Well, Pence is in some hot water and says clarification is needed. I am curious what you all think about these situations:
1) Should a priest who believes that gay marriage be a sin be compelled to officiate a gay wedding, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
2) Should a church that does not recognize gay marraige be compelled to allow a gay marraige ceremony in its church, or be opened up to a lawsuit?
No to both. In neither case do commerce laws apply. If a business is open to the public it has to abide by the laws that govern public commerce.
Agree
See, this is part of what I think the law is there to protect churches, organizations, etc... from. It is a different story though if you are renting a home, operating a restaurant, etc.... The law is also there for many non LBGT reasons as well (hence the law in 20 states and on the federal books).
I think before declaring the governor and residents of Indiana bigots, or boycotting the state, both sides need to look at the law from more than one persective and find a way to change it so that there is a healthy balance of protection of religion and protection from discrimination. That is not how this country, government, corporations and the media works anymore unfortunately
As soeone born and raised in Indiana, I can honestly say that there a lot of bigots and racists in the state. My father in law, who supported the law in Arizona and was angry that the governor vetoed it, it one of them.
Obviously I know less than one half of one percent of all of the people that live in the state. But I did live in the sticks and in a couple of the cities. It's alarming to me how many people are bigots.
And just because it's against your religion, doesn't mean your not a bigot if you think this law isn't discrimination.
Rural Ohio is pretty similar. Lots of half-ass bigots and half-ass racists. I call them half-ass because they don't truly hate, they are just stubborn and set in seriously backwards ways. They wouldn't do anything to hurt an individual in real life, but they consistently vote to hurt large groups of people... They are better than true bigots and racists, but they still cause way too much trouble.
So basically, they're not quite as shitty as the full-ons?
Not quite. Face to face, they are good peeps for the most part...when you talk about broader philosophy and voting records...pretty shitty.
Gotcha! Just a little bit stinky!
I know people like this too. Basically, they are misinformed and have failed to keep up with progressive thinking. They wouldn't hurt anyone, but in a passive and unintentional kind if way... they help stymie progress by forming a silent backbone for hurtful attitudes by not scorning them and stopping them before they take root.
They aren't all the same law though. Indiana's law is very broad and unspecified, leaving a greater potential for abuse. From a CNN article:
"The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013."
Again...I don't like this law but I am curious whether this law is the same, better, or worse then the Illinois law that Obama voted for or the federal law that Clinton signed? What is about it this law that makes it's discriminatory powers broader? I don't doubt that some religious zealots would like to use it for discriminatory purposes but that does not mean they would be successful in doing so when they inevitably go to court. Also people on here should remember that liberals initially supported this law in the 90's to protect Native Americans who used peyote for religious purposes. It isn't all about christians vs LGBT.
They aren't all the same law though. Indiana's law is very broad and unspecified, leaving a greater potential for abuse. From a CNN article:
"The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013."
Again...I don't like this law but I am curious whether this law is the same, better, or worse then the Illinois law that Obama voted for or the federal law that Clinton signed? What is about it this law that makes it's discriminatory powers broader? I don't doubt that some religious zealots would like to use it for discriminatory purposes but that does not mean they would be successful in doing so when they inevitably go to court. Also people on here should remember that liberals initially supported this law in the 90's to protect Native Americans who used peyote for religious purposes. It isn't all about christians vs LGBT.
A law put in place to allow people to use peyote because it is a part of their religion and heritage has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Indiana. This isn't about freedom of your religion. It's about freedom to continue to be a racist, bigot, etc.
A law put in place to allow people to use peyote because it is a part of their religion and heritage has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Indiana. This isn't about freedom of your religion. It's about freedom to continue to be a racist, bigot, etc.
That doesn't really answer my question though. The Peyote example might seem silly to you but it is the reason the law was brought into existence in the 90's. Again...in Arkansas this law was used to protect muslims in the penal system. Can someone on here explain how the Indiana law is broader in it's discriminatory powers then other similar laws? I don't like any of these laws but I am curious how they differ?
A law put in place to allow people to use peyote because it is a part of their religion and heritage has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Indiana. This isn't about freedom of your religion. It's about freedom to continue to be a racist, bigot, etc.
