The law so bad that the governor signed it in private.
Now the losing of business to the state begins...
Gamer convention talks about moving to another state and take their 50 million dollars of economic impact with them.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/gen-con-threatens-move-convention-gov-mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/70393474/
The NCAA (based in Indianapolis) is examining the law and "how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."
Former NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen, who once ran the men's basketball tournament, wrote on Twitter this week, "Spent my life working to bring events/corps [corporations] to my home state. Any law allowing discrimination is embarrassing, unacceptable."
The NCAA has taken stands on social issues in the past involving the location of its championships. In 2005, the NCAA banned schools with Native American mascot names deemed inappropriate from hosting NCAA championships or using their mascots at those events.
Since 2001, the NCAA has banned the state of South Carolina from hosting NCAA championships because the Confederate flag is flown on the statehouse grounds.
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/26/ncaa-indiana-religious-freedom-law-mike-pence-mark-emmert-final-four-indianapolis/70490096/
This could also impact future Super Bowl in Indianapolis as well.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25123924
Soon after Gov. Mike Pence signed the religious freedom bill into law Thursday, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that he would no longer send employees or customers to Indiana.
"Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination," he tweeted.
Salesforce, a cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco, acquired Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget last year for $2.5 billion.
Business leaders in the tech community had addressed a letter to him urging him to veto the measure.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-address-letter-to-pence-urging-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/
Per the Indy Star:
Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation
I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this beIt's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.
Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.
If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.
But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.
Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.
But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.
In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.
Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Good God, Indiana! Where to begin? The coded wording of the law? Pushing it through the legislature with little time for review or debate? Or the hypocrisy of a governor who believes he stands firm on his Christian principles then secretly signs such a law where only his like-minded associates where present as if he were ashamed of his decision and couldn't stomach being ridiculed and chastised? Like the decline of rates of heterosexual couple being wed and the increase of baked goods championing gay marriage would miraculously halt coming the passage of this precious bill. And you want us to believe this bill is only focused on preserving religious freedom since before the legalization of gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act religious freedom hasn't been a big pressing crisis in your state? Really, Indy?!
It's not just the impact this law would have on gays and lesbian discrimination that is troubling but also the repercussions this law can have because of its fucked-up wording. Let's say I wanted to rent a semi-enclosed part of a restaurant for a sizable celebration and presentation and the owner took my deposit no questions asked. They wouldn't even have to serve us since me and my group would take care of food, drinks, decorations, clean-up, what have you. As the event grows nearer, the owner gets word that I and my group are Catholic and the party was for several children receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. Now let's say said owner, newly emboldened by this stupid new law protecting his religious freedom, gives me my deposit back and forbids our party taking place within earshot of his staff and customers because he believes us Catholics goes against his beliefs by praying to dead people and worshiping idols and shit? Or else have our celebration while throughout the night having to hear chastisements from staff and being told whats the correct way to worship Jesus? Even if the owner doubled my deposit because of the trouble, that wouldn't make up for the money me and my group had to spend to prepare everything or make up for us not able to get a similar venue in time. And Catholic confirmation ceremonies are normally done with a group and traditional given by the Diocese's bishop so it can't just be rescheduled on the fly.
Yes, I realize that will probably not happen and if for someone that ignorant tried to do that to my group or any other denomination that would not be the spirit of this new law. But how or why would I live or do business in a state that with this "spirit" of encouraging discrimination? Apparently many other individuals, businesses, and organizations will be asking that same question to the detriment of the state's economy.
There is a thin line between being guided by one's beliefs and being blinded by those same beliefs,,,and it seems the majority of the Indiana state government can't help using that big-ass eraser on that line.
Would the law allow discrimination against fundamentalist Christians?
The NFL is not commenting so far, but they did express concern when Arizona had such a bill (it wasn't passed). Stay tuned.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/26/nfl-not-commenting-on-controversial-new-indiana-law/
Let the market speak
Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, very publicly today announced that his company would ban all travel to Indiana and he is urging all of his employees to forgo any sort of travel to the state. I know someone new at Salesforce who happens to be from IN, coincidentally.
I now can call the republican party AMERICAS HOMEGROWN TERRORIST...Whos with me?....where is the outrage about the right wing idiots trying to ruin our great country...they make our country look like backward idiots to other more evolved societies...im so ashamed of us.
I don't understand the logic behind this law. I went to catholic school for 8 years and one of the biggest lessons they pushed was to treat everyone with love and respect, don't discriminate. The whole idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner." So saying this law is based on the idea of religious freedom goes against the very foundation of the religion it refers to which is paradoxical and plainly idiotic.
