The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Dead Duck]

If I refuse to service what I suspect is a radical Islamist who wants me to fix his /her (don't want to be accuses of being a sexist) van that I believe will be used in a bombing, can I be persecuted for refusing to do rrpair because of a religious intolerance? Folks, let's get a life, and get back to the things that matter.

Bacon?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bacon?

Just had a rasher of bacon about 15m ago paired with a nice bourbon.

 

[AA&E]

You'd think a group of people who are into gun rights wouldn't be for any law allowing businesses to refuse customers for any reason.

Come on INGO.

This.

 

[AA&E]

So did folks in the South before 1964 (and some to this day).

We just cemented Indiana's reputation as a backwards state, and did it by a landslide.

Who elected these clowns, anyway?

Hate and discrimination are always repugnant, and doubly so when they hide behind the guise of religion.

And this.

What's next? "Whites only" signs on the local diner getting dusted off and put back in the front glass?

 

[rw02kr43]

I'm disappointed my church has felt the need to put on a show and grandstand against this bill. Saying if it passes they will hold their conference somewhere else. Im thinking I should go somewhere else too. I'm supposed to go to a class there tonight. I might just remove myself from the membership list. Im sure they won't care.

Jason

 

[traderdan]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this bill offends you....get over it. Waste of time and money?...Time will tell.

 

[hoosierdoc]

We can all get sued for ANYTHING. Be careful what we wish for as we might just get it. I oppose any law based on irrational fear. Will this law affect my life? Not likely. But why do we need more dumbass laws? I thought most here were opposed to "feel good" laws? This is one of those instances where someone say back and said to themselves, " There ought to be a law." We know how many useful laws stem from that.

Why can I refuse to do something as a doctor but not a baker?

Denny, you are wrong in your first sentence. You know that and you are being disingenuous. There are laws specifically limiting what you can get sued for. Specifically firearm related ones too. Why is this such a big deal? It's more than "another useless law". The opposition is far beyond just upset that the legislature took a few hours of work to come up with it.

I have not heard a single cogent opposing statement that didn't make blanket statements of "backward state, useless, racist, bigoted, etc." I have seen no examples of how this law will actually, in the real world, negatively affect someone. Please post so that I can consider them.

 

[jamil]

Just because I like to play devils advocate, wonder if there would be an outrage because a business refused service to Christians
Their decision would be protected under this correct?

It'd be financial suicide no doubt as well as close-minded, but it was a "what-if" that crossed my mind (although very unlikely)

Huh? No. First, I highly suspect you're not just playing devil's advocate.

This bill is not an instance of nullification. There are a dozen or so protected classes in the CRA. Religion is one of them. LGBT is not. Your scenario would violate Federal law.

But anyway, let's play along and pretend that MRJARRELL's dream has come true and religion has been stricken from the CRA as a protected class, and even the constitution. To answer the question in that context, it depends.

If the Christian is an activist member of some political social advocacy group, pragmatically trying to push social change, I'd guess probably they'd bait some business that was overtly anti-Christian, get them to deny service, make a big deal of it, and make sure they plaster it all over social media and sympathetic news orgs, presenting the business owner as a radical nutbag.

Of course, same as I would imagine that most LGBTs aren't political operatives, the Christian would probably just quietly take his or her business elsewhere.

 

[cobber]

When is the rally to repeal the federal RFRA? Which has resulted in untold oppression?

 

[chipbennett]

Going back to your other post, no one is forcing you to do anything. No one is holding a gun to your head ordering you to bake the cake. Everybody gets offended or doesn't want to do something because it's against their morals at some point in their lives. Especially if you're that unlucky baker we keep talking about. Oh you don't want to make the cake because of your morals? Then don't make the dumb cake, it's your wallet that's getting hit, not your high-horse. The other side can learn that lesson too. They denied you service? Go somewhere else with your money. No one's forcing you to shop there. You got holier-than-thou snobs on one side and entitled idiots on the other, I'll leave you to figure out who's who.

Except that's not what has happened. In the case of the wedding cake baker, and the wedding photographer, both were dragged into the courts, whereupon both were forced by the courts to act against their conscience under penalty of law, and under threat of state-imposed consequences.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577

(Oh, and that bakery? The lawsuit essentially forced it to close its doors.)

