How ignorant people think...

[C5SilverBullet]

The Indianapolis Mayor is fighting against the new bill.

[VITE1]

Here is what a Stanford law professors says about the law.

Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?

Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA:

Government may substantially 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.

And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:

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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...41.html?page=2

[LATB]

There wouldn't be a problem if there were no anti-discrimination laws to begin with.

Let Larry's Bait Shop not sell to readheads. And before long it wont be only readheads not buying shrimp from ole Larry, many people with readhead friends will quit doing biz with Larry's. Along with others who don't like the business for the readhead exclusion.

Then, along comes Lenny's Bait across the street. With a BIG sign "WE SERVE ALL".

Larry's goes out of business. Lenny's prospers.

Freedom. Liberty.

The End.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Here is what a Stanford law professors says about the law.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...41.html?page=2

So what you're saying is that this uproar is because a Republican Governor (who is a potential Presidential candidate) signed a law; verses when a Democrat President signed the same law and there was no uproar. Okay, now I get it.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

So what you're saying is that this uproar is because a Republican Governor (who is a potential Presidential candidate) signed a law; verses when a Democrat President signed the same law and there was no uproar. Okay, now I get it.

It's just the left doing what they always do, getting a hard-on by feeling all morally superior, guided by their oracles in the MSM, en-masse, like good little lemmings.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Craig

So what you're saying is that this uproar is because a Republican Governor (who is a potential Presidential candidate) signed a law; verses when a Democrat President signed the same law and there was no uproar. Okay, now I get it.

I also believe this whole "Outrage" is being used to provide cover for the Administration to make yet another bad deal with an enemy of America. The Iran deal looks to be just more concession by our ***** in Chief and his Sec State

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by Craig

So what you're saying is that this uproar is because a Republican Governor (who is a potential Presidential candidate) signed a law; verses when a Democrat President signed the same law and there was no uproar. Okay, now I get it.

Now THAT I agree with.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Craig

So what you're saying is that this uproar is because a Republican Governor (who is a potential Presidential candidate) signed a law; verses when a Democrat President signed the same law and there was no uproar. Okay, now I get it.

Not only no uproar, at the time the Dems were celebrating the federal law because it was all about (to them) giving native American Indians the right to eat peyote. No shit.

[lander]

The ignorance, by the LFT's and the high-and-mighty Libertarian is hilarious...but sad.

You want a calm understanding of what the actual content of the law that Indiana passed is, read this.

National Review

Any proper thinking person that reads that, understands it, and comprehends it, that has sat in this thread and trashed it, should apologize for their ignorance.

But they won't. It's much easier to hop on a band wagon of bigotry that they pretend to rally against because their too incompetent to actually understand what the law does and doesn't do.

[DAB]

can you have religious beliefs without being a member of a recognized church?

[C5SilverBullet]

“I have been asked in recent days by many of those in the University of Evansville family about my position on the recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). So let me take this opportunity to explain how I see the issue in terms of the University, the state of Indiana, and the public welfare. University presidents should not, in my judgment, express personal opinions on matters of public significance without careful consideration of the relevance of the issue for their institutions. Some issues, however, are especially salient not only for the society at large but have the potential to significantly impact the University, and RFRA is one such example.

A core commitment of the University of Evansville is to nurture a climate of respect, understanding, and appreciation of difference. Moreover, as an institution we oppose practices and policies that can lead to discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, creed or religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. It is from this foundational premise that I join those voices around the state, including Evansville’s Mayor Lloyd Winnecke, major Indiana corporations such as the Eli Lilly and Cummins, and the presidents of a growing number of Indiana universities who are deeply concerned about this legislation.

I respect Governor Pence’s argument that RFRA is designed to promote religious freedom and prevent government overreach, but this legislation cannot be divorced from the broader context of the national discussion about laws which arguably permit discrimination. I think we can all agree that we want Indiana to be a welcoming and inclusive state. Unfortunately, RFRA fuels the perception that we are intolerant and thus is damaging to the public welfare and to the University of Evansville. I urge the Governor and the state legislature to reconsider this action or, failing that, pass legislation, as has been done in other states, to ensure that the law is not used as a tool for discrimination.”

