Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

It's not a cover for anything. It's exactly what we're saying it is...a compromise that allows each side the freedom to live and breathe without compelling the other to submit.

[selias 2,398]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

Try again

http://thinkprogress...us-freedom-law/

Um, I know about that difference. The only reason that is in there is to protect people not just from the government compelling them through fines or jail time to violate their beliefs, but from individuals doing the same via lawsuits. And as the cases in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have shown, such a provision is much needed.

If you'd known about the differences you wouldn't have spouted off with "virtually identical" or perhaps the legal nuances escape your comprehension. You're an Auburn Man so I assumed a certain level of competency.

I knew about the differences. If you knew the difference in "exactly" and "virtually" you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with this sidebar.

The two laws are not even even in the same ZIP code.

The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs.

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

[homersapien 11,354]

If Mr. Dreher is trying to generate empathy for Christians - much less winning people over to Christianity - he has failed miserably.

His post wasn't really addressed to non-Christians. It was simply letting Christians know what to understand and what the landscape is now. Common sense and compromise has gone out the window so just get ready for it.

I would certainly hope not.

Trouble is, you can't control who reads it. What I said is true, regardless of his intentions.

Trouble is, neither he nor I care whether you read it. I wouldn't have posted it if I was concerned you might not like it or think more badly about Christians than you already do.

It's just giving people the lay of the land. This is what we see coming down the road. I don't think you can really seriously, given what we are seeing happen now, say he's off base.

Don't imply that I think badly about Christians because I don't. I don't consider the people who back this sort of justified discrimination as real Christians. In fact, for that matter, I don't consider most self-identified Christians as genuine. At least as I understand the "gospel". What would Jesus do?

I thought Christians believed we are all sinners. If so, why are they making a special case for homosexuals? You don't see Christian florists qualifying a man who is buying flowers based on who they are for - his wife or his adulterous girlfriend?

This crap about "participating" (in a wedding) is lame. Selling a cake or taking pictures is not enabling anything nor does it constitute 'participation' in the ceremony. The only real participates are the betrothed couple and the minister - or judge - who administers the oaths. This "participation" argument is a contrived way of spinning their bias into a false coercion or persecution from the people they object to.

You can disagree all you want, but it seems that most people understand that. Does anyone really believe these laws weren't sparked specifically by opposition to homosexuals having the right to get married? Of course not.

Having said that, I don't personally see these laws as a credible threat to the civil liberties of homosexuals.

If anything, they will have just the opposite effect. It's the 'militant Christian' business owners who are ultimately going to suffer from this. They are clearly on the wrong side of history.

This is why I would have them advertise the fact they would deny business to homosexuals. That seems fair to me. Why put the burden on businesses who are willing to comply with the spirit an letter of our civil rights laws to advertise that fact.

If you are unwilling to provide your service or product to a certain class of law abiding people, then maybe you shouldn't try to operate a business catering to the general public. At least in this country. This is the moral equivalent of refusing to serve blacks at the main counter because your religious beliefs instruct you not to.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs.

Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests.

Wrong again. From earlier in the thread:

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.

Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)

Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter.

[RunInRed 16,360]

Those defending Pence and Indiana and other state's taking similar actions are going to come out of the wrong side of this ... MMW.

[homersapien 11,354]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

http://www.theatlant...fferent/388997/

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

"..........you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down......"

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Don't imply that I think badly about Christians because I don't. I don't consider the people who back this sort of justified discrimination as real Christians. In fact, for that matter, I don't consider most self-identified Christians as genuine. At least as I understand the "gospel". What would Jesus do?

I support laws that protect people's right to freedom of conscience. I am a real Christian. So are legions of others just like me, who bear no ill will toward gays and lesbians, but have limits to the things that we can in good conscience lend our time and talents to be part of or promote.

I thought Christians believed we are all sinners. If so, why are they making a special case for homosexuals? You don't see Christian florists qualifying a man who is buying flowers based on who they are for - his wife or his adulterous girlfriend?

