Indiana Religious Freedom Law

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...2&d=1428096750

That's hilarious, except I don't see right-wingers reacting the way the guy in your cartoon is recating. When I see feral anarchy, looting, violent protests, guess which side is doing the bithcing?

Bryan, the protesters here threatened to burn down the pizzeria (and that was a schoolteacher who did that), and th eowners felt sufficiently threatened that they went into hiding. Whoi goes into hiding because of evangelicals? Good luck answering that...

Yes, we should all learn how to debate, by taking our cues from the Occupy Wall Street group, they were quite civilized...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, I have asked you a few times to address the constitutional issue, and I don't see that you have.

How much more clear could the Bill Of Rights be? If enough people agree with you, we can amend the constitution to say that the government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion, except in cases to prevent discrimination. As it stands today, it doesn't say that. So it's pretty clear.

The ability of one to exercise their religion, does not end, where someone else's feelings are hurt. If we want the Constitution to say that, we can change it.

Why can't the happy couple just find another baker who is thrilled for the business? Isn't that what the liberal principle of "live and let live" would suggest?

[PaulS]

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

"Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?"

well, let's see. Oh yeay...those on your side of the issue, immediately descended into violent anarchy in th enext nanosecond afetr hearing that someone had the chutzpah to disagree with them. I agree the state law shouldn't be needed, as the constitution is very clear.

"Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?"

And how is th ebaker iinterfering with the ability of the hapy couple to "live"? Is the baker threatening to firebomb the hall where th ewedding takes place? Or is he simply asking that he not be forced to attend that which he feels is immoral? I hate to break it to you, but the happy couple can easily find bakers, photographers, etc who would be glad for the business.

"{the evangelicals want to discriminate in public "

First, I'm not sure that's true. They want to discriminate in their business pursuits. If you own a bakery, the bakery isn't public property. It's a private business, Obama hasn't seized it all - yet.

Second, where in the constitution does it say that freedom of religion ceases to exist on public grounds?

"I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion"

That doesn't mean you have to pretend it doesn't exist, every time it suits you...

Here it is...you tell me how this doesn't guarantee the right of a Christian baker to say "no thanks, but good luck" to the offer of working at a gay wedding...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Paul, the Klan is allowed to hold non-violent rallies at public parks (freedom of speech guarantees them that right). So if the Klan has a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate in public, so does a born-again Christian baker.

The Bill Of Rights guaranytees these freedoms, even if someone else's feelings get hurt. That's the way our country works.

[PaulS]

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

[detbuch]

I think what is being missed here by those throwing accusations of discrimination against the Memory Pizza owners is that they said they have no problem serving gay customers but would not want to cater a gay wedding because same-sex marriage violates their Christian faith.

In that they are willing to serve gays refutes the accusation that they "discriminate" against their orientation. That they would not, however, cater a gay wedding is not a refusal to serve the orientation, but to participate in their behavior.

Proprietors are allowed to remove customers from their store if they behave in ways that offend the owners. If a couple enters a pizzeria and orders a pizza, the proprietor is beholden to sell them one. If a couple, gay or straight or indefinite, act in overtly amorous or overly affectionate ways, a proprietor is allowed to ask them to stop or leave the premises. If a wedding party, gay or straight or indefinite, marches into a pizzeria, without the owner's permission and sets up a wedding ceremony and demands pizza to serve them, the owner has every right to make them leave and not serve them. If, on the other hand, the owner agrees to such a wedding, then she is willing to materially participate in the ceremony. But why should someone be forced to participate in a wedding outside of her store if she shouldn't be forced to participate in one in her store?

Weddings are not, as far as we know, a genetic orientation. They are behaviors in which people of all stripes can willingly engage or not. If a behavior, which is not necessary to ones "orientation" is opposed by someone else's beliefs, why should that someone be forced to participate in that objectionable behavior?

The difference between serving your wares to those of various "orientations" and in participating in the behavior of those with differing orientations is critical. It is fundamental to a society based, among other things, on individual rights and freedom of association--ultimately, fundamental to freedom itself.

Selling pizzas has inherently the goal that they be eaten and enjoyed--if for no other reason than to get repeat customers. But there are quirks and potentialities which are either out of the proprietors hands, or are part of her individual proclivity. What happens to the pizza when it leaves the shop is outside of the proprietor's persuasion. But if the buyer says that it is going to be used to feed the alley rats, or a host of any other nefarious uses, I doubt that the law, nor most anyone else, would object to the proprietor not selling the pizza. That is not to compare gays, or straights, or indeterminates, to alley rats, but to point out that there can be numerous instances in which the pizza seller can refuse to sell the pizza.

