Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial 'religious freedom' bill

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

But is it real religious freedom for all religions or just Christianity?

No one is fooled...it's not about freedom of religion...It's about discrimination against citizens and taxpayers of the US that just might not fit into the homophobic Christian ideology or narrow Right wing, conform or else, mindset.

imo the Christian right knows they failed with Roe vs Wade and are now trying to use gays as their new scapegoat.

The law says "all religions" not just Christianity. Wicca should be covered as well as Islam. If one is going to be upset about something a law does not say or permit, one could easily get upset by all laws.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The law says "all religions" not just Christianity. Wicca should be covered as well as Islam. If one is going to be upset about something a law does not say or permit, one could easily get upset by all laws.

Simple question...
Would you say that it's perfectly legitimate for a business to put up a sign saying "no black people"?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The law says "all religions" not just Christianity. Wicca should be covered as well as Islam. If one is going to be upset about something a law does not say or permit, one could easily get upset by all laws.

Simple question...
Would you say that it's perfectly legitimate for a business to put up a sign saying "no black people"?

All I've done was point out that Bill Clinton signed almost the exact same legislation in 1993. Or is discrimination by Christians okay when a Democrat does it?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

How do you know when the laws are essentially the same? Why does one get a pass but the other is the end of the world? What was Bill Clinton's intention and what makes HIS law better than this one?

Until Hobby Lobby et. al., the Federal RFRA was taken as a general statement of support for religious freedom against the so-called growing overuse of the "burdening" concept.

After being cited in Hobby Lobby, the Right has seized on it as a way to introduce special rights for the religious (and 8/10 , that's Christians in the US).

That said, it was an unnecessary law in '93 and it is today, no matter who signed it, voted for it, likes it, abuses it, etc.

Federal RFRA has already been declared unconstitutional when applied to the States, which is why they're humping for it at the State levels now. Boerne v. Flores

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

It's the spirit of the law...the Indiana one is to give preferential treatment to Christians.

Clintions law was to make all religions equal under the law.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

How do you know when the laws are essentially the same? Why does one get a pass but the other is the end of the world? What was Bill Clinton's intention and what makes HIS law better than this one?

It's the spirit of the law....the Indiana law is to give Christians preferential treatment.

Clintons law was to give ALL religions equal footing...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense

11

Federal RFRA is unconstitutional when applied to the States ... that's why they're passing it at the local levels.

Isn't it interesting how the States Rights proponents suddenly Luuuuuv Federal laws when it backs up their political poisons?

Er, positions?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

It's the spirit of the law...the Indiana one is to give preferential treatment to Christians.

Clintions law was to make all religions equal under the law.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

How do you know when the laws are essentially the same? Why does one get a pass but the other is the end of the world? What was Bill Clinton's intention and what makes HIS law better than this one?

It's the spirit of the law....the Indiana law is to give Christians preferential treatment.

Clintons law was to give ALL religions equal footing...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense

11

Respectfully, I could say the same back. The laws are worded almost identically. There is not mention of preferential treatment in either the federal law signed by Bill Clinton nor this most recent state law.

Original Intent of Indiana-Type Laws Has Been Warped

Originally, "Religious Freedom Restoration" acts were championed by liberal-leaning politicians and organizations.

President Bill Clinton signs the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the White House Rose Garden on November 16, 1993.

The laws now being passed to ennable discrimination against LGBTs have a surprising origin: Bill Clinton and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The first "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" was passed in 1993, and intended to protect tribal religions of indigenous people.


Two incidents prompted the passage of the bill. The first involved the Forest Service's attempt to build a road through sacred land, used by the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes to prepare for burial rites. The second involved two people fired after testing positive for mescaline, a substance used in religious ceremonies.

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

It's the spirit of the law...the Indiana one is to give preferential treatment to Christians.

Clintions law was to make all religions equal under the law.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

How do you know when the laws are essentially the same? Why does one get a pass but the other is the end of the world? What was Bill Clinton's intention and what makes HIS law better than this one?

It's the spirit of the law....the Indiana law is to give Christians preferential treatment.

Clintons law was to give ALL religions equal footing...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense

11

Respectfully, I could say the same back. The laws are worded almost identically. There is not mention of preferential treatment in either the federal law signed by Bill Clinton nor this most recent state law.

That's precisely why I said it was the spirit of the law. I know you can see the difference but....

Most thinking Americans aren't fooled by this bill essentially to enable Christians to discriminate as they see fit...I don't think this will bode well for the GOP.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Federal RFRA is unconstitutional when applied to the States ... that's why they're passing it at the local levels.

Isn't it interesting how the States Rights proponents suddenly Luuuuuv Federal laws when it backs up their political poisons?

Er, positions?

Er...actually a state making a law rather than using a federal law is kinda the opposite of loving federal laws. Conversely, since the Federal law says the same thing, is it that you love laws that are federal but just don't like local ones? Seems to me that, for any law, local ones have less potential to do damage and have more ability to be challenged and have redress sought against than federal ones.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The law says "all religions" not just Christianity. Wicca should be covered as well as Islam. If one is going to be upset about something a law does not say or permit, one could easily get upset by all laws.

Simple question...
Would you say that it's perfectly legitimate for a business to put up a sign saying "no black people"?

All I've done was point out that Bill Clinton signed almost the exact same legislation in 1993. Or is discrimination by Christians okay when a Democrat does it?

And as pointed out several times, the law signed by Clinton 20 YEARS AGO (is it even fit for purpose 20 years later? Perhaps that's a more pertinent question?) this variation of the law (and yes, it is a bastardized version of the law, NOT the same law) was intended in an entirely different way.

