Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

[Henrin]

In libertarian fantasyland, that is true.

But in the real world, there should be EQUAL pay for EQUAL work.

But I forgot - in libertarian fantasyland, if someone wants to say, "I'll pay the white male more and the black woman less even though they do the same work and with the same quality, because freedom." In libertarian fantasyland, the words "racism" and "sexism" have been replaced with the word "freedom".

No, all agreements are independent of each other and there is no reason to suspect that one agreement has to be equal to another in terms of pay, benefits, etc.

 

[CriticalThought]

Would you agree they are forced to serve other human beings?

Nope. They are not beaten or imprisoned. They may face a fine or lose their business license. They can choose to leave the state and are in no way shackled. They can contest it in court with full representation as a citizen. They can even freely express that they do not want to do it and refer to other businesses. In most of these states they can even reorganize as a religious corporation to get an exemption.

 

[Henrin]

Nope. They are not beaten or imprisoned. They may face a fine or lose their business license. They can choose to leave the state and are in no way shackled. They can contest it in court with full representation as a citizen. They can even freely express that they do not want to do it and refer to other businesses. In most of these states they can even reorganize as a religious corporation to get an exemption.

So they either serve other people or face legal punishment. That is force my friend. Sure, they can decide to not practice their right to use their property as a business or they can leave the country, but we are not talking about people that made such choices. We are talking about someone that decided to practice their rights and found themselves as an involuntary servant because of it.

Oh, and there is hurdles that cost time, labor and money that someone must get past to leave the country.

 

[CriticalThought]

So they either serve other people or legal punishment. That is force my friend. Sure, they can decide to not practice their right to use their property as a business or they can leave the country, but we are not talking about people that made such choices. We are talking about someone that decided to practice their rights and found themselves as an involuntary servant because of it. Oh and there is hurdles that cost time, labor and money that someone must get past to leave the country. You can't just wake up one day and decide to revoke your citizenship and expect it to be done that very day.

Whatever. I am not going to feel pity for somebody who CHOOSES to obtain a business license in a particular state but picks and chooses what laws they want to abide by and declares it "force" when they themselves made the choice to set up shop in that state. They even have the power to lobby and change the law and you proclaim them an indentured servant. Jesus. What a persecution complex.

 

[Henrin]

Whatever. I am not going to feel pity for somebody who CHOOSES to obtain a business license in a particular state but picks and chooses what laws they want to abide by and declares it "force" when they themselves made the choice to set up shop in that state. They even have the power to lobby and change the law and you proclaim them an indentured servant. Jesus. What a persecution complex.

They are required to obtain the license to use their property as they see fit. You're defending against my claim with what amounts to a property right violation.

 

[CriticalThought]

They are required to obtain the license to use their property as they see fit. You're defending against my claim with what amounts to a property right violation.

So now states have no right to regulate commerce? Yup, clear off the deep end into minarchist territory.

 

[Henrin]

So now states have no right to regulate commerce? Yup, clear off the deep end into minarchist territory.

What kind of libertarian are you? Requiring people to obtain permission from the state to practice their rights IS a right violation. It's just that simple.

 

[countryboy]

Nonsense. People of faith need only live and let live. Nobody is forcing them to do anything more.

Bull****.

 

[chromium]

Dont fall for it. And dont shop there. Dont go there. Everyone wins AND you still get to carry that ginourmous chip on your shoulder.

If everyone who disagrees with this law left indiana, there'd be nothing left in the entire state except for high school drop outs, 5th generation inbreeders, and pedophile priests - not a "winning" combination by any definition, except for those who envy the 3rd world

There wouldn't be anything to shop for either except confederate flags, "god and country" bumper stickers, and meth. Since i am not into those, i wouldn't even have to boycott.

 

[VanceMack]

If everyone who disagrees with this law left indiana, there'd be nothing left in the entire state except for high school drop outs, 5th generation inbreeders, and pedophile priests - not a "winning" combination by any definition, except for those who envy the 3rd world

There wouldn't be anything to shop for either except confederate flags, "god and country" bumper stickers, and meth. Since i am not into those, i wouldn't even have to boycott.

Look what a wonderful and solid win that would be for you.

You will get a plenty strong gauge of the level of public support for your 'cause' at the next state election. Surely all those people that voted for this law will be elected out.

Then again...the fact is that without federal judges overturning state legislatures, gay marriage would still be banned in 36 or so states. Funny how reality seldom jibes with all the 'polls' indicating support.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Bull****.

What part of your faith is compromised and remedied by this bill?

 

[chromium]

Look what a wonderful and solid win that would be for you.

You will get a plenty strong gauge of the level of public support for your 'cause' at the next state election. Surely all those people that voted for this law will be elected out.