That doesn't really answer my question though. The Peyote example might seem silly to you but it is the reason the law was brought into existence in the 90's. Again...in Arkansas this law was used to protect muslims in the penal system. Can someone on here explain how the Indiana law is broader in it's discriminatory powers then other similar laws? I don't like any of these laws but I am curious how they differ?
The law is designed to protect the individual in his right to religious freedom. But this is a reversal, or a way of looking at the law from another side.
For example, let's say a shop owner is of the xxx religion. Nothing should impede his right to practice their religion. The customers of his shop, regardless of their religion, aren't infringing on his beliefs or his right to practice.
Let's look at Indiana, because we all know what it is about. Conservative Christian is offended by gay people and doesn't want to serve them. But the people who are offending him aren't impeding this persons right to religion. Just because he doesn't like them, or is offended by them, shouldn't give this person the right not to serve them. Nobody is impeding his personal right to religious belief, it is discrimination, plain and simple.
A law put in place to allow people to use peyote because it is a part of their religion and heritage has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Indiana. This isn't about freedom of your religion. It's about freedom to continue to be a racist, bigot, etc.
That doesn't really answer my question though. The Peyote example might seem silly to you but it is the reason the law was brought into existence in the 90's. Again...in Arkansas this law was used to protect muslims in the penal system. Can someone on here explain how the Indiana law is broader in it's discriminatory powers then other similar laws? I don't like any of these laws but I am curious how they differ?
For one, the law is different in light of the context in which it was enacted, being in the wake of several high-profile LGBT discrimination cases. The context of the original, as you stated, was built around a culture of protecting freedoms, and was backed by people seeking inclusion of liberties. This law appears to be built around a culture of protecting freedom of discrimination, and was backed by people seeking exclusion of liberties. The anti-LGBT backers, combined with Gov. Pence's refusal to answer very simple yes/no questions about sexual orientation discrimination are paramount to understanding the intent of the law.
For example, let's say a shop owner is of the xxx religion. Nothing should impede his right to practice their religion. The customers of his shop, regardless of their religion, aren't infringing on his beliefs or his right to practice.
The argument can be made that wedding services are a bit different, as it can be said that providing goods or services is a form of support for something you don't wish to support. I don't think it has much to do with religion, the religious basis for hatin on gays is pretty weak to begin with. Maybe wedding service providers should have the right to discriminate against the LGBT community... But they should have to post a big sign in the window and on the website that says "We proudly discriminate against any sexuality but heterosexuality." See how well that works for them lol
For example, let's say a shop owner is of the xxx religion. Nothing should impede his right to practice their religion. The customers of his shop, regardless of their religion, aren't infringing on his beliefs or his right to practice.
For example, let's say a shop owner is of the xxx religion. Nothing should impede his right to practice their religion. The customers of his shop, regardless of their religion, aren't infringing on his beliefs or his right to practice.
This is exactly it.
So simple,isn't it?
It is - kind of like the basic shit we learned in kindergarten.
This huffpost article has a nice graphic identifying some of the anti-LGBT lobbyists involved in the bill. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6969286 This is proof that the bill was always intended to protect people who wish to discriminate, and those claiming otherwise are full of shit. http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849
I have no idea if the analyis is correct but shouldn't there be more of an effort to repeal these laws elswhere as opposed to just boycotting Indiana? Shouldn't Malloy push for a repeal as an example?
Pretty biased, but bias is something we have to live with. From the article: "UPDATE: A number of commentators have suggested that none of this matters because Connecticut has laws banning discrimination based on sexual preference, while Indiana doesn’t. Unfortunately, these commentators do not have the mental wherewithal to grasp that that argument doesn’t undermine my point. It actually strengthens it.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the “Indiana doesn’t ban discrimination” claim is true and that this distinction is what makes Indiana’s RFRA terrible and Connecticut’s RFRA perfectly acceptable. If that’s the case, then it’s literally impossible for Indiana’s new RFRA law to legalize discrimination based on sexual preference. Why? Because it’s allegedly already legal in Indiana. Furthermore, if anti-gay discrimination is what is truly animating those voicing opposition to RFRA, why on earth are they focusing on Indiana’s RFRA and not on enacting the anti-discrimination bans that are in force in states like Connecticut?
If I didn’t know better, I’d be left to assume that the voices agitating to repeal a 20-year-old legal framework that was not even remotely controversial until last week were more interested in outlawing religious liberty than they were in preventing discrimination."