It's very clear the law is serving the masses' personal feelings of hatred as opposed to protecting religious freedom.
In St. Louis the way you call someone ignorant or backwoods are any of those sort of characterizations is tocall them Hoosier. I guess I understand why.
My wife and I were scheduled to run a tri in Indy this summer. I've already notified the race director that we would not be coming and this law was the reason why we would spend our tourism dollars elsewhere. He got back to me right away and to say the least, he is very disappointed and embarrassed by the actions of his legislators and governor.
I agree with fsquid: the market will play out and it will be ugly.
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.
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
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.
Will be interested in seeing how the NFL handles this. They have their annual combine in Indianapolis as well as have a future Super Bowl on the books for that state.
They have not commented. But based on how they approached Arizona when a similar law was potentially happening, they will be strong about it. I would not be shocked if the combine is moved.
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
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.
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 02:39:10 PM
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.
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 02:39:10 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
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.
#BoycottIndiana has been trending for several hours now:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BoycottIndiana&src=tyah
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
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.
Quote from: I-10east on March 27, 2015, 04:38:35 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: spuwho on March 27, 2015, 02:39:10 PM
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."
Quote from: I-10east on March 27, 2015, 04:38:35 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
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.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on March 27, 2015, 04:17:56 PM
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?
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on March 27, 2015, 04:17:56 PM
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.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on March 27, 2015, 04:17:56 PM
quoting buzzfeed for legal advice always seems like a poor decision.
What in the quote was inaccurate?
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on March 27, 2015, 04:57:42 PM
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,
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.
Quote from: I-10east on March 27, 2015, 04:38:35 PM
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.
Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on March 27, 2015, 04:57:42 PM
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"?
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.
Quote from: coredumped on March 27, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
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.
Quote from: fsquid on March 28, 2015, 10:37:53 AM
Gays are a protected class in this country I believe.
Not on the federal level and not in Indiana (or Florida).
Ahh the Religious liberty argument or how to mask your discrimination.
Quote
For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that "[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed." Allowing "the blood of the races [to] mix," according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the "Divine plan of God." There "is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/)
Just remember when your religion is hate you can't expect it to be alright in public.
The well known review website Angie's List (based outta Indianapolis) cancelled it's 40 million dollar headquarters expansion because of this Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2015/03/28/angies-list-canceling-eastside-expansion-rfra/70590738/
Washington Post: '19 states that have 'religious freedom' laws like Indiana's that no one is boycotting'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Quote from: I-10east on March 29, 2015, 09:13:46 AM
Washington Post: '19 states that have 'religious freedom' laws like Indiana's that no one is boycotting'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Arizona caved to pressure last year and did not sign the bill into law. Indiana did and is facing the consequences. Angie'e List is just the beginning. Wait until the NCAA pulls a future Final Four or the NFL pulls the Super Bowl. Pence will cave in too.
Quote from: I-10east on March 29, 2015, 09:13:46 AM
Washington Post: '19 states that have 'religious freedom' laws like Indiana's that no one is boycotting'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
From the text of the Indiana bill:
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. The purpose of this language is to insert a "religious exemption" into every law, regulation, statute, ordinance, etc. at every level of government, including state educational institutions and "a body corporate or politic." Now one could assume that if challenged against Indiana's Civil Rights Act a state court would rule in favor of the Civil Rights Act; likewise for a challenge against the federal Civil Rights Act that applies to the states. But, that is an assumption rather than an assurance codified in the RFRA.
As a counter example Texas RFRA Sec. 110.011 specifically exempts religious freedom claims under "federal or state civil rights law." The Texas legislature was sound enough to determine for itself that the state had a greater interest in preventing discrimination against certain classes than protecting religious freedom. Indiana on the other hand has decided to leave that up in the air and possibly to the courts.
Quote[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997
The first point carries it beyond SCOTUS interpretation of the federal RFRA in the
Hobby Lobby case as covering "closely held" corporations, but not all for-profits. And the second means Indiana isn't just protecting religious folk against the all-powerful government, but against the very targets of their discrimination.
So many things to say. I hope people saw Governor Pence on This Week yesterday. If not, check it out: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana-gov-mike-pence-controversial-religious-freedom-law/story?id=29985752
Actually, the video I was looking for is here: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447
And I would remind folks that this is nothing new, even in Jacksonville. Kim Daniels filed her own Religious Freedom bill back in 2012 when she was afraid the HRO would pass. That was 2012-296. Her bill was 2012-377. It's disingenuous to say there's no connection between these measures and LGBT rights. Are our memories so short?