Then again...the fact is that without federal judges overturning state legislatures, gay marriage would still be banned in 36 or so states. Funny how reality seldom jibes with all the 'polls' indicating support.

Uh i never claimed the high school dropouts, inbreeders, and pedo priests aren't the majority of hoosiers. I only said that's all that would be left

With no entrepreneurs, engineers, or anyone of intellect at all, it will be the next mississippi

 

[Grand Mal]

It is as it always was. Whenever and wherever liberals have fought for rights and liberties, fought on behalf of oppressed minorities, it's always been conservatives they've had to fight against. Women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, it is as it always was.

 

[Jack Hays]

What states have a RFRA legislation?

Originally Posted by Jack Hays
Except that no state's RFRA has ever been used that way.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not all RFRAs are equal. This is the broadest one to date and in a state with absolutely no antidiscrimination measures to protect LGBT. Nobody knows for certain how it will be used.

SCOTUS does.

 

[Jack Hays]

The currently-majority-conservative SCOTUS, you mean. After Hillary wins - and she will win, if she runs - if even one of your judges on that court retires, it is only a matter of time.

Jack, as long as y'all support policies like discrimination against gays, no equal pay for women, restricted (or zero) access to abortion, and AGW denial, again, it's only a matter of time.

There is no discrimination against gays or anyone else in the RFRA.

 

[Jack Hays]

Excellent, then you should oppose what Indiana did. In Utah they advanced religious protections with LGBT protections. They brought both sides to the table. In Indiana they deliberately chose not to bring the LGBT community to the table so they could advance a one sided agenda for social conservatives. Now they are trying to spin this law as absolutely no different than other RFRA laws when it is vastly broader and could have considerable unintended consequences for all minorities.

All false. There are fully sufficient protections in place.

 

[chromium]

I think the head of the company that is cancelling its long-planned $40 million expansion to indiana said it best re: the intentions to oppress -

"He said he was soured by the way the governor handled the bill signing, excluding the press and public — then issuing a photograph of him surrounded by the bill's supporters.

"That photograph told me everything I needed to know," Oesterle said. "I've been on the other side of this issue with them for a long time, going back to the governor's (Daniels') campaign. That's when I first became exposed to those people. The most prominent three figures standing directly behind the governor were those three individuals."

Oesterle said he was referring to Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana, Eric Miller of Advance America and Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute. The three groups have been strong and vocal backers of efforts to enshrine a same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution and other laws limiting the rights of gays."

Angie's List canceling Eastside expansion over RFRA

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Indiana's RFRA law is different and much broader then the Federal version or other states versions. So when people are pointing to the 1993 law, or other states RFRA they're being dishonest.

 

[countryboy]

It is as it always was. Whenever and wherever liberals have fought for rights and liberties, fought on behalf of oppressed minorities, it's always been conservatives they've had to fight against. Women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, it is as it always was.

Revisionist bull****. It was republicans who championed civil rights legislation. Dims fought tooth and nail against it.

 

[Grand Mal]

Revisionist bull****. It was republicans who championed civil rights legislation. Dims fought tooth and nail against it.

Kennedy and Johnson were Republicans now?
And I didn't say Republican and Democrat, I said conservative and liberal. Not the same thing.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Would you agree they are forced to serve other human beings?

No, they have CHOSEN to serve other human beings! As for slavery, you should look up the definition. I do not think it means what you think it means. LOL!

 

[VanceMack]

Kennedy and Johnson were Republicans now?
And I didn't say Republican and Democrat, I said conservative and liberal. Not the same thing.

Do you mean LYNDON Johnson?
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years"

"Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960" LBJ "Son, when I appoint a niggerr to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."



THAT Lyndon Johnson?

Difference between supporting civil rights and using them to get votes.

 

[jet57]

There's been a tsunami of uninformed comment about the Indiana RFRA, and enough unfounded outrage to stretch around the world a couple of times. For those who enjoy some facts in their political discussions, here's the story.


Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

2:10 PM, Mar 27, 2015 • By JOHN MCCORMACKOn Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists--including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few--are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people:

Read more...

". . . . Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else." So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't. . . . . "

Sate Acts, like in Tennessee, are concerned with the federal government codes for building and the like of churches etc. These other Acts have nothing to do with discrimination as the Indiana law does. What's going on there is no different than blacks not being allowed to sit at the lunch counter: it's outright discrimination and it won't hold up.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sate Acts, like in Tennessee, are concerned with the federal government codes for building and the like of churches etc. These other Acts have nothing to do with discrimination as the Indiana law does. What's going on there is no different than blacks not being allowed to sit at the lunch counter: it's outright discrimination and it won't hold up.

The Indiana RFRA is not different from the others.