Again, you claimed in a previous post that people should not be upset by this law because it also allows other religions to then discriminate against people, you seem to be suggesting that not all people will be happy with all laws and we should just accept it.

Again, would you feel the same way if this was allowing businesses to put up signs saying "no black people"?
How about "no Jews"?
How about "no Irish"?

It's really quite simple, presumably if you think this law is not a problem (regardless of who signed what version of a law when) you would have no problem with the same discrimination resulting from other laws?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Mis-using a law to discriminate that was never meant for that.

It's the spirit of the law...the Indiana one is to give preferential treatment to Christians.

Clintions law was to make all religions equal under the law.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

But the state law is the same as the federal law, sponsored by Charlies Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. The wording is essentially the same.

They are mis-using a law that was intended for specific reasons.

Loophole to discriminate..

So Bill Clinton wanted to discriminate when he signed the bill into law?

I know you are anti-Clintons.

AGAIN: mis-use of intention.

How do you know when the laws are essentially the same? Why does one get a pass but the other is the end of the world? What was Bill Clinton's intention and what makes HIS law better than this one?

It's the spirit of the law....the Indiana law is to give Christians preferential treatment.

Clintons law was to give ALL religions equal footing...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense

11

Respectfully, I could say the same back. The laws are worded almost identically. There is not mention of preferential treatment in either the federal law signed by Bill Clinton nor this most recent state law.

That's precisely why I said it was the spirit of the law. I know you can see the difference but....

Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?

The difficulty is the "spirit" as defined by whom? All I see are a bunch of assumptions about the law and how it "might" be used rather than how it is actually written--which is where the rubber meets the road. In court, it is the letter of the law, not the spirit that is the essential point.

Then I wonder why the GOP is backing away from this issue as fast as there right little wings will carry them.

Even Fox is making conciliatory noises.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The law says "all religions" not just Christianity. Wicca should be covered as well as Islam. If one is going to be upset about something a law does not say or permit, one could easily get upset by all laws.

Simple question...
Would you say that it's perfectly legitimate for a business to put up a sign saying "no black people"?

All I've done was point out that Bill Clinton signed almost the exact same legislation in 1993. Or is discrimination by Christians okay when a Democrat does it?

And as pointed out several times, the law signed by Clinton 20 YEARS AGO (is it even fit for purpose 20 years later? Perhaps that's a more pertinent question?) this variation of the law (and yes, it is a bastardized version of the law, NOT the same law) was intended in an entirely different way.

Again, you claimed in a previous post that people should not be upset by this law because it also allows other religions to then discriminate against people, you seem to be suggesting that not all people will be happy with all laws and we should just accept it.

Again, would you feel the same way if this was allowing businesses to put up signs saying "no black people"?
How about "no Jews"?
How about "no Irish"?

It's really quite simple, presumably if you think this law is not a problem (regardless of who signed what version of a law when) you would have no problem with the same discrimination resulting from other laws?

I didn't say you shouldn't fight it. In a free society, people should vote for laws they do like and against laws they do not. However, let's fight it based on fact rather than irrational emotional hyperbole.

Of course I don't think it'll be much of a problem because it really isn't going to affect anyone. You might have a few knuckleheads who will try to discriminate, but for everyone of those, you will have hundreds, if not thousands, who won't care and life will go on with one or two less lawsuits.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Kind of like the "spirit" of the EEOC and Civil rights laws that are essentially racism in a different direction?

Okay, all credibility is now lost.

If you think civil rights laws are "reverse racism" then there is no rational debate to be had with you on this issue.
If you really think white people were unfairly treated by black people, and that EQUALITY is "racism" then I think we should all just give up on trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.

I wish there was a vomit face I could add to finish this post.

a reply to: NavyDoc

In the above discussion, what law was brought up as the basis for your assertion of "nothing new to see here" in the state-by-state implementations?

I'm about 99% sure you were aware of Flores when you brought RFRA up. Yet, you were glad to let a Federal law back up and justify what is happening at the State levels.

I detest all unnecessary laws and unconstitutional laws, with RFRA serving as a prime example of both, since you asked.

The First Amendment provides all the protection religion needs in this country. RFRA will be completely overturned in time at every level.

At least, I have that hope.

Ah yes, the freedom to discriminate. Set it in stone on the Lincoln Memorial why don't you. Discrimination is a disease that afflicts America, it's most potent symptom is religion...and religion has never been about upholding freedom, but about curtailing it, shrinking it down to an enforced orthodoxy of thought...'You're either with us or against us!'

Religion has always been discriminatory, even against its own author. Every religion that denies the diversity of religious practice and belief in God, discriminates not only against that religion, but against God. The Devil is in the details, and oh, how ironic it is. Contradiction thy name is religion, and hypocrisy its prayer.

Yet, to champion the cause for discrimination on one's religious belief, even when it is not made openly explicit, is simply to denigrate one's own religion and to throw aside responsibility and accountability of one discriminating against another by asking us to blame religion, and not the discriminator them self. So, when a so-called Christian discriminates against Gay people, they are saying...blame my religion, not me. That it is not they who discriminate, but their religion.

Somewhere in the middle of this, the believer (deliberately) misses the point entirely. Conscience does not wrestle with opinion, it wrestles with acts and actions. When analysed, religion is nothing more than a chosen opinion. There are no facts or evidences to support its premise...it is just a belief, and cannot be blamed for discrimination, but the person that holds the belief can. It simply comes down to this...religion is a chosen opinion behind which hides a soul made ugly by it. A shell of a human being lacking humanity.

Truly, instead of hiding behind their chosen religious belief, why don't they step out from their religion's shadow and state it as it really is...that it is not their religion that discriminates, it is they...because that is the person they are!