana familiar with this bill and what it is actually likely to do? Is it just a bunch of political posturing or does it truly restrain same-sex freedoms?

Circling back around to the OP...

I live in Arizona, where this was tried before.

To say it is just a bunch of political posturing is, IMO, selling it short.

The Indiana law, like the Arizona bill before and the Arkansas bill after were quite possibly the most brilliant scam in years. Perhaps even decades.

These are laws (and proposed laws) that address a problem which simply does not exist. Like the voter ID laws which have been enacted to stop non-existent voter fraud, these actions seek to protect Christians as a persecuted class of people whose very existence is threatened so seriously that they must have protections written into the law.

I mean, I like to employ analogies in making a point, but this sort of law makes me struggle to come up with one because it is so blatantly absurd.


This is like...trying to pass a law in Vatican City to protect Catholics from discrimination. Like passing a "Muslim Religious Freedom Protection Act" in Mecca.


The fact that these laws have passed and are on the books is a testament to the ability of folks to sell an astonishing level of bullshit to the American people. Usually there is a kernel of truth in bullshit claims. OxyClean does actually clean things. The ShamWow is somewhat absorbent. The Slap Chop cuts vegetables. But there is absolutely no truth to the claim that the religious liberty of Christians in America is at risk. Not from the gays. Not from atheists. Not from anybody.

 

[Axulus]

Yes, you certainly have a penchant for figurative turns of phrase, so smackingly inappropriate and hyperbolic it would make a drama queen like me blush.

I am not blind to your attempts to flavour the narrative either, but your language is all ornament and no substance. Let's examine the second half of your last sentence above. First, the 'brutal' 'assassination' on his 'reputation' and 'career'. Eich does not own his reputation; a reputation is built up by a set of beliefs about him by others.

An assassination refers to the killing of something. Did the 'gay-stapo' kill his reputation (figuratively speaking, of course)? How did they do it? It appears to me they did it by spreading truths about his actions. Are you generally shocked and morally saddened by the spreading of truths? I am not, but it's clear our moral compasses are very differently aligned.

Of course, someone's reputation can't be destroyed (unless all knowledge of a person is erased from existence). Rather, his reputation was changed from positive to negative. If someone's reputation can be changed from positive to negative by the mere spreading of truth, isn't it morally good that these truth-hoods were spread? Surely a reputation informed by the truth is better than a reputation informed by falsehoods and delusions?

And the final few words: the fact that he co-founded the company has zero bearing on the situation. I'm sure you know that, and I'm sure it won't stop you mentioning it over and over.

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)

Oh, I get it. Because his donation was neither sufficient nor necessary, for his cause to succeed the malice in his heart that motivated the donation can all be forgiven?

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.

The difference is quite profound, though. Eich's donation was immoral, and the other Mozilla executive's wasn't.

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.

If Eich had donated to ISIS, would it be indecent to call for him to step down? Would it be indecent to boycott a company that supported him?

Would it be indecent to make the truth known?

No, maxparrish, it would not. You are either mistaken about, or are deliberately lying about your knowledge of, the moral facts.

Brilliant post - essentially max's whole rant boils down to "his actions do not negatively affect my assessment of his reputation, and if you have a different view about his reputation and spread truth about his actions you are part of the "gaystapo"

 

[James Madison]

So does this mean that no locality in Indiana or the State can legislate against sharia law?

Well, this is perhaps true, not because of Indiana's RFR, but rather the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment may prohibit such legislation. However, Indiana's RFR does not preclude the state of Indiana, county, township, city, municipality, etcetera, from passing such a law. Rather, the Indiana RFR only provides the analytical framework a court is to apply should someone challenge such a law in court.

 

[James Madison]

I obviously don't understand the legal nuances.

All right Indiana Code section 9 reads as follows.

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.
​

What is the chapter? The chapter is the Religious Freedom Restoration. Who can violate the RFR chapter? The RFR chapter establishes who can violate the RFR chapter and it is the government and only the government, or a governmental law, regulation, ordinance, administrative rule, etcetera. The RFR chapter does not establish private, non-governmental entity conduct can violate the RFR chapter. So what does this mean? This means Section 9 language "of a violation of this chapter" is in relation to some governmental action imposing a substantial burden, while lacking a compelling state interest, and is not least restrictive, including those judicial and administrative proceedings in which the government is not a party. And yes, there can be government action in violation of the statute and raised as a defense although the government is not a party.

An example would be the following. Evansville, Indiana, has a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination/denial of service by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Jenna and Mary, a gay couple, enter the business of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Furnace Baked Goods. J and M ask the business owner of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego Furnace Baked Goods to bake them a cake for their wedding and to make cupcakes for their wedding reception. The business owner refuses to make a wedding cake or to provide cupcakes for J and M's wedding or wedding reception.

J and M then file a lawsuit against the Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego Furnace Baked Goods and the basis of the lawsuit is the Evansville city ordinance prohibiting the denial of service by a public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation. The two parties to the lawsuit/legal action are non-governmental entities, in other words the government is not a party to the lawsuit or legal action. Yet, under section 9 of the Indiana law SMA bakery can raise as a defense a violation of the Indiana RFR, although the government is not a party to the lawsuit/legal proceeding, and this is because the Evansville public accommodation ordinance constitutes as a government law, passed by a governmental entity (city council) invoked by J and M in a lawsuit against SMA bakery in which SMA is asserting the Evansville ordinance is a violation of Indiana RFR and therefore, cannot be relied upon in a lawsuit/legal proceeding against them.