That's exactly my question. Why are homosexuals so special? If I were a photographer, I wouldn't do photo shoots for porn. That doesn't mean I hate the people who are in porn or that I think they are sinners and I am not. I wouldn't do an album shoot for an artist with lyrics that were offensive to me or others. That doesn't mean I hate musicians.

This crap about "participating" (in a wedding) is lame. Selling a cake or taking pictures is not enabling anything nor does it constitute 'participation' in the ceremony. The only real participates are the betrothed couple and the minister - or judge - who administers the oaths. This "participation" argument is a contrived way of spinning their bias into a false coercion or persecution from the people they object to.

This isn't some sheet cake you pick up from the cooler at Publix. And taking pictures is not just setting up a video camera and walking off. You are there, involved in every single aspect of the wedding from beginning thorugh the reception. It's ludicrous to think that shouldn't be an issue for someone with sincerely held beliefs regarding the nature of marriage and sexuality.

You can disagree all you want, but it seems that most people understand that. Does anyone really believe these laws weren't sparked specifically by opposition to homosexuals having the right to get married? Of course not.

People who don't give a s*** about religious liberty "understand" it. It's unreasonable to them, so they don't see why it should bother Christians eitehr.

Having said that, I don't personally see these laws as a credible threat to the civil liberties of homosexuals.

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue to have these laws. The so called "threat" doesn't pass the least restrictive means test.

If anything, they will have just the opposite effect. It's the 'militant Christian' business owners who are ultimately going to suffer from this. They are clearly on the wrong side of history.

This is why I would have them advertise the fact they would deny business to homosexuals. That seems fair to me. Why put the burden on businesses who are willing to comply with the spirit an letter of our civil rights laws to advertise that fact.

If you are unwilling to provide your service or product to a certain class of law abiding people, then maybe you shouldn't try to operate a business catering to the general public. At least in this country. This is the moral equivalent of refusing to serve blacks at the main counter because your religious beliefs instruct you not to.

I think the business owners are perfectly willing to accept that some people won't agree and will take their business elsewhere. They'll continue to serve customers of all races, creeds, sexualities but when an event, project or occasion arises where they don't feel they can in good conscience lend their time and talents to it because of the content, they simply wish for the freedom to abstain and allow someone else to provide those services.

[selias 2,398]

You are completely ignoring (intentionally?) one of the key differences between the two. The Federal RFRA law is between the government and a private citizen. The Indiana RFRA makes no such distinction.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

deleted name calling

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

http://www.theatlant...fferent/388997/

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

"..........you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down......"

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

You are completely ignoring (intentionally?) one of the key differences between the two. The Federal RFRA law is between the government and a private citizen. The Indiana RFRA makes no such distinction.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

deleted name calling

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said that because of the cases in New Mexico and other states that Indiana's also protects against actions from individuals.

And you will not resort to name calling.

[homersapien 11,354]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

http://www.theatlant...fferent/388997/

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

"..........you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down......"

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

You claimed the laws were the same. This explains why that is not true. There are significant differences.

Are you seriously suggesting this law was not created to specifically to allow discrimination against gays?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Those defending Pence and Indiana and other state's taking similar actions are going to come out of the wrong side of this ... MMW.

I will defend Pence and other states because most of the stuff being fomented about this thing is a load of manure. And the people pushing it know it, but it's useful to get what they want so they don't care. They are purposely misrepresenting the views of people who seek these protections and the realistic effects of the laws in question.

[RunInRed 16,360]

Taken from the article posted by homer above I as well see two big differences between Indiana's and the national RFRA law ...

1) Indiana's law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language.

2) Indiana's law also contains this: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” RFRA does not say anything like this.

Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches and further, it explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

So let's get real here, any way you spin, Indiana's law puts new obstacles in the path of equality yet it's defenders keep telling us that it is “nothing new.” Sorry, not buying. And you shouldn't either. Discrimination is discrimination.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

http://www.theatlant...fferent/388997/

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

"..........you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down......"

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

You claimed the laws were the same. This explains why that is not true. There are significant differences.

Are you seriously suggesting this law was not created to specifically to allow discrimination against gays?

I have said at least three times on this thread now that they are virtually identical, but that Indiana's also includes protections from individuals, not just gov't entities, and the case in New Mexico was a key reason as to why such provisions are needed.

