Gov. seeks to 'clarify' Indiana 'religious freedom' law

[estesbob]

Would this law, by protecting religious freedom of conscience, make it possible not to rent an apartment or home to a gay couple, an unmarried straight couple, or a divorced person, even if such a situation has not yet arisen?

Yes if they can prove that not doing so is “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can prove it has a compelling interest and is doing so in the least restrictive means."

 

[QuestLove]

Doesn’t surprise me…the paradoxical nature of something so contrary to the gospel being called a law to protect religious freedoms is, however, surprising. I guess we should re-evaluate the right of other countries to impose Sharia law, now that we have instituted our own version of it…and, even within the boundaries of the U.S., where there are large Moslem populations, haven’t we just given them legal protection to, in the name of religious freedom, live out Sharia law? If not, its not a law protecting religious freedom, its a law protecting the religious freedom of some, but not others, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I guess if I have a daughter being married in the Catholic Church, when I order the wedding cake, I need to be prepared to present proof to the bakery that the marriage is valid in the eyes of whatever religion the shop owner is…wow, that’s a good idea!

I’m just saying!

You raised an important issue which someone mentioned to me just the other day.
Yes, there is protection for religion, but has anything been put in place to prevent misuse of the law? For example, how would one prevent a muslim shop owner from refusing to serve christian or jewish consumers or vice versa? or protestants refusing to do business with catholics on religious grounds?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Says Controversial ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Won’t Change

Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act will not be changing despite critics saying it allows business owners to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, state Gov. Mike Pence said today during an exclusive interview on ABC’s “This Week.”

Pence described the media coverage and opposition to the law as “shameless rhetoric,” saying it strengthens the foundation of First Amendment rights rather than discriminates.

“We’re not going to change the law," he said, “but if the general assembly in Indiana sends me a bill that adds a section that reiterates and amplifies and clarifies what the law really is and what it has been for the last 20 years, than I’m open to that.”

When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Pence if the law allowed businesses like florists to refuse to work with gay or lesbian weddings, as critics have said, the governor said the situation has more to do with whether the government is involved.

“The question here is if there is a government action or a law that an individual believes impinges on their religious liberty, they have the opportunity to go to court, just as the Religious Freedom and Reformation Act that Bill Clinton signed allowed them, to go to court and the court would evaluate the circumstance under the standards articulated in this act,” Pence said.

Full interview is at the link.

 

[JimG]

They better clarify it!

This is not a gay/lesbian issue…its a civil rights issue.

Those of us with religious opposition to homosexuality, can sit back smugly, and say that since the intent of the law is supposedly to preserve “religious freedom”, businesses should have the right not to serve those who have lifestyles at odds with the religious convictions of business owners.

But if the law spread to other states, it might not be so appealing.

Can you imagine similar laws in states where Catholics are in a very decisive minority, where Catholicism is misunderstood, feared, or even hated? The law would make it legitimate for businesses to refuse service to Catholics, simply if the business owners’ religious convictions include a belief that they should not associate or interact with Catholics.

And, suppose the ardent cry to protect religious freedoms was held up by the Supreme Court, and spread beyond private business. When your house catches fire, will the non-Catholic firefighters say, “Sorry, can’t help, it violates my religious freedom!” Same could hold true for emergency room medical people, police departments, etc.

I wouldn’t have a problem with a business that refused to serve Catholics. I think that for the most part, business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they choose and to select their own clientèle. I would just take my business elsewhere.

But how would a business owner even know that I’m Catholic? For that matter, how would a business owner know that someone is gay?

I can understand if a baker or a florist had a policy of not serving Catholic weddings. Fine with me. I would not be a part of their customer base. Another business might choose to serve only Jewish weddings. No problem.

 

[drankovich]

The over the top hyperbole on this innocuous law is unbelievable. Every time someone of the Left gets their beliefs challenged they drag out Sharia law and predict the end of the world as we know it if homosexuals cant get a cake anywhere they want.

I can somewhat see where some of the alarm is coming from…replace homosexuals with “blacks/African-Americans” and “can’t get a cake anywhere they want” with “can’t eat wherever they want”

What do you get?
"Every time someone of the Left gets their beliefs challenged they drag out a Sharia Law and predict the end of the world as we know it if **blacks/African-Americans **can’t eat wherever they want."