-- Dr. Thomas Kazee, president of the University of Evansville

[Gina]

If there is already nearly identical federal law in place, what is the purpose of this anyway?

And, like I think DAB was asking..........do you have to belong to a recognized religious organization for your religious views to be included?

[Chris Fowler]

we oppose practices and policies that can lead to discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, creed or religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.

I assume the university offers no scholarships based on race?

Those that scream about discrimination the loudest are often the first to discriminate against someone that is straight, white, male, or christian...

equality means equality
discrimination against the majority is still discrimination...

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Gina

If there is already nearly identical federal law in place, what is the purpose of this anyway?

And, like I think DAB was asking..........do you have to belong to a recognized religious organization for your religious views to be included?

It was ruled that the federal law only applies to the federal government, not state governments.

[Gina]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

It was ruled that the federal law only applies to the federal government, not state governments.

thanks

[DAB]

do you really want the govt and courts, which are not learned in religion and beliefs, to be telling you that what you say you believe is not really what you are allowed to believe?

if your only harbor of safety is membership in some recognized church, then what if you haven't found one that meets your needs? are your beliefs and rights less than a self proclaimed church member? will there be tests to sort out what you believe versus what the church stands for and makes part of their doctrine?

can't i have beliefs that are not attached to any particular denomination, or may vary from what a recognized church teaches?

this is a messy and slippery slope.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by C5SilverBullet

“I have been asked in recent days by many of those in the University of Evansville family about my position on the recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). So let me take this opportunity to explain how I see the issue in terms of the University, the state of Indiana, and the public welfare. University presidents should not, in my judgment, express personal opinions on matters of public significance without careful consideration of the relevance of the issue for their institutions. Some issues, however, are especially salient not only for the society at large but have the potential to significantly impact the University, and RFRA is one such example.

A core commitment of the University of Evansville is to nurture a climate of respect, understanding, and appreciation of difference. Moreover, as an institution we oppose practices and policies that can lead to discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, creed or religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. It is from this foundational premise that I join those voices around the state, including Evansville’s Mayor Lloyd Winnecke, major Indiana corporations such as the Eli Lilly and Cummins, and the presidents of a growing number of Indiana universities who are deeply concerned about this legislation.

I respect Governor Pence’s argument that RFRA is designed to promote religious freedom and prevent government overreach, but this legislation cannot be divorced from the broader context of the national discussion about laws which arguably permit discrimination. I think we can all agree that we want Indiana to be a welcoming and inclusive state. Unfortunately, RFRA fuels the perception that we are intolerant and thus is damaging to the public welfare and to the University of Evansville. I urge the Governor and the state legislature to reconsider this action or, failing that, pass legislation, as has been done in other states, to ensure that the law is not used as a tool for discrimination.”

-- Dr. Thomas Kazee, president of the University of Evansville

So some people have the "perception" that his laws promotes intolerance. Yet the letter of the law does not.

Will Illinois now get rid of the same law ?

775*ILCS*35/**Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

HUMAN RIGHTS
(775 ILCS 35/) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(775 ILCS 35/1)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/5)
Sec. 5. Definitions. In this Act:
"Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
"Exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
"Government" includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the State of Illinois or a political subdivision of the State, including a home rule unit.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/10)
Sec. 10. Findings and purposes.
(a) The General Assembly finds the following:
(1) The free exercise of religion is an inherent,

fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(2) Laws "neutral" toward religion, as well as laws

intended to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden the exercise of religion.
(3) Government should not substantially burden the

exercise of religion without compelling justification.
(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872

(1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that government justify burdens on the exercise of religion imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) In City of Boerne v. P. F. Flores, 65 LW 4612

