Indiana "Anti-Gay" Law isn't "Anti-Gay" at all.

It's granting "religious" freedom to those people (and businesses - which are "people," defined by federal law) who DO NOT FOLLOW AN ORGANIZED RELIGION.

Section 5 of the law states this -- VERY CLEARLY.

At no point in the verbiage does this law discriminate against ANYONE. It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. It is granting rights to those who did not have them before.

Please -- educate YOURSELF. Stop relying on the media to educate you. They make money based off the fact common sense isn't really common.

indystar

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

It is granting rights to those who did not have them before.

That's true. It granted religious people the right to refuse service on bases that they wouldn't have been able to do before. You do realize that they changed the law after they faced huge backlash right?

The revised legislation prohibits providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on factors that include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Pimpish

You realize that's the EXACT wording that magically caused a riot? They haven't changed it yet... and NOTHING in the bill gives ANYONE the right to discriminate.

But, if I choose to not associate with you, or do business with you, that's 100% MY RIGHT. It is not your right to tell me I can't.

a reply to: theCheddar

Actually they did change it yesterday and the Governor signed it yesterday. I guess the Fox news I linked for you wasn't good enough, here's another source: www.usatoday.com...

ETA: What riot are you referring to? I wasn't aware there was any sort of riot regarding this law.

a reply to: theCheddar

here is the actual bill from the actual government, not indystar news.

iga.in.gov

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: theCheddar

Actually they did change it yesterday and the Governor signed it yesterday. I guess the Fox news I linked for you wasn't good enough, here's another source: www.usatoday.com...

ETA: What riot are you referring to? I wasn't aware there was any sort of riot regarding this law.

Meanwhile, there was no reason to change it, and that was the verbiage of thew original copy, so.... and I'm still trying to figure out where you think this gives people the right to discriminate against anyone, since the law in question says NOTHING about discriminating against anyone... It's all right there. All you have to do is read it.

BUT, If I choose to not associate or do business with anyone for ANY reason, that's MY RIGHT.

a reply to: theCheddar

You're right. It's not an 'anti-gay' law. It's now an anti-religious law.


It's okay for you to practice your religion until I come along and demand services that contradict your religious views. Screw your freedom! You will serve me while I wipe my bum with your religious convictions! Your only recourse is to close down your business while the government bankrupts you and destroys your life with fines.

/sarcasm /nowaronchristianity /tolerance

a reply to: theCheddar

You realize that's the EXACT wording that magically caused a riot? They haven't changed it yet... and NOTHING in the bill gives ANYONE the right to discriminate.

Magically caused a riot? What the hell are you going on about?

I'm going to help you out a bit since you've obviously not been paying attention. These lines are basically the point of contention:

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.

Indiana's RFRA and similar "religious freedom" laws have been enacted by GOP politicians pandering to their constituents in the Christian Right. Specifically in Indiana, it's been quite clear all along that the impetus for the law wasn't protecting anyone's rights to exercise their religion but rather to establish a defense for a new kind of attack on same-sex marriage.

The upshot is that conservative religious groups promoted the legislation because as they understood it (and rightfully so), that it would give them a legal defense (just exercising my religion!) to refuse service to gays and lesbians, particularly anything that might in any way be tied to a (same sex) wedding.

retracted

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: theCheddar

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.

And? This says nothing about discrimination. This says, very clearly, that if you force your beliefs on me to the point of persecution against my religious beliefs, I have every right to act accordingly.

If you want to attack Indiana's discrimination laws, go after the "protected classes" law, not the "religious freedom" law... see the difference?

nolo.com

"In all 50 states, FEDERAL law makes it illegal to discriminate based on:
Race
Color
National origin
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
Disability
Age (40 and older)
Citizenship status
Genetic information

In addition, INDIANA state law also prohibits discrimination based on:

Race
Color
National origin
Religion
Sex
Disability: physical or mental (15 or more employees)
Age (40 to 75, applies to employers with one or more employees)
Ancestry
Off-duty tobacco use
Sealed or expunged arrest or conviction record"

a reply to: theCheddar

You're good.

a reply to: theCheddar

Second, You have every right to frequent one of the other businesses that line this street, or shop online, or whatever else you want to do.

Third, Even if I were able to discriminate against you for being you, why would you go to a place where the owner didn't like you or want your business? You wouldn't. So what's the problem? You want to make us BOTH uncomfortable, instead of just not going to that business.

It baffles me how far people want to take things like this when it goes against ALL COMMON SENSE, and apparently, reading comprehension.

Pleas to "common sense" are usually just requests for ignorant people to remain ill informed.

a reply to: EternalSolace

re-read. got it. sorry for snapping at you.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yep, so ignorant I can actually read, understand, and determine which legislation applies to what rights.

Again, you're fighting the wrong battle because you don't understand the law...

a reply to: theCheddar

Whether or not the text constitutes a successful legal defense is debatable but what isn't debatable is the fact that the majority of the laws most ardent supporters clearly have been of the opinion that it would.

Indy Star - RFRA's roots tied to gay marriage fight

But even this week, as Pence called for a fix to clarify that "this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," conservative groups stuck to the message of same-sex marriage opposition to rally supporters.

A website post Monday by Advance America, led by Eric Miller, sought to set the record straight on "misinformation" about the law by listing purported examples of how Indiana's RFRA could be used.

"Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding," the post said. "Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church."

Again, the law in question does not address -- in any way, shape, or form -- discrimination against anyone. You're looking for the protected classes law.......

And again... If I don't like you -- for ANY reason -- that is 100% MY RIGHT. Why would you go to a place where the people like you? Do you really need a law to validate that you don't want to go there?

I don't go to the drug dealer's house on the corner if I don't do drugs... common sense plea...

a reply to: theCheddar

Again, you're fighting the wrong battle because you don't understand the law...

Er, you're a little late, there, on the get go, there buddy. The "Law" has been changed to meet the demands of those "rioters"!

LOL

The fight is over, the battle is won. For now, anyway. Next Stop... (Toot Toot) The Federal Government.

a reply to: theCheddar

Federal Law doesn't matter anymore. There are also Federal Laws that say marijuana is illegal but states permit the use anyways. Federal law ppfftt....

Freedom of religion doesn't equal to Religious freedom, one guarantee under the constitution for the exercises of religion but Religious freedom open the door to discrimination under the exercising of religious believes.

It will be very moronic for those that redacted the bill to actually write down that their target are specifically the Gay community in the state.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: theCheddar

Again, you're fighting the wrong battle because you don't understand the law...

Er, you're a little late, there, on the get go, there buddy. The "Law" has been changed to meet the demands of those "rioters"!

LOL

The fight is over, the battle is won. For now, anyway. Next Stop... (Toot Toot) The Federal Government.

Just like that one South Park episode...