BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Pense isn't too bright.
Indiana-Is a great place to be a bigot....
- Thread starter ImWaitingForTheDay
- Start date
Pense isn't too bright.
Gays want companies who may not agree with their lifestyle to HAVE to provode services to them, that's the "extra rights". If I, racist man walk into a black owned bakery and asked them to make a 12 teir cake fornmy upcoming Klan rally, by all means they could refuse to make it, and any lawsuit I filed would be laugjed ojt of court. Gay people get mad and sue.
Just give them their "equal rights" so they'll STFU and go away
Just give them their "equal rights" so they'll STFU and go away
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
What is the purpose of the law?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
You really tried google? The very first search I tried gave me the text of the bill. Amazing that you couldn't find that yourself.
The very first sentence says that the purpose is to amend the states cival code. Now you know.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Did you know that
four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department have all taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman
four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department have all taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman
OLDGRAY: From your own link comes the INTENTION of this law...
reason number 2 on your link:
2) This law is not a get out of jail free card for “discriminators.” If someone discriminates against a gay person, the gay person can still take the discriminator to court and win. Now, however, the person accused of discrimination can invoke the state’s RFRA law as a legal weapon to defend themself. That weapon could win or lose depending on the validity of their case and the ideological leanings of their judge.
This clearly refutes any claim that the law will not encourage discrimination.
The law does not SPECIFICALLY target gays and lesbians as they have said, but they dont have to.
Lets put it this way,
Lets say we pass a state law that says that motorists cannot be sued for damages or injuries if they got into a car crash on the highway. There is NO MENTION of causing accidents themselves in the law.
With a legal provision that eliminates liabilities from the crash, it can be safely assumed that motorists would then begin to drive MORE UNSAFE knowing they wouldnt be held responsible for accidents.
People all behave one way knowing the law prevents them from doing otherwise, so just like the Indiana law, the republicans have given a GIFT to those Christians who will discriminate by allowing them to claim a religious claim for doing so.
Then, if they are sued, all they have to do is invoke this law and take it to the conservative courts in Indiana where they will prevail hands down.
From your link, this is the dumbest explanation of them ALL..
4. This law already exists in different forms at the federal level and in 19 states across the country. Those laws passed without nearly the same hullabaloo.
Really? "this law already exists in different forms"... How about the only similiarity is the title of the law? The language contained in them are completely different and only apply to the government and NOT PRIVATE PERSONS OR PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
That is a LARGE difference.
This bill is clearly an attempt to discriminate through a backdoor avenue, and they dont have to specifically target gays and lesbians or people of other faiths. The law is ambiguous enough to allow people to do it with just a *wink*
"this isnt a law to promote discrimination, *wink* " ~mike pence
From your link:
7 Indiana does not have a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination against gay people. Many other states do.
Gee, what a shock. No laws to prevent discrimination and then a law back up discrimination in the courts.
Cmon OLDGRAY, you couldnt possibly believe this law is ok or reasonable.
TOS.
oldngray
nowhere special
Nice selective editing by you to try to make the law say things it does NOT say.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Easy.
Their religion does not allow or accept gay marriage.
So they don't want any part of it.
You would force them to do something they don't want to do that doesn't harm any one?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
No I wouldn't. I just wish people would own up to that. The people who passed this law keep saying it doesn't allow exactly what you are here saying that it does.
I don't think baking a cake "substantially burderns" someone's exercise of religion, so I don't think this law applies. Using this law in a lawsuit to defend a baker denying service to a gay couple is a loser in court, they would have better luck using existing Indiana constitutional law, which has allowed that all along. This law is just putting on a show for ultra-conservative religious types.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
The irony is that the purpose of this law was to pander to republicans upset about gay marriage in Indiana. The real result in the wake of the uproar by democrats, is most likely going to be a future Indiana sexual orientation anti-discrimination bill. What a country.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
I'm of the belief that what is left of the "conservative" movement consists of mostly of bunch of societal rejects who all have some form of mental illness...I'm still confused about the Religious restoration part of this. What needs to be restored? I don't remember any new laws restricting Religion. Is this another Voter Fraud Red Herring? Create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist? I wonder what they are doing in secret that they need this for a distraction? The mind reels.
I believe the ones suffering from mental deficiencies are the ones who elected the POS.....I mean Potus who's there now.