(1997) the Supreme Court held that an Act passed by Congress to address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
(b) The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set

forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.
(2) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose

exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/15)
Sec. 15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/20)
Sec. 20. Judicial relief. If a person's exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this Act, that person may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in an action to enforce this Act against a government is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining the claim or defense.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/25)
Sec. 25. Application of Act; home rule powers.
(a) This Act applies to all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions and their implementation, whether statutory or otherwise and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this Act.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a government to burden any religious belief.
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address any of the following: (i) that portion of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion, (ii) the second sentence of Article I, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution, or (iii) Article X, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution. Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the 3 constitutional provisions described in items (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection, does not constitute a violation of this Act. In this subsection, "granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(d) The corporate authorities of a municipality or other unit of local government may enact ordinances, standards, rules, or regulations that protect the free exercise of religion in a manner or to an extent equal to or greater than the protection provided in this Act. If an ordinance, standard, rule, or regulation enacted under the authority of this Section or under the authority of a unit of local government's home rule powers prohibits, restricts, narrows, or burdens a person's exercise of religion or permits the prohibition, restriction, narrowing, or burdening of a person's exercise of religion, that ordinance, standard, rule, or regulation is void and unenforceable as to that person if it (i) is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is not the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. This subsection is a limitation under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution on the concurrent exercise by home rule units of powers and functions exercised by the State.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

(775 ILCS 35/30)
Sec. 30. O'Hare Modernization and South Suburban Airport. Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the City of Chicago to exercise its powers under the O'Hare Modernization Act, or the Department of Transportation to exercise its powers under the Public-Private Agreements for the South Suburban Airport Act, for the purposes of relocation of cemeteries or the graves located therein.
(Source: P.A. 98-109, eff. 7-25-13.)

(775 ILCS 35/99)
Sec. 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect on July 1, 1998.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

Indiana law.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-f6915f8f

Digest

DIGEST

Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees

[78SA]

Originally Posted by Hoog

I can't wait until the Muslims start using this law for their benefit. Conservative heads are going to explode.

The law doesn't allow for them to do that.

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

I'm not religious at all and my take on it is from a more libertarian point of view, along with the fact that we're a country made up of 50 individual states, each which has laws that differ in any number of ways. Roughly 30 states have laws similar to this one (despite the claims of others here) and all 50 are covered by the Religious Freedom Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 (with an all democrat legislature.) The mere fact that such laws were deemed to be necessary is 100% due to activist judges ignoring the Constitution, specifically the 1st amendment.

That's it. Everything else is hand-waving. Gov. Pence has already said that they will clarify this law as needed. Nobody is going to be discriminated against because of this law, it's NOT a law that gives license to discriminate (which there are myriad laws already on the books forbidding such.)

Originally Posted by C5SilverBullet

If it doesn't discrimnate, why won't the Gov say that? And also, why do supporters of the bill actually point out that you can now discriminate against gay people?

The Gov looked like a real fool in this interview:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Says Religious Freedom Law 'Absolutely Not' a Mistake Video - ABC News

Those supporters are the ones wanting to discriminate and want to try and abuse the law. No where in it does it allow any discrimination.

[78SA]

There was a Christian owned bakery that had someone want them to make a cake saying something like "Jesus hates gays" or something like that. The bakery refused. Should they be forced to make it or sued for not making it? That is what the liberals want to happen. The law is to protect the bakery from being forced to make it or being sued for refusing.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by 78SA

There was a Christian owned bakery that had someone want them to make a cake saying something like "Jesus hates gays" or something like that. The bakery refused. Should they be forced to make it or sued for not making it? That is what the liberals want to happen. The law is to protect the bakery from being forced to make it or being sued for refusing.

People are twisting this to be essentially 180 degrees from what it actually is. It's almost like saying that since the 1st Amendment says there exists a freedom of religion, that is now a basis for a person to use their religion to harm others. That's about it, it's all a bunch of SJW's horrified that somewhere, someone is not in full lockstep with their social justice agenda.

But there's no double standards at play here. For instance, the governor of Washington will still gladly let the state pay for travel to, say, Saudi Arabia or Cuba or any other country where the concept of religious freedom, protection of gays, and political prisoners is simply a joke. Those are just other cultures. No, the real enemy is right here at home, those evil horrible religious people. And by religious I mean Christian. And by people I mean those who are unlikely to vote for a democrat.