• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...


It'd be more impressive if you could find a US federal politician from then that never said 'nigger'. And, yeah, in the context of the times, Johnson was liberal. Loud and abrasive, but still liberal.
 
Grand Mal said:
It'd be more impressive if you could find a US federal politician from then that never said 'nigger'. And, yeah, in the context of the times, Johnson was liberal. Loud and abrasive, but still liberal.
Click to expand...

I doubt that Everett Dirksen ever used the word.
 
Grand Mal said:
It'd be more impressive if you could find a US federal politician from then that never said 'nigger'. And, yeah, in the context of the times, Johnson was liberal. Loud and abrasive, but still liberal.
Click to expand...
No no...not just the context of the times. it is no different today. Liberals exploit blacks. Always have...always will.

Sorry THAT your example is such a GOOD example of that reality.
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . . . "
Click to expand...

Yeah, because if there is one thing we lack in the US, it's religious freedom. Good to see that the Indiana governor is restoring it /s
 
VanceMack said:
No no...not just the context of the times. it is no different today. Liberals exploit blacks. Always have...always will.

Sorry THAT your example is such a GOOD example of that reality.
Click to expand...

You apparently use the term 'liberal' differently than I do. Anyone who exploits anyone isn't a liberal and never has been, no matter what you or he says.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, because if there is one thing we lack in the US, it's religious freedom. Good to see that the Indiana governor is restoring it /s
Click to expand...

He is merely folloowing the path pioneered by Chuck Schumer and Bill Clinton in 1993.
 
Grand Mal said:
You apparently use the term 'liberal' differently than I do. Anyone who exploits anyone isn't a liberal and never has been, no matter what you or he says.
Click to expand...
Ah...the imperfect rhetoric of ideology.

You claim Johnson was a Liberal. Johnson very clearly admits to his intent to exploit an entire race for their votes by offering them baubles and hand waves.

You are right...he WAS a real liberal.
 
Jack Hays said:
The OP article already established that.
Click to expand...

Feel free to point out what in the OP article suggests there are protections for LGBT in the state of Indiana or that Indiana's RFRA law is not broader than any other states.

You should also point it out to the governor since he just went on TV today and proved me right.
 
CriticalThought said:
Feel free to point out what in the OP article suggests there are protections for LGBT in the state of Indiana or that Indiana's RFRA law is not broader than any other states.

You should also point it out to the governor since he just went on TV today and proved me right.
Click to expand...

". . . 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.". . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . 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.". . . ."
Click to expand...

As I said, feel free to point out what in the OP article suggests there are protections for LGBT in the state of Indiana or that Indiana's RFRA law is not broader than any other states.

What you posted did not address either of those points. This is Indiana, not other states. This is Indiana's RFRA not other state's RFRA. There are no antidiscrimination measures on the books in Indiana that offer protections for LGBT but a lot of other states with RFRA laws do have them.

The Governor of Indiana stated he will not work to add protections for LGBT in his state. Neither he, nor your quoted professor know how this law will actually be enforced in a state without antidiscrimination protections for LGBT.
 
CriticalThought said:
As I said, feel free to point out what in the OP article suggests there are protections for LGBT in the state of Indiana or that Indiana's RFRA law is not broader than any other states.

What you posted did not address either of those points. This is Indiana, not other states. This is Indiana's RFRA not other state's RFRA. There are no antidiscrimination measures on the books in Indiana that offer protections for LGBT but a lot of other states with RFRA laws do have them.

The Governor of Indiana stated he will not work to add protections for LGBT in his state. Neither he, nor your quoted professor know how this law will actually be enforced in a state without antidiscrimination protections for LGBT.
Click to expand...

No additional protections are needed. The point of my citation from the OP article was precisely that: the law is settled on this point, and nothing in the Indiana RFRA can legitimize discrimination.
 
o 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.

If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?

Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained | The Weekly Standard

Huh. Mirrors the law proposed by a democrat and signed by a democrat president. Well thats...shocking.
 
Jack Hays said:
No additional protections are needed. The point of my citation from the OP article was precisely that: the law is settled on this point, and nothing in the Indiana RFRA can legitimize discrimination.
Click to expand...

No, what you and your quoted professor did was argue, purely subjectively, that since all other RFRA laws in the country have not led to discrimination, that this one will not. That would be a decent argument if this RFRA was exactly the same as every other states, but it is not. It is broader. And it might be a decent argument if the legal conditions were the same in all the states, but generally those with RFRA laws also have antidiscrimination laws that protect LGBT and Indiana does not. As such, you have yet to address my argument.
 
VanceMack said:
o 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.

If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?

Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained | The Weekly Standard

Huh. Mirrors the law proposed by a democrat and signed by a democrat president. Well thats...shocking.
Click to expand...

Mirrors? Have you read the law.
 
Some supportive legal scholars are frustrated that Indiana's RFRA debate has become so entangled with politics that it solely centers on potential conflict with LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

Can someone tell me what rights are violated by being refused service?
 
CriticalThought said:
No, what you and your quoted professor did was argue, purely subjectively, that since all other RFRA laws in the country have not led to discrimination, that this one will not. That would be a decent argument if this RFRA was exactly the same as every other states, but it is not. It is broader. And it might be a decent argument if the legal conditions were the same in all the states, but generally those with RFRA laws also have antidiscrimination laws that protect LGBT and Indiana does not. As such, you have yet to address my argument.
Click to expand...

I consider that I have. The state RFRA's are all descended from the federal RFRA, and that is the reason none has enabled discrimination. In that regard, Indiana's is no different.
 
Jack Hays said:
I consider that I have. The state RFRA's are all descended from the federal RFRA, and that is the reason none has enabled discrimination. In that regard, Indiana's is no different.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Nobody knows how it will ultimately be enforced or how it will affect local ordinances. You are relying entirely on speculation from situations in other states and ignoring all relevant differences. I and many others are not so easily appeased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom