The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Dead Duck]

$450,000
Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

 

[Ericpwp]

Half a mil in a day.

The next one will be an inside job.

 

[bwframe]

Now that it seems as though this bloody battle is over, what are we to do with our iPads and iPhones?
Our Lilly drugs, our NCAA and our NASCAR?

 

[AceDerringer]

Indiana 'Fixed' Its Religious Liberty Law. Here's What It Means

 

[Kutnupe14]

$450,000
Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

edit: nevermind, I'm stupid
I hope they get their money.

 

[AA&E]

How does this bill create a state religion, or rubber stamp anyone's beliefs? Rubber stamp implies some process of approval/disapproval. It has never been this government's role to approve or disapprove of anyone's beliefs. Why do you think it should be now? It is a legitimate role of government to set standards for what to do when rights collide.

So why must the preference now go to the one asking for service, rather than to the provider? And, actually, even that's not the effective criteria today. The effective criteria is, the preference goes to the side the in-crowd favors most. If I can think of a reason this law should ever be necessary is that.

I think everyone has a right to be who they are. If a person is gay, straight, republican, democrat, christian, atheist, whatever, no one has a right to deny them the right to be that and to practice that. But like my right to swing my fist should end before it hits your nose, the person's right to be who they are should not impose their practice on other people, business owners or not. But that's exactly what pop culture is demanding now.

I never said this bill was a creation of state religion, but do believe that if you look at the overall climate you can see where this is headed. I personally disagree with abortion. I feel it is murder. But I also feel a large part of the laws attempting to restrict it's practice in more conservative states is based upon religious influence. The attempts at banning gay marriage, once again... based upon religious objection. I personally do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but it's not my job to judge them. Therefore, I don't want my religious beliefs impacting their lives via legislation passed in my interest. It's the same thing as personally passing judgment in my eyes. Which as I have previously stated, isn't my right nor responsibility.

 

[cobber]

fyi: this is satirical

To be sure, but in this day and age, it's getting harder and harder to tell...


HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

This one's legit, however.

 

[AA&E]

But you said "constituency", which means people. If you instead mean "belief", then I would certainly agree in part, and would disagree in part. All legislators create, approve, or reject legislation based upon their own beliefs - religious beliefs or otherwise. It would be nearly impossible for people not to do so. And doing so is not inherently wrong or harmful.

Personally, I believe that trying to legislate morality is ineffective, and wrong. So, to that extent, I agree with you.

But all laws, regardless of the beliefs from which they are derived, are subject to the constraints put in place through the Constitution.



I believe that the law was necessary. I also believe that there are likely some supporters in the legislature who supported the bill because doing so would please their constituents. I fail to see how legislating in a manner consistent with the desires of one's constituents is somehow a bad thing.

Regardless, no matter what religious influence factored into the drafting or approval of the legislation, the impact of the law is limited to what is actually written in the legislation. If someone wrote or supported the bill as a way to "get back" at gay marriage support, then such people will be sorely disappointed, because the law has zero effect on gay marriage.



Oh, this is quite true. I think all laws that restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens are unconstitutional. I think that immigration checkpoints 100 miles away from an international border are unconstitutional.

My point, if I'm following you correctly, was that complaints that religious exercise is somehow improperly singled out for protection are specious, because religious exercise is explicitly protected by the constitution. I'm not opposed to people challenging that. But the way to do so is to amend the constitution, not to rail against a constitutional law such as the RFRA.



By my reading of the law, it is *more*, not less, likely that an issue would have its day in court. In fact, that's one of the reasons for one of the much-maligned differences between the federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA: establishing the right of the government entity to join a proceeding in order to defend a law (etc.).



Are you certain that you're referring to a comment of mine? I don't remember discussing marijuana in this topic, and tend to avoid its discussion whenever it comes up in various topics, so I would be highly surprised if it was me.

I don't see any inherent reason why someone could not claim a sincere religious belief involving the use of marijuana as a sacrament. There may be other reasons to find against such a claim (I posted a link to an article that discussed a related case).

I certainly wouldn't shrug my shoulders or fail to give a **** to others' right to liberty, whether I agree with their beliefs, choices, lifestyles, etc. or not.

Our motivation and beliefs might differ slightly Chip, but you and I are closer on these matters than our disagreements might suggest. Perhaps I misspoke when I said constituency.. perhaps a better term would have been organizations, leaderships, PAC's... this nation would be so much better as a whole if you could take the money and influence out of it. If every law were just looked at face value... those days I fear are gone.

Regarding this bill, I can see your point that this is a protection under the bill of rights and the freedom to practice your religious beliefs. My one concern is churches have not always historically been on the right side of movements. Many white churches were opposed to abolishing slavery, seems mind boggling today, doesn't it? But consider many churches just 60 years ago were not segregated themselves and were opposed to civil rights. It is difficult to fathom that any of God's followers could defend such an argument, but we are only a few generations removed from those days. While there is without question a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, I wonder if today the church is still on the right side of the matter by imparting their influence and voice into the political realm on matters regarding gay marriage. My church preaches this is an abomination of God. But when you view the bigger picture.. how all men are born into sin.. all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord... the casting of stones by those who have sinned themselves...

I just appreciate the fact my church tells me that it is my duty to not judge, love all of God's creations despite their imperfections, attempt to bring his teachings into others lives, etc. My church has let me off the hook of passing judgment and for that I am grateful. I am not a perfect human being, I often find myself witness some level of ridiculous liberal double standard that makes me retort before I can quell the notion within my mind.

I do my best at living by those teachings, I fail often. As imperfect as I am despite my best efforts who am I to condemn another for his sins, or to tell him how it is he should live his life?


