Yes, that is what the law says. What I'm trying to do is make you think of how the law runs counter to human rights. Maybe you could expand your thinking beyond sheepish nonsense.
There is no human right to practice bigotry against someone else. You have all the rights in the world to your free thought but not practices that infringe on the rights of another. The sheepish nonsense is the belief that you are free to write your own rules simply because you open a business.
The fundamental understanding that I have is that the legislation doesn't address discrimination against anyone, but rather reenforces the already constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and that similar laws are already on in place in a large number of states as well as at the federal level.
How this gets twisted inside and out into support for discrimination is an oddity to me, but the fact that LGBT bully mafia want's to take other's freedoms away doesn't surprise me very much.
Your post makes no sense in the face of the desire for freedom to discriminate against lgbt's, the legislators boasting about meeting that desire, and the demonstrated acts of discrimination in the past.
The fundamental understanding that I have is that the legislation doesn't address discrimination against anyone, but rather reenforces the already constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and that similar laws are already on in place in a large number of states as well as at the federal level.
How this gets twisted inside and out into support for discrimination is an oddity to me, but the fact that LGBT bully mafia want's to take other's freedoms away doesn't surprise me very much.
The Indiana law was DIFFERENT from the federal law and those in other states. It wasn't just about the govt not stepping on religious freedoms; it included that a private business who discriminated against someone could claim religion as a defense if they got sued. That is very different from the other laws in other places.
I'm going on what been reported and stated in various press conferences that I've watched on TV.
You have your sources as well, I'm sure.
The only I can think of getting at the real truth of the matter, and perhaps even not then, is to read and analyze the text of the legislation itself. I say perhaps not even then, as reading laws more often than not requires legal expertise to properly interpret then, unless it's written in plain language, which sometimes they are (surprising, I know, but yet sometimes it is the case).
.
1. INDIANA’S LAW APPLIES TO COMPANIES; OTHERS DON’T
“This bill is substantively different,” said Adam Talbot, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the D.C.-based gay rights group. “It is the broadest and most dangerous legislation of its kind.”
The main difference, gay-rights advocates say, is this: Indiana’s law expressly applies to corporations.
Into the weeds we go: The federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, and the similar Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) in 19 other states, do not say they apply to corporations, according to gay-rights advocates. Instead, they apply to people
2. IN SOME OTHER STATES, NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS TRUMP ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’ LAWS
"If there is a nondiscrimination law” already on the books, says Lambda Legal National Law and Policy Director Jenny Pizer, “that law should be enforceable and enforced notwithstanding any religious claim.”
Pizer says her organization, a pro-gay-rights advocacy and legal-defense group, has found that nondiscrimination laws typically trump RFRA laws in court.
But Indiana has no statewide law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and only a handful of its counties have nondiscrimination laws at the local level. According to Pizer, that means there’s no protection from discrimination by companies—where in some other states, there is.
4. THE INDIANA LAW APPLIES TO PRIVATE DISPUTES
In declining to sign his state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Hutchinson pointed out that the bill differed from federal law in that it applied to private disputes, not just governmental action.
Indiana's law is the same way. While other state's RFRA laws make it more difficult for the government to enforce laws when those laws incidentally infringe on religious beliefs, Indiana's applies to disputes between people, or between people and businesses.
I encourage you to read the text of the law.
Or do your own research - here's an article by ABC news:
Religious Freedom: The Difference Between Indiana's Law and All the Others - ABC News
(I omitted bullet 3, because it was about intent, not about the text)
What the 'religious freedom' law really means for IndianaThe problem with these questions is that the answers depend on whom you ask — especially among those most emotionally invested, but even within the legal community. And, now, with Gov. Mike Pence's announcement Saturday that he will seek further legislation to "clarify" the act, it could become even more complicated.
The argument over what Pence has thus signed becomes not only intellectual, but visceral, vitriolic, ugly. Both sides dig in, because each thinks the other is flatly wrong — in their hearts, and on the facts. And the debate rages on, sometimes spiraling to a place so far away from the law itself.
Indiana Law: Sorting Fact From Fiction From Politics : It's All Politics : NPRSupporters say Indiana's law is similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in 1993.
As is often the case in controversies, however, the facts have become muddled and conflated. So what are the facts? How are the two laws different? And how have politics on both sides shaped the response?
. . . .
Most conservatives, including Pence, have mostly not addressed that charge head-on. Instead, they say, the law is unfairly maligned. After all, other states have similar laws and even Democrat Bill Clinton signed a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law as president.
So, in other words, while the federal law states that a person can sue the government for a grievance, Indiana makes a point of stating that it doesn't matter if government is involved.
The True Facts About Religious Freedom LawsThe mainstream media has launched an all-out blitz over a new law that protects the fundamental freedom of Indiana citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable government coercion.
The media’s gross mischaracterizations of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act ignore the truth: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts prevent government discrimination against religious free exercise and simply provide a way to balance religious liberty with compelling government interests.
. . .
As Ryan T. Anderson and I explained Thursday, the Indiana law is good policy. Like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana’s new law prohibits substantial government burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through the least restrictive means.
These protections for religious freedom provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests.
By passing its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana joins the 19 other states that have implemented such laws. Eleven additional states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar level of protection. These commonsense laws place the onus on the government to justify its actions in burdening the free exercise of religion.
Indiana Protects Religious Liberty. Why ThatThese protections for religious freedom, like the one passed in Indiana, provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects against federal government violations of religious liberty, and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts protect against state violations.
By passing its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana joins the 19 other states that have implemented such laws. Eleven additional states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar level of protection. These commonsense laws place the onus on the government to justify its actions in burdening the free exercise of religion.
Responding to critics of the bill, who wrongly characterized the religious freedom protections, Pence stated in a press release following the signing:
For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.He added:
Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.
LOL......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Anti-discrimination does SUPPORT human rights. While it may be a human right to be a bigot...there is no human right to practice that bigotry against another person.
He just supports the human rights of some and not the others he considers to be subhuman.
Indiana is now a joke. And is also now an anti-Christian state. You cannot be both pro-homosexuals and pro-Christian. Christianity and homosexuality are enemies. What is being called "religious freedom" is not religious bondage. This bill now makes it more difficult to practice Christianity.
Indiana is now a joke. And is also now an anti-Christian state. You cannot be both pro-homosexuals and pro-Christian. Christianity and homosexuality are enemies. What is being called "religious freedom" is not religious bondage. This bill now makes it more difficult to practice Christianity.
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has followed through with a threat to relocate its 2017 convention from Indianapolis due to concerns about the "religious freedom" law and lack of anti discrimination protections for some citizens.
The church's board on Tuesday voted unanimously to seek another venue for the convention. Church officials said the law sent a message that some of its attendees might not be welcome in certain Indiana businesses.
"As a Christian church, we affirm and support religious freedom," General Minister and President Sharon Watkins said in a prepared statement. "It is, in fact, a core principle for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). We are also strongly committed to an inclusive community — just as Jesus welcomed all to the table."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?