Indiana Gov. signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay customers.

[spuwho]

I hope everyone here posting do know that the Indiana law simply codifies the Federal RFRA act at the state level.

The same RFRA has been passed in 30 other states.

No where does the law make any anti gay statements. It simply provides the framework for how to handle legal issues surrounding ones religious views.

That can include *ANY* religious view. Its not exclusive to Christianity.

No where does it say one group should be discrimated against.

I hope you know you're full of shit.

Indiana's SB 101, is not an exact replica of the federal RFRA. A February 27 letter by 30 legal scholars expressing their concern over the proposed Indiana RFRA explains the distinction between the SB 101 and the 1993 federal law:

    The state RFRA bills do not, in fact, mirror the language of the federal RFRA.

    [...]

    The definition of "person" under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of entities than that currently recognized by federal law.

Unlike the federal RFRA, Indiana's RFRA contains an extremely broad definition of "person" that includes organizations, corporations, or companies that are: "compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual or 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."

As Buzzfeed also reported:

    The Indiana bill is broader than federal law. While the Indiana bill says that a "governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," it also applies those rules to businesses and interactions between private parties "regardless of whether the state or any other government entity is party to the proceeding."

As the same legal scholars explain in their letter (emphasis added):

    This parallel between support for the federal RFRA and the proposed state RFRA is misplaced. In fact, many members of the bipartisan coalition that supported the passage of the federal RFRA in 1993 now hold the view that the law has been interpreted and applied in ways they did not expect at the time they lent their endorsement to the law. As a result, the legislators who voted on RFRA have distanced themselves from their initial backing of the legislation.

As legal and religious scholar Dr. Jay Michaelson noted, these unintended consequences amount to a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people, because state RFRA laws could allow "individuals and businesses [to] exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws by proffering religious objections to them."

Portraying Indiana's RFRA as benign legislation identical to the "bipartisan" federal law isn't just inaccurate It is a part of the right's larger role in promoting the narrative of Christian persecution to support the passage of a number of state RFRAs now being considered in states across the country. Expect to see wingnuts continue to misrepresent RFRA as a harmless law protecting "religious liberty" while ignoring the fact that these bills are actually the product of powerful anti-LGBT organizations lobbying to legalize anti-LGBT discrimination.

Still looking for anti-gay language. Let me know when you find it. What you gave me here is implied.

Now if some stuffy repubs are positioning it as some anti-gay legislation, that is different.

[finehoe]

Still looking for anti-gay language. Let me know when you find it. What you gave me here is implied.

Really?  I don't believe you are that dense, so I can only guess you're being deliberately obtuse.  The Black Codes passed in the South after Reconstruction restricted black people's right to own property, conduct business, buy and lease land, and move freely through public spaces, yet you won't find the words "Black", "Colored", or "Negro" in those laws.  The whole purpose of those laws was to target African-Americans without specifically mentioning them.  These "Religious Freedom" laws are the exact same thing.  They're meant to target LGBT people without specifically mentioning them because the authors know that is the only way they can get them passed.

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

I hope everyone here posting do know that the Indiana law simply codifies the Federal RFRA act at the state level.

The same RFRA has been passed in 30 other states.

No where does the law make any anti gay statements. It simply provides the framework for how to handle legal issues surrounding ones religious views.

That can include *ANY* religious view. Its not exclusive to Christianity.

No where does it say one group should be discrimated against.

I hope you know you're full of shit.

Indiana's SB 101, is not an exact replica of the federal RFRA. A February 27 letter by 30 legal scholars expressing their concern over the proposed Indiana RFRA explains the distinction between the SB 101 and the 1993 federal law:

    The state RFRA bills do not, in fact, mirror the language of the federal RFRA.

    [...]

    The definition of "person" under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of entities than that currently recognized by federal law.

Unlike the federal RFRA, Indiana's RFRA contains an extremely broad definition of "person" that includes organizations, corporations, or companies that are: "compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual or 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."

As Buzzfeed also reported:

    The Indiana bill is broader than federal law. While the Indiana bill says that a "governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," it also applies those rules to businesses and interactions between private parties "regardless of whether the state or any other government entity is party to the proceeding."

