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

[Mountain Man]

"Refusing to compromise on their core values" ... by discriminating against same-sex couples. Yup.

Where in the law does it make any reference to "discriminating against same-sex couples"? I'd like an exact quote, if you don't mind.

Take your time. I'll wait.

[Sam]

Where in the law does it make any reference to "discriminating against same-sex couples"? I'd like an exact quote, if you don't mind.

Take your time. I'll wait.

Now you're just being purposefully obtuse. You know as well as everyone else that the law is geared toward allowing people to "refuse to compromise on their core values" as it relates to being compelled to bake a wedding cake, cater a reception, or photograph a ceremony in same-sex unions. If you don't know this (and I find that much more than simply unlikely), go thee forth and read a few articles from Conservative sources on the subject.

But you do know, I'm sure, that this was the impetus behind passing the law and the reason that changing the text to allow the RFRA to be used in suits where the government isn't a party was necessary. So, absent ignorance, that leaves you simply playing Pence's game: you say you don't know because you can't say what you know.

[Mountain Man]

Now you're just being purposefully obtuse. You know as well as everyone else that the law is geared toward allowing people to "refuse to compromise on their core values" as it relates to being compelled to bake a wedding cake, cater a reception, or photograph a ceremony in same-sex unions. If you don't know this (and I find that much more than simply unlikely), go thee forth and read a few articles from Conservative sources on the subject.

But you do know, I'm sure, that this was the impetus behind passing the law and the reason that changing the text to allow the RFRA to be used in suits where the government isn't a party was necessary. So, absent ignorance, that leaves you simply playing Pence's game: you say you don't know because you can't say what you know.

Since you didn't quote from the law itself, I assume you're conceding the point that it does not have as an explicitly or implicitly stated goal that people should be allowed to unfairly discriminate against gays.

What it does do is prevent those who express their religious values from being unfairly sued. As Rush Limbaugh sensibly explained it, this law is not a weapon, it's a shield.

[Joel]

Congressional debates surrounding the 1st and 2nd amendments suggest that the free exercise clause was not interpreted as exempting Quakers from the draft. Americans can worship how and where and with whomever they like, but there seems to be no room for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.

But surely if a "generally applicable law" infringes on the free exercise of religion, then it is unconstitutional. Or at least we could imagine one that would be unconstitutional.
So how would you draw the line between the constitutional and unconstitutional kinds of generally applicable laws that limit free exercise or compel that which some find morally objectionable?

The draft would be an example of "a compelling state interest".

But the Constitution doesn't allow an exception for "state interest" compelling or otherwise.
That (unconstitutional) exception--to get around the restraints imposed by the Constitution--was invented in the 20th century, as far as I can tell.

[Tassman]

"Refusing to compromise on their core values" ... by discriminating against same-sex couples. Yup.

[Spartacus]

But surely if a "generally applicable law" infringes on the free exercise of religion, then it is unconstitutional. Or at least we could imagine one that would be unconstitutional.
So how would you draw the line between the constitutional and unconstitutional kinds of generally applicable laws that limit free exercise or compel that which some find morally objectionable?

Remind me in a week, ya doofus. And if you're gonna challenge my points, at least deal with the fact I brought in through the post itself r.e. quakers and the draft.

[Sparko]

Now you're just being purposefully obtuse. You know as well as everyone else that the law is geared toward allowing people to "refuse to compromise on their core values" as it relates to being compelled to bake a wedding cake, cater a reception, or photograph a ceremony in same-sex unions. If you don't know this (and I find that much more than simply unlikely), go thee forth and read a few articles from Conservative sources on the subject.

But you do know, I'm sure, that this was the impetus behind passing the law and the reason that changing the text to allow the RFRA to be used in suits where the government isn't a party was necessary. So, absent ignorance, that leaves you simply playing Pence's game: you say you don't know because you can't say what you know.

