Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

[Jack Hays]

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. . . . . "

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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. . . . . "

Jack, the problem with the law - and with your explanation of the law - is that almost everyone sees it for what it really, truly is: permission to discriminate against gays. You can give all the explanations you want, but it's sorta like Bart Simpson saying "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, nobody can prove it!"...when everyone knows precisely what he did.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, the problem with the law - and with your explanation of the law - is that almost everyone sees it for what it really, truly is: permission to discriminate against gays. You can give all the explanations you want, but it's sorta like Bart Simpson saying "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, nobody can prove it!"...when everyone knows precisely what he did.

Except that no state's RFRA has ever been used that way.

 

[chromium]

Yeah i'm not going to fall for a bunch of bigots trying to explain away their hateful attempts to oppress, especially when it's the same lobbyist groups and politicians who for years attacked the "gay agenda" and concocted the most outrageous lies about a minority they can't stand

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah i'm not going to fall for a bunch of bigots trying to explain away their hateful attempts to oppress, especially when it's the same lobbyist groups and politicians who for years attacked the "gay agenda" and concocted the most outrageous lies about a minority they can't stand

I support SSM and I support RFRA for the same reason: protection of individual conscience.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Except that no state's RFRA has ever been used that way.

And as time goes on, that map will change, with fewer and fewer allowances for people to be free to discriminate against others on the premise of 'religion'.

 

[Jack Hays]

And as time goes on, that map will change, with fewer and fewer allowances for people to be free to discriminate against others on the premise of 'religion'.

The green area is growing. SCOTUS endorses state RFRA's.

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah i'm not going to fall for a bunch of bigots trying to explain away their hateful attempts to oppress, especially when it's the same lobbyist groups and politicians who for years attacked the "gay agenda" and concocted the most outrageous lies about a minority they can't stand

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.

 

[1750Texan]

I support SSM and I support RFRA for the same reason: protection of individual conscience.

What states have a RFRA legislation?

 

[CriticalThought]

Except that no state's RFRA has ever been used that way.

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.

 

[countryboy]

Jack, the problem with the law - and with your explanation of the law - is that almost everyone sees it for what it really, truly is: permission to discriminate against gays. You can give all the explanations you want, but it's sorta like Bart Simpson saying "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, nobody can prove it!"...when everyone knows precisely what he did.

Without it, people of faith are required, by law, to violate the tenets of their faith. I realize that makes many libs giddy with glee, and shoots tingling spasms of ecstasy up and down their collective legs, but it is still unconstitutional.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The green area is growing. SCOTUS endorses state RFRA's.

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.

 

[Henrin]

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.

People are not owed the labor, service, property or association from another human being, and women or men for that matter are not owed equal pay.

 

[CriticalThought]

I support SSM and I support RFRA for the same reason: protection of individual conscience.

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.

 

[Henrin]

Yeah i'm not going to fall for a bunch of bigots trying to explain away their hateful attempts to oppress, especially when it's the same lobbyist groups and politicians who for years attacked the "gay agenda" and concocted the most outrageous lies about a minority they can't stand

No one is being oppressed. You are not owed your own personal slaves that must serve you.

 

[CriticalThought]

No one is being oppressed. You are not owed your own personal slaves that must serve you.

Hyperbole. There is a legitimate debate to be had that a florist or baker can refuse services that might interefere with their religious beliefs if they refuse to provide services for gay marriages but not gays in general. But your issue suggests that even racists would be "slaves" if compelled to abide by public accommodation laws for minorities.

 

[Henrin]

Hyperbole. There is a legitimate debate to be had that a florist or baker can refuse services that might interefere with their religious beliefs

No, there isn't. When someone says no to commencing in commerce with you the answer is no.

But your issue suggests that even racists would be "slaves" if compelled to abide by public accommodation laws for minorities.

Yes, the same rule applies to everyone.

Anyway, I think it's hyberbole to say you're being oppressed because someone said no to you.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, there isn't. When someone says no to commencing in commerce with you the answer is no.




Yes, the same rule applies to everyone.

Your opinion. Repeal the Civil Rights Act and all other state and local nondiscrimination laws if you feel that strongly about it. However, the "slavery" comparison is rather disrespectful to those who did and still do face slavery in its abhorrent reality. Public accommodation laws are in no shape or form any way equitable to it. Pure hyperbole.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Without it, people of faith are required, by law, to violate the tenets of their faith. I realize that makes many libs giddy with glee, and shoots tingling spasms of ecstasy up and down their collective legs, but it is still unconstitutional.

No, they aren't. There's no religion that says, "Thou Shalt Open A Store". Not only that, there is NOTHING in the Bible that says, "Thou Shalt Not Sell Stuff To Gays". If there were a law that said all stores must serve liquor, then I simply wouldn't open a store as long as that law was in effect, because it is against my religion to serve or sell alcohol.

All that law is, is a fig leaf that the religious bigots are using to give them an excuse to discriminate.

 

[countryboy]

No, they aren't. There's no religion that says, "Thou Shalt Open A Store". Not only that, there is NOTHING in the Bible that says, "Thou Shalt Not Sell Stuff To Gays". If there were a law that said all stores must serve liquor, then I simply wouldn't open a store as long as that law was in effect, because it is against my religion to serve or sell alcohol.

All that law is, is a fig leaf that the religious bigots are using to give them an excuse to discriminate.

If you are going to mischaracterize the facts, there is little point in discussing it. Suffice it to say, lying doesn't change the facts.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Without it, people of faith are required, by law, to violate the tenets of their faith. I realize that makes many libs giddy with glee, and shoots tingling spasms of ecstasy up and down their collective legs, but it is still unconstitutional.

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

 

[Henrin]

Your opinion. Repeal the Civil Rights Act and all other state and local nondiscrimination laws if you feel that strongly about it. However, the "slavery" comparison is rather disrespectful to those who did and still do face slavery in its abhorrent reality. Public accommodation laws are in no shape or form any way equitable to it. Pure hyperbole.

What makes you think chattel slavery is the only type of slavery?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

People are not owed the labor, service, property or association from another human being, and women or men for that matter are not owed equal pay.

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".

 

[CriticalThought]

What makes you think chattel slavery is the only type of slavery?

Get over yourself. If you need to exaggerate your claims to have a case then you do not have much of a case.

 

[Henrin]

Get over yourself. If you need to exaggerate your claims to have a case then you do not have much of a case.

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