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

[Jarhead]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

and there you go. Fox news.

OK...now it is your turn...

Show me you read the bill. What in the law gives reason to consider it a license to discriminate.

Go ahead....

so lets see...did this question scare away daws101 as well? Seems to scare away pretty much everyone I ask. I have not yet receivd a single answer.

I wonder why that is.

 

[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. 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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

If you deny a black person a job and claim it's because your religion is against the mixing of the races,

whose rights get upheld?

You can't deny a black person a job, that's against the law. See civil rights public access laws.

Thus, your if is an empty strawman.

 

[daws101]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

So you can't name who made the reports, or how the information was substantiated.

Typical low information, lying hack.

you can look it up yourself ...but that would mean you have to admit I'm right .

 

[RKMBrown]

The Mormons lost A LOT of religious freedom when polygamy was outlawed.

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

I'm a constitutional conservative, and I do defend a mormon's right to polygamy. IMO the anti-poligamy laws are just as bad as the anti-gay marriage laws, and now defunct anti-mixed marriage laws.

 

[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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

 

[daws101]

reports early on said that it was an act of placation to the fringe right because Indiana had failed to stop the same sex marriage bill in that state.

Reports from whom? Substantiated by what?

try watching the news, the odd thing is I saw it on fox..

and there you go. Fox news.

OK...now it is your turn...

Show me you read the bill. What in the law gives reason to consider it a license to discriminate.

Go ahead....

so lets see...did this question scare away daws101 as well? Seems to scare away pretty much everyone I ask. I have not yet receivd a single answer.

I wonder why that is.

you didn't scare away shit... the reek of hubris is high in this thread...and yes I read the law....

which brings up the elephant in the room, if the law aint broke why is the governor raving so hard about fixing it?

let the deflection begin.

 

[daws101]

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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

bullshit!

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats a clown question, bro.

You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?

I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.

The question had nothing to do with gays. The question is about religious freedom. Can it be limited when it tries to infringe on the rights of others?

The answer is yes it can.

With that established as fact, all that's left is to decide where and when that infringement goes too far.

You sound lke an idiot because you have no idea what's in the bill.

I've told you several times. The bill makes religious beliefs an affirmative defense against liability from having discriminated against someone.

Nope, that's a lie.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

 

[Ravi]

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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

 

[Ravi]

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

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can anyone effectively prove to me how this law discriminates against LGBT people?

 

[Ravi]

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

ravi, rmk brown nose is always wrong...

Not always.

These people seem to think clarifying the law will destroy the law.

"What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. (“The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)"

Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law -- NYMag

I think they are correct, it will destroy the intent of the law, which is a good thing. So basically the Republicans in Indiana made a needless law and once more showed us all just how much they love big government.

 

[RKMBrown]

For the hundredth time It's about first amendment rights not public access rights.

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples.

OK let me try to explain... Govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco must make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

IOW this law is about making sure government laws are carefully crafted to allow an avenue for exercise of religious freedom.

 

[RKMBrown]

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

ravi, rmk brown nose is always wrong...

Not always.

These people seem to think clarifying the law will destroy the law.

"What’s more, some of the supporters of Indiana’s religious-freedom law have wandered inconveniently off script. The American Family Association’s Micah Clark, who stood directly behind Pence at the bill’s signing ceremony, claimed that to clarify that it does not legalize discrimination would “destroy” the bill. Erick Erickson’s defense of the law builds up to a frank declaration that gay people should be denied the right to live normal lives. (“The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”)"

Mike Pence Forced to Amend Religious-Freedom Law -- NYMag

I think they are correct, it will destroy the intent of the law, which is a good thing. So basically the Republicans in Indiana made a needless law and once more showed us all just how much they love big government.

SCOTUS decided that the federal law signed by Billy Boy does not apply to the states. Thus, the states are each, one by one passing the federal law passed by billy boy to protect said citizens from the state governments.

 

[Ravi]

First amendment rights applied how?

As applied to freedom of religion in the first amendment, for situations where a government has failed to allow people the freedom of religion. For example, a law that does not allow islamics the right to pray to mecca. As another example, a law that forces a christian to pay for an abortion for the christian's employees.

This law does not "override" public access laws. That is a false meme being promulgated by the left, and other ignorant people that believed the left who are on the right, but still ignorant of the facts.

Those things are already illegal (your examples). Can you give a concrete example of how this law might be applied?

Please cite to instances where government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to the people.

I feel you are leading me on a wild goose chase. As far as I know, no government officials were put in jail for doing these illegal things to people.

Perhaps you don't take my question seriously, but I would like to know how this law would be applied.

I provided the explanation of exactly how it would be applied. Then you said well that's already true.. give me more examples. That is the point... govco tries to make people do things that are directly in conflict with their religion. According to this law, govco much make sure an attempt to identify a fair solution was made by government. For example, by WRITING A PUBLIC ACCESS LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR PRIVATE EXCHANGES. As another example, ALLOWING businesses to opt out of paying for abortions, while those employees can still buy their own extra coverage for said abortions. As still another example, allowing businesses to put out religious symbols on PRIVATE property across the street from a public facility that is under the rule that religious symbols are not allowed ON public property. There I made one up for you.

all your examples are already covered by law. I fail to see your point.

If you are now saying your last example is a valid example, BS. A business may put out any religious symbol it wants on private property.

If anyone else can show a legitimate example of how this law would be applied I'd like to see it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Mormons lost A LOT of religious freedom when polygamy was outlawed.

Why don't you constitutionalist conservatives object to that?

They have liberals doing that for them right now.
But your deflection in the face of losing the argument is noted.

What's your position? Is polygamy a religious right or not?

And polygamy has what to do with this thread?

Since you've dodged every other point I've made, what's the difference?

Polygamy was a Mormon religious practice. The Supreme Court said the states could ban it, religious or not.

Did they get that wrong?

Yes or no, with reasons you answer yes or no.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't know the answer? Or you can't bear to tell us the answer?

I know the answer. But you dont. And you never willl. Because in your tiny pea brain mind this is about discriminating against gays and nothing more.

The question had nothing to do with gays. The question is about religious freedom. Can it be limited when it tries to infringe on the rights of others?

The answer is yes it can.

With that established as fact, all that's left is to decide where and when that infringement goes too far.

You sound lke an idiot because you have no idea what's in the bill.

I've told you several times. The bill makes religious beliefs an affirmative defense against liability from having discriminated against someone.

Nope, that's a lie.

Prove it.