Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

 

 

Indiana  governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill  that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses  in Indiana  to refuse to serve members of the LGBT  community and will effectively  legitimize  discrimination in Indiana against gay people 

 

It must be noted that this is not just a case of conservative Republicans trying to enforce there myopic views on society as many Republicans, including Pence, now want to " clarify " this bill

 

There has also been immediate reaction from certain businesses and states who have clearly stated that they wont invest in Indiana in certain ways if this bill is actually enforced in its current form

 

So what do you guys think? What is the reason or justification for this bill outside of the way it can be used to discriminate against the LGBT community? Is there a valid reason for the passing of this bill?

 

Obviously I am opposed to any kind of discrimination so I think its a strange decision for Republican lawmakers in Indiana to want to pass this bill but maybe there is another angle to this I am missing?

 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

This reminds me of a conversation I had about SB 1062 last year where I explained why laws like these are far worse than people realize – namely that they doesn’t just allow for discrimination against gays but it allows for discrimination against anyone (be it atheists, people of color, the left-handed, or the poor or disabled). If someone can show-horn discrimination into a religious belief system they’re covered and that’s a really frightening concept.

[Valsuelm]

Damnit General!

 

You missed the SJW event of the year (so far) yesterday.

 

Without your lead, the SWJs didnt fare so well.

[Valsuelm]

On topic:

 

In short, the controversy is more than likely a helluva lot of hullabaloo about not that much, if anything substantial or reasonable. Red herring, smokescreen, distraction, possible culture subversion, what have you. In the grand scheme of things it's likely not all that important, but it tugs at the emotional strings of the not very well informed populace with attention spans not much greater than rabbits on crack. The overwhelming vast majority of which probably has never actually read the law, yet they have strong emotional thoughts on it. Such is the way of the cracked rabb... errr shee... erm... average pop cultured Joe.

 

Link the actual law rather than some 'news' articles about it and perhaps we can have an informed discussion.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Link the actual law rather than some 'news' articles about it and perhaps we can have an informed discussion.

 

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.

 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Deadly_Nightshade

[BruceVC]

Damnit General!

 

You missed the SJW event of the year (so far) yesterday.

 

Without your lead, the SWJs didnt fare so well.

 

 

I was aware of this development  but I have been avoiding commenting because I haven't played PoE yet and I don't want to ruin the narrative or find out too much about the game 

[BruceVC]

This reminds me of a conversation I had about SB 1062 last year where I explained why laws like these are far worse than people realize – namely that they doesn’t just allow for discrimination against gays but it allows for discrimination against anyone (be it atheists, people of color, the left-handed, or the poor or disabled). If someone can show-horn discrimination into a religious belief system they’re covered and that’s a really frightening concept.

 

That's my concern, a person could use this bill to discriminate against any group of people that they have some personal issue with and then claim they not discriminating but rather its there "religious right " to do this and they would be protected from being sued due to this bill 

[Volourn]

If this law is made official, how long before SJWs ban all straight white men  (espicially if they are dead gamers) from their businesses? This is why I oppose it.

[BruceVC]

If this law is made official, how long before SJWs ban all straight white men  (espicially if they are dead gamers) from their businesses? This is why I oppose it.

 

Good to see we are on the same side around this debate Volo, even if it is for different reasons 

 

Oh and just to be clear, this bill is now  official. But what it really means is now being debated as there is huge pressure on the Indiana governor, Mike Pence,  to now clarify exactly what  it means and how it can and will be implemented 

Edited March 31, 2015 by BruceVC

[Chilloutman]

 

This reminds me of a conversation I had about SB 1062 last year where I explained why laws like these are far worse than people realize – namely that they doesn’t just allow for discrimination against gays but it allows for discrimination against anyone (be it atheists, people of color, the left-handed, or the poor or disabled). If someone can show-horn discrimination into a religious belief system they’re covered and that’s a really frightening concept.

 

That's my concern, a person could use this bill to discriminate against any group of people that they have some personal issue with and then claim they not discriminating but rather its there "religious right " to do this and they would be protected from being sued due to this bill 

 

 

Well if you can discriminate any group of people, is it still discrimination? xD

[HoonDing]

Businesses can deny service to whomever they want.

 

[Gorgon]

Religion is a loophole for a whole lot of behaviors that society nolonger condones isn't it, but would it be less invasive to forbid religion ?. I think not. 

 

The point, I think, is that you can't really legislate your way out of every unfair practice. 

[Hurlshort]

I just couldn't imagine living in Indiana and watching the governor drive tons of major companies away.  This is economic suicide.  I don't see how the people of the state aren't freaking out right now.  We recalled Gray Davis in California over less than this.

[Namutree]

The Governor: Oh look, a hornet's nest. Better poke it with a stick.

[Meshugger]

Let them do it. At least we can have an experiment on how the law will affect society, good and bad. I do have my suspicions that it will produce som unsawery results.

[213374U]

Damnit General!

 

You missed the SJW event of the year (so far) yesterday.

 

Without your lead, the SWJs didnt fare so well.

 

Wow. That what well-adjusted, responsible young adults sink their energies into nowadays? We are SO ****ed.

 

I feel for the mods.

 

 

 

The point, I think, is that you can't really legislate your way out of every unfair practice. 