And yes, I am telling you the reason these laws are being sought is to prevent people from being forced to be party to events, projects and such that have content they cannot in good conscience be part of. No one is asking for the right to refuse to serve the gay dude his fried chicken at the local diner.

[selias 2,398]

You are completely ignoring (intentionally?) one of the key differences between the two. The Federal RFRA law is between the government and a private citizen. The Indiana RFRA makes no such distinction.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

deleted name calling

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said that because of the cases in New Mexico and other states that Indiana's also protects against actions from individuals.

And you will not resort to name calling.

The NM decision has no impact on Indiana. Those are state courts. Indiana's definition is much more broad.

What would you prefer I call you? deleted more slandering.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Taken from the article posted by homer above I as well see two big differences between Indiana's and the national RFRA law ...

1) Indiana's law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language.

2) Indiana's law also contains this: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” RFRA does not say anything like this.

Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches and further, it explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

So let's get real here, any way you spin, Indiana's law puts new obstacles in the path of equality yet it's defenders keep telling us that it is “nothing new.” Sorry, not buying. And you shouldn't either. Discrimination is discrimination.

Again, ground already covered. It is trying to address the wrongs that were perpetrated by private lawsuits from individuals such as the case of the photographer in New Mexico. It is not substantially different except that it recognizes that threats to their religious freedom don't just come from government.

[selias 2,398]

Taken from the article posted by homer above I as well see two big differences between Indiana's and the national RFRA law ...

1) Indiana's law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language.

2) Indiana's law also contains this: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” RFRA does not say anything like this.

Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches and further, it explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

So let's get real here, any way you spin, Indiana's law puts new obstacles in the path of equality yet it's defenders keep telling us that it is “nothing new.” Sorry, not buying. And you shouldn't either. Discrimination is discrimination.

Bingo!

[TitanTiger 20,471]

You are completely ignoring (intentionally?) one of the key differences between the two. The Federal RFRA law is between the government and a private citizen. The Indiana RFRA makes no such distinction.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

deleted name calling

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said that because of the cases in New Mexico and other states that Indiana's also protects against actions from individuals.

And you will not resort to name calling.

The NM decision has no impact on Indiana. Those are state courts. Indiana's definition is much more broad.

It has every impact. It is quite apparent that if you don't spell out such protections in law, the courts will allow the lawsuits to punish people anyway. So they put that in there explicitly.

What would you prefer I call you? deleted more slandering

You can call me by my screenname, or you can refrain from calling me anything. That's strike two. Do it again and get a timeout.

We can disagree. We can disagree passionately. But you're not going to turn this into an ad hominem fest to pad your stats.

[homersapien 11,354]

Don't imply that I think badly about Christians because I don't. I don't consider the people who back this sort of justified discrimination as real Christians. In fact, for that matter, I don't consider most self-identified Christians as genuine. At least as I understand the "gospel". What would Jesus do?

I support laws that protect people's right to freedom of conscience. I am a real Christian. So are legions of others just like me, who bear no ill will toward gays and lesbians, but have limits to the things that we can in good conscience lend our time and talents to be part of or promote.

I don't believe that for a second. Anyone who supports this law is clearly opposed to the rights of homosexuals to marry.

If you cannot, in "good conscience", provide products or services to homosexuals that you freely provide to heterosexuals then you should find a business that doesn't require you to do so.

Just as no one would force you to work in an abortion clinic, no one is forcing you to operate a business that caters to people's weddings.

[selias 2,398]

You are completely ignoring (intentionally?) one of the key differences between the two. The Federal RFRA law is between the government and a private citizen. The Indiana RFRA makes no such distinction.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

deleted name calling

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said that because of the cases in New Mexico and other states that Indiana's also protects against actions from individuals.

And you will not resort to name calling.

The NM decision has no impact on Indiana. Those are state courts. Indiana's definition is much more broad.

It has every impact. It is quite apparent that if you don't spell out such protections in law, the courts will allow the lawsuits to punish people anyway. So they put that in there explicitly.