Not saying it the same, but it sure comes close to it. Not saying the end of the world happened, obviously, in the 1960s but certain racist aspects of American culture came to fruition and ultimately fell in response to a movement.

Wouldn’t exactly sound like a hyperbole, for those directly affected by the seemingly overly broad nature of the legislation.

 

[estesbob]

I can somewhat see where some of the alarm is coming from…replace homosexuals with “blacks/African-Americans” and “can’t get a cake anywhere they want” with “can’t eat wherever they want”

What do you get?
"Every time someone of the Left gets their beliefs challenged they drag out a Sharia Law and predict the end of the world as we know it if **blacks/African-Americans **can’t eat wherever they want."

Not saying it the same, but it sure comes close to it. Not saying the end of the world happened, obviously, in the 1960s but certain racist aspects of American culture came to fruition and ultimately fell in response to a movement.

Wouldn’t exactly sound like a hyperbole, for those directly affected by the seemingly overly broad nature of the legislation.

Read the law. It would be impossible to substitute African-American for homosexual since homosexual is nowhere mentioned in the law. The law merely says that the government must accommodate valid religious objections to certain events unless they can show a compelling reason not to do so

 

[Crossbones]

Read the law. It would be impossible to substitute African-American for homosexual since homosexual is nowhere mentioned in the law. The law merely says that the government must accommodate valid religious objections to certain events unless they can show a compelling reason not to do so

So this law can be used to protect bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes for interracial couples because of their deeply held beliefs as followers of Pastor Bob Jones who said:

“If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty…God is the author of segregation.”

See…drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/

 

[TMC]

I don’t see the law getting ‘clarified’ in any meaningful way. My understanding is that an amendment offered before the law passed to clarify that the law was not intended to allow discrimination, but the amendment was rejected. The proponents of the law have made it clear that the intent is to allow businesses to deny service to gay people. That is why we are seeing such a strong reaction to this particular “State RFRA,” because is has been touted as allowing discrimination.

 

[exnihilo]

Apologizing to this crowd is never a good idea. They will just savage you all the more if you show weakness.

Legislation like this opens itself up to lawsuits because there is often a fine distinction between discrimination against an individual per se vs. discrimination against the individual’s behavior which is contrary to the business owner’s religious principles. Further, the question arises whether a business owner is entitled to discriminate if a gay couple’s (or anyone else’s) request goes against the owner’s PERSONAL moral convictions even if the owner is not particularly religious or is not a member of the religion that is being violated? Finally, can it be proved (or need it be) that the owner is discriminating specifically due to their religious or moral values rather than for some other, arbitrary reason?

One thing is for certain in rooting out illegal personal motivations the lawyers always win.

I have fetl for sometime that this nation needs to make a basic choice.

Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on equality for all, or

Do we want to be a nation that places the highest value on personal liberty?

We made the choice a long time ago and sided with the Jacobin spirit of the French Revolution.

 

[drankovich]

Read the law. It would be impossible to substitute African-American for homosexual since homosexual is nowhere mentioned in the law. The law merely says that the government must accommodate valid religious objections to certain events unless they can show a compelling reason not to do so

I did. It bans the government from placing undue pressure on the free exercise of one’s religious practice. My point being: homosexuals are frequent targets of discriminatory practices (whether just or unjust discrimination, something I’m not getting into. I mean discrimination by denotation, not connotation)

If my religion said it was moral to be blatantly racist, I would have a legal foothold for a ‘No Coloreds’ sign hanging in the window, since being forced to serve non-whites would be a hypothetical burden upon the free exercise of my hypothetical religion,. I’m sure some more extreme-leaning individuals who live where Catholicism is certainly not the majority (not necessarily in Indiana, just off of principle) would be more than happy to use that law as justification for telling Catholic individuals to bugger off, for another example.

And if anybody’s capable of reading between the lines, this is aimed at people who don’t particularly bend straight. The problem is, not only is the previous honestly unjust, it also opens the door to an individual claiming that having to serve women, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, blacks, Asians…, is offensive to their religious convictions and should in no way have to work with/serve/even interact with them within a public sphere.

Especially doesn’t help when Governor Pence shows up on TV and blatantly dodges a straightforward question in regards to the finer points of the bill…

 

[GaryTaylor]

My point being: homosexuals are frequent targets of discriminatory practices

No need to say so are Christians, at an alarming rate today and worldwide.

