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

[Havard]

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?

No.

I know Bob said yes, based on the wording of the statute, but from a practical standpoint, I disagree with him.

The practical: RFRA has been around for over 20 years now, and in this time it has never given business the right to discriminate against gay people. Even in the cases thus far which fall under those narrowly defined situations of creative service providers at gay weddings, neither federal nor state RFRA has given a business the right to discriminate. All of this rhetoric you are hearing about is based on hypotheticals, which clearly go against the already existing trend of case law.

So, in the immortal words of Flavor Flav, “Don’t believe the hype.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even the left doesn’t think this is anything new.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

I think its upsets Christians and is a cause and effect that polarized the above. If thats the case the above thinking will grow.

 

[estesbob]

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

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

So the little old lady running the corner bakery becomes an oppressor that homosexuals need to give a taste of her own medicine. An attitude that shows how much the law passed in Indiana is needed

 

[Digitonomy]

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…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.

I don’t think any of these wider concerns you mention are realistic, as these groups are protected classes under federal law. Rather, just as you said the law seems to be aimed at protecting businesses from having to accommodate gay and lesbian events if they object.

Since sexual orientation is not a protected class under state or federal law, businesses can indeed discriminate in this way, and could even without the RFRA. I haven’t been following it closely, but I guess the the new law’s goal is to prevent cities and/or courts from changing this status quo.

 

[SWolf]

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

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.

I didn’t realize I lobotomized and castrated homosexuals. I didn’t realize bakeries did either.

Nasty, nasty post. I expect better, even from agnostics.

 

[drankovich]

I don’t think any of these wider concerns you mention are realistic, as these groups are protected classes under federal law. Rather, just as you said the law seems to be aimed at protecting businesses from having to accommodate gay and lesbian events if they object.

Since sexual orientation is not a protected class under state or federal law, businesses can indeed discriminate in this way, and could even without the RFRA. I haven’t been following it closely, but I guess the the new law’s goal is to prevent cities and/or courts from changing this status quo.

And how do you think those groups got those protections? If all status quos were permanent, none of those groups would have those protections - racial minorities would still be getting hosed and lynched if they didn’t stand up to the status quos…

 

[Digitonomy]

And how do you think those groups got those protections? If all status quos were permanent, none of those groups would have those protections - racial minorities would still be getting hosed and lynched if they didn’t stand up to the status quos…

Congress and the General Assembly enacted them.

 

[meltzerboy]

Congress and the General Assembly enacted them.

Of course; but, as you must know, not without persistent pressure and protest from minority-group leaders and their supporters.

 

[meltzerboy]

“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.

Every minority group in the US has its own story of discrimination and persecution, including gays and lesbians. Transgenders weren’t even on the radar screen at the time. It’s a long road to freedom but the times they are a-changin’.

 

[Digitonomy]

Of course; but, as you must know, not without persistent pressure and protest from minority-group leaders and their supporters.

That is definitely the case.

 

[kanrok]

Every minority group in the US has its own story of discrimination and persecution, including gays and lesbians. Transgenders weren’t even on the radar screen at the time. It’s a long road to freedom but the times they are a-changin’.

“No Irish need apply.”

 

[SeannyM]

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

There is no reason for the LGBT community to tolerate an all out attack on its civil liberties.

 

[ARSpade]

There is no reason for the Christian community to tolerate an all out attack on its civil liberties.

Fixed

 

[Cat]

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

Exactly.

This law is about events, not people.

A homosexual couple can still walk into a bakery and order donuts and coffee. So can a black couple, a Catholic couple, a Muslim couple, etc. People can’t be discriminated against because of who they are (and for homosexuals, unless they are engaging in PDA, how would you know?)

But for bakers whose religion teaches that homosexual “marriage” is “wrong,” they would be committing sin to provide the cake for the wedding, since that is helping the marriage to occur.

In the same way, bakers whose religion teaches that Catholic marriage is “wrong” would be committing sin to provide the cake for the wedding, since that is helping the marriage to occur.

The law needs to protect these bakers. There are several cases where bakers have lost their business (and their livelihood) because they stuck by their religious convictions and refused to provide a cake for a homosexual wedding. This is awful!

What bothers me most about this is that there are plenty of bakeries in most places where homosexuals live, and in this day and age, even if the homosexuals live in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, it’s easy enough to purchase a wedding cake from a bakery in the nearest big city.

Why don’t the homosexuals go to another bakery instead of taking a baker to court and causing him/her to lose the business and livelihood?

I thought this was about love. All I see from the homosexuals is hate, but not just an emotion–it’s the kind of hate that destroys someone else and then waves signs and rejoices about it. This is pure evil, not justice or civil rights–it’s WRONG and it’s EVIL.

In the U.S., the answer to “poor service” (and what that is will vary from individual to individual) is to take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of bakeries. There is no reason for a homosexual couple to start out their “marriage” by shredding someone who got in their way.

Perhaps they are trying to get revenge for all the times they were bullied growing up, but revenge does not heal. It only spreads more hate. If homosexuals want to convince all the rest of us that they just want to be free to love, then they should practice what they preach.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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 be?

It’s because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

UVA Law Prof Who Supports Gay Marriage Explains Why He Supports Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law

m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/uva-law-prof-who-supports-gay-marriage-explains-why-he-supports-indianas-religious-freedom-law_902928.html?nopager=1

 

[josie_L]

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**.

And I do appreciate the irony of the LGBT community preaching tolerance, when it is not (we can continue like this or we can try to understand one another).

 

[spes_salvi]

Okay, so I just heard that there’s this player who is not happy with this law permitting businesses not to become accomplices to events contrary to their religious beliefs. And so, he proposes that the sports organization withdraw the remaining games set to occur in Indiana.

Isn’t that quite hypocritical?

I’m confused about what he believes in. If he thinks businesses have a right to make boycotts and refuse services on the basis of beliefs, then doesn’t this mean he agrees with the essence of this law? This law is even more restricted because it’s specific to religious beliefs and certain other conditions need to be met.

Seriously, these intolerant LGBT supporters ought to stop their uninformed bullying of Indiana.

 

[MacBP]

I do appreciate the irony of the oppressors complaining about getting a taste of their own medicine even if it is hyperbole.

Is that what this is about? Not equality, not protection, but punishing people belonging to groups that have historically persecuted you? I could understand with that sentiment, I could even empathize with it, but is that really the route you want to go?

 

[bibcat]

Well, looks like Governor Pence is scrambling to salvage his political career and the well-being of his State. We’ll see what this new legislation will be.

It saddens me that the politicians in Indiana are so afraid of monetary loss from a boycott led by homosexuals and their allies that they’re willing to water down pioneering legislation simply for the sake of lucre. Jesus didn’t care about money. His scourging of the temple moneychangers is proof-positive of that. Besides, God rewards the faithful. If Indiana keeps this legislation in its original form, God in his mercy will find other avenues of economic sustenance for The Hoosier state. What people also don’t realize is that tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle makes the United States even more of a target for Muslim terrorism, as Islam considers homosexuality an abomination. Indeed, God may be using groups like ISIS as a punishment against Christendom just as he used Babylon as punishment against the children of Israel.

 

[DrTaffy]

Okay, so I just heard that there’s this player who is not happy with this law permitting businesses not to become accomplices to events contrary to their religious beliefs. And so, he proposes that the sports organization withdraw the remaining games set to occur in Indiana.

Isn’t that quite hypocritical?

Where is the hypocrisy? You can boycott him, he can boycott you. Perfect symmetry.

You seem to be the one saying that you should be able to boycott him but he should not be allowed to boycott you. That is hypocritical.