Republicans in Indiana Pass Anti-LGBT Bill Legalizing Discrimination

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JoeNation, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    In 1993 a similar law was passed unanimously in the House and with a 97% majority in the senate, and was signed by Bill Clinton. In 1997 it was ruled that the law applied only to the Federal government, not to individual states. Since then 21 states have passed the law.

    States with RFRA legislation in Place:
    -Alabama (Constitutional amendment)
    -Arizona
    -Connecticut
    -Florida
    -Idaho
    -Illinois
    -Indiana
    -Kansas
    -Kentucky
    -Louisiana
    -Mississippi
    -Missouri
    -New Mexico
    -Oklahoma
    -Pennsylvania
    -Rhode Island
    -South Carolina
    -Tennessee
    -Texas
    -Utah
    -Virginia

    So I see no one is protesting this law in the liberal states of Illinois and Connecticut...
     
  2. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

  3. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    You say a similar law. How is it similar and how is it different? The 1993 bill did not give business entities the freedom to discriminate against anyone. Not the same as Indiana's law at all.

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bbthrough 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by CongressmanChuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimousU.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

    The RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2015
  4. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    Neither does the Indiana law, turn off MSNBC

    2498
    2261

    135




    Here it is: The text of Indiana's ‘religious freedom’ law
    Star report11:24 a.m. EDT March 27, 2015
    226TWEET 1LINKEDIN 135COMMENTEMAILMORE
    Here is the full text of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law.

    SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

    AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

    SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

    Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

    Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

    Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

    Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

    Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

    Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

    Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

    Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

    Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

    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.

    Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

    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.
     
    CoinOKC likes this.
  5. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    Oh silly youngster. These types of laws have already been used to discriminate and Indiana's law is the broadest yet. I'm not sure where the MSNBC comments hails from but I'll acquiesce. Here is a CNN report that quotes a legal expert.

    Indiana's religious freedom law: What you need to know

    (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence stirred up controversy this week when he signed a "religious freedom" bill into law.

    The law has businesses and civil rights groups up in arms and threatening -- or in some cases pledging -- to boycott the state.

    The reaction has gotten so hot, that on Saturday, Pence told The Indianapolis Starthat he is working with legislators to amend the law and "clarify" that it does not promote discrimination.

    He told the Star that a new bill would likely be introduced in coming days but did not specify what it would say or who would introduce it.

    What's so controversial about religious freedom?

    It's not so much that religious freedom has suddenly become controversial, but rather critics of the bill assert the law could be used by individuals and businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion -- particularly against the LGBT community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

    That's a claim Pence has thoroughly rejected: "This bill is not about discrimination. And if I thought it was about discrimination I would have vetoed it."

    But civil liberties and gay rights groups assert that the law could be used by businesses to deny service to people based on their sexual orientation and justify that discrimination based on their religious belief.

    The law asserts that the government can't "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" and that individuals who feel like their religious beliefs have been or could be "substantially burdened" can lean on this law to fend off lawsuits.

    So what qualifies as a substantial burden?

    Well, that's not entirely clear and would likely have to be litigated in the courts if cases involving this law come up.

    Supporters of these laws bring up the example of a florist who refuses to sell flowers for a gay wedding or a baker who won't make that couple's wedding cake -- and it's clear this law is aimed at fending off lawsuits that florist and that baker might face.

    But what about a restaurant that refuses to serve a gay couple simply wanting to sit down for a meal?

    "It would foil any lawsuit against a supplier who acted on religious grounds, but the law can get squirrely," CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, adding that it's likely that a refusal to serve a gay person wouldn't stand under the law, but a refusal to provide a service for a gay wedding would.

    Is Indiana the first state to implement this kind of a law?

    Nope. It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993.

    But that law passed with the backing of a broad-based coalition and wasn't set against the backdrop of gay rights or the wave of marriage equality laws that have swept the country in recent years.

    The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.

    In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.

    But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."

    "Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.

    Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.

    Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.

    And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.

    One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."

    "The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."

    Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?

    Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.

    A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.

    A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013.

    Are there any protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

    Yes, 21 states currently have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And another 9 have those protections, but just for public employees.

    Angie's List halts Indiana expansion over law
     
  6. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    The law is exactly the same as the laws passed in AZ, FL, IL, LA, SC, and TX. (the other 14 states have slightly different wording)
    The only reason that this is such a big deal is the 1st amendment hating leftists are trying to make this a gay rights issue. It's not. the law does not allow for discrimination based on sexuality.
     
    CoinOKC likes this.
  7. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

  8. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    Really? The "Law" does not allow for discrimination based on sexuality? You are so naive, that it is down right adorable. There are actually 29 states where can can be fired for just being gay. Care to guess what color those states are? And in 34 states it is legal to fire someone solely for being transgender. So tell me again how the law protects people from being discriminated against because of ones sexuality.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    There should be a "don't ask/don't tell" type policy when it comes to hiring.
    It says absolutely nothing about sexuality. The intent of the law is to uphold the freedom of religion.
    good.
    Last I checked, Pennsylvania and Michigan are blue states. Just sayin'.
     