In the case of the photographer, the NM Supreme Court basically told her: you can keep taking wedding photos, but you can't offer your services to the public at-large.

It has absolutely nothing to do with a high horse, and everything to do with the right not to have the state force you to do something that would violate your conscience.

 

[chipbennett]

My issue is that the "problem" is a figment of imagination.

Perhaps you don't know what "figment of imagination" means?

Oregon baker forced to pay gay couple $15,000 for refusing to bake wedding cake:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577

Colorado baker forced by judge to bake wedding cake for gay couple:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...es-gay-weddings-panel-rules-article-1.1811676

New Mexico Supreme Court rules wedding photographer violated civil rights by not photographing gay wedding:
ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY LLC v. WILLOCK - FindLaw

 

[Denny347]

Why can I refuse to do something as a doctor but not a baker?

The baker can. In Indiana it was not an issue and there was not a single sign it was going to become one in the future. There has not been a single lawsuit forcing the issue either. Not even the threat of one.

Denny, you are wrong in your first sentence. You know that and you are being disingenuous. There are laws specifically limiting what you can get sued for. Specifically firearm related ones too. Why is this such a big deal? It's more than "another useless law". The opposition is far beyond just upset that the legislature took a few hours of work to come up with it.

Those laws are VERY few. In reality, it takes very little to get sued. Now, I did not say "get sued successfully", as many of those do not make it past summary judgement.

I have not heard a single cogent opposing statement that didn't make blanket statements of "backward state, useless, racist, bigoted, etc." I have seen no examples of how this law will actually, in the real world, negatively affect someone. Please post so that I can consider them.

The negative attention is based on image. When we have a local economy HEAVILY dependent on conventions, image is everything. We risk our image for a law that fixed NOTHING. I have yet to shown an example of where someone (or business) was injured that REQUIRED this law. The threat was made up.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It has absolutely nothing to do with a high horse,

Right, and no man ever carried a gun to compensate.

 

[Denny347]

Perhaps you don't know what "figment of imagination" means?

Oregon baker forced to pay gay couple $15,000 for refusing to bake wedding cake:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577

Colorado baker forced by judge to bake wedding cake for gay couple:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...es-gay-weddings-panel-rules-article-1.1811676

New Mexico Supreme Court rules wedding photographer violated civil rights by not photographing gay wedding:
ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY LLC v. WILLOCK - FindLaw

And those cases have ZERO influence here and there was no indication that it was going to change. If you sited a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling, I'd be with you. State courts and even State Supreme Courts have little to no influence here.

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't know whether this has already been posted, but here is a fairly rational statement in support of the act.

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

ITs worth a read.

 

[Hawkeye]

And for those who bemoan Indiana's possible religous freedom act - the following article shows it may not be that easy for them to find a venue where these rules aren't present.

1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? - The Volokh Conspiracy

 

[jamil]

Yeah, you're right, he was talking about unicorns. LOL.

Wait, didn't he get a temp ban for that?

I'm looking forward to the rastafarians being able to legally smoke dope in Indiana now.

You keep saying it says more than it says. Why is that?

And those cases have ZERO influence here and there was no indication that it was going to change. If you sited a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling, I'd be with you. State courts and even State Supreme Courts have little to no influence here.

Well, it had enough influence to get the Republicans to push this through. Of course progressive libertarian atheists might get excited about it and try to paint a sky-falling picture. But I'm pretty agnostic about the whole deal. I'm inclined to yawn while rolling my eyes at the Republican's pragmatism in using this to ensure their tenure.

 

[PistolBob]

So come on Governor Pence...time to poop or get off the pot.

 

[chipbennett]

Right, and no man ever carried a gun to compensate.

Progressives do have a penchant for projection, which is where such nonsense started.

 

[chipbennett]

And those cases have ZERO influence here and there was no indication that it was going to change. If you sited a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling, I'd be with you. State courts and even State Supreme Courts have little to no influence here.

I'm not talking about precedent; I'm talking about likelihood of seeing similar lawsuits attempted here in Indiana. Such a law merely preempts such attempts.