Why Indiana's RFRA Law is Different

And the state is planning to fix things now by adding non-discrimination language that explicitly protects the LGBT community.
addictinginfo.com

On Thursday morning, legislators unveiled language that clarifies “that the new ‘religious freedom’ law does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide its services, facilities, goods, or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, or military service,” according to the Indy Star. Language was added late Wednesday that would also add protections in housing and employment.

Hopefully it won't be too little too late to fix the social and financial problems it has already caused.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: NavyDoc

because there's a fairly big difference between saying 'I don't want guns" in my establishment ( a thing) and "I don't want gays/Muslims/whatever group in my establishment" ( people). It's the same as banning cell phones, which I've seen many stores do. Should we be all angry about stores that ban cellphones? Or stores that refuse entry to non-service animals? How about those convenience stores that ban hats? What about my right to wear a hat? Guns =/= people.

Ah, but that is the case of this pizza place and the lady in Washington who did not make flowers for a gay wedding.

The pizza place said they would welcome gay people into their restaurant. They just did not want to be part of their ceremony.

The flower lady did not discriminate against gays, in fact she employed them and had served the complainant in their suit for 8 years prior knowing he was gay, she just didn't feel right about being part of their ceremony.

Like the examples above, neither turned them away because they were gay, if fact they both served gays (or at least willing to) they just did not want to be involved with a particular act.

Thus the problem.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

How is a person licensed by the state to carry a gun carrying one in accordance with the law a threat to public safety?

Mom killed in Wal-Mart accidental shooting kept gun in special pocket

Concealed weapons holder accidentally shoots self, driver in Cleveland

Woman accidentally kills self adjusting bra holster

I can post headlines to justify bigotry too:

Model kills his lover

High school football star stabs older lover to death

Fresno man on trial for kiling his male lover

By your logic you should support banning gays for reasons of public safety.

a reply to: NavyDoc

By that logic, heterosexuals should also be banned.

Face it, your argument falls flat. There is no comparison between discriminating against people for who they are and whom they love and discriminating against people with a gun fetish.

A gun can be left at home, a person's identify can't.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

By that logic, heterosexuals should also be banned.

Face it, your argument falls flat. There is no comparison between discriminating against people for who they are and whom they love and discriminating against people with a gun fetish.

A gun can be left at home, a person's identify can't.

Listen to yourself--"gun fetish." You sound just as bad as the fundies who go on and on about gays having an "arse fetish."
You are the one who presented that argument, I just put up my own headlines to demonstrate how silly your point was.

The point is a valid one--you support discrimination as long as you dislike who or why they are being discriminated against. I'm suggesting that if a private individual does not want to serve me because I have a CCW or don't vote democrat or am an atheist they should have every right to do so in a free society just as I have every right to spend my money elsewhere if they are fundy Christians or whatever. Part of freedom is tolerating # we don't like.

Certainly a gun can go home and a wedding can be performed without the florist or baker in question.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, and most people keep forgetting that tolerance != acceptance. Just acknowledging that something can be allowed to exist or take place does not mean you have to like that it does.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You are the one who presented that argument, I just put up my own headlines to demonstrate how silly your point was.

NO! You're the one who brought up people with guns being discriminated against. NOT ME!

Here's what you said.

Meh, some discrimination is acceptable. For example, many establishments refuse to serve people with concealed carry licenses.

Listen to yourself--"gun fetish." You sound just as bad as the fundies who go on and on about gays having an "arse fetish."

Yeah. Someone who can't leave the house or enter a business without a gun strapped to their arm or thigh should problably be categorized as having an "anxiety disorder", rather than a gun fetish.

The point is a valid one--you support discrimination as long as you dislike who or why they are being discriminated against.

No. I support the limitation of certain rights in the interest of public safety. Like I said before.

Certainly a gun can go home and a wedding can be performed without the florist or baker in question.

That's like comparing apples and helicopters.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc


Yeah. Someone who can't leave the house or enter a business without a gun strapped to their arm or thigh should problably be categorized as having an "anxiety disorder", rather than a gun fetish.

And in my eyes someone who dresses in extreme bright colors and presents themselves as a completely flaming gay person has an "attention disorder"

a reply to: Azdraik

Ah, Fashion Police! Just what the doctor ordered! LOL

originally posted by: Azdraik

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc


Yeah. Someone who can't leave the house or enter a business without a gun strapped to their arm or thigh should problably be categorized as having an "anxiety disorder", rather than a gun fetish.

And in my eyes someone who dresses in extreme bright colors and presents themselves as a completely flaming gay person has an "attention disorder"

"Anxiety disorder" is protected by the ADA so banning us would be discrimination. There ya go!

originally posted by: Greven

What changed with this law, again? People need to fight the real problem.

What's really going on is, these "Fundy" states are trying to pass state laws to undermine any Federal law that might pass giving LGBT equal rights.

originally posted by: Azdraik

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc


Yeah. Someone who can't leave the house or enter a business without a gun strapped to their arm or thigh should problably be categorized as having an "anxiety disorder", rather than a gun fetish.