As the same legal scholars explain in their letter (emphasis added):

    This parallel between support for the federal RFRA and the proposed state RFRA is misplaced. In fact, many members of the bipartisan coalition that supported the passage of the federal RFRA in 1993 now hold the view that the law has been interpreted and applied in ways they did not expect at the time they lent their endorsement to the law. As a result, the legislators who voted on RFRA have distanced themselves from their initial backing of the legislation.

As legal and religious scholar Dr. Jay Michaelson noted, these unintended consequences amount to a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people, because state RFRA laws could allow "individuals and businesses [to] exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws by proffering religious objections to them."

Portraying Indiana's RFRA as benign legislation identical to the "bipartisan" federal law isn't just inaccurate It is a part of the right's larger role in promoting the narrative of Christian persecution to support the passage of a number of state RFRAs now being considered in states across the country. Expect to see wingnuts continue to misrepresent RFRA as a harmless law protecting "religious liberty" while ignoring the fact that these bills are actually the product of powerful anti-LGBT organizations lobbying to legalize anti-LGBT discrimination.

Still looking for anti-gay language. Let me know when you find it. What you gave me here is implied.

Now if some stuffy repubs are positioning it as some anti-gay legislation, that is different.

It is the same test used in the federal RFRA with the need for compelling state interest and "no less intrusive means or alternative." The inclusion of language protecting closely held corporations and organizations just aligns it with the new federal decisions in Hobby Lobby and Sisters of the Poor.

I don't think ANY valid conservative legal scholars believe you can refuse service to someone in a restaurant or a store for any reason. Court cases have already come down a small focus of cases such as whether someone can refuse to cater a gay wedding or photograph a gay wedding but both were denied already under RFRA and those are different situations since it takes extended support of the venture. Nevertheless, the cases were deemed not legal under RFRA or First Amendment Free Speech.

All of this talk is a case of extremism and scare tactics by the left that usually tries to call the right out for these things. Also, quoting buzzfeed for legal advice always seems like a poor decision.

[coredumped]

#BoycottIndiana has been trending for several hours now:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BoycottIndiana&src=tyah

[I-10east]

Really?  I don't believe you are that dense, so I can only guess you're being deliberately obtuse.

Being so ultra-aggressive with name calling, calling someone 'full of shit' just because of a disagreement really takes away from your message. You can voice your opinion strongly without sounding like a mad person. I really wanted to read you takes, but after the first impertinent takes respectfully, it becomes nearly impossible. 

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

Really?  I don't believe you are that dense, so I can only guess you're being deliberately obtuse.

Being so ultra-aggressive with name calling, calling someone 'full of shit' just because of a disagreement really takes away from your message. You can voice your opinion strongly without sounding like a mad person. I really wanted to read you takes, but after the first impertinent takes respectfully, it becomes nearly impossible.

This issue reminds me of the right when discussing gay marriage. The discussion of extreme hypothetical situations or results that may come of either RFRA (which has been in place since all of us were born either through SCOTUS or the RFRA law in 1992) or gay marriage is kind of funny.

Again, RFRA -the Indiana, and Federal editions alike- bars the government from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's religious beliefs unless the government is pursuing a "compelling government interest" and does so in a way that is "narrowly tailored," or pursues the "least restrictive means" to accomplish that task. That's in the text. That's the rule that judges who are applying the law will have to follow. I am sure some on here would like to shut down churches that preach against what they believe on gay issues, however, the fear mongering about RFRA is laughable and has mostly protected religious minorities through the years such as Muslims, Native American sects, and other lesser known groups.

[ProjectMaximus]

I'm very curious to see if the NFL would actually do something. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be very cool to see the combine move.

Still looking for anti-gay language. Let me know when you find it. What you gave me here is implied.

Really?  I don't believe you are that dense, so I can only guess you're being deliberately obtuse.  The Black Codes passed in the South after Reconstruction restricted black people's right to own property, conduct business, buy and lease land, and move freely through public spaces, yet you won't find the words "Black", "Colored", or "Negro" in those laws.  The whole purpose of those laws was to target African-Americans without specifically mentioning them.  These "Religious Freedom" laws are the exact same thing.  They're meant to target LGBT people without specifically mentioning them because the authors know that is the only way they can get them passed.

