Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill

[konradv]

The Constitution ensures we're protected from these types of religious interference. It should be struck down quickly.

 

[hazlnut]

From the OP's link:

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applyingthe law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

Yikes, this is explains how Louis Gohmert keeps getting re-elected.

The brain trust in their state legislature doesn't see how problematic that law might be??!!

BTW -- there's no way in hell a "christian" baker or florist can claim their exercise of religion is "substantially burdened" but a gay client. Besides, their religion calls for tolerance and understanding. So baking a cake for a gay client is exactly what Christ would have them do.

And Hobby Lobby should want to provide full health care coverage for all their female employees. You can pray in your private home that they choose not to get an abortion or use birth control. But you can't force your religious beliefs on them.

What is religion? - ritual practices and beliefs based around a specific mythology. The problem is the literalists readings in both Christian and Islamic faiths (the new kids on the block.) The literalist read the Christian and Islamic texts without consideration of historical context, authorship, and the probability that all the monsters and magic just stopped happening because God was/is testing our faith.

Every modern evangelical literalist Christian is really more of a Cafeteria Christian picking and choosing which beliefs to follow. How many stoning have you been to? How many slaves do you own? I could go on and on about things in the bible literalist "christians" ignore.

 

[hazlnut]

It's sad this bill is even needed, if a Christian wants no part of the perversion then leave them alone

Amendment to the bill...anyone wishing to exercise their religion in refusing to serve certain groups should post a sign prominently at their business saying so....at the doors, behind the counter...in employee lunch rooms, etc.

The RED LETTER B for bigot.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, the " it's not wrong because its fucking over people I don't like" retort.

Nothing but a cowardly bully, letting government push people around instead of having the balls to do it yourself.

Pussy.

WOW.......you got all that out of a one word answer? You need to learn to separate what is said in the real world and what the voices in your head say.

All I need to ID a fucking asshole who likes to let others do his dirty work.

Bwock Bwock Bwock.

You need a lot more than that, but sadly you aren't capable of figuring that out.

Its simple to figure out, you just don't like being called a statist asshat.

Call me what you want.....doesn't make it true unless you can prove it.

I don't have to prove shit, this is an internet message board.

 

[martybegan]

So when oppression you agree with comes from the SC, its OK then, right?

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Conducting business in the public arena is not oppression.

Why does a person give up their rights to conduct a business? Nice attempt at a dodge, but as usual, it fails.

You are giving a person a choice: go against your morals or go out of business. That is oppression any way you look at it, but its oppression you agree to.

at least have the balls to admit it.

Yes I think it is just for society to no longer tolerate that form of intolerance, especially when that intolerance is base on religious morals. Next thing you know some religionist will be wanting to toss them off of tall buildings.........

Nice, comparing actual murder with not wanting to bake a cake.

Our system is designed to stop assholes like you from forcing their morals on others. Unfortunately your type of dipshit has been infesting our government for decades now and subverting that.

 

[martybegan]

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Anyone "oppressing" Christians? What businesses are not serving Christians? They would have to put up a sign too.

Simple question. Do you see government forcing of a person to provide a service against their beliefs as oppression or not?

If the government forced you to do something you don't want to do are you not oppressed by them?

If the service is part of the regular business service that the business provides to the public and the person or persons seeking service do not share the same sexual orientation as the business owners then I believe that is discrimination.

The government forces me to do stuff all the time that I don't want to do. I don't want to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign. I want to be able to go to a bar and drink and smoke at the same time. I want to go 70 in a 55 on the freeway..........I don't want to be subject to a fine if I don't buckle up or I forget to wear a helmut.....

Find me a verifiable religious belief that prevents you from following any of those laws.

Also, none of those prevent you from making a living if you don't conform.

But a nice attempt at equivocation, a bad one, but nice.

You don't think that not conforming to the laws can prevent you from making a living? What log do you live under?

Laws like this shouldn't force you to choose between your morality or your livelihood, particularly for something as trivial as a wedding cake.

 

[martybegan]

Find me a verifiable religious belief that prevents you from following any of those laws.

Under the law, the belief need not be "verifiable" to use your words, they simply need to be the individuals beliefs they do not need to be part of a larger collection of beliefs of others.

"Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or centralto, a system of religious belief.​

https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/5/5/c/f/55cfd293/SB0101.04.COMH.pdf


>>>>

Well that's a bit on the loose side. Eh, when a law is created due to backlash you get this from time to time.

 

[martybegan]

Why would anyone have a problem with this?

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Anyone "oppressing" Christians? What businesses are not serving Christians? They would have to put up a sign too.

Simple question. Do you see government forcing of a person to provide a service against their beliefs as oppression or not?

If the government forced you to do something you don't want to do are you not oppressed by them?

If the service is part of the regular business service that the business provides to the public and the person or persons seeking service do not share the same sexual orientation as the business owners then I believe that is discrimination.

The government forces me to do stuff all the time that I don't want to do. I don't want to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign. I want to be able to go to a bar and drink and smoke at the same time. I want to go 70 in a 55 on the freeway..........I don't want to be subject to a fine if I don't buckle up or I forget to wear a helmut.....

Find me a verifiable religious belief that prevents you from following any of those laws.

Also, none of those prevent you from making a living if you don't conform.

But a nice attempt at equivocation, a bad one, but nice.

