Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

No. No. And no. Educate yourselves, people. This is NOT about discrimination.

That seems to be exactly what this is about. PP's hypothetical -- every service provider refusing service -- seems to be fairly likely under this law.

Few things are what they seem. This is nonsense.

Explain why.

[Anonymous]

Glad to hear Gov Pence is planning to revise the RFRA. His story about its intent doesn't add up though. The three guys standing directly behind Gov Pence in this signing photo are all known anti-gay activists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives thought they had a new angle with Obamacare and contraceptives. As usual they went for it. But they overplayed their hand, and now they have introduced social issues into the 2016 election cycle again.

Yes, based on an article I just read on the NBC news site it seems like Pence is now pivoting to this being about contraception and Obamacare. How could Indiana make such a simpleton their governor? This social issue is a golden ticket for Democrats. Yay.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pence-pins-need-indiana-religious-freedom-law-obamacare-n332926

It's not his fault. The law itself puts him in an untenable position. It either does allow people to refuse to serve gays or it doesn't. If it does, the corporations, groups and individuals expressing their dissatisfaction are correct in their interpretation of the law. If on the other hand, it does not allow people to refuse gays, it's pretty clear that it will upset the many conservative constituencies which lobbied for the law.

So it seems like in the end he's going to piss off someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

No. No. And no. Educate yourselves, people. This is NOT about discrimination.

That seems to be exactly what this is about. PP's hypothetical -- every service provider refusing service -- seems to be fairly likely under this law.

Few things are what they seem. This is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. And the fact that so many posters say it should allow business to refuse service to gays proves it. If you want to argue that's not illegal, fine, it's for the courts to decide. But it is discrimination. And discrimination is not nonsense. Claiming that the act of baking a cake is "participating" in a marriage is nonsense. And as soon as a hotel refuses to book a gay wedding on these grounds, it will be a very big deal.

[Anonymous]

Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?

If people are being honest, they cannot.

I am from Indiana and I am still fairly informed through my siblings. TBH, if "pro-religious" types had been the ones lobbying for the bill, that is one thing. Because you presumably would have had folks from different faiths weigh in. As PP pointed out, this bill was championed more by the anti-gay lobby than it was the "pro-faith" lobby and those were almost all Evangelical Christians. That should tell you something about intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?

“This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier state,” Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said. He added: “This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.”

There you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, President Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Not the same.

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. 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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?

“This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier state,” Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said. He added: “This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.”

There you go.

I'm a religious person. I still believe this is discrimination. Religion doesn't give you the right to discriminate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:let's cut to the chase., It's homo fascism. - You will accept my lifestyle and cater to me or I will destroy you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please someone explain to me how this isn't about discrimination?

“This legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the Hoosier state,” Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said. He added: “This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.”

There you go.

Then they need to amend this law because the last part of it definitely gives citizens the ability to discriminate.

[Anonymous]

Now that Pence is backpedaling, I want to see whether Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz will continue to stand by the original law as passed, or will instead backpedal to support the Pence revision. I think they will try like hell to avoid commenting on the issue further. But if some diligent reporter insists on a direct answer, I suspect Cruz and Bush are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and so will support the Pence revision. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that Pence is backpedaling, I want to see whether Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz will continue to stand by the original law as passed, or will instead backpedal to support the Pence revision. I think they will try like hell to avoid commenting on the issue further. But if some diligent reporter insists on a direct answer, I suspect Cruz and Bush are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and so will support the Pence revision. What do you think?

Only reason he's backpedaling is because NCAA President Mark Emmert said, "We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that Pence is backpedaling, I want to see whether Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz will continue to stand by the original law as passed, or will instead backpedal to support the Pence revision. I think they will try like hell to avoid commenting on the issue further. But if some diligent reporter insists on a direct answer, I suspect Cruz and Bush are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and so will support the Pence revision. What do you think?

Only reason he's backpedaling is because NCAA President Mark Emmert said, "We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees."

And Emmert's comments are legit and drive home a big point. The NCAA's HQ is in Indy and its flagship event will be in Indy this weekend - the Final Four. The Super Bowl was there a couple of years ago. So...yea, Emmert's statement underscores a significant point. What will be the perception and economic impact on the state be if this law is not "clarified?" As governor, he needs to consider that after not seemingly given it enough thought when he signed the darn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that Pence is backpedaling, I want to see whether Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz will continue to stand by the original law as passed, or will instead backpedal to support the Pence revision. I think they will try like hell to avoid commenting on the issue further. But if some diligent reporter insists on a direct answer, I suspect Cruz and Bush are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and so will support the Pence revision. What do you think?

Only reason he's backpedaling is because NCAA President Mark Emmert said, "We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees."

Derp. He picked a bad week to sign this stupid law. Final Four TV ratings are primed to be through the roof but the color of all of the background stories will be about how the site of the FF now allows discrimination.