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

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rocker2013

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.

How is there credibility lost? A law that demands that people be judged by race for governmental contracts or jobs or university admission is racist because preferring one race over another is the entire definition of racism. Just because you like the racism involved does not make it any less racist.

You don't want equality, you just want preferences.

It really sucks that Equality has to be forced. Imagine if it didn't.

The idea that everyone should just take care of themselves, do what they need to do, don't step on anyone's toes, etc - - because everyone comes from a place of integrity and compassion - - - doesn't even work in a family of 5 - - - let alone and entire country of millions of people.

In a family of 5 you have different ages, different abilities, different likes and dislikes - - - you're always adjusting to create fairness.

Black people only got equality and rights in MY lifetime. Too bad for "whities" that some programs were put in place to create stepping ladders to help them catch up.

So how long do you have to discriminate to not discriminate? Why is it okay for the federal government--something nobody can get away from or avoid--to discriminate but a private citizen can't when one could just go down the block to another store?

If someone does not want to serve me, I take my money somewhere else. If the government does not want to serve me, or treat me equitably, and I "take my money somewhere else", they put me in jail for tax evasion.

Logically, giving government that much ability to force your wants on your fellow man is a dangerous game because in doing so you give the government the the ability to let your fellow man force his wants and desires upon you.

I realize you have your own idealistic concept of how you think life should be.

But, not everyone agrees with you.

I've lost jobs because I don't speak Spanish. My fault. I should have learned Spanish.

There are very brilliant children born in poverty that should have the right to develop their brains and succeed in life.

Why should some dumb loser get a college education because his wealthy parents pay for it - - - over someone who really wants it?

Sometimes Fairness has to be created. That's just the way it is.

So the government should have forced the company to keep you hired even though you didn't speak Spanish because of discrimination? Because that's the salient point here.

How does anyone "create fairness" by being unfair to other people? In my medical school, asians were not a "poor minority" and did not get preferential treatment for admissions even though the individuals may have come from impoverished backgrounds whereas the AA minorites did, even though they drove BMWs to class. Race alone is a blind and ignorant measuring stick.

I'm not taking this any further.

You have your own idealistic concept of how things should be.

I'm saying it won't even work in a family of 5. Because in a family of 5 there is constant adjustments to create fairness and equality of all involved.

Just a little something to lighten the mood, I had to share this on here

It always amazes me how some people hate religious people claiming that they are bad because they hate people. Usually the same people (liberals) also spread hate about "the rich", the right, etc. They preach hate toward the people they don't like, but claim they hate them only because they hate people they do like. The only ones who deserve protection are the ones THEY like. They are no different than a bigot or racist. They simply direct their hate toward a different group of people claiming that their hate is righteous.

In this thread there is obvious hate of religious people...because the "hate" gay people. Hypocrites.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It always amazes me how some people hate religious people claiming that they are bad because they hate people. Usually the same people (liberals) also spread hate about "the rich", the right, etc. They preach hate toward the people they don't like, but claim they hate them only because they hate people they do like. The only ones who deserve protection are the ones THEY like. They are no different than a bigot or racist. They simply direct their hate toward a different group of people claiming that their hate is righteous.

In this thread there is obvious hate of religious people...because the "hate" gay people. Hypocrites.

Wrong. 100% false accusation.

I would stand with anyone who is being unjustly treated. I even stand by every individuals right to hate other people on a personal level. If a person chooses to hate other groups of people, that's your right. However, that still doesn't give you the right to act on your hatred and infringe on others liberties or equal protection.

This is about business also not personal ethics. If businesses started denying service to Christians simply for being Christian I would stand with the Christians in opposition to that as well.

You are just flat out wrong with everything you said and are letting your own personal bias cloud your judgement on this issue. You think you're being persecuted for your beliefs but you're not. You can believe whatever you want. But when your misguided beliefs lead you to act in ways that infringe on the liberty of someone else you've taken it too far.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It always amazes me how some people hate liberal people claiming that they are bad because they hate people. Usually the same people (the religious) also spread hate about "the poor," the left, etc. They preach hate toward the people they don't like, but claim they hate them only because they hate people they do like. The only ones that deserve protection are the ones THEY like. They are no different than a bigot or racist. They simply direct their hate toward a different group of people claiming that their hate is righteous.

In this thread there is obvious hate of liberal people ... because they "hate" religious people.

Hypocrites.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

In this thread there is obvious hate of religious people...because they "hate" gay people. Hypocrites.

What part of Equal Rights and Special Rights are you having difficulty with?

In this case it is the religious trying to give themselves Special Rights to keep gays from having Equal Rights.

Caution !

Possible hypocrites lurking....