What would you prefer I call you? deleted more slandering

You can call me by my screenname, or you can refrain from calling me anything. That's strike two. Do it again and get a timeout.

It's clear you just don't get the distinction.

You are what you are and no sugar-coating will change it. I will gladly take a time out for standing up to bullies like you. The same type that would take a law like this and bludgeon your fellow citizens with it. I don't stand for it in my personal life, my work life and certainly not in regards to my alma mater.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Don't imply that I think badly about Christians because I don't. I don't consider the people who back this sort of justified discrimination as real Christians. In fact, for that matter, I don't consider most self-identified Christians as genuine. At least as I understand the "gospel". What would Jesus do?

I support laws that protect people's right to freedom of conscience. I am a real Christian. So are legions of others just like me, who bear no ill will toward gays and lesbians, but have limits to the things that we can in good conscience lend our time and talents to be part of or promote.

I don't believe that for a second. Anyone who supports this law is clearly opposed to the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Probably. But the law isn't keeping them from getting married. They get to get married, those who have a profound religious difference on what marriage is get to not be compelled to be part of it.

If you cannot, in "good conscience", provide products or services to homosexuals that you freely provide to heterosexuals then you should find a business that doesn't require you to do so.

I can in good conscience provide all manner of products and services to gays and lesbians, just as I would provide them to any race, sex or creed. But if someone wants me to use my time, talents, presence and/or artistic abilities to promote or celebrate events and projects with content I cannot support according to my beliefs, then I should have the right to turn that business down.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

It's clear you just don't get the distinction.

I get the distinction. I understand government vs individuals. And the case in New Mexico made it clear that protection from individuals was needed also or the law was meaningless.

You are what you are and no sugar-coating will change it. I will gladly take a time out for standing up to bullies like you.

It'll be more than a timeout if you can't learn to debate with someone you disagree with and leave the slander and name calling out of it.

Debate like a grown up or leave. Your choice.

[homersapien 11,354]

Having said that, I don't personally see these laws as a credible threat to the civil liberties of homosexuals.

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue to have these laws. The so called "threat" doesn't pass the least restrictive means test.

Laws that enable discrimination based on sexuality are an issue regardless of how much damage is done.

To say otherwise is akin to justifying segregation on the basis of 'separate but equal' accommodations.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Having said that, I don't personally see these laws as a credible threat to the civil liberties of homosexuals.

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue to have these laws. The so called "threat" doesn't pass the least restrictive means test.

Laws that enable discrimination based on sexuality are an issue regardless of how much damage is done.

To say otherwise is akin to justifying segregation on the basis of 'separate but equal' accommodations.

False equivalency. No one is suggesting carte blanche ability to refuse to do business with gays. If I turn down a black musician's album shoot because of the content of his lyrics, I'm not discriminating against him because of his race. Now if I was refusing to serve other blacks with no objectionable content (even if it's perfectly legal for him to sing whatever he wants), then you'd have a point. Likewise, unless I'm refusing to serve gays in general, the charge doesn't stick just because I wish to pass on gay wedding business.

[homersapien 11,354]

Tell that to Bill Clinton and the US Congress that pass the original RFRA that this one is virtually identical to. How about reading the actual bill first before posting irrelevant propaganda posters?

http://www.theatlant...fferent/388997/

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

"..........you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down......"

Ground already covered. The NM case was part of the reason...the threat to being compelled to comply doesn't just come from gov't entities. Thus protections from expensive lawsuits from individuals was needed as well.

You claimed the laws were the same. This explains why that is not true. There are significant differences.

Are you seriously suggesting this law was not created to specifically to allow discrimination against gays?

I have said at least three times on this thread now that they are virtually identical, but that Indiana's also includes protections from individuals, not just gov't entities, and the case in New Mexico was a key reason as to why such provisions are needed.

And yes, I am telling you the reason these laws are being sought is to prevent people from being forced to be party to events, projects and such that have content they cannot in good conscience be part of. No one is asking for the right to refuse to serve the gay dude his fried chicken at the local diner.

That's a distinction without a difference. Baking someone a cake or accepting a photography job is not forcing you to participate in a marriage.

If you really feel it is, then look for another line of work.