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.
I am still digesting what it says. Seems that the key words are 'substantially burden' (see Section 9), meaning that a person may claim that to provide services to someone would 'substantially burden' their ability to exercise their religious freedom.
It appears to be rather vague (it does not actually identify gays or such as those imposing the burden). I assume, from my first reading, that one may also use this statute as a defense if they wish to deny service to those who hold different religious beliefs. I shall read it again later.
But discrimination based on religion is banned under the civil rights act as is race, color and national origin.
The stupidity in this is the power of GREEN (Money). Any business owner should not care what you do outside of his business as long as you have the green to pay him. If they are so stupid to ask questions and want to refuse service or sales, they will not be around long.
The stupidity in this is the power of GREEN (Money). Any business owner should not care what you do outside of his business as long as you have the green to pay him. If they are so stupid to ask questions and want to refuse service or sales, they will not be around long.
Private businesses should be allowed the FREEDOM to refuse service to anyone they choose.
Well that's exactly what they did in the deep south in the 60's, it seemed fair for businesses to exclude blacks. Very bad business decision and this will not end well for Indiana.
It's just another example of two force-minded groups, the Fundies and the far-lefties, trying to have it their way exclusively at the expense of everybody else. Another example of how the nation could function far more efficiently, and at far less cost if small groups of one-issue idiots weren't trying to get Big Brother to see it on their terms -- exclusively.
But discrimination based on religion is banned under the civil rights act as is race, color and national origin.
Does a state law trump federal law?
Not in the real world.
I believe they try to 'get around' that by the including the following:
This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause”.
It also provides a definition: : “'Establishment Clause' refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion”.
The law seems to be vague. Courts don't like vague laws. As I said, there is nothing therein that actually identifies any 'class' of people. It could be interpreted to include gays, transgenders, atheists, Catholics, veterans, Martians, and those missing fingers or limbs.
I believe they try to 'get around' that by the including the following:
This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause”.
It also provides a definition: : “'Establishment Clause' refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion”.
The law seems to be vague. Courts don't like vague laws. As I said, there is nothing therein that actually identifies any 'class' of people. It could be interpreted to include gays, transgenders, atheists, Catholics, veterans, Martians, and those missing fingers or limbs.
A state law can not allow something that is prohibited by federal law. If the feds have a law that says no dumping toxic waste in rivers the state cannot pass a law that does allow dumping in rivers, well they can pass it but the feds can still prosecute for it.
I see the marijuana laws as the same thing. States have passed laws that allow something prohibited by federal law. So far the feds are not enforcing the laws, but they could if they chose to.
Private businesses should be allowed the FREEDOM to refuse service to anyone they choose.
Yes, and they should also accept possible ramifications of such. Boycotts, bad publicity etc.
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.