I hope you are correct in this improving the rights of people having their day in court. My concern is one side will be able to state "my religion views **** as a sin and I can not be a part of it"... and the court looks to this law and says OK.

I might have been wrong regarding who made the comment regarding the church with the marijuana sacrament. While I personally find their beliefs to be suspect, once again it's not my right/responsibility. Obviously at some point there will have to be decisions made and judgments passed by man. You couldn't have a church that allows sex with children, could you? Unfortunately that has been the case. I heard on the news that a law like this was used in Texas to defend the rights of a Latter Day Saint follower that had a wife that was a minor child under the state's age of consent. It was an arranged marriage. This was on MSNBC and I caught the back end of the story as I was just flipping through the channels so I do not know how it ended up. Given the source I am suspect for that reason as well. But once again, could this be abused under such a law?

 

[AA&E]

Here's where we disagree. To make such a claim using the RFRA, the person would first have to show that the service in question represents a substantial burden to the exercise of religion. That hurdle is not a guarantee. I find it hard to believe that a court would reasonably find that taking a cupcake out of the display case, and handing it to someone in exchange for money, represents a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

And even if that hurdle can be cleared, the government entity then has the opportunity to make a case that the substantial burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest, done in the least-restrictive way possible. The right of public accommodation is the compelling government interest, and I can't think of any less-restrictive means to further that interest.

Maybe that is largely the biggest issue here. A misconception of what is and is not acceptable. I haven't had a chance to see the clarification of this bill. But at this point the mobs have formed and they aren't going to agree with any change to be sufficient regardless of how fair it is.

I saw on the news last night one of the businesses that condemned Indiana and is threatening to withdraw their business/workers does business with Saudi Arabia. A nation the executes homosexuals. Quite the double standard in their enforcement of their beliefs.

 

[AA&E]

CNN is enjoying this witch-hunt so much, they're going out of their way to find more Christian-owned businesses.

The media is the largest part of the issue. They drive these controversies to sell their product. We saw it in Ferguson. We saw it with the ebola scare. They hype anything they can and this issue is no different. All media outlets have become tabloid in nature. I had stated earlier I haven't listened to talk radio in nearly 20 years because I didn't want anyone telling me what to think, the mainstream media does that enough.

 

[AA&E]

I love it when 2 percent tells 98 percent how they are going to think and act.

I am not saying in this case you are not correct, but percentages shouldn't factor into the argument. Once upon a time less then 20% of the populace was enslaved by the other 80+%... didn't make it right or any less tragic. Just made it a more popular point of view for the day. Being on the right side and being a part of the majority aren't always the same thing.

 

[AA&E]

What you're really saying, then, is that our constitutional republic is well and truly dead. Our rights are now subject to mob rule.

Popular support shouldn't be a factor in the guidelines of how we govern? I can cite several examples where this has been the case, I am sure you can as well.

 

[AA&E]

This illustrates why I have issue with this law "respecting" religion, when other entities aren't afforded the same right. The founders are spinning so fast, you could power a turbine with their coffins.

It is rare you and I agree on anything. But I feel this is a valid point.

 

[DragonGunner]

The founders knew about the importance of religion in society. As morals that are founded in religion decrease then so does the country and its people.

John Adams, 1776

"Its religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."



Fisher Adams Signer of the First Amendment

" Our Liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…..it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."



Samuel Adams 1749

" Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."



Just some food for thought, I think the forefathers rolled over in their graves a long time ago, but there is always hope.

 

[MisterChester]

The founders knew about the importance of religion in society. As morals that are founded in religion decrease then so does the country and its people.

John Adams, 1776

"Its religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."



Fisher Adams Signer of the First Amendment

" Our Liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…..it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."



Samuel Adams 1749

" Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."



Just some food for thought, I think the forefathers rolled over in their graves a long time ago, but there is always hope.

They recognized that religion has a use. Many of the founding fathers were deists but they never endorsed a particular one.

 

[87iroc]

I'm sure this will get lost in this HUGE thread...

I am making a call here.

IF the pizza place re-opens...they should put the money they got back for legal defense. In the first 6 months, a gay couple will come in and want them to cater their wedding. Waiting for the impending refusal so they can file a lawsuit.

Thats my call. Throw your bets in on timing of any impending lawsuit.

That said, I think if I were them, I'd cater their event...and do EVERYTHING I could with pizza to put crosses and Christain symbols on every pizza. Would be very easy with pepperoni. Hell, you could probably achieve a similar effect with a butane torch and a sheet metal template to brown the cheese in the shape of a cross.

 

[Dead Duck]

$500,000
Support Memories Pizza by Lawrence Billy Jones III - GoFundMe

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The founders knew about the importance of religion in society. As morals that are founded in religion decrease then so does the country and its people.

John Adams, 1776

"Its religion and morality alone can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."



Fisher Adams Signer of the First Amendment

" Our Liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…..it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."



Samuel Adams 1749

" Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."



Just some food for thought, I think the forefathers rolled over in their graves a long time ago, but there is always hope.

Morals, principles and virtue are traits that exist independent of religion. The Golden Rule is not dependent on the existence of a god.

This is not a criticism but an observation.

 

[Hoosier8]

"This seems to mitigate many of the risks posed by RFRA, making clear that the law is not meant to provide exemptions from antidiscrimination law," said Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "This is important language."

Text of the Conference Committee Report

Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:
(1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service;
(2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service;
(3)negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
Sec 7.5. As used in this chapter, "provider" means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include:
(1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)).
(2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society.

 

[zippy23]

They need to get the heat of hilary, they need a story to hurt republicans, there is too much bad stuff against the dems right now.