Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The legislative fix reportedly would make clear that the law, which prevents government intrusion onto personal religious beliefs, does not justify denying services to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
But the paper adds that the fix will only apply to this specific law, as lawmakers decided against designating LGBT people as a “protected class,” a legal designation that extends greater protection under anti-discrimination laws. Protected classes currently include race, color, religion, age, and disability.
There’s also an exemption for nonprofit religious organizations, including churches and schools, from the fix.
Lawmakers are expected to announce the bill this morning at the Indiana Statehouse immediately before a committee hearing.
This looks like a good fix to me and appears to be something that nearly everyone should be happy with. Nobody that I have heard of wants homosexuals to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This clarifies that nicely. In fact, I would expect to see something similar in the Arkansas law, also with very strong support.
Of course this still enables a religious baker to not bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage if they feel so strongly about it, as it is not anyone's sexual orientation that is being discriminated against, but the request for the baker to commemorate a ceremony that is contrary to their religious beliefs.
As far as I am aware, the examples of homosexuals being discriminated against specifically because of their sexual orientation are few and far between. In fact, examples are apparently so hard to come by that the homosexual bullies brigade and the press has had to resort to harrassing smally family bakeries about their wedding cake policies in order to try to gin up an example that they can use to try and a controversy over.
Well, this will hopefully put that behind us. And in the highly unusual case where some baker is 1) religious, and 2) religiously objects to making a "wedding" cake for two homosexuals, surely another baker can be easily found.
Look on the bright side. Perhaps this is a business opportunity for homosexual bakers in those states that permit homosexual "marriage".
Last edited by Spartacus713; 04-02-2015 at 07:00 AM..
It surely helps raise Indiana up from the status of "despicable" and for now that should be sufficient. Of course, in the fullness of time, putting an end to unjust discrimination entirely would be called for, but we've been working on that as a species bit by bit for 350 years and it won't all magically happen in a week.
It surely helps raise Indiana up from the status of "despicable" and for now that should be sufficient. Of course, in the fullness of time, putting an end to unjust discrimination entirely would be called for, but we've been working on that as a species bit by bit for 350 years and it won't all magically happen in a week.
There is no law that will accomplish the final eradication of unjust discrimination, as at that stage, it will have to be eliminated from people's desires and banished from the human heart. It is a nice thought, in any case.
There is no law that will accomplish the final eradication of unjust discrimination, as at that stage, it will have to be eliminated from people's desires and banished from the human heart.
Precisely. There will be more changes to the law to help push that along, but in the end it will require changes way beyond the law to bring about.
Precisely. There will be more changes to the law to help push that along, but in the end it will require changes way beyond the law to bring about.
Now that the law won't undo city, or county, anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation, I can see a big push to get all cities/counties to add sexual orientation to their protections.
Civil Rights is a very difficult to fully attain. In this Country we have a large contingent of uncivil people. Gradually they are becoming a smaller influence. It will continue to take time, just look at how long we have been trying to grow out of Racism.
Now that the law won't undo city, or county, anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation, I can see a big push to get all cities/counties to add sexual orientation to their protections.
It was not ever going to undo any anti-discrimination laws, nor was it intended to. Where do you come up with this kind of nonsense?
It was not ever going to undo any anti-discrimination laws, nor was it intended to. Where do you come up with this kind of nonsense?
Quote:
As used in this chapter, "state action" means:
(1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or
policy; or
(2) the taking of any other action
Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based
on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to
the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or
policy of general applicability, unless the state or political
subdivision of the state demonstrates 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
I am still not following you. Nobody that I am aware of wants to see homosexuals antagonized or people discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. The Indiana legislature never did and is preparing to demonstrate their hearty agreement with that statement, even as we speak. The Arkansas legislature will very likely follow, once again with broad based, enthusiastic support.
That being said, religious liberties are important and they are constitutionally protected, as they should be. There is a balanced solution to be had here, which it appears the Indiana legislature has arrived at.
However, this change will still permit someone to refuse to participate in commemorating a ceremony which they find religiously objectionable, as I discussed in the OP. And of course that sort of narrow, religiously motivated accommodation needs to be provided, and fortunately, it is.
I am still not following you. Nobody that I am aware of wants to see homosexuals antagonized or people discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. The Indiana legislature never did and is preparing to demonstrate their hearty agreement with that statement, even as we speak. The Arkansas legislature will very likely follow, once again with broad based, enthusiastic support.
That being said, religious liberties are important and they are constitutionally protected, as they should be. There is a balanced solution to be had here, which it appears the Indiana legislature has arrived at.
However, this change will still permit someone to refuse to participate in commemorating a ceremony which they find religiously objectionable, as I discussed in the OP. And of course that sort of narrow, religiously motivated accommodation needs to be provided, and fortunately, it is.
The law as originally passed specifically states that religious beliefs can not be burdened, even by generally applicable laws.
Anti-discrimination laws ARE generally applicable laws.
Where in the change does it say that you can not discriminate based on your religious beliefs, unless it is for a wedding ceremony, or any other event?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
