Indiana Religious Liberties law....

rgambs

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

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."

dignin

Bentleyspop said:

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

Works for me
They only do short tours anyway so why not skip those 30 states.

Me too, more time for a proper Canadian tour.

badbrains

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

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."

Looks like someone isn't reading their own articles before posting. No surprise there.

Last-12-Exit

hedonist said:

Last-12-Exit said:

That post was a response to your second sentence. Not the rest of your post hedo.

As to the second sentence - nooo. Not at all or even close, and I'm more than surprised - given all of my posts - it would be taken that way. *edit - I thought my third sentence stated as much as the clarification below?

To clarify - I'm saying that if business owners employ these tactics - legal or not - common sense will prevail and the business will suffer for its choices.

Gonna go lick my wounds now

I wasn't sure if you were jumping on both sides of the fence on this one. So I addressed the one sectence I disagreed with.

hedonist

Why would I do that? Why would I not be afforded the benefit of the doubt instead of villified? I'm not some fly-by-night. And again, what followed my supposed KKK auto-membership was ignored.

I'll take the subsequent silence / write-offs (it is tax season) toward my earlier response to a couple of posts that took me for quite a loop for what it appears to be. Gotta say that quick judgment by you and BB, you two of all people, pretty unfair. And given my respect for you both, was hurtful.

Anyway, not much more I can say from here. Don't need to defend myself at all.

Last-12-Exit

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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?

josevolution

Pence was on tv this morning when asked if this law would discriminate against G&L people he could not answer yes or no .....

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

bootlegger10 said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

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.

Last-12-Exit

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Hopefully no more PJ shows in Indiana while this law is in effect

Here is a list of 30 other states PJ will have to boycott as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

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.

Yea, that's pretty much what it is.

eddiec

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.

BS44325

eddiec said:

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?

eddiec

BS44325 said:

eddiec said:

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.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

eddiec said:

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.

hedonist

eddiec said:

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.

rgambs

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

rr165892

hedonist said:

eddiec said:

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?