Bill pledging religious freedom protection headed to Jacksonville CouncilAnti-discrimination proposal brings up the issue of rights of the religious.QuoteLegislation being introduced Tuesday to Jacksonville's City Council could open a new front in ongoing talks about protecting the rights of the religious.
First, the city needs some agreement on what those rights are.
"The free exercise of religion is hereby recognized in the City of Jacksonville," reads an ordinance (2012-377) that Councilwoman Kimberly Daniels is sponsoring. Invoking the state and U.S. constitutions, the bill promises "there shall be imposed no burden whatsoever upon the religious beliefs of people of faith including, but not limited to places of public accommodation, in religious worship or in the use of religious facilities, in matters of employment and in the rental of real property."
Chunks of that sentence — about public accommodations, employment and property rental — echo fears religious conservatives have declared about losing rights because of a separate bill (2012-296) written to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-06-07/story/bill-pledging-religious-freedom-protection-headed-jacksonville-council
I question what would happen when Rastafarians in Indiana decides to practice this "religious freedom" while smoking marijuana as their "religious activities may dictate?
Quote from: Jax native on March 30, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
I question what would happen when Rastafarians in Indiana decides to practice this "religious freedom" while smoking marijuana as their "religious activities may dictate?
They'd be charged/arrested for breaking both federal and state law.
There's no law that protects the LBGT community in IN right now, which is why this can pass - it doesn't conflict with an existing law (federal or state) since LBGT's are a "protected class" light Race, Sex, or Religion.
^^ As far as Kimberly Daniels goes, she was probably just trying to make JAX less hospitable for people possessed by Demons, than attacking the LGBT community. I don't think you should force a hotelier for example, to open their doors to demonic forces.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 30, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
I don't think you should force a hotelier for example, to open their doors to demonic forces.
(http://i2.cdnds.net/12/44/618x718/the_shining.jpg)
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2015, 01:03:42 PM
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.
That hits the nail on the head. Since the 2010 elections, the Right has changed state laws throughout this country to add God and Guns whenever possible.
I guess NC wants some of this action too.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article16956950.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article16956950.html)
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article16511249.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2 (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article16511249.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2)
QuoteMany religious conservatives object to the civil rights model for looking at this issue on grounds that sexual orientation is a matter of "choice," not nature, a position that fewer and fewer people accept the more they get to know LGBT folk. But at bottom, their scriptural objections to homosexuality are no stronger than the scriptural objections to racial integration cited so often in defense of Jim Crow. And like them, the current efforts to identify Christianity with homophobia will look ludicrous and shameful in a generation or less. So when we are told these poor innocent conservative religious folk "just" want their consciences respected, and that means a zone of sanctioned discrimination must be created for them, the proper answer isn't to dismiss religious liberty as a legitimate concern, but instead to ask: does your liberty really require a right to discriminate, and to disobey laws others must obey? It's the self-definition of the right to discriminate that's so dangerous here, and so tempting to bigots.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_03/religious_liberty_and_the_dama054868.php
Embattled Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) took a second crack at trying to "clarify" his state's controversial new "religious freedom" law, the Indianapolis Star reports.
Pence concluded "we've got a perception problem" and said "it will be helpful to move legislation this week to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone."
http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/ (http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/)
Quote from: vicupstate on March 31, 2015, 01:33:14 PM
"it will be helpful to move legislation this week to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone."
http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/ (http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/)
But Jeb, Marco and Ted have already said they like that part.
Oh boy this guy is slippery. Watch him not answer 1 question on ABC news regarding this bill. Bonus points if you can make it all the way to the end without your blood pressure increasing:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447
If all the pro LGBT businesses leave or threaten to leave Indiana or any other state with these religious freedom laws, won't the effect disproportionately impact LGBT residents of that state that depended on inclusive employers for jobs and LGBT rights orgs who depended on philanthropic giving from those orgs?
Quote from: fsquid on April 01, 2015, 09:42:59 AM
If all the pro LGBT businesses leave or threaten to leave Indiana or any other state with these religious freedom laws, won't the effect disproportionately impact LGBT residents of that state that depended on inclusive employers for jobs and LGBT rights orgs who depended on philanthropic giving from those orgs?
I think a more likely scenario is once rinky-dink businesses begin advertising they don't serve gays on religious grounds, gay activists will publish lists of them. Then they'll be boycotted by gays and right-minded people.
Weak-minded religion freaks will mostly shop at places they already go to, gay or no gay, mostly based on convenience or price, so the other side of the equation won't be much of a factor.
