Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.

That would be ok.

But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?

What the hell?

Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.

I do.

How will the government recognize who is a member in good standing in a religion? Maybe a religious ID card or electronic chip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.

That would be ok.

But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?

What the hell?

Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.

What's a Christian? Do they all do the exact same thing, believe the exact same thing, and are they never ever hypocrites?

Besides - what someone does is irrelevant. That it's even possible, is extremely screwed up.

From a business standpoint, this has nothing to do with taking a principled stand and everything to do with the war for talent. This is just a pragmatic business decision -- there's nothing altruistic about it.

These are just some of the companies that advocated for repeal of DOMA:

Members of the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal
• A|X Armani Exchange
• Aetna Inc.
• Alcoa Inc.
• American Eagle Outfitters Inc.
• Biogen Idec
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Cardinal Health
• Diageo North America
• eBay Inc.
• Electronic Arts
• Expedia Inc.
• Group Health Cooperative
• Hyatt Hotels Corp.
• InterContinental Hotels Group
• Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC
• Marriott International Inc.
• Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
• Prudential Financial Inc.
• Replacements, Ltd.
• Sun Life Financial U.S.
• Thomson Reuters
• WeddingWire

Anonymous wrote:So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.

That would be ok.

But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?

What the hell?

Logic flaw: a Christian would never knowingly patronize a business run by gays.

So say a gay couple goes to a business that denies them service, citing this law and their conservative Christian ideology.

That would be ok.

But the same Christian can go to a business owned by the same exact gay couple, and they must provide s/he with service? The gay couple cannot deny the Christian service, citing his/her offensive religious beliefs?

What the hell?

The conservative media would like you to think these two are the same, but they aren't.

The federal law restricts the government from enforcing a law that imposes a burden on persons of a religion unless certain tests are met. This is true.

But it does not allow a private party (i.e. a person or company) to exempt itself from the law if it creates a burden on another private party. The Indiana law does. And this is wrong.

I am unsurprised that conservative media has not pointed out this distinction. It is there nonetheless.

So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?

The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.

The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't.

Source :

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

Anonymous wrote:I understand the federal government has something similar.

Really?

I understand the federal government has something similar.

Angie's List just canned a $40 million project that would have created 1,000 new jobs in Indianapolis, over this law.

I'm a bit surprised because this was the same company that helped rescue Limbaugh when advertisers were fleeing him. But I appreciate their principled stand.

But at least those thousand people are now free to become bakers, now that they will not be required to make cakes for gay people.

The full text is available at http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/ and the language is a little painful to parse, but basically, what it does is create a defense against any lawsuit or prosecution that you did/didn't do whatever you're being accused of because of your religious beliefs.

In the face of anyone who raised such a defense, the government would have to show that forcing them to do/not do whatever is claimed to be a violation of their religious beliefs is "(a) in the furtherance of a compelling government interest and (b) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."

So, if you consider yourself a good Christian restaurant that is opposed to the evils the "homosexual lifestyle," (say, Cracker Barrel), you could refuse to serve a male couple that came in holding hands and being affectionate on the grounds that having such behavior in your restaurant violated your religious beliefs, even though you would permit a heterosexual couple to engage in the same behavior.

If you were sued/prosecuted for discrimination based on such an exclusion, the plaintiff/government would have to prove that forcing you to serve that homosexual couple was both in the furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

The compelling interest standard is the highest possible standard that the government can be held to, and it's frequently difficult to achieve.

Can someone explain the new Indiana Religious Freedom law? I am guessing this law was passed as a backlash against same sex marriage with the intent to protect business owners against lawsuits for refusing to cater a same sex marriage, for example. But the law seems kind of vague. Could the law also be used to deny gay couples seats at a restaurant, hotel rooms, or other basic things? This is the twentieth state with such a law. Are the laws similar from state to state or does the language and intent vary?

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/