If my religion said it was moral to be blatantly racist,

This isn’t hypothetical as its a reality in America. Nation of Islam is a clear example of hate and religion with Islam. Or the KKK, or the rights or radical Islamic extremists who build militant training facilities in await the their vision of the new world of equality…

However, yes the parallel thinking examples exit. Seems to sound right.

 

[drankovich]

No need to say so are Christians, at an alarming rate today and worldwide.

This isn’t hypothetical as its a reality in America. Nation of Islam is a clear example of hate and religion with Islam. Or the KKK, or the rights or radical Islamic extremists who build militant training facilities in await the their vision of the new world of equality…

However, yes the parallel thinking examples exit. Seems to sound right.

gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx

(bolded what I’m referencing)

Recently (2012 recently), 77% of Americans identified as some sort of Christian.
Hardly persecuted/discriminated against…they are the overwhelming majority.

For true discrimination and persecution, try bringing the notion that Christians live a less-than-ideal-existence (I mean, it’s already kind of inescapable, with meeting God at the end of the road and all as compared to time spent on Earth) under the leadership of President Obama, bring that up to a Middle Eastern Christian whose worries aren’t those who fall onto the liberal political spectrum, but the desert Nazis now known as ISIS…

kind of puts things in perspective. Christians live a pretty nice life in the USA. Even compared to Western Europe, honestly, but definitely better than the horrendous conditions ran by Middle Eastern terrorists…

 

[GaryTaylor]

gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx

(bolded what I’m referencing)

Recently (2012 recently), 77% of Americans identified as some sort of Christian.
Hardly persecuted/discriminated against…they are the overwhelming majority.

For true discrimination and persecution, try bringing the notion that Christians live a less-than-ideal-existence (I mean, it’s already kind of inescapable, with meeting God at the end of the road and all as compared to time spent on Earth) under the leadership of President Obama, bring that up to a Middle Eastern Christian whose worries aren’t those who fall onto the liberal political spectrum, but the desert Nazis now known as ISIS…

kind of puts things in perspective. Christians live a pretty nice life in the USA. Even compared to Western Europe, honestly, but definitely better than the horrendous conditions ran by Middle Eastern terrorists…

I’m skeptical of all polls without critical analysis of its methodology. Being Christian first doesn’t differ east or west in priority to Church and State, its Christ first. The fact we live under different conditions is historic in America, Christians in America fled all that same persecution, then developed a theory of inclusiveness of peoples while maintaining exclusiveness of religion, based on the Christian faiths who arrived here in American, they had no attention of repeating the religious mistake of persecution of each others based on religion. Admittedly they have had issues with this over the years though that has been somewhat better these days within Christianity. I don’t see a problem, worldwide Christian persecution is a mutually inclusive concept of all Christians. I think its further clear with this case as it indicates discrimination. The fact Christians have it good in America, suggests they shouldn’t have it good and its alright to persecute them, or its foolish to think such a thing could happen. While the US is threatened by Iran and other radical nuts. Obama isn’t representing Christian America, he is representing all of America. If your saying you think Christians ought to take hold of their own majority populated country, and by vote address religious freedom and speech so its clear what they are saying through Congress then I agree.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I’m skeptical of all polls without critical analysis of its methodology. Being Christian first doesn’t differ east or west in priority to Church and State, its Christ first. The fact we live under different conditions is historic in America, Christians in America fled all that same persecution, then developed a theory of inclusiveness of peoples while maintaining exclusiveness of religion, based on the Christian faiths who arrived here in American, they had no attention of repeating the religious mistake of persecution of each others based on religion. Admittedly they have had issues with this over the years though that has been somewhat better these days within Christianity. I don’t see a problem worldwide Christian persecution is a mutually inclusive concept of all Christians. I think its further clear with this case as it indicates discrimination. The fact Christians have it good in America, suggests they shouldn’t have it good and its alright to persecute them, or its foolish to think such a thing could happen. While the US is threatened by Iran and other radical nuts. Obama isn’t representing Christian America, he is representing allof America. If your saying you think Christians ought to take hold of their own majority populated country, and by vote address religious freedom and speech soits clear waht they are saying through Congress then I agree.