Connecticut’s Governor Doesn’t Understand His Own State’s RFRA

In case you needed more proof that the recent backlash against religious freedom laws is grounded in pure ignorance, look no further than Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy. Malloy, a Democrat, just announced on Twitter that he plans to sign an executive order banning state travel to Indiana due to the midwestern state’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

DaaHaHaHa

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
It always amazes me how some people hate religious people claiming that they are bad because they hate people.

Of course, the part you're very carefully ignoring is that the left, liberals, LGBT people are not actively trying to pass laws to make conservatives, Republicans, straight people or Christians second-class citizens with fewer rights.

Come back when you as a (presumably) white, Christian, heterosexual male have laws making you less equal than others, then you might have reason to b**ch.

The Indiana damage control is in full swing....

www.usatoday.com...

But it's to late for Gov. Pense. Now it's time for him to take responsibility for his dumbass bill; the rest of his political career will be defined by his stupidity. I see now where he is trying to claim victimhood and place blame on others; this tactic will only serve to make him look like more of a fool! Pense is a Victim all right...a victim of his own stupidity; so much so that his GOP collegues are going to abandon him and let him stew in his own bigoted juices.

www.towleroad.com...
raverx.com...

www.bilerico.com...

And for all those defending this discriminatory bill....your credibility just evaporated.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Caution !

Possible hypocrites lurking....

Connecticut’s Governor Doesn’t Understand His Own State’s RFRA

In case you needed more proof that the recent backlash against religious freedom laws is grounded in pure ignorance, look no further than Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy. Malloy, a Democrat, just announced on Twitter that he plans to sign an executive order banning state travel to Indiana due to the midwestern state’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

DaaHaHaHa

The 1993 Religious Freedom Act was about Native Americans/Indigenous - - - and has already been discussed.

a reply to: xuenchen

One wonders, not that you'll answer in anything but quips, what Connecticut residents have done since 1993 to undermine or repress equality in their state ... do you have any information on that? No? Well, dahahahaha.

Indiana Restaurant Owner Brags about Discriminating Against Gays on Radio

SO, nothing in 22 YEARS from Connecticut, but we had someone bragging on the radio in Indiana in less than 22 HOURS.


Furthermore, Xuenchen, unsurprisingly, your linked article is blatantly LYING through its teeth when it compares the Connecticut law to what was just passed in INDIANA:

Connecticut's "RFRA" Law (Source)

Connecticut General Statutes section 52-571b

(current as of 2001)
Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion.

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.

(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term "granting" does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "state or any political subdivision of the state" includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

That's it. That's all of it. Fits on less than one page.

Now, let's look at just one section from the INDIANA RFRA ... Source

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.

Do you see any language like Section 9 (INDIANA) in the Connecticut law?

Do you know why?

It's not the same law!!!

The Indiana law allows for legal redress even IF THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A "LIKELY" BURDEN on their "beliefs."

The Indiana law allows religious citizens to claim the "against my religion" defense AGAINST OTHER CITIZENS!

That's two ways the two "laws" are totally different in their scope and enactments.

Read them for yourselves.

So ... dahahahahaha ... /puke

And here goes Arkansas.

These religious anti-gay states are trying to get state laws passed that they can use to counter act any USSC decisions - - in regards to LGBT Equality.

I've been following this for a while - - I am aware of what they're up to.

Arkansas Poised to Enact 'License to Discriminate'

The revived bill just needs a House vote and the governor's promised signature to become law.

Arkansas is getting closer to passing a revived “religious freedom” bill that opponents say would make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people.

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Turkenstein

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Turkenstein

Wow, an actual response from the person I asked a question of!

I see you're also more into personal commentary than fact. That's disappointing.

Where does a "homosexual" event begin and end, then?

If you were a grocer, can you be sure that the food you sell me isn't going to be used at a party?

If you were a doctor, can you be sure that I'm not going to get well and do "something homosexual"?

If you were a fireman, after you saved my life, can you be certain that you aren't contributing to more "homosexual events"?

I'm encouraging you to stand by your convictions. If you're going to exclude homosexual events from your business, why go half way?

I asked you a question. Since you understand English so well, you understand that gives you the right to respond rather than my making a statement?

Childish. Hmmm. No, your comments might be a little backwards, but not childish.

That's just harsh.

Is it that hard for you to accept opinions different from your own?

What the hell did you even say?

Are you accusing gays of being obnoxious, aggressive, sexual predators?

No. Are you?

Don’t worry folks the economic threats to Indiana are coming rapidly and they will fold like a cheap camera since nothing in America is more damaging than not getting your money

The only God in this Christian country is the almighty dollar, not God, Jesus or any religious icon other than the green bill with all those Masonic signs on it!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Turkenstein

So ... You don't know what you mean by the phrase "homosexual event" then? Obviously it has little to do with either homosexuals or events ....