Those were but a few off the cuff examples as an answer to your unqualified question.

People like Blindboo have a problem with laws like this because they can't stand the fact that people have other morals than they do, and they GASP! want to follow them.

So Blindboo turns to government to force people to act the way Blindboo wants them to act.

 

[martybegan]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upheld in SCOTUS case law.

It was never applied to things like this, and you know it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anyone "oppressing" Christians? What businesses are not serving Christians? They would have to put up a sign too.

Simple question. Do you see government forcing of a person to provide a service against their beliefs as oppression or not?

If the government forced you to do something you don't want to do are you not oppressed by them?

If the service is part of the regular business service that the business provides to the public and the person or persons seeking service do not share the same sexual orientation as the business owners then I believe that is discrimination.

The government forces me to do stuff all the time that I don't want to do. I don't want to come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign. I want to be able to go to a bar and drink and smoke at the same time. I want to go 70 in a 55 on the freeway..........I don't want to be subject to a fine if I don't buckle up or I forget to wear a helmut.....

Find me a verifiable religious belief that prevents you from following any of those laws.

Also, none of those prevent you from making a living if you don't conform.

But a nice attempt at equivocation, a bad one, but nice.

You don't think that not conforming to the laws can prevent you from making a living? What log do you live under?

Laws like this shouldn't force you to choose between your morality or your livelihood, particularly for something as trivial as a wedding cake.

Yes yes, baking a cake is such a moral act. This morning I sat on the toilet, it was deeply moral.

 

[Seawytch]

Just wait for the Satanists to start using this law...and watch the Christian bigots scream.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just wait for the Satanists to start using this law...and watch the Christian bigots scream.

Once they discover people don't serve their kind, I'm sure that they will. They only approve of bigotry one way.

 

[Seawytch]

Have you ever made an intelligent, well thought-out reply?

Have you? All I have seen from leftists on this thread is "bigot" "Christian Taliban" or other invective. That isn't well thought-out now is it?

A desire to discriminate against a minority group IS bigotry. You don't believe in calling a fig a fig?

 

[Seawytch]

And away we go...

As long as they put a prominent sign up by the front door and by the service counter.....go right ahead.

That amendment failed and isn't part of the bill.


>>>>

A shame...it should be a requirement. What are they afraid of?

It absolutely should be required.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't believe that Christians should legally be oppressing or discriminating against gay couples in the public arena. Yes I believe it will take a SC ruling to force some states to stop allowing that form of oppression/discrimination.

But its OK to oppress Christians? Despite the constitutional right to free exercise of Religion?

and how is having to go to another baker or photographer "oppression"?
Its more oppressive than saying a person has to submit to the state or lose their ability to make a living?

Conducting business in the public arena is not oppression.

Why does a person give up their rights to conduct a business? Nice attempt at a dodge, but as usual, it fails.

You are giving a person a choice: go against your morals or go out of business. That is oppression any way you look at it, but its oppression you agree to.

at least have the balls to admit it.

Yes I think it is just for society to no longer tolerate that form of intolerance, especially when that intolerance is base on religious morals. Next thing you know some religionist will be wanting to toss them off of tall buildings.........

Nice, comparing actual murder with not wanting to bake a cake.

Our system is designed to stop assholes like you from forcing their morals on others. Unfortunately your type of dipshit has been infesting our government for decades now and subverting that.

I've seen several posters on here who think gays should be killed just for being gay. Fortunately we live in a free and tolerant society where the intolerant are being less tolerated as time goes by. Your ranting and raving does nothing to change that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

free and tolerant society

I beg to differ, as far as your definition of "free and tolerant society" goes.

 

[g5000]

So I have been wondering what kind of sign these Christians could put on their establishment's window to let people know it is a STRAIGHTS ONLY business. After all, they don't have the guts to be as blatant as their ancestors who used WHITE ONLY signs.

Perhaps they could use this to alert the public that no sub-humans are allowed:

All of Christianity is going to be tainted by these hateful people who went to such lengths in the name of Christ, so what the heck.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So I have been wondering what kind of sign these Christians could put on their establishment's window to let people know it is a STRAIGHTS ONLY business. After all, they don't have the guts to be as blatant as their ancestors who used WHITE ONLY signs.

Perhaps they could use this to alert the public that no sub-humans are allowed:

Me too, especially when on the grill.

Oops. Warning - graphic, and it will stick with you: https://777denny.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/christian-fish-symbol-yoni.jpg?w=438

That part I don't grill, I just enjoy raw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My home state doing it right, well done Indiana, well done

Indiana House passes "religious freedom" bill 63-31

INDIANAPOLIS -The debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is now over. The Indiana House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the bill in a 63-31 vote Monday afternoon.

It now goes back to the Senate to make sure everybody agrees with some changes. Then it heads to the governor's desk for his signature.

Governor Mike Pence says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law, but not everyone is happy about that.

Indiana House passes religious freedom bill 63-31 - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Bummer. Gonna suck when it's struck down as unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution force a person to bake a cake they don't want to bake? Isn't that involuntary servitude?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upheld in SCOTUS case law.

It was never applied to things like this, and you know it.

So it doesn't apply to someone not wanting to make a milkshake and a hamburger for someone in a diner?

lol

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just wait for the Satanists to start using this law...and watch the Christian bigots scream.

Why would they scream? I think they would be grateful to know about those establishments.