That is just bad. First, he over simplifies anti-discrimination measures so he can make it fit this twisted piece of "logic". There is a substantial difference between having no law which makes an action specifically "illegal" and having a law which makes an action specifically "legal". I think the author knows the distinction and is misleading his readers intentionally. Second, those voicing opposition to RFRA ARE focused on enacting "anti-discrimination bans"*, and have been doing so for years.
*This dude needs a better editor, an anti-discrimination ban is essentially a double negative. A discrimination ban makes sense, an anti-discrimination ban makes no sense.
I have no idea if the analyis is correct but shouldn't there be more of an effort to repeal these laws elswhere as opposed to just boycotting Indiana? Shouldn't Malloy push for a repeal as an example?
I think the distinction that the author poorly attempts to refute is good enough reason for Malloy not to bother with repealing his own states law.
I have no idea if the analyis is correct but shouldn't there be more of an effort to repeal these laws elswhere as opposed to just boycotting Indiana? Shouldn't Malloy push for a repeal as an example?
I think the distinction that the author poorly attempts to refute is good enough reason for Malloy not to bother with repealing his own states law.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the article...ton of bias for sure...I still don't get though why Malloy, who is clearly outraged by Indiana, doesn't legislatively set an example. On the flip side if Indiana passed an anti-discrimination law tomorrow would their RFRA law all of a sudden be ok?
Nope sorry it is not about the Muslim girl rightfully suing abercombie and fitch.
It is all about close minded business owners wanting to use religion as an excuse for their being scared of homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered people , etc
Hmmm... that is a pretty weak statement. Have you done the research to see that these are the types of cases that are being fought in the courts.
Your ignorance that it is only a LGBTQ issue is not supported by the number of cases that are throw out or defeated. Maybe you should think before you comment. Just sayin'. Quit making it a hate crime against those who may believe in a god.
Lol lol haha ha ha you are so funny ha ha ha god hah ha god ...
Hmmm... that is a pretty weak statement. Have you done the research to see that these are the types of cases that are being fought in the courts.
Your ignorance that it is only a LGBTQ issue is not supported by the number of cases that are throw out or defeated. Maybe you should think before you comment. Just sayin'. Quit making it a hate crime against those who may believe in a god.
But JM, no one is saying DON'T believe in a god (well, at least I'm not); believe whatever you want or don't. But that belief or non-belief shouldn't infringe upon others, just as I think the vice-versa shouldn't exist either.
Religious zealots think it's their right to knock on people's private doors and try to inform people of their religion, the impending doom and all that stuff... yet, at the same time, try to enact law that allows them to refuse service to a paying customer in a public setting?
INDIANAPOLIS—Addressing the controversy surrounding his state’s recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana governor Mike Pence forcefully insisted to reporters Monday that the new law has nothing at all to do with what it was explicitly intended to do. “Let me state directly that in no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing,” said Pence, emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place. “Regardless of the widespread misconceptions surrounding it, I want to reassure Hoosiers of all backgrounds that this law will never be interpreted in the way it was unambiguously designed to be from the very beginning.” Pence further clarified that the act’s sole purpose was in fact to safeguard the free exercise of religion it was in no way whatsoever created to protect.
Hmmm... that is a pretty weak statement. Have you done the research to see that these are the types of cases that are being fought in the courts.
Your ignorance that it is only a LGBTQ issue is not supported by the number of cases that are throw out or defeated. Maybe you should think before you comment. Just sayin'. Quit making it a hate crime against those who may believe in a god.
Have you done the research to see who was involved in creating this legislation? I posted the information in this thread. Did you ignore it because it doesn't fit within your opinion? You ignored all the questions directed at you when you posted your inflammatory remarks, perhaps you'd like to address some now.
A hate crime against those who may believe in a god?? Get real, are you serious with that goatshit? Discrimination lawsuits are hate crimes now??
INDIANAPOLIS—Addressing the controversy surrounding his state’s recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana governor Mike Pence forcefully insisted to reporters Monday that the new law has nothing at all to do with what it was explicitly intended to do. “Let me state directly that in no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing,” said Pence, emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place. “Regardless of the widespread misconceptions surrounding it, I want to reassure Hoosiers of all backgrounds that this law will never be interpreted in the way it was unambiguously designed to be from the very beginning.” Pence further clarified that the act’s sole purpose was in fact to safeguard the free exercise of religion it was in no way whatsoever created to protect.