 

I doubt legislators would agree. Mostly because if they did, they would be admitting that they are the useless mites many people suspect them to be. In an amusing occurrence of irony, that is precisely where laws draw their strength from: people being indoctrinated to believe that they are useful and necessary, as opposed to them being actually useful and necessary...

[BruceVC]

Well for those like me opposed to this bill there has been  a continuous and energized backlash from various groups across the USA and that includes many people within Indiana, like the Major of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard. This is very reassuring

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396555062/indianapolis-mayor-religious-laws-backers-missing-the-bigger-trend?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

 

The reality is the USA is making so much progress at moving the  country to the point where it really doesn't discriminate against people because of there sexual orientation  and  legislation  like this seems completely anachronistic and unreasonable .....and really out of touch with what the majority of Americans want 

[Malcador]

Hm, this would be self-correcting, businesses that reject people by some standard might deny themselves revenue and probably wither. Is this a problem in Indiana ? If a customer is a deviant in your eyes, so what, take their money but don't be nice to them.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So will this allow Islamic businesses to not service women who don't wear hijab?

[BruceVC]

Hm, this would be self-correcting, businesses that reject people by some standard might deny themselves revenue and probably wither. Is this a problem in Indiana ? If a customer is a deviant in your eyes, so what, take their money but don't be nice to them.

 

True there would be a degree of punitive economic steps against the overall Indiana economy if this bill wasn't clarified, I'm not sure the overall real impact that would have ?

 

But what concerns me more is where if the bill is left as it is I can guarantee you there will  be examples of gay couples who want nothing more than to celebrate the fact they are in love and want to get married, this is an example, being denied services in certain businesses. Denied services and humiliated...humiliated quite possibly in front of there cherished partners.

 

So I would rather  the bill was unequivocal in its message that it cannot lead to the discrimination of the LGBT community..I wouldn't accept anything less if I was an American

[BruceVC]

So will this allow Islamic businesses to not service women who don't wear hijab?

 

That's actually an excellent and relevant point 

 

Why can't this lead to that kind of dramatic interpretation of the bill?  It would seem logical to me because many Muslims, mostly in the ME, don't even speak to women and expect women to wear the Burka..so what not demand to only serve women who dress this way? Under that bill why can't they say that ...damn KP  that's one excellent way to get the Indiana lawmakers to quickly make the changes in the new legislation  that are expected by many of us 

[Malcador]

Well, if you are a homosexual and want to be married in a Catholic church or something, they should be free to just tell you no. Not sure how you being gay comes up when buying, say, coffee or tools, though.

 

Ah well, it'll get reverted with all this outrage.

[Valsuelm]

This conversation has been had before on this forum.

 

In a truly free nation people have the right to associate with whom they wish, and to not associate with whomever they don't want to, for whatever reason under the sun they might have, good or bad.

 

The law itself is a reaction to other laws and lawsuits, that for the most part are draconian, in some cases unconstitutional, and in some cases (if not most or all) reactive laws themselves. (Reactive laws generally suck all around).

 

In reality, people are denied service in various businesses and organizations all the time for all sorts of reasons. There generally is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in a free nation.

 

But yea... a helluva lot of hullabaloo about not much at all.

 

 

Oh, and as an aside. The NCAA is a ****wit of an organization.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Amentep]

Well, if you are a homosexual and want to be married in a Catholic church or something, they should be free to just tell you no. Not sure how you being gay comes up when buying, say, coffee or tools, though.

 

 

There was a spate of cases over the last few years where a farm that allowed weddings on its site was forced to provide gay wedding despite the owner claiming to be a Christian and therefore unable to support gay marriage and a florist who referred a regular to another florist stating she couldn't make him flowers for his gay wedding due to her religious beliefs being fined for discrimination.  A number of people felt that this went against religious freedoms and that, in fact, the government was discriminating against people's right to practice their religion.

 

There's a number of problems with this argument (not the least of which is the government has always limited the freedom of religion when it infringed on others liberties, which is why polygamy, pedophilia and human sacrifice aren't allowed even on religious grounds in the US).  The root of the problem, ultimately, is that the state recognizes (and indeed promotes through benefits) a religious concept (marriage) which, unfortunately, won't actually be challenged in any of this.

[BruceVC]

 

Well, if you are a homosexual and want to be married in a Catholic church or something, they should be free to just tell you no. Not sure how you being gay comes up when buying, say, coffee or tools, though.

 

 

There was a spate of cases over the last few years where a farm that allowed weddings on its site was forced to provide gay wedding despite the owner claiming to be a Christian and therefore unable to support gay marriage and a florist who referred a regular to another florist stating she couldn't make him flowers for his gay wedding due to her religious beliefs being fined for discrimination.  A number of people felt that this went against religious freedoms and that, in fact, the government was discriminating against people's right to practice their religion.

 

There's a number of problems with this argument (not the least of which is the government has always limited the freedom of religion when it infringed on others liberties, which is why polygamy, pedophilia and human sacrifice aren't allowed even on religious grounds in the US).  The root of the problem, ultimately, is that the state recognizes (and indeed promotes through benefits) a religious concept (marriage) which, unfortunately, won't actually be challenged in any of this.

 

 

This has been an interesting post, nice one 

 

But I'm not understanding what you say is the "root problem ", are you saying that because marriage is seen as a religious right people who follow a certain religious view will always oppose same-sex marriage ?