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.
If the public as a whole opposed allowing businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, Indiana would already have passed a law making it illegal, as would the 29 other states without them. This was a huge victory for the gay/left propaganda machine, a sympathetic media, and large business interests.
The public as a whole opposed the Indiana RFRA, yet they passed that one.
It is amazing what a mere 29000 people could accomplish in two days. I am happy to have been part of it. I am not even coming at it from the religion side. A business should be free to serve , or not serve, whomever they wish. This is not the middle ages with one bakery in town. People are not going to starve. If ACME stops selling me bread, I go to Panera. I am not going to call LBGT offices for help.
God is so amazing. Never in my dreams did I imagine the fund would raise over $700k. If we can do this, we can do anything! We have ALL the authority and ALL the power over the enemy and that's what scares the devil and the people operating for him.
The public as a whole opposed the Indiana RFRA, yet they passed that one.
The public as a whole didn't know what the RFRA stood for and what it allowed. This is so because the public as a whole was misled about the similarities between the Indiana RFRA and the Federal RFRA.
The public as a whole didn't know what the RFRA stood for and what it allowed. This is so because the public as a whole was misled about the similarities between the Indiana RFRA and the Federal RFRA.
It wasn't the similarities that were the problem, but the differences.
It wasn't the similarities that were the problem, but the differences.
The "differences" were distorted and, in many cases, were the subject of outright lies as the people pushing those distortions knew or should have known better.
As I posted in another thread, the main "differences" people try to bring up are discussed in some detail below:
Ultimately, what I'm concerned most about is the misinformation campaign. The law in question, like the Indiana law, is not all that different from the laws in approximately 20 other states and the Federal government; if you want to search for the so-called floodgates opening to discrimination based on these laws, then I expect examples of such happening based on the previously laws (you're not going to find them for the most part). Sure, Senator Schumer claims that this law is different from the Federal RFRA. Of course, people like Schumer are disingenuous with their "distinctions."
For instance, they claim that:
1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.
However:
Quote:
Supporters say that although the language is not verbatim, it's the same.
Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, cited the Dictionary Act of the United States Code, which applies to RFRA and defines a "person" to include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies and joint stock companies.
2) The bill's protection of religious liberty may be invoked not only when a person's religious freedom has been burdened, but also when it is likely to be substantially burdened by government action.
However:
Quote:
[T]his is a non-issue because the federal law has been interpreted as if the word "likely" is in the language. One does not have to be already injured or burdened to file a lawsuit.
"That's about injunctions. If you've actually been hurt by somebody violating the law, you can sue for compensation," Laycock said. "If you haven't been hurt yet, you can sue for an injunction to prevent the violation, keep yourself from being hurt."
3) The bill appears to allow using exercise of religion as a defense in judicial or administrative proceedings between private parties.
However, the Federal RFRA has already been interpreted this way by several Federal courts. Moreover:
Quote:
this provision addresses an unintended ambiguity in the federal RFRA and restores the original understanding of that law.
"The federal RFRA was clearly intended ... to make clear that it applied to suits against the government."
The "differences" were distorted and, in many cases, were the subject of outright lies as the people pushing those distortions knew or should have known better.
As I posted in another thread, the main "differences" people try to bring up are discussed in some detail below:
Ultimately, what I'm concerned most about is the misinformation campaign. The law in question, like the Indiana law, is not all that different from the laws in approximately 20 other states and the Federal government; if you want to search for the so-called floodgates opening to discrimination based on these laws, then I expect examples of such happening based on the previously laws (you're not going to find them for the most part). Sure, Senator Schumer claims that this law is different from the Federal RFRA. Of course, people like Schumer are disingenuous with their "distinctions."
For instance, they claim that:
1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.
However:
2) The bill's protection of religious liberty may be invoked not only when a person's religious freedom has been burdened, but also when it is likely to be substantially burdened by government action.
However:
3) The bill appears to allow using exercise of religion as a defense in judicial or administrative proceedings between private parties.
However, the Federal RFRA has already been interpreted this way by several Federal courts. Moreover:
Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That’s not right!
This is from Eric Miller of Advance America. He was one of the people pushing for the original law, and was standing with the Governor at the original signing.
How does it not allow discrimination when one of the lobbyists for the original law thinks it does?
This is from Eric Miller of Advance America. He was one of the people pushing for the original law, and was standing with the Governor at the original signing.
How does it not allow discrimination when one of the lobbyists for the original law thinks it does?
And that sponsor has been proven wrong by actual legal scholars who show that the original law was not different in scope/meaning from the Federal RFRA law. In all actuality, anyone hell bent in denying goods and services to gays in Indiana (a bad idea in my book as I believe that no one should be denied service anywhere based on who they love, but that's my personal belief) didn't need a RFRA as businesses in Indiana were under no obligation to serve gays to begin with as there was no non-discrimination law based on sexual orientation (outside of rulings on marriage, but that struck down prohibitions rather than afforded protections) and there are none federally.
Ultimately, though, my point is not that the original bill didn't prohibit discrimination (it does not, which is the case for the amended bill as well), but rather that the bill was consistent with other legislation that's already out there. Note, not even the Federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (such protections as far as Federal contractors go were afforded via executive order). Still, the bill doesn't "allow" anything as far as discrimination goes, whether the original or the amended bill. Rather, the bill places a balancing test against government action placing certain mandates on businesses, etc. To the best of my knowledge (and this is one thing I may have gotten wrong regarding the amended bill), the amended bill only states that private businesses may not use sexual orientation in utilizing the RFRA to deny certain people goods and services. However, without a legal mandate to serve gays and lesbians (or, more correctly, LGBT individuals), there is no need for businesses like this pizzeria to cite to the bill for justification. That point is explained in Number 2 of my list above. The law protects businesses by allowing them to object to government restrictions/mandates on the basis of their religion. This law does not, from what I understand now, mandate that businesses serve gays and lesbians, and even the "fix" goes out of its way to state that it does not serve as a general non-discrimination clause.
Edit: there seem to be some local civil rights ordinances in Indiana that may prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so the new law explicitly bans businesses from challenging those laws on the basis of religious objections. Still, from what I understand, most Indiana jurisdictions do not contain such protections, and, absent protections in State law, the fix doesn't do what many think it does. http://www.southbendtribune.com/news...2cbb8951b.html
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 04-03-2015 at 09:09 PM..
Ever notice how the faithful take care of others? No bullying. No death threats.... unlike the gay mafia. Every dollar donated is a statement in support of religious freedom!
And today the pizzeria closed its doors. What do you wanna bet they won't return the money?
It is amazing what a mere 29000 people could accomplish in two days. I am happy to have been part of it. I am not even coming at it from the religion side. A business should be free to serve , or not serve, whomever they wish. This is not the middle ages with one bakery in town. People are not going to starve. If ACME stops selling me bread, I go to Panera. I am not going to call LBGT offices for help.
You're surprised that 29,000 people would band together to support hateful actions against people they don't like? I'm not. Humans are far more eager to take action in support of things they dislike rather than things they like. You only have to read Yelp reviews to see that.
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.
