Indiana Religious Liberties law....

hedonist

rr165892 said:

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?

It is - kind of like the basic shit we learned in kindergarten.

rr165892

Yeah and kindergarten kids haven't been influenced by the hate the adults around them project.

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.

rgambs

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

BS44325

Interesting article on Indiana's law vs. Connecticut's here.

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?

rgambs

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.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

Interesting article on Indiana's law vs. Connecticut's here.

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?

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.

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Interesting article on Indiana's law vs. Connecticut's here.

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?

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?

JM12271

Gone

Bentleyspop

JM12271 said:

My significant other pointed out that a lot of this may not have to do with the LGBTQ/Christian disagreement - it is more for the example of the Muslim gal who is suing Abercrombie & Fitch and is currently in front of the supreme court:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/25/supreme-court-muslim-woman-abercrombie-fitch-case.

Two articles here for clarity, the latter is intriguing.:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/30/indianas-rfraand-the-responseis-all-abou?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=5519eae0e4b0b3f04ca60a1b&fb_ref=Default
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/03/instead-of-picking-on-indiana-why-dont.html

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

JM12271

Gone

josevolution

JM12271 said:

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 ...

JM12271

Best article so far - http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/

hedonist

JM12271 said:

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.

Character trumps all.

dignin

JM12271 said:

Best article so far - http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/

That whole website is a joke right? You know, like The Onion....I sure hope so.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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?

dignin

The best article so far

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.

Bentleyspop

Wilco just cancelled their upcoming Indianapolis gig.

Good for them

BS44325

Bentleyspop said:

Wilco just cancelled their upcoming Indianapolis gig.

Good for them

I don't know...I bet their fans are 90% against the law yet they are the ones being punished.

rgambs

JM12271 said:

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??

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

The best article so far

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.

hahahahaha!