That might be one consequence, but since when do Gay rights trump the constitution of the USA? The first amendment protects religious beliefs and the Indiana RFRA just reaffirms that. You seem to have no problem whatsoever with gay radicals pushing around Christians and other religious groups who just don't want to participate in condoning homosexual behavior. Yet you, a supposed Christian, get all upset when a person who has a deeply held belief wants to exercise their first amendment rights.

In other words, It is OK to discriminate against religious people, despite the first amendment protection, but it is not OK to discriminate against the gay agenda, despite they have no constitutional protection.

It's a double standard.

Also did you know that Obama voted for Illinois RFRA when he was a senator? And Clinton signed the Federal RFRA. Yet now the democrats just go around saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" and hope nobody notices.

[Mountain Man]

It is faith-based bigotry no more and no less. It’s no different in principle from the bible-based prejudice that once applied to blacks and women. Sadly the Church always leads from behind when it comes to social reform, but it usually gets there in the end.

Never mind the fact there is a distinct, Biblical difference between being black or female, and homosexuality.

[Mountain Man]

Also did you know that Obama voted for Illinois RFRA when he was a senator? And Clinton signed the Federal RFRA. Yet now the democrats just go around saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" and hope nobody notices.

I pointed that out to him already, but he claimed that the similarities between the Indiana and Illinois laws were somehow irrelevant (of course) before pulling an about face in the very same post and declaring the two laws "not remotely similiar".

But I, too, have the same question as you: why is someone who declares himself a Christian applauding religious suppression and supporting militant gays who want to effectively outlaw moral objection to sin? Doesn't he have any idea of where this is ultimately heading?

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...age-advocates/

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

That might be one consequence, but since when do Gay rights trump the constitution of the USA? The first amendment protects religious beliefs and the Indiana RFRA just reaffirms that. You seem to have no problem whatsoever with gay radicals pushing around Christians and other religious groups who just don't want to participate in condoning homosexual behavior. Yet you, a supposed Christian, get all upset when a person who has a deeply held belief wants to exercise their first amendment rights.

Shorter version: "How can you be a Christian when you're siding with the gays/IRS/prostitutes/Romans?!"

None of the RFRAs "just reaffirm" first amendment protections because first amendment protections do not extend in perpetuity. As that inveterate liberal hero Scalia wrote back in Smith, the First Amendment does not necessarily protect someone from a generally-applicable law. Ritualistic cannibalism doesn't get a pass under the First Amendment.

What the RFRAs do is create a statutory hurdle to infringing on religious belief, a hurdle that, until Indiana's RFRA, was a hurdle only for government.

In other words, It is OK to discriminate against religious people, despite the first amendment protection, but it is not OK to discriminate against the gay agenda, despite they have no constitutional protection.

It's a double standard.

including court cases where the government isn't a party. That's important: it makes sense, when talking about individual rights vs. government power, to put a finger on the scale in favor of individual rights. But with Indiana's RFRA, now we're talking about court cases where isn't not government power vs. individual right but individual right vs. individual right. And instead of being statutorily equal, the religious right now has an immense power that other rights don't have.

So while you're complaining that it's a double standard, it's actually creating a statutory preference for religious rights over other rights. And while good people can differ on whether or not that's justified, no one can pretend that the "gay agenda" is just steam rolling those poor, oppressed Christians out there.

Also did you know that Obama voted for Illinois RFRA when he was a senator? And Clinton signed the Federal RFRA. Yet now the democrats just go around saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" and hope nobody notices.

Like I told Mountain Man, read the texts. The issue that everyone is worked up about isn't in the federal RFRA, Illinois' RFRA or pretty much any of the others. Indiana's RFRA is fundamentally different in that 1) it extends the definition of "person" beyond even the "closely-held" corporation in Hobby LobbyEmployment Division vs. Smith!

[Sparko]

Shorter version: "How can you be a Christian when you're siding with the gays/IRS/prostitutes/Romans?!"

None of the RFRAs "just reaffirm" first amendment protections because first amendment protections do not extend in perpetuity. As that inveterate liberal hero Scalia wrote back in Smith, the First Amendment does not necessarily protect someone from a generally-applicable law. Ritualistic cannibalism doesn't get a pass under the First Amendment.