The protection of business owners from being sued by people who get offended when they're refused service. A business cannot be FORCED to do anything that they feel goes against their beliefs. If I had a business and someone wanted to sue me because I decided not to serve them,
go ahead and let them. You'd have to PROVE (which is difficult) that I discriminated on you due to your race, name, sexual orientation and the like. What if I just think you're an A.....le, and won't serve you due to that fact. It'd be easier for ME to prove that someone is an
than it would for you to prove me of being homophobic, islamaphobic, transaphobic, blackaphobic or whatever other phobics you lefties can think of
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
No, my question is more along the lines of 'what is the point of this law'.
This law seems completely unnecessary, as this legislation already exists on the Federal level.
It seems to me the major difference in this law from other states' RFRAs and the Federal language is that instead of protecting the religious freedoms of individuals from the Government, this law broadens the scope to include businesses and private individuals.
In that case, of course it could be used by someone to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers. Since there is already civil rights legislation on the books, it couldn't be used to refuse service to women, blacks, handicapped people, etc., but since LGBT citizens aren't a protected class...
That person refusing service probably wouldn't win in court, but nevertheless.
I'm sympathetic to the argument 'why would you want to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell you one', or just go down the street to the other baker, but discrimination is discrimination, and we can't legislate some kinds of discrimination while we ban all the rest.
You can stand on the street corner with a sign, shout at the top of your lungs, write letters to the editor, so on and so on, if you disapprove of homosexuals and same-sex marriage, as is your First Amendment right, but that's where it ends.
Pense is backtracking at this point - it will be interesting to see where this goes.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
One thing we can prove is, you are full of hatred. Get a grip son.I believe the ones suffering from mental deficiencies are the ones who elected the POS.....I mean Potus who's there now.
The protection of business owners from being sued by people who get offended when they're refused service. A business cannot be FORCED to do anything that they feel goes against their beliefs. If I had a business and someone wanted to sue me because I decided not to serve them,
go ahead and let them. You'd have to PROVE (which is difficult) that I discriminated on you due to your race, name, sexual orientation and the like. What if I just think you're an A.....le, and won't serve you due to that fact. It'd be easier for ME to prove that someone is an
One thing we can prove is, you are full of hatred. Get a grip son.
In the words of unstateNY.....YAWN. You guys continue to ask "what is the point of this law", and when we elaborate and TRY to explain, you just call names and make it a personal thing on US users. Well, I didn't write or sign this bill, so you can't pin the bill on me.
Is it maybe because we used words that were too big? Well, hit up dictionary.com and then you'll get it.
P.S., Don't call me "son", that's one HELL of an insult
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
Umm, no.
I've been asking nicely what this law is supposed to protect, and pretty much no one has elaborated or explained anything.
You elaborated a bunch of absurdity which had nothing to do with this law or any other law.
I'll give you another shot (the same thing I've been asking all along)...
Please, elaborate and explain the purpose of this law for me.
You know my position, now defend yours.
It seems to me the major difference in this law from other states' RFRAs and the Federal language is that IN ADDITION TO protecting the religious freedoms of individuals from the Government, this law broadens the scope to include businesses and private individuals.
Taken from YOUR post, and corrected. You're saying that the Federal government CAN (and has been able to for 20 years) discriminate against gays and lesbians, but privately owned companies are Racist/homophobic (or other phobic) for seeking the same protections?
THE POINT OF THE LAW IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO GUIDE THEM IN THE WAY THEY RUN THEIR BUSINESSES.
You guys realize that MANY churches, Including Baptist churches (which have majority black/democratic congregations) don't agree with homosexuality.So when CERTAIN members on this forum try to characterize it as white Republicans being racist again, is 100% false.
Let the gays do whatever the hell they want, personally I don't care (Different strokes for different folks) but NOBODY who owns their own company should be FORCED to HAVE to grant service to anybody, and now they do not have to.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Arkansas Joins Indiana With Religious Freedom Bill
The Arkansas bill states: “The Arkansas Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion; Laws neutral toward religion have the same potential to burden religious exercise as laws purposely intended to interfere with religious exercise; Governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification.”
The Arkansas bill states: “The Arkansas Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion; Laws neutral toward religion have the same potential to burden religious exercise as laws purposely intended to interfere with religious exercise; Governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification.”
Similar threads
