Let's clear a few things up about the Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[TemplarKormac]

Not one of Bill Clinton's better signings, that's for sure, but this law goes even further.

Perhaps you should stop being disingenuous. Go look at Connecticut's RFRA law. It is even stronger than Indiana's. You liberals are bent on blowing this law out of context, when in fact there are 20 other laws out there just like it.

The other problem is that this law comes at a time where a majority of our society now accepts the LGBT community.

So? Where is your outrage concerning the others? Hmm? Why aren't you boycotting the rest of these states? I have asked these questions a thousand times (hyperbole I know). But I get deflections like this one.

There is ZERO difference between Indiana's law and the Federal RFRA. My OP is definitive proof of such. I've already caught people trying to claim Section 9 somehow allows businesses to discriminate against gays. But when compared with the Federal statute, no such implication exists.

I'm happy for Pence on this one. He's just done the Democrats a great service as we enter the general election cycle in the coming months.

Sorry that has to be offset by Hillary's ever burgeoning email scandal. Oh, did I mention she committed a felony?

Nothing gets people more eager to vote against Republicans in presidential elections than watching vast right-wing government overreach in action.

Oh, as if you wouldn't know anything about "government overreach."

Government overreach, the thing they accuse of liberals ends up being the thing that brings the GOP down.

Do people like you even take off your tin hats? At all? If I recall, "government overreach" got your asses spanked in the election last year. Don't be hypocritical.

The irony is delicious.

Very delicious, just like my twinkies. Your tears are but sweet wine.

 

[candycorn]

Wonder if the NFL will have their combine in Indy next year of they haven't corrected this discriminatory law or made strides toward it anyway.

NFL Big Ten reviewing implications of Indiana religious freedom bill

"Visit Indy estimated the economic impact of this year's NFL Combine at $8.27 million based on an "economic impact calculator" developed for Indianapolis by consultant Rockport Analytics."

California here they come.

 

[candycorn]

Leaders Of Indiana Companies Deeply Concerned Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Connecticut bans travel to Indiana over Mike Pence s religious freedom law - Mar. 30 2015

Indiana s law delivers real hurt to this state tech grad Computerworld

Their loss.

Now THAT is funny....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Segments of our population want all manner of things outlawed. Large segments of the liberal population want Christianity outlawed, or at least any sort of public expression thereof.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

Leftists are so used to living in a haze of ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

Everyone wants laws passed based on their own understanding of right and wrong, fuckstain. You advocate it every time you flap your gob.

You're just pissed that influencing legislation isn't a privilege granted only to the politically correct left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Do you deny that the law allows legal discrimination with religion as the only needed excuse?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not one of Bill Clinton's better signings, that's for sure, but this law goes even further.

Perhaps you should stop being disingenuous. Go look at Connecticut's RFRA law. It is even stronger than Indiana's. You liberals are bent on blowing this law out of context, when in fact there are 20 other laws out there just like it.

The other problem is that this law comes at a time where a majority of our society now accepts the LGBT community.

So? Where is your outrage concerning the others? Hmm? Why aren't you boycotting the rest of these states? I have asked these questions a thousand times (hyperbole I know). But I get deflections like this one.

There is ZERO difference between Indiana's law and the Federal RFRA. My OP is definitive proof of such. I've already caught people trying to claim Section 9 somehow allows businesses to discriminate against gays. But when compared with the Federal statute, no such implication exists.

I'm happy for Pence on this one. He's just done the Democrats a great service as we enter the general election cycle in the coming months.

Sorry that has to be offset by Hillary's ever burgeoning email scandal. Oh, did I mention she committed a felony?

Nothing gets people more eager to vote against Republicans in presidential elections than watching vast right-wing government overreach in action.

Oh, as if you wouldn't know anything about "government overreach."

Government overreach, the thing they accuse of liberals ends up being the thing that brings the GOP down.

Do people like you even take off your tin hats? At all? If I recall, "government overreach" got your asses spanked in the election last year. Don't be hypocritical.

The irony is delicious.

Very delicious, just like my twinkies. Your tears are but sweet wine.

There are significant differences between the Indiana and federal law. They have been pointed out to your repeatedly.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:

Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:

From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):

(a)In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

Bill Clinton was really a republican. Everyone knew that.

 

[The Rabbi]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Do you deny that the law allows legal discrimination with religion as the only needed excuse?

Only an idiot thinks that. Then again, look who's making the claim.

 

[strollingbones]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

i thought he just hid in his grandma's basement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Do you deny that the law allows legal discrimination with religion as the only needed excuse?

Only an idiot thinks that. Then again, look who's making the claim.

Then what does the law do? What is its purpose?

Be specific and give specific examples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by none other than Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:

Now, to clear a few things up, I'm going to quote text from both laws for you the reader to compare:

From Indiana Code Section 1 IC34-13-9 :

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."


Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

From the Federal law 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993):

(a)In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Indiana's governor says his law mirrors the Federal Law. It does. Nearly word for word. So, why the selective outrage? Why isn't anyone upset at the Federal Law? Please I implore you the reader to enlighten me!

Bill Clinton was really a republican. Everyone knew that.

He also signed NAFTA in 1993 which was essentially a Republican bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Do you deny that the law allows legal discrimination with religion as the only needed excuse?

Only an idiot thinks that. Then again, look who's making the claim.

This law provides an affirmative defense for someone accused in a lawsuit of discrimination.

It allows for the claim of a religious belief to legalize the discrimination.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Indiana law and the Fed law are not the same....no matter how you slice it, the homophobes are just trying to protect themselves by carving a law that allows them to discriminate. Funny, their religion does not allow them to bake a cake for someone whose lifestyle they don't like, but it allows them to be hateful and rude to people whose lifestyle they don't like....guess their Jesus told them it was okay to hate.



First, it explicitly states that for-profit businesses – and not just individuals – have a right to the free exercise of religion. As The Atlantic points out, the federal law has no such language, nor do 17 of the 19 existing state RFRA statues. In fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania exclude businesses from being protected by RFRA.

Second, the Indiana law makes explicit that for-profit business’ free exercise of religion is a defense against discrimination claims made not just by the government but also by private parties, something that is murky in the federal law.

So the claim that Indiana’s new law is just the same as a bunch of existing laws is off base.

That claim is also disingenuous and phony in a much simpler way, and so is the claim that that RFRA laws are not being used to try to justify discrimination.

Indiana religious freedom law is different and here s why - DecodeDC Story

Stop lying, it's over. Go home.

Ha, you're delusional, like always. Idiot Republican governor screwing his own state....

Anti-Gay Indiana Law Backfires

Indiana s Religious Discrimination Law Is Backfiring So Badly Other States Are Rethinking Theirs - PopCrunch

Salesforce won t travel to Indiana over religious freedom law

Still have not learned how to read?

 

[RKMBrown]

Not one of Bill Clinton's better signings, that's for sure, but this law goes even further.

Perhaps you should stop being disingenuous. Go look at Connecticut's RFRA law. It is even stronger than Indiana's. You liberals are bent on blowing this law out of context, when in fact there are 20 other laws out there just like it.

The other problem is that this law comes at a time where a majority of our society now accepts the LGBT community.

So? Where is your outrage concerning the others? Hmm? Why aren't you boycotting the rest of these states? I have asked these questions a thousand times (hyperbole I know). But I get deflections like this one.

There is ZERO difference between Indiana's law and the Federal RFRA. My OP is definitive proof of such. I've already caught people trying to claim Section 9 somehow allows businesses to discriminate against gays. But when compared with the Federal statute, no such implication exists.

I'm happy for Pence on this one. He's just done the Democrats a great service as we enter the general election cycle in the coming months.

Sorry that has to be offset by Hillary's ever burgeoning email scandal. Oh, did I mention she committed a felony?

Nothing gets people more eager to vote against Republicans in presidential elections than watching vast right-wing government overreach in action.

Oh, as if you wouldn't know anything about "government overreach."

Government overreach, the thing they accuse of liberals ends up being the thing that brings the GOP down.

Do people like you even take off your tin hats? At all? If I recall, "government overreach" got your asses spanked in the election last year. Don't be hypocritical.

The irony is delicious.

Very delicious, just like my twinkies. Your tears are but sweet wine.

There are significant differences between the Indiana and federal law. They have been pointed out to your repeatedly.

Stop lying. It's over.

 

[RKMBrown]

this law is a desperate attempt to appease the fringe right..

Spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what the law says or what it actually does.

Do you deny that the law allows legal discrimination with religion as the only needed excuse?

Only an idiot thinks that. Then again, look who's making the claim.

Then what does the law do? What is its purpose?

Be specific and give specific examples.

You've already been told a hundred times. Apparently you still can't read.

 

[Moonglow]

Republicans are so dishonest. Why don't they just come out and say they hate gays and want them dead? Be who you are. People will respect you a lot more if you publicly follow your convictions.

gop wants gays dead - Google Search

Religious people are so used to hiding behind veils of obscurity...

i thought he just hid in his grandma's basement?

That works also....

 

[Moonglow]

Why support this law, when a segment of our population want Islam outlawed.??

Islam...or more precisely many parts of Sharia Law....are in conflict with our Constitution...

Yep. So why is are there Americans wanting laws passed based on their particular brand of religion?

Why are certain RWs against it when Muslims do it but all in favor of it when its American fundies?

Everyone wants laws passed based on their own understanding of right and wrong, fuckstain. You advocate it every time you flap your gob.

You're just pissed that influencing legislation isn't a privilege granted only to the politically correct left.

Why are people so ignorant to think there is no religious representation of religious folks in the Democratic Party?