What the RFRAs do is create a statutory hurdle to infringing on religious belief, a hurdle that, until Indiana's RFRA, was a hurdle only for government.



No, it's not. What Indiana's RFRA does isn't reverse discrimination against religious people: religion is already a protected class. If you want to talk double-standards, let's talk about people in a Constitutionally-protected class whining about being prevented from discriminating against members of an unprotected and vulnerable class.

What Indiana's RFRA does is tip the scale toward religion in a court case — including court cases where the government isn't a party. That's important: it makes sense, when talking about individual rights vs. government power, to put a finger on the scale in favor of individual rights. But with Indiana's RFRA, now we're talking about court cases where isn't not government power vs. individual right but individual right vs. individual right. And instead of being statutorily equal, the religious right now has an immense power that other rights don't have.

So while you're complaining that it's a double standard, it's actually creating a statutory preference for religious rights over other rights. And while good people can differ on whether or not that's justified, no one can pretend that the "gay agenda" is just steam rolling those poor, oppressed Christians out there.



Like I told Mountain Man, read the texts. The issue that everyone is worked up about isn't in the federal RFRA, Illinois' RFRA or pretty much any of the others. Indiana's RFRA is fundamentally different in that 1) it extends the definition of "person" beyond even the "closely-held" corporation in Hobby Lobby, 2) it allows the RFRA to be used in suits where the government isn't a defendant and 3) it (amazingly) prohibits the RFRA to be used against an employer — which was the very event that led to the creation of the federal RFRA, Employment Division vs. Smith!

hmmm a lot of mumbo-jumbo that basically still ends up with Sam supporting gay rights over religious rights.

We are not talking about the religious right to "eat people" or hate gays, or discriminate against them as people. We are talking about stopping them from forcing businesses and people from participating and condoning gay related events, such as marriage. The gay agenda is not happy with just having the freedom to have marriages now, they also want to make people condone them or be sued. Despite the first amendment protecting religious freedom.

And it is not just Christians that do not approve of homosexual behavior and marriage. Islam and Judaism also are against it. You don't see any gays forcing muslims to photograph their weddings or make them cakes. Probably too afraid said cake would have an IED in it. But Christians are easy pickings today. They are the "white privileged" of the religious world. You can discriminate against them all you want and come out smelling like a liberal rose.

[seer]

hmmm a lot of mumbo-jumbo that basically still ends up with Sam supporting gay rights over religious rights.

We are not talking about the religious right to "eat people" or hate gays, or discriminate against them as people. We are talking about stopping them from forcing businesses and people from participating and condoning gay related events, such as marriage. The gay agenda is not happy with just having the freedom to have marriages now, they also want to make people condone them or be sued. Despite the first amendment protecting religious freedom.

And it is not just Christians that do not approve of homosexual behavior and marriage. Islam and Judaism also are against it. You don't see any gays forcing muslims to photograph their weddings or make them cakes. Probably too afraid said cake would have an IED in it. But Christians are easy pickings today. They are the "white privileged" of the religious world. You can discriminate against them all you want and come out smelling like a liberal rose.

This is the problem when you head down this unconstitutional discrimination road. It seems that in just about every case, especially on the state level, people of faith lose - the freedom of association carries no more weight. And in this all we have a Judas like Sam rooting for and helping the forces of evil.

[Mountain Man]

...religion is already a protected class.

You wouldn't know it by all the Christian photographers and bakers who are being run out of business for refusing to abandon their core values. It is increasingly the case that religion is a protected class in name only, and we are expected to compromise our principles long before any other special interest group is expected to compromise theirs.

I have no doubt that our Founding Fathers would weep with despair if they could see what America has become, and I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out why someone who identifies himself as a Christian is in favor of it.

Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

[Bill the Cat]

Well, the Arkansas Governor caved like a decrepit old mine shaft.

[seer]

Well, the Arkansas Governor caved like a decrepit old mine shaft.

Yep, they all did. Money talks...