    LucyRay likes this.
  10. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    Let me repeat what I said earlier.
    It seems that whenever you can't defend, articulate, or stick to one line of reasoning, you simply keep going in the same direction. Maybe that is just being a whelp or simply just being a Right winger. You defend and display discrimination and try to tell us that this Indiana law doesn't discriminate. You aren't exactly the type of person that can speak to nondiscrimination since you seem to be just fine with it. Discrimination is wrong. It always has been. And no matter how much people like you and other Right wingers try and make excuses for it, it is ugly and must be fought. You will not win. Your type is a dying breed. You just don't know it yet.
     
  11. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC T R U M P 2 0 2 4

    I'll be interested to see how a gay Satanic church reacts when they're forced to marry a straight Christian couple. :oops:
     
    JLogan likes this.
  12. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

  13. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    I agree, in a Christian society we should help the poor. But instead of taking money from the middle class and wealthy and providing them with food, healthcare, etc., we should take that money from the middle class/wealthy and use it to fund programs to teach them job skills so they can eventually work their way into the middle class and pay for their own food and healthcare. I have no problem with tax dollars going to the poor, however I do have a problem with Welfare dependency.
    "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime"

    I also agree that Christianity is not cover for bigotry, we should not discriminate, but at the same time we should not encourage un-Christian behaviors (like gay marriage). I know homosexuals who are wonderful people, but I still believe homosexual marriage is wrong. I believe all businesses should have the right to abstain from having any involvement in a gay wedding, but they should not be allowed to refuse service to customers based on sexuality or any other (arguably)uncontrollable factor. The only reason why I believe there should be a don't ask/don't tell policy when hiring is this:

    Say two men are trying to get the same job at company X. One is straight and the other is gay. The straight man is better qualified, and gets the job. Then the gay man assumes that he was discriminated against because of his sexuality, sues company X, and likely wins. If the judge does not rule in the gay man's favor, he is called a homophobic bigot and MSNBC incites riots.
    This causes businesses to hire underqualified employees in fear of being accused of discrimination or sued. This already happens with current Affirmative Action laws.
     
  14. MJuingong

    MJuingong New Member

    Homosexuality is conduct that has been considered immoral by most monotheistic religions for many centuries. Adherents to those religions object to having to in some way participate in such behavior.

    Selling commodities to a homosexual is not in and of itself participating or condoning his/her behavior. Aiding activities that further homosexuality is participating, and may be condoning, the behavior.

    Thus, to allow religious people to refuse to participate in the activity is the purpose of that law.

    Indiana will thrive; as will the other states with such laws.
     
    LucyRay and JLogan like this.
  15. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    Exactly my point! thank you.
     
  16. JLogan
    Cheerful

    JLogan Trump is my President!

    By the way, Obama voted in support of this exact law in Illinois.
     
  17. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    First Church of Cannabis


    In a classic case of “unintended consequences,” the recently signed
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.

    While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State’s office, reports RTV6.

    Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”

    Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.

    According to Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, Indiana legislators, in their haste to protect the religious values and practices of their constituents, may have unwittingly put the state in an awkward position with those who profess to smoke pot as a religious sacrament.

    Shabazz pointed out that it is still illegal to smoke pot in Indiana, but wrote, “I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot of getting off scot-free.”

    Noting that RFRA supporters say the bill “only spells out a test as to whether a government mandate would unduly burden a person’s faith and the government has to articulate a compelling interest for that rule and how it would be carried out in the least restrictive manner,” Shabazz contends the law may tie the state’s hands.

    “So, with that said, what ‘compelling interest’ would the state of Indiana have to prohibit me from using marijuana as part of my religious practice?” he asked. ” I would argue marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and wine used in religious ceremonies. Marijuana isn’t any more ‘addictive’ than alcohol and wine is used in some religious ceremonies. And marijuana isn’t any more of a ‘gateway’ drug than the wine used in a religious ceremony will make you go out any buy hard liquor. (At least not on Sunday.)”

    Shabazz concluded, “I want a front row seat at the trial that we all know is going to happen when all this goes down.”
     
  18. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    Your religious beliefs, no matter the history or length of time they have existed, do not afford you the justification to treat people as second class citizens in a democracy. Your monotheistic religion also used the bible to justify genocide of native peoples, slavery, murder, rape, and any number of unacceptable behaviors in your history. Since you brought up history, which has done more harm to societies, homosexuality or religion? Some people are homosexuals. Homosexuals have existed throughout history which is much longer than your religion has existed. They trump you. Now what?
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  19. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC T R U M P 2 0 2 4

  20. JoeNation
    No Mood

    JoeNation The ReichWing Abuser

    I see it as neither bad nor good. Just one more poorly conceived Right wing law.
     

Share This Page