Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Sam]

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...tians-to-jail/

© Copyright Original Source

A Religious Freedom Restoration Act that actually repeals religious liberty protections? That's so Orwellian.

Criminally? What statute allows the state to file criminal charges for refusing to provide services or products for a same-sex wedding?

Or, more realistically, what is Rienzi smoking and is it legal?

[DLAbaoaqu]

I wonder what LGBT blood tastes like...

[Irate Canadian]

I wonder what LGBT blood tastes like...

The hell,man? You need to calm down a bit.

[Joel]

A blanket ban on cannibalism would not.

Wouldn't your exception (for generally-applicable laws) permit banning pretty much any religious practice by permitting a blanket ban on the practice? (E.g., a law could forbid the Eucharist by a blanket ban on bread and/or wine, or assembling together to partake of bread and wine. Now the 1st Amendment protection of assembly would prohibit that last one, but I'm trying to see what effect you think the free exercise clause has if any.)

And on the flipside, is there anything that anyone believes is a sin that this exception wouldn't permit the government to command the person to do, by making it a blanket command for everyone? (Or, for example, the law could command it of anyone in the event that any person requests it of them.)

You're looking at the wrong bill. SB101 is what was signed by Pense.

Thanks. Looks like the link to that one is: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-92bab197

No, the defense need not pertain to a state action; it can be used as a defense to any claim made against a "person."

Yes, it would be a defense made in the civil lawsuit against a person, but the defense allowed here is only "a violation of this chapter".
That is, a violation of the rule that: "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." (emphasis mine).
That is, to make this defense you would have to show that a governmental entity is substantially burdening your exercise of religion. (And presumably you would have to show that that is relevant to your civil suit with the other person.)

[Sam]

Wouldn't your exception (for generally-applicable laws) permit banning pretty much any religious practice by permitting a blanket ban on the practice? (E.g., a law could forbid the Eucharist by a blanket ban on bread and/or wine, or assembling together to partake of bread and wine. Now the 1st Amendment protection of assembly would prohibit that last one, but I'm trying to see what effect you think the free exercise clause has if any.)

And on the flipside, is there anything that anyone believes is a sin that this exception wouldn't permit the government to command the person to do, by making it a blanket command for everyone? (Or, for example, the law could command it of anyone in the event that any person requests it of them.)

Even generally-applicable laws have to pass a rational basis test, as they did before the 1993 RFRA. For example, there would be no compelling interest in prohibiting the sale of sacramental wine to religious organizations and so the government would not likely succeed in trying to do so (sacramental wine sales were exempted from Prohibition).

The government can't force speech so even if it commanded that everyone say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at 9 AM, one could still sue for a religious exemption.

Thanks. Looks like the link to that one is: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-92bab197


Yes, it would be a defense made in the civil lawsuit against a person, but the defense allowed here is only "a violation of this chapter".
That is, a violation of the rule that: "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." (emphasis mine).
That is, to make this defense you would have to show that a governmental entity is substantially burdening your exercise of religion. (And presumably you would have to show that that is relevant to your civil suit with the other person.)

The governmental entity, in this case, would be the state or municipality that passes anti-discrimination laws. Right now, even with this RFRA as law, it's perfectly legal to deny service based on sexual orientation in most of Indiana. There's no state law against it. What the RFRA would do is act as a defense for people in, say, Indianapolis, which currently prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

So the action need not come from the government, as is the case in all those other RFRAs. Rather, the action could be that of a private citizen who gets standing to sue under state or local laws. The defendant could then use the RFRA as a legal defense in that private civil tort.

[Juvenal]

The hell,man? You need to calm down a bit.

Somewhere right around when he started posting "Death to the Godless" in the shoutbox, I got the idea he's got some serious issues.

[KingsGambit]

I wonder what LGBT blood tastes like...

Acts 15:29

[Darth Executor]

I wonder what LGBT blood tastes like...

I dunno but I hope you don't have any cuts in your mouth.

[Spartacus]

Somewhere right around when he started posting "Death to the Godless" in the shoutbox, I got the idea he's got some serious issues.

He's just looking for attention, and on some level, he knows it. I don't know whether it's better to ignore his outbursts or not.

[rogue06]

I wonder what LGBT blood tastes like...

This is, quite frankly, more than a bit disturbing.

[Juvenal]

He's just looking for attention, and on some level, he knows it.

Or maybe he's in dire need of psychiatric intervention before we read about him in the papers.

[Tassman]

What you mean is that "biblical passages have been used incorrectly to enforce the subordination of women, oppose miscegenation and support slavery". Show me someone who uses scripture to support the subordinatinon of women and I will show you someone who is misusing scripture.

Homosexuality is a whole different matter because the Bible explicitly calls it a sin, period. End of argument. Whether American churches swing one way or the other on the issue, the Word of God won't say anything different.

My point is that such passages have been used for this sort of discrimination over considerable periods of time, centuries in fact, whether or not they were "correctly" used in your personal opinion. As for the biblical view of homosexuality your personal interpretation regarding it's sinfulness not shared by a considerable number of Christians.

And what about Christians being a party to sin by serving a remarried divorced man, which the bible says is adultery? "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Luke 16.18)? That's pretty "explicit" So is it permissible in your view to give full service to an adulterer or are you being selective here about which particular sin you allow yourself to wallow in?

[Tassman]

You really don't get it. Serving a meal to someone is one thing, and nobody has a problem with that. This pizza shop even said they welcome homosexual diners. What they won't do is be party to their abominable activities by catering a gay wedding. And according to the First Amendment, they shouldn't have to. But who follows the Constitution any more, right?

No business serving the public is required to provide any more than their standard service to all people without discrimination - as simple as that. If a business provides catering for say, weddings as a standard feature of their business then it is obliged to provide it to all people without discrimination. End of story.

[Epoetker]

No business serving the public is required to provide any more than their standard service to all people without discrimination - as simple as that. If a business provides catering for say, weddings as a standard feature of their business then it is obliged to provide it to all people without discrimination. End of story.

Better people than you have made this tired old argument, better people than you have refuted it soundly and thoroughly. A business is made of of people and does not function apart from those people. They have the right to use their own personal judgment on whom to serve and how. This will undoubtedly offend some people, most often those without actual experience of running a business. The law that presumes to speak here will never speak consistently.

[Tassman]

Better people than you have made this tired old argument, better people than you have refuted it soundly and thoroughly. A business is made of of people and does not function apart from those people. They have the right to use their own personal judgment on whom to serve and how. This will undoubtedly offend some people, most often those without actual experience of running a business. The law that presumes to speak here will never speak consistently.