 

[ksen]

Aaah, thanks. That does clear it up a bit.

 

[maxparrish]

...your language is all ornament and no substance. Let's examine the second half of your last sentence above. First, the 'brutal' 'assassination' on his 'reputation' and 'career'. Eich does not own his reputation; a reputation is built up by a set of beliefs about him by others....Of course, someone's reputation can't be destroyed (unless all knowledge of a person is erased from existence)...

An assassination refers to the killing of something. Did the 'gay-stapo' kill his reputation (figuratively speaking, of course)?

I see you are still dodging my original point regarding your affection for pointless points - offering yet another one even more pedantic than the last. But while you stew and fret over the figurative meaning of reputation and assert its immortality, I will take a moment to explain the obvious:

So you've heard of the phrase "character assassination"? Ever wondered what the synonyms are for "character" - you know, like reputation, name, good name, standing, and repute? Ever read a common reference work? Character assassination is the "killing" (figuratively of course) or attempted killing of a person's reputation - which may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of the facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person...

Ergo, Eich could have been subject to the assassination of his character (reputation).

(By the way, a person does own his "good name"; the historical roots of defamation law is based on the presumption that one can damage or destroy a holding of value, i.e. one's reputation).

How did they do it? It appears to me they did it by spreading truths about his actions. Are you generally shocked and morally saddened by the spreading of truths? I am not, but it's clear our moral compasses are very differently aligned.

...

I will enlighten you again, but at the moment I have to run some errands.

 

[Axulus]

So you've heard of the phrase "character assassination"? Ever wondered what the synonyms are for "character" - you know, like reputation, name, good name, standing, and repute? Ever read a common reference work? Character assassination is the "killing" (figuratively of course) or attempted killing of a person's reputation - which may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of the facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person?

Can you point out these alleged exaggerations, misleading half-truths and manipulation of the facts by the media and the "gaystapo" in regards to Eich?

 

[maxparrish]

So you've heard of the phrase "character assassination"? Ever wondered what the synonyms are for "character" - you know, like reputation, name, good name, standing, and repute? Ever read a common reference work? Character assassination is the "killing" (figuratively of course) or attempted killing of a person's reputation - which may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of the facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person?

Can you point out these alleged exaggerations, misleading half-truths and manipulation of the facts by the media and the "gaystapo" in regards to Eich?

See bottom of last post. I will address this later (although I have already done so in earlier posts).

 

[Keith&Co.]

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/

I read that the pizza shop didn't open today.
They don't discriminate against gays, they insist, and they just stand for what they believe in, which they feel is now legally protected.
They've received a fuck-ton of other people who expressed their beliefs in response. That's legally protected, too, right? Well, probably not the death threats....

 

[Axulus]

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/

I read that the pizza shop didn't open today.
They don't discriminate against gays, they insist, and they just stand for what they believe in, which they feel is now legally protected.
They've received a fuck-ton of other people who expressed their beliefs in response. That's legally protected, too, right? Well, probably not the death threats....

A bucketload of money has been raised for them ($258,000 and counting), so perhaps they are closing because they realize they don't need to work for awhile?

https://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza/

 

[Keith&Co.]

I read that the pizza shop didn't open today.
They don't discriminate against gays, they insist, and they just stand for what they believe in, which they feel is now legally protected.
They've received a fuck-ton of other people who expressed their beliefs in response. That's legally protected, too, right? Well, probably not the death threats....

A bucketload of money has been raised for them ($258,000 and counting), so perhaps they are closing because they realize they don't need to work for awhile?

https://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza/

Yeah, that would be why the co-owner told the press they were 'in hiding.'

 

[Metaphor]

I see you are still dodging my original point regarding your affection for pointless points - offering yet another one even more pedantic than the last. But while you stew and fret over the figurative meaning of reputation and assert its immortality, I will take a moment to explain the obvious:

So you've heard of the phrase "character assassination"? Ever wondered what the synonyms are for "character" - you know, like reputation, name, good name, standing, and repute? Ever read a common reference work? Character assassination is the "killing" (figuratively of course) or attempted killing of a person's reputation - which may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of the facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person...

How did the 'gay-stapo' exaggerate? What were there half-truths? How did they 'manipulate' facts?

Was their 'picture' of Eich as a person who donated to Prop 8 an untrue picture?

I see you appear to be implying with your response that it's okay for a reputation to be destroyed as long as the information used to destroy it is true.

Ergo, Eich could have been subject to the assassination of his character (reputation).

And you've yet to establish that character assassination is morally wrong.

(By the way, a person does own his "good name"; the historical roots of defamation law is based on the presumption that one can damage or destroy a holding of value, i.e. one's reputation).

Reputation certainly does have value, and it certainly can be destroyed. But a falsely positive reputation based on false and incomplete information has negative externalities on society. It is certainly right and proper for a falsely positive reputation to be destroyed.

I will enlighten you again, but at the moment I have to run some errands.

Is your first errand begging the question? I'd have thought you'd done enough of that, because all you've done so far is assumed your conclusions in your premises.