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

[PaintMyHouse]

It is very sad new laws like this are necessary. But the Communists/Democrats did declare war on Christians. They've been waging it for years. Christians and people of faith have no choice but to fight back. Religious persecution is Un-American. Simple as that.

Religion is why you little morons hate homosexuals. That and them being the dreaded "others". Grownups don't need laws like this, they just do their jobs without trying say it's faith, when it isn't..

No...

Grown-ups don't automatically assume discrimination when things don't go their way.

That's correct, but we don't bake cakes for fags is pretty clear eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did Governor Pence go virtually epileptic Sunday when asked the simple question would the law allow a florists and bakers to discriminate against gays?

Either it does or it doesn't.

Does it? Doesn't it?

You mean apoplectic, right? We can add that to the list of words you dont know.
And no, he did not go apoplectic. He was firm and reasoned. I posted the video elsewhere. Point out where he was apoplectic

He had an epileptic fit of question dodging.

 

[paulitician]

Let's save time and wrap this thread up real quick. Gays and Democrats hate Christians and don't respect their beliefs and rights. So obviously anytime Christians stand up and fight back, it's very upsetting to them. So the battle lines remain the same. This thread certainly won't change anything there.

The usual suspects will bitch & whine about this new law, and then life will go on. In fact, many more States will likely follow Indiana's lead. It's a logical inevitability. The end-result of the decades-old Communist/Democrat 'War on Christians.' So let's forgo the stale predictable 'Jim Crow' Race-Baiting shite, and call it a day. The battle lines are drawn, and a message Board ain't gonna change that. It is what it is. Have a nice day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If no one can come up with one example of how this law does anything other than to create a right to discriminate on religious grounds,

than it's fair to conclude that is the ONLY purpose of the law.

Anyone dispute this yet?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I want to know the REASONS for the law that do not involve a religious defense to discriminate.

Give us ONE good example. In your own words.

Why? Where in that law do the words "discriminate" or "businesses shall have the right to discriminate based on religion" appear in the law? Can you prove to me that this law is different, I repeat, different from the 19 other laws already passed across the country?

This is where you show your ass for all to see.

The federal law as well as 19 of the 20 state laws apply only to not for profits ie churches or religious organizations.
The Indiana law EXPRESSLY allows for profit organizations to be included.

 

[NYcarbineer]

^another example of ridiculous lies being repeated.

They were brutally attacked and did lose everything. We have to respect all Citizens' rights. Even when we don't agree with particular stances. This law is an inevitable end-result of many years of persecution against people of faith.

They lost a court case, fair and square. They lost business due to market forces, fair and square.

Well, hopefully more States will remedy injustices like that. They could have had their cake made elsewhere. They should have respected the business owner's religious beliefs and rights.

And the black people can always go to the other restaurant, we know, we've heard it all.

Oh Gawd, and now the loony Race-Baiting. No one has argued serving black people goes against their religious beliefs. When or if they do, i'll bite on your Race Bait.

Separation of the races was a longstanding belief in certain Christian sects. Don't think it's dead just because it's not that visible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law didn't permit discrimination, there'd be no need to 'clear it up.'

While the nutty defenders of this law keep saying it's no different than other states laws,

the Republicans in the IN legislature are now talking about removing the differences.

So I guess they'll be removing the non-existent differences?

lol

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm actually looking fowards to this law. I'd love to see what happens when some cult sets up shop there and starts exerting their religious freedom

 

[Ava]

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

Obama signed one too.

SNIP:

PolitiFact Sunday disputed Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's assertion about President Obama's support for a religious freedom law when he was an Illinois politician — but the fact-checking site's argument relies heavily on assumptions about the "intent" of a highly similar law Pence signed last week, and the site does not refute Pence's claim that the two laws (along with a 22-year-old federal law) have the "same language."

PolitiFact Yes Obama supported Illinois religious freedom bill but that was different WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.

The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law.

The Indiana law makes it an affirmative defense to use your religious beliefs against someone accusing you of discrimination. That would include both of the above.

Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?

 

[BlackSand]

Make up your mind, ya fool, are you asking about first amendment protections or civil right public access protections? The word "discrimination" is a broad term. For example, I reserve the right to discriminate what channel I want to watch. Does that make me an evil gay basher?