Comments
I know people like this too. Basically, they are misinformed and have failed to keep up with progressive thinking. They wouldn't hurt anyone, but in a passive and unintentional kind if way... they help stymie progress by forming a silent backbone for hurtful attitudes by not scorning them and stopping them before they take root.
This isn't about freedom of your religion. It's about freedom to continue to be a racist, bigot, etc.
But this is a reversal, or a way of looking at the law from another side.
For example, let's say a shop owner is of the xxx religion. Nothing should impede his right to practice their religion. The customers of his shop, regardless of their religion, aren't infringing on his beliefs or his right to practice.
Let's look at Indiana, because we all know what it is about. Conservative Christian is offended by gay people and doesn't want to serve them. But the people who are offending him aren't impeding this persons right to religion. Just because he doesn't like them, or is offended by them, shouldn't give this person the right not to serve them. Nobody is impeding his personal right to religious belief, it is discrimination, plain and simple.
The anti-LGBT backers, combined with Gov. Pence's refusal to answer very simple yes/no questions about sexual orientation discrimination are paramount to understanding the intent of the law.
See how well that works for them lol
There is no walls or judgements,just wonder and amazement.
A true reflection of the goodness and innocence of the human spirit.
And you get a snack,Apple juice and my fav nap time.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6969286
This is proof that the bill was always intended to protect people who wish to discriminate, and those claiming otherwise are full of shit.
http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/connecticuts-governor-doesnt-understand-his-own-states-rfra/
I have no idea if the analyis is correct but shouldn't there be more of an effort to repeal these laws elswhere as opposed to just boycotting Indiana? Shouldn't Malloy push for a repeal as an example?
From the article:
"UPDATE: A number of commentators have suggested that none of this matters because Connecticut has laws banning discrimination based on sexual preference, while Indiana doesn’t. Unfortunately, these commentators do not have the mental wherewithal to grasp that that argument doesn’t undermine my point. It actually strengthens it.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the “Indiana doesn’t ban discrimination” claim is true and that this distinction is what makes Indiana’s RFRA terrible and Connecticut’s RFRA perfectly acceptable. If that’s the case, then it’s literally impossible for Indiana’s new RFRA law to legalize discrimination based on sexual preference. Why? Because it’s allegedly already legal in Indiana. Furthermore, if anti-gay discrimination is what is truly animating those voicing opposition to RFRA, why on earth are they focusing on Indiana’s RFRA and not on enacting the anti-discrimination bans that are in force in states like Connecticut?
If I didn’t know better, I’d be left to assume that the voices agitating to repeal a 20-year-old legal framework that was not even remotely controversial until last week were more interested in outlawing religious liberty than they were in preventing discrimination."
That is just bad. First, he over simplifies anti-discrimination measures so he can make it fit this twisted piece of "logic". There is a substantial difference between having no law which makes an action specifically "illegal" and having a law which makes an action specifically "legal". I think the author knows the distinction and is misleading his readers intentionally. Second, those voicing opposition to RFRA ARE focused on enacting "anti-discrimination bans"*, and have been doing so for years.
*This dude needs a better editor, an anti-discrimination ban is essentially a double negative. A discrimination ban makes sense, an anti-discrimination ban makes no sense.
It is all about close minded business owners wanting to use religion as an excuse for their being scared of homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered people , etc
Character trumps all.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/indiana-governor-insists-new-law-has-nothing-to-do,38330/
INDIANAPOLIS—Addressing the controversy surrounding his state’s recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana governor Mike Pence forcefully insisted to reporters Monday that the new law has nothing at all to do with what it was explicitly intended to do. “Let me state directly that in no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing,” said Pence, emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place. “Regardless of the widespread misconceptions surrounding it, I want to reassure Hoosiers of all backgrounds that this law will never be interpreted in the way it was unambiguously designed to be from the very beginning.” Pence further clarified that the act’s sole purpose was in fact to safeguard the free exercise of religion it was in no way whatsoever created to protect.
Good for them
You ignored all the questions directed at you when you posted your inflammatory remarks, perhaps you'd like to address some now.
A hate crime against those who may believe in a god?? Get real, are you serious with that goatshit? Discrimination lawsuits are hate crimes now??