There was a time not all that long ago in this country when being gay was regarded by the State as tantamount to treason. When gay men and women were dragged from their homes and forcibly institutionalized and their faces were plastered in the local papers to shame them. When gay men were chemically castrated or lobotomized. While blacks had separate seating areas, we weren’t even allowed to walk in the door. This was a time when LGBT people basically had no civil rights or even dignity of person. You want to give a lecture on persecution? Christians in this country don’t even know what that is and they have never experienced it, despite all of their hyperbole.

 

[drankovich]

I’m skeptical of all polls without critical analysis of its methodology. Being Christian first doesn’t differ east or west in priority to Church and State, its Christ first. The fact we live under different conditions is historic in America, Christians in America fled all that same persecution, then developed a theory of inclusiveness of peoples while maintaining exclusiveness of religion, based on the Christian faiths who arrived here in American, they had no attention of repeating the religious mistake of persecution of each others based on religion. Admittedly they have had issues with this over the years though that has been somewhat better these days within Christianity. I don’t see a problem, worldwide Christian persecution is a mutually inclusive concept of all Christians. I think its further clear with this case as it indicates discrimination. The fact Christians have it good in America, suggests they shouldn’t have it good and its alright to persecute them, or its foolish to think such a thing could happen. While the US is threatened by Iran and other radical nuts. Obama isn’t representing Christian America, he is representing all of America. If your saying you think Christians ought to take hold of their own majority populated country, and by vote address religious freedom and speech so its clear what they are saying through Congress then I agree.

OK, so that came out kind of wrong.
The point I was trying to get across was that it’s somewhat tiring to hear that more than a minority of American Christians view the fact that they aren’t getting their way within the legislative system of the US (a democratic republic with which they do have both voting rights and statistical population majority) as being discriminated against or persecuted.

There has to be a give and take, checks and balances here. If XYZ religion got the entirety way, purely by being flawed humans, would likely disregard any kind of objections over BCD religious followers saying their views/convictions (/lack thereof) would be violated, thanks to the full endorsement/allowing XYZ to get completely their way.

…yeah, what I’m trying to say is that checks and balances and equal rights for as many as we can accommodate as under the Constitution would hardly be the same thing as persecuting one group or another.

Anyways, maybe I’m a cynic, I’m rambling and I probably got this thread off topic. Sorry about that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There was a time not all that long ago in this country when being gay was regarded by the State as tantamount to treason. When gay men and women were dragged from their homes and forcibly institutionalized and their faces were plastered in the local papers to shame them. While blacks had separate seating areas, we weren’t even allowed to walk in the door. You want to give a lecture on persecution? Christians in this country don’t even know what that is.

I didn’t realize I was giving a lecture.

I admitted mistakes were made such were the woes of the American way of life. it doesn’t change the points made. In fact as suggested apologies should raise us to a higher level of spiritual existence.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I didn’t realize I was giving a lecture. I admitted mistakes were made such were the woes of the American way of life. it doesn’t change the points made. In fact as suggested apologies should raise us to a higher level of spiritual existence.

“Mistakes were made” doesn’t even begin to describe the chamber of horrors this country was for LGBT people until we’d finally had enough and fought back at Stonewall. There are people who pine for the return of those days and it should be no wonder to anyone that the slightest whiff of moving back raises flags and such efforts are met with staunch resistance by LGBT people and our allies.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Mistakes were made” doesn’t even begin to describe the chamber of horrors this country was for LGBT people until we’d finally had enough and fought back at Stonewall. There are people who pine for the return of those days and it should be no wonder to anyone that the slightest whiff of moving back raises flags and such efforts are met with staunch resistance by LGBT people and our allies.

Did you have a question in there?

 

[estesbob]

“Mistakes were made” doesn’t even begin to describe the chamber of horrors this country was for LGBT people until we’d finally had enough and fought back at Stonewall. There are people who pine for the return of those days and it should be no wonder to anyone that the slightest whiff of moving back raises flags and such efforts are met with staunch resistance by LGBT people and our allies.

So police raiding a bar 40 years ago justifies putting bakers out of business in 2015 . So much for tolerance

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So police raiding a bar 40 years ago…

If that is all you think it was about then you have a lot of learning to do.

…justifies putting bakers out of business in 2015 . So much for tolerance

Is that supposed to be clever? I do appreciate the irony of the oppressors complaining about getting a taste of their own medicine even if it is hyperbole.