Just for fun, this is like the anti-Asian land laws in the first decades of the 1900s. Never mentioned the Japanese or Chinese or Indians (depending on the state) by name, just said "aliens ineligible for citizenship."

[acme54321]

Really?  I don't believe you are that dense, so I can only guess you're being deliberately obtuse.

Being so ultra-aggressive with name calling, calling someone 'full of shit' just because of a disagreement really takes away from your message. You can voice your opinion strongly without sounding like a mad person. I really wanted to read you takes, but after the first impertinent takes respectfully, it becomes nearly impossible.

Pretty much.  The first sentences of every post negate everything behind them.

[finehoe]

It is the same test used in the federal RFRA with the need for compelling state interest and "no less intrusive means or alternative."

So if it doesn't differ from the Federal statute, what purpose does it serve?  What grave injustice is it remedying?

All of this talk is a case of extremism and scare tactics by the left that usually tries to call the right out for these things.

The scare tactics are from the right, with their ridiculous assertions that Christians are being persecuted in the US.

quoting buzzfeed for legal advice always seems like a poor decision.

What in the quote was inaccurate?

I am sure some on here would like to shut down churches that preach against what they believe on gay issues, however, the fear mongering about RFRA is laughable and has mostly protected religious minorities through the years such as Muslims, Native American sects, and other lesser known groups.

Not nearly as laughable as posting that anyone on MJ wants to shut down churches over what they preach,

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A]

Boogeyman is out to get you finehoe.

The scare tactics always come from both sides and I think there are people on both sides who would consider the discussion either blasphemous (on the right) or hate speech (on the left) depending upon the church. As a result, both sides would like to see that speech cease (though most would never cause violence upon someone to do that).

But I am sure Hobby Lobby was the end of the world for you too. What I really don't like is the demonizing of either side. If you don't believe "that the free exercise of religion" is a fundamental right that should be tested under strict scrutiny (which is all this is), then that is fine but others disagree, and that does not make them evil. Interestingly, it was Scalia who wrote the majority opinion to dismantle strict scrutiny initially for religion.

[finehoe]

Being so ultra-aggressive with name calling, calling someone 'full of shit' just because of a disagreement really takes away from your message. You can voice your opinion strongly without sounding like a mad person. I really wanted to read you takes, but after the first impertinent takes respectfully, it becomes nearly impossible.

Your absolutely right, that was rude of me, and I apologize to spuwho and everyone else.

[finehoe]

Again, RFRA -the Indiana, and Federal editions alike- bars the government from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's religious beliefs unless the government is pursuing a "compelling government interest" and does so in a way that is "narrowly tailored," or pursues the "least restrictive means" to accomplish that task. That's in the text. That's the rule that judges who are applying the law will have to follow.

I'm not clear on what your point is.  It's the government who enacts and enforces non-discrimination laws, and unlike the federal RFRA, Indiana's RFRA contains an extremely broad definition of "person" that includes organizations, corporations, or companies that are: "compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual or 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."

So if a proprietor says "I refuse to serve European-Americans in my place of business because my religion says Caucasians are 'white devils' and my religion trumps your discrimination laws", how is that any different from another entity saying "I refuse to serve same-sex married couples because my religion says it is an abomination and my religion trumps your civil marriage laws"?

[coredumped]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you CAN discriminate based on sexual orientation, or if the customer is a KKk member.  Since none of these are protected classes I think it would be legal.
Either way, I don't get it, all money is green and I would accept it from anyone.

[fsquid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you CAN discriminate based on sexual orientation, or if the customer is a KKk member.  Since none of these are protected classes I think it would be legal.
Either way, I don't get it, all money is green and I would accept it from anyone.

Gays are a protected class in this country I believe.  Maybe it's a state by state issue.  Either way, stupid legislation which harms a good bit of the GOP's backers, corporations.

[finehoe]

Gays are a protected class in this country I believe. 

Not on the federal level and not in Indiana (or Florida).