That is where the individual proclivity of the seller is important and not always to be forbidden by force of law. Beyond the inherent goal that his pizzas are sold to be eaten and enjoyed, he has a material participation in the production and sale of his pizzas. If he has a religious world view that prohibits his participation in behaviors which contradict his religion, denying him the freedom not to associate in those behaviors is denying him one of the most basic tenets of liberty. Even though it violates a most basic individual right, it may be understandable in abstract terms of "equality" that the simple sale of his wares to anyone who wishes to buy them be protected, including the buyers "right" to equal treatment. But how is it comprehensible that the seller must not only sell his wares, but participate, against his will, in the behaviors to which his products will be used?

Bigotry abounds on all sides. Gay bigotry and Christian bigotry may well collide in constant and differing ways. Is the answer, then, to eliminate differences into a homogenous society where there are none? If bigotry is inherent in some form or other in all of us, including Spence and PaulS, should we strive to eliminate all difference by force of law so that everyone is in a state of perfect "equality"? Perhaps we all could be Spence. How perfect is a world without bigotry? What would happen to the sacred cow of evolution? Is Nirvana such a good and perfect thing?

Vive la difference!

In a liberal society based on individual rights and freedom of association, the law must allow all bigots who do not trample on others bigotry to flourish. The Pizzeria declining to cater a gay wedding does not deny the gays the ability to have a wedding or to have a gay identity, or orientation. The force of law making the pizzeria participate in the gay wedding against the owners Christian beliefs or go out of business, denies the ability to have a pizzeria with their own Christian identity, or orientation.

In a truly liberal, or tolerant society, we should be able to view this as this gay business woman does: http://www.newnownext.com/lesbian-bu...-fund/04/2015/

[Sea Dangles]

I knew Jim would make my point valid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Here is the law in case you care to read it. Hmmmmm doesn't seem to mention evangelicals or gays. Couldn't even find the word pizza
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

How have religious freedom laws worked for Rastafarians ? Are they free to practice their holy weed ceremonies ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I wonder if the people who support this law believe in evolution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

"I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc "

bc you cannot respond to that, because there is no response...

"Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots "

First, it was the Christians in this country who led the fight against slavery and segregation. So if they are bigots, they aren't very good at bigotry. Second, having made that blanket statement, you forfeit any and all right to accuse anyone of painting everyone with the same broad brush. You often criticize me for doing that, yet somehow, it's OK when you do it.

"You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate?"

Yes, I did. You yourself are living, breathing (mouth-breathing) proof that there are people who would deny them their constitutional rights.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I wonder if the people who support this law believe in evolution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems as if you're being discriminatory and bigoted in that you lump everybody who supports the law into the same belief.

I suspect most of the supporters do believe in evolution in some form or other. The irony, to me, is that the greater the freedom, the greater the potential for evolution, and on a greater scale. And the more restrictive or homogenous the mix, the less there exist the conditions for evolution. This certainly, if not more so, applies to law. The more that differences are restricted, or abolished, the more a system of societal homogeneity is produced. So the law in question here actually promotes the opportunity for societal evolution more than would its opposite, the restriction of one of the parties in disputes arising from differences of opinion and belief.

Another irony is that the more that "equality," the homogeneity of society, is required, the greater number of more minutely detailed laws must be compiled since the differences which exist in the human genome would present an ever expanding potential for "discrimination." And so a corresponding codex which could cover all contingencies of difference would have to be created. And, if it were possible to create such a compilation of restrictions, there would concomitantly be created, in effect, a society of robots. That's why the Constitution in its simplicity as a legal foundation is far more evolutionary in its potential, at least for human freedom, than is the massive and ever expanding growth of regulations promulgated by our Progressive regulatory agencies.

Sticking to the present legal condition, however, I would say that the trajectory of evolution is more one of devolution. If we continue to eliminate the possibilities for differences of opinion, we will continue to devolve into a more singular society, ironically, of original biblical proportion--a political and psychological Garden of Eden. A society in which only one opinion is allowed. And isn't that, after all, the utopia that Progressives and Socialists aspire to?