Perhaps businesses should post which "homosexual events" they will accept?

Why are you so interested in the subject again?

What, no more analogies? Obviously, your rebuttals were weak. I know exactly what I mean. Your antagonistic sense of entitlement is unbelievable. "Perhaps" they should just post signs that say "no antagonistic griffins," since it seems we are playing make believe.
I'm interested because I live in Indiana, do you?

originally posted by: Turkenstein

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Turkenstein

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Turkenstein

Wow, an actual response from the person I asked a question of!

I see you're also more into personal commentary than fact. That's disappointing.

Where does a "homosexual" event begin and end, then?

If you were a grocer, can you be sure that the food you sell me isn't going to be used at a party?

If you were a doctor, can you be sure that I'm not going to get well and do "something homosexual"?

If you were a fireman, after you saved my life, can you be certain that you aren't contributing to more "homosexual events"?

I'm encouraging you to stand by your convictions. If you're going to exclude homosexual events from your business, why go half way?

I asked you a question. Since you understand English so well, you understand that gives you the right to respond rather than my making a statement?

Childish. Hmmm. No, your comments might be a little backwards, but not childish.

That's just harsh.

Is it that hard for you to accept opinions different from your own?

What the hell did you even say?

Are you accusing gays of being obnoxious, aggressive, sexual predators?

No. Are you?

That was several pages ago. I was asking for clarification on something you stated.

I'm not sure if English is a second language for you or not, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Because it is a law designed to affect only a certain segment of the population.

Is that how you are interpreting it or what it says? One cannot challenge a law and say what it does (or doesn't) before any act has been done in the name of said law. See Coons v. Lew. The United States Supreme Court wouldn't hear it the case as no actions have been undertaken regarding the "death panel" provisions. Those "death panels" being the Independent Payment Advisory Board set up via the PPACA legislation.

Regarding the Indiana law, we can examine in language of who the law is intended to affect; which in theory should be equally upon all of the citizens of Indiana. The law itself is just like any other law that may step upon an individual(s) rights -- a balancing test -- similar to tests applied to the Fourth Amendment (Terry Stop).

From the legislation (now law) itself, it reads:

Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden...

I have heard that the offending language is found in two sections -- Sec. 9 -- found respectively below:

Section 9

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by
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.

Seems that the law is clearly not targeting any group or subset of individuals, but maybe you can clarify your stance. I hope you know from past conversations, I am a fair debater and want to engage in rational discussion that doesn't devolve into emotional nonsense.

That in and of itself is illegal and unconstitutional, just as federal legislation originally passed to punish acorn. A law cannot be established that specifically targets a segment of society and holds them to a different standard.

Again, I am not seeing in the law to whom the law is specifically targeting. Care to help someone out and maybe point out the section of the law that is doing so?

Secondly you have the government passing legislation that essentially enforces religious doctrine, which is also a constitutional violation.

How? The legislation specifically states that it cannot be construed in such a manner -- so how is it "essentially" enforcing religious doctrine?

A private business does not have to have any reasons to deny service to anyone.

Sure they do. If you ran a business and someone wanted your service and said "you don't have any reason to deny me service" and refuses to pay (and by your wording -- you have no reason to deny them) you must do it? Maybe chose better wording on this one -- it was an easy target.

Again -- its a lose-lost situation because the Government doesn't have a compelling interest in regulating private businesses -- even those deemed the encompassing "public accommodation" moniker, to step in and punish them for not engaging in a private contract.

To be clear -- even in cases where businesses have denied a service, they have not denied persons from engaging in the business itself; rather a particular subset of their services that they don't agree to. In my opinion, poor business practice, but not illegal by any stretch of the imagination in my opinion.

In affect, you are advocating that the State punish businesses for not engaging in what you believe to be some active right to be forced (via punishment or loss of prosperity) into labor.

Edit To Add:
I am looking from this objectively.

originally posted by: Turkenstein

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Turkenstein

So ... You don't know what you mean by the phrase "homosexual event" then? Obviously it has little to do with either homosexuals or events ....

Perhaps businesses should post which "homosexual events" they will accept?

Why are you so interested in the subject again?

What, no more analogies? Obviously, your rebuttals were weak. I know exactly what I mean.

How nice that YOU know what you mean.

I thought you were trying to convey it to others.

Good he should be embarrassed for putting pen to paper to such an odious piece of legislation.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

Seems that the law is clearly not targeting any group or subset of individuals, . . .

Yeah, that's the "sneaky" part - - by design.