And in my eyes someone who dresses in extreme bright colors and presents themselves as a completely flaming gay person has an "attention disorder"

Love the stereotype.

Bet you don't know many gays.

a reply to: Elton

Another one brainwashed by the liberal media.

Can you provide the actual text of the bill which singles out the LGBT community?

No, you can't. Because it's not there.

originally posted by: theCheddar
a reply to: Elton

Another one brainwashed by the liberal media.

Can you provide the actual text of the bill which singles out the LGBT community?

No, you can't. Because it's not there.

By INTENT - - it does not specifically refer to LGBT.

The Family Values group know they've lost the Marriage Equality fight. So, out of desperation they are now trying to pass state laws that will undermine or override Federal laws that give LGBT equal rights.

These are called "Sneaky Laws". They know if they specify LGBT - - they have no chance of passing it.

a reply to: Annee

Oh, I see now. A bill, with ZERO actual discriminatory wording, now has a HIDDEN INTENT to keep the LGBT community from shopping in stores across Indiana.

It's so very clear now. I thought it was just the usual activism with ZERO factual grounding, which eventually turns into mass hysteria, then 10 years later, it turns out the "majority" had no ill intentions towards the "minority" after all.

It's like the global warming hysteria, where if you were a scientist and didn't fall in line by saying humans are the cause of global warming, you were basically blackballed, because the Clinton administration created an economy out of pollution (Al Gore invented the internet too, remember. It was only a matter of time before he discovered something else amazing. SMH). Then the media takes hold and runs with it, stating basically EVERY scientist agrees, when in reality, only about 30% of those scientists said humans WERE the cause. The other 70% either said 1) humans COULD be contributing to a global warming, 2) they could not say one way or the other, or 3) flat out disagreed. All the while, REAL science remains very clear on CYCLICAL climate change due to planetary forces, such as the gravitational pull from the sun and Jupiter causing planetary wobble, or the fact that Japan's earthquakes set the Earth off it's axis by about 4 degrees.

This is, as per usual, another case of some segment of the population feeling "slighted" for no reason other than they feel the need to continually assert onto the public that they are different, and that everyone has to agree with whatever cause they think they need to fix.

Guess what? NOBODY CARES. You're not different. And if you would stop trying to assert that you are, there would be less hate in the world.

originally posted by: theCheddar
a reply to: Annee

Oh, I see now. A bill, with ZERO actual discriminatory wording, now has a HIDDEN INTENT to keep the LGBT community from shopping in stores across Indiana.

How closely and how long have you been following the creation of these bills?

Or, did you decide to just jump in - - on a whim?

WATCH: A Field Guide for Identifying Sneaky, Homophobic Laws

Nice civil rights you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to them. - - BY MATT BAUME MARCH 06 2015

While LGBT Americans are busy celebrating the spread of marriage equality, homophobic lawmakers have yet another trick up their sleeve. A new trend hitting legislatures across the country: sneaky laws that erode civil rights for LGBT citzens without ever actually mentioning LGBT people, or even same-sex marriage.

It's a clever strategic move, since it would be unconstitutional to call out gays and lesbians specifically in a law that revokes civil rights. So anti-equality politicians have figured out how to cleverly word new laws that still manage to target sexual orientation for discrimination.

Some of these proposed new laws — like the one recently enacted in Arkansas — would make it against the law for towns to add new groups to nondiscrimination policies. Others follow Mississippi's lead, and would allow businesses and government employees to pick and choose which members of the public they'd serve. And some — like a bill passed last month in the North Carolina Senate — would even require public employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

What's so sneaky about these laws is that they look perfectly reasonable, since they never actually mention who the target is — instead, they claim to protect "religious liberty" or "sincerely held religious beliefs."

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

Have you even read the anti gay law? It expands freedom of religion to include those who don't follow an organized religion. Thanks for telling me I don't get the same rights as someone who does follow an organized religion.

The law is below. Notice how nowhere in there does it have ANY language which could even remotely be construed as anti gay, unless the person reading it has an agenda. Notice also, how "exercise of religion" isn't that at all. Section 5 states, very plainly, the exercise of religion doesn't even have to be a belief held by a religion. There goes your "church hates gays" argument.

This law means if I, or my business (which is legally a person as defined by the federal government), choose not to associate with someone, it's perfectly fine. Which it should be. Because whether you're straight, gay, trans, lesbian, alien, human, animal, mineral, vegetable, I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH YOU.

Where the # do you, or anyone else for that matter, get off in telling me I have no right to choose who I associate with FOR ANY REASON?

Anyhow, here's the actual text of the bill, so you can stop spewing this intolerance for people who disagree with your belief or lifestyle or whatever the hell else you want to bitch about.

indystar.com

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

a reply to: theCheddar

You really think I didn't read it and I don't know what I'm talking about?

Really?

originally posted by: Elton

— to refuse to offer or provide its services, facilities, goods, or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, or military service

Wedding planner Sally walks into a bakery and asks for a wedding cake that says "Congratulations Mark and John!" on top.

Baker refuses.

Sally is the customer, was she discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity? No.

Therefore neither would Mark or John be if they were to walk in and ask for the cake themselves.