It is becoming more and more apparent that if you don't join in lock-step with the agenda ... They will consider you gay bashing whether or not there is any truth to the matter.

.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

 

[Valerie]

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.


And this right to discriminate would apply not only to photography studios but also to countless other businesses that use words, pictures, or other forms of creative expression, including court reporting services, translation services, graphic-design agencies, architecture firms, sound technicians, print shops, and dance studios, almost any good or service involving computer code, makeup artists, hair stylists, florists, and countless other services that cater to the general public.


For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.


More generally, this case is one of many recent instances in which organizations and businesses have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT customers in a variety of goods and services. In Vermont, the meeting and events director at the Wildflower Inn told a same-sex couple that they could not have “gay receptions” at the resort. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple.


In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.


We do not let photography businesses – or any other business – turn away customers because of the their race, or because they are divorced, or because they use birth control. The same principles apply when the customer is a same-sex couple. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business in the public sphere those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union


STATUS: Victory! The New Mexico Supreme Court held that there is no right to violate the State's nondiscrimination law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

There was no need for the bill other than to give religious groups a pass to discriminate.

I was reading one idiotic sponsor of this bill claiming now we won't have to let men use women's bathrooms! Now gay people can't force a church to marry them!

Neither of those was ever something that would happen under the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.


And this right to discriminate would apply not only to photography studios but also to countless other businesses that use words, pictures, or other forms of creative expression, including court reporting services, translation services, graphic-design agencies, architecture firms, sound technicians, print shops, and dance studios, almost any good or service involving computer code, makeup artists, hair stylists, florists, and countless other services that cater to the general public.


For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.


More generally, this case is one of many recent instances in which organizations and businesses have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT customers in a variety of goods and services. In Vermont, the meeting and events director at the Wildflower Inn told a same-sex couple that they could not have “gay receptions” at the resort. In New Jersey, the owner of a wedding dress shop refused to sell a woman a wedding dress when she learned that she was marrying another woman. In Illinois, a bed and breakfast turned away a couple who asked to have a civil union reception at the facility, and then urged the couple to repent for their sins. In Hawaii, the owners of a hotel refused even to rent a room to a same-sex couple.


In all of these states, businesses are barred by state law from discriminating against customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or religion, among other protected categories. But the owners of these businesses have claimed that they do not have to follow those laws because of their personal religious beliefs.


We do not let photography businesses – or any other business – turn away customers because of the their race, or because they are divorced, or because they use birth control. The same principles apply when the customer is a same-sex couple. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business in the public sphere those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union


STATUS: Victory! The New Mexico Supreme Court held that there is no right to violate the State's nondiscrimination law.

Good post!
I believe Indiana's nondiscrimination law does not include language covering lgbt citizens.
(Surprising loophole I know)
Pence could make this all go away by simply asking for an amendment including lgbt in that nondiscrimination law. If he is unwilling to do that, then that doesn't leave much question about the intent of the new law.

 

[BlackSand]

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

Why should we submit to giving you a hypothetical case in regards to your hypothetical argument ... Neither actually exist?

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

No, I haven't.

Tell me then. Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to treat homosexuals? Does this law allow a Catholic hospital to refuse to hire homosexuals?

Can that hospital use a religious argument under this law to justify the above?

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO TREAT HOMOSEXUALS.

This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS MAY OR MAY NOT REFUSE TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.

Those issues are covered by public access laws. This law has NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC ACCESS LAWS.

Anyone can try to use any argument to try to get away with breaking the law. But that does not mean the courts will hear said argument. Your question is the equivalent of asking whether the first amendment can be used as a defense for breaking the law. It is a ridiculous question, formed as a false meme directed to ask the person answering the question whether or not he stopped beating his wife, or in this case stopped gay bashing. Yes or no does the first amendment allow you to discriminate against gays?

If it has nothing to do with public access laws, what does it have to do with?

Isn't it amazing that not one of the RWnuts on this forum can tell us ONE thing this bill does, materially in support of religious people,

once the anti-gay part is taken off the table.

How about repealing the law altogether? If it serves no purpose that anyone can identify (except the right to discriminate part)

what is the need for the bill?

Someone please tell us specifically what the need for the bill is.

Give us a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical legal case.

...and quit saying you've already done that...

What other than discrimination would it provide protection for?
Why would a business owner need religious protections from a patron or employee?