Oh, and it won't just be retailers and service businesses like Bodegas and Barber Shops. Some dumbass Machine Shop will advertise they don't serve gays, and lose their large contracts with bigger, national firms after the national media picks up their announcement. Not to mention Federal contracts.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 31, 2015, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 31, 2015, 01:33:14 PM
"it will be helpful to move legislation this week to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone."
http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/ (http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/)
But Jeb, Marco and Ted have already said they like that part.
They need to find out which way the wind is blowing today
Quote from: vicupstate on March 31, 2015, 04:25:07 AM
I guess NC wants some of this action too.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article16956950.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article16956950.html)
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article16511249.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2 (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article16511249.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2)
Thankfully their governor has said he will not support it.
Arkansas jumps in.
QuoteThe Arkansas legislature on Tuesday passed its version of a bill described by proponents as a religious freedom law, even as Indiana's political leaders struggled to gain control over a growing backlash that has led to calls to boycott the state because of criticism that its law could be a vehicle for discrimination against gay couples.
The Arkansas bill now goes to the state's Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier version but more recently said he would sign the measure if it "reaches my desk in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states." But the bill already faces a significant corporate backlash, including from Doug McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, the state's largest corporation, who said Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Hutchinson should veto it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-restoration-act-arkansas-indiana.html
The Arkansas Governor has caved and said he won't sign the bill. Wal-Mart said he wasn't allowed. Good for WM.
Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?
Quote from: fsquid on April 02, 2015, 11:44:01 AM
Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?
Just my opinion, but "absolutely none". A "business" is not registered with a church; it is registered with the appropriate governing agencies (local, state, federal), and must abide by their rules. Since government is to have no endorsement WHATSOEVER of ANY religion, using that as an excuse is preposterous. You opened your doors for
business, serve those that come in to spend their hard-earned money.
I don't think that modern Christians are as hardline establishment as many think. YES they are anti-gay marriage (just like seemingly every religion), but far as denying services and that sorta thing, I think that it's highly overblown. Many would argue that Christianity is the most flakiest (if you will) of the big three religions, with many not taking the religion that seriously. The Jewish are the least intrusive IMO. Islam is the most hardline, though in the US it's a vast minority.
Quote from: I-10east on April 02, 2015, 12:02:31 PM
I don't think that modern Christians are as hardline establishment as many think. YES they are anti-gay marriage (just like seemingly every religion)
You're mistaken if you think all Christian denominations are anti-gay and/or anti-gay marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations
Quote from: finehoe on April 02, 2015, 12:11:24 PM
You're mistaken if you think all Christian denominations are anti-gay and/or anti-gay marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations
My bad, thanks for the info.
Quote from: TimmyB on April 02, 2015, 11:58:03 AM
Quote from: fsquid on April 02, 2015, 11:44:01 AM
Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?
Just my opinion, but "absolutely none". A "business" is not registered with a church; it is registered with the appropriate governing agencies (local, state, federal), and must abide by their rules. Since government is to have no endorsement WHATSOEVER of ANY religion, using that as an excuse is preposterous. You opened your doors for business, serve those that come in to spend their hard-earned money.
Actually, the Supreme Court would slightly disagree with you on this one via Citizens United vs Federal Election Committee where corporations were deemed to be "people" and therefore are protected under the First Amendment. Obviously, that decision was more geared towards political donations, but the essence of the law would still give a company the right to have its own "values", if you will because of said First Amendment.
(https://www.peaceproject.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/B1113_IllBelieveCorporationsArePeopleWhenTexasExecutesOne.png)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/archive/2010/01/1_123125_123087_2240624_2240654_100121_jp_courttn.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
(http://data2.whicdn.com/images/76533054/large.jpg)
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on April 02, 2015, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: TimmyB on April 02, 2015, 11:58:03 AM
Quote from: fsquid on April 02, 2015, 11:44:01 AM
Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?
Just my opinion, but "absolutely none". A "business" is not registered with a church; it is registered with the appropriate governing agencies (local, state, federal), and must abide by their rules. Since government is to have no endorsement WHATSOEVER of ANY religion, using that as an excuse is preposterous. You opened your doors for business, serve those that come in to spend their hard-earned money.
Actually, the Supreme Court would slightly disagree with you on this one via Citizens United vs Federal Election Committee where corporations were deemed to be "people" and therefore are protected under the First Amendment. Obviously, that decision was more geared towards political donations, but the essence of the law would still give a company the right to have its own "values", if you will because of said First Amendment.
I see your point, but there is quite a difference between the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, and the "freedom" to refuse to serve someone in your public business. Even with that said, those 1st freedoms do not allow you to create a culture of hatred in your establishment.
I am thankful that I live in a country where we HAVE a judicial system to oversee the other two arms of the government; I look at countries that don't have that, and it's never pretty.