The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[Denny347]

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.

They are easily distracted. Anything to save the persecution of the Christian faith gets their full attention. There is plenty of push back from the faith community. Sure, in the end, this bill does little to change our lives (as far as we can see). Supporters paint this picture of continual force against their beliefs. That is not true. Detractors are going overboard with their rhetoric as well, and that is not true either. My issue is that ANY law has 2 and 3rd order consequences. If properly planned for they can be mitigated or eliminated. However, historically, our legislature has been terrible in researching this area and as an enforcer of some dumbass laws I get cynical. That is why I am weary of this law. The future may prove me totally wrong, that is ok. It won't prevent me from being skeptical.

 

[mrjarrell]

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.

The lawsuits in those states only succeeded because those states have anti-discrimination laws on the books that give protected status to the LGBT citizens of those states. There is no such law in Indiana and no laws like it have been proposed. In the Indiana related events that took place there was no legal recourse for the offended parties. Denny is quite correct that in his statements. The laws of other states have no bearing on Indiana, as our legislators would know if their heads weren't firmly ensconced in their colons.

 

[Pocketman]

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “person” means an individual, an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity.

The Federal RFRA and SCOTUS have been cited often during these discussions. The SCOTUS decisions were fairly narrow and based upon individuals and closely held businesses. Indiana's definition of "person" is much broader than the Federal version, which could make it subject to judicial scrutiny. Does anyone else find this troubling?

 

[chipbennett]

They are easily distracted. Anything to save the persecution of the Christian faith gets their full attention. There is plenty of push back from the faith community. Sure, in the end, this bill does little to change our lives (as far as we can see). Supporters paint this picture of continual force against their beliefs. That is not true. Detractors are going overboard with their rhetoric as well, and that is not true either. My issue is that ANY law has 2 and 3rd order consequences. If properly planned for they can be mitigated or eliminated. However, historically, our legislature has been terrible in researching this area and as an enforcer of some dumbass laws I get cynical. That is why I am weary of this law. The future may prove me totally wrong, that is ok. It won't prevent me from being skeptical.

You know what's truly ironic? I wouldn't even know about this bill, if not for all of the caterwauling from the "tolerance" crowd. I'm certainly not pushing for it, though I understand the underlying need.

 

[chipbennett]

The lawsuits in those states only succeeded because those states have anti-discrimination laws on the books that give protected status to the LGBT citizens of those states. There is no such law in Indiana and no laws like it have been proposed. In the Indiana related events that took place there was no legal recourse for the offended parties. Denny is quite correct that in his statements. The laws of other states have no bearing on Indiana, as our legislators would know if their heads weren't firmly ensconced in their colons.

The very concept of legally established "protected classes" is an inherent violation of the Equal Protection clause - but that's a separate matter entirely.

Regardless, if the law changes nothing, why the uproar?

 

[miguel]

The very concept of legally established "protected classes" is an inherent violation of the Equal Protection clause - but that's a separate matter entirely.

Regardless, if the law changes nothing, why the uproar?

Because someone would dare stand up to the Lavendar Mafia'a view of the world...

 

[MisterChester]

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.

Did they have a state law in place that prohibited them to refuse service? Because if a state law were in place, then the owner consciously broke the law. The owners should know their state laws for their sake.

 

[dusty88]

And this.

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

Your statement implies that government force deserves credit for cultural change.

Government sanctioned and even mandated discrimination when it was popular to do so. Sodomites were executed at one time. When the political winds shift, the politicians jump in and pretend to be the knight in shining armor.

Anti-discrimination laws don't stop discrimination. Jerks will still be jerks, usually in legal ways. What anti-discrimination laws do is open up innocent people to lawsuits, require businesses to take on process and paperwork, waste taxpayer money employing bureaucrats, reward lawyers, and reward attention mongers.

 

[mrjarrell]

The very concept of legally established "protected classes" is an inherent violation of the Equal Protection clause - but that's a separate matter entirely.

Regardless, if the law changes nothing, why the uproar?

And yet, Indiana has just created a "protected class" with this legislation.

 

[chipbennett]

Did they have a state law in place that prohibited them to refuse service? Because if a state law were in place, then the owner consciously broke the law. The owners should know their state laws for their sake.

So you're okay with state law that is unconstitutional, and violates natural rights?

 

[chipbennett]

And yet, Indiana has just created a "protected class" with this legislation.

No, it didn't. That would be the US constitution. If you are so opposed to protection of religious freedom, I urge you to begin the process to amend the constitution, to revise the First Amendment.

 

[dusty88]

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.

I'm with you on this argument Chip, but I'm curious. In another thread, you've suggested that it's OK to force publicly-accessible businesses to do certain things. I believe you said this was acceptable in terms of race discrimination and in terms of allowing guns in their business.

 

[MisterChester]

So you're okay with state law that is unconstitutional, and violates natural rights?

You are putting words in my mouth. Point is there are laws that seem stupid and unconstitutional but we have a duty to follow them. If we don't like them then we vote people in to change the laws. Just like how most of us here think gun free zones are stupid and unconstitutional, who here is going to carry in a GFZ willingly? Even unwillingly... You still get in big trouble regardless of your ignorance.

 

[mrjarrell]

No, it didn't. That would be the US constitution. If you are so opposed to protection of religious freedom, I urge you to begin the process to amend the constitution, to revise the First Amendment.

They certainly have created a protected class. The religious. This law does not extend to anyone who is secular, nor to people with sincerely held political beliefs that would refuse service. It's only for the people who adhere to particular religious based beliefs. They are protected from non-existent "persecution".

 

[hoosierdoc]

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.

So... We let corporate interests dictate Hoosier laws then. Sounds like a fine idea.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm with you on this argument Chip, but I'm curious. In another thread, you've suggested that it's OK to force publicly-accessible businesses to do certain things. I believe you said this was acceptable in terms of race discrimination and in terms of allowing guns in their business.

I stated up-thread a bit that there is a reasonable line, and used the cake baker as an example:

Scenario A: arbitrary person walks into the bakery, sees a cake in the display cake, and asks to buy it as-is. Baker says, "we don't serve your kind here." IMO, that is potentially actionable discrimination, because it is not a reasonable violation of conscience on religious grounds.

Scenario B: person walks into the bakery, asks the baker to bake a custom wedding cake, for a homosexual wedding ceremony, complete with all applicable decorations. Baker says, "I'm sorry, but I would view that as me participating in your ceremony, which would be a violation of my religious beliefs." That would be a reasonable violation of conscience on religious grounds, and not discriminatory.

I have argued that race discrimination falls under Scenario A, as does discriminating against the lawfully armed.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

I'm a capitalist, your money is just as green as the the next persons. However I should not be forced to serve someone. A business owner should have the right to refuse service for ANY reason, even if it's not necessarily good for business.

Maybe we should look at getting rid of protected classes instead of adding another "protection."

 

[lovemachine]

I just saw that Tony Katz posted on Facebook that Pence just signed the bill.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I just saw that Tony Katz posted on Facebook that Pence just signed the bill.

And it will lead to the biggest non-event the state has ever seen.

 

[chipbennett]

You are putting words in my mouth. Point is there are laws that seem stupid and unconstitutional but we have a duty to follow them. If we don't like them then we vote people in to change the laws. Just like how most of us here think gun free zones are stupid and unconstitutional, who here is going to carry in a GFZ willingly? Even unwillingly... You still get in big trouble regardless of your ignorance.

Tell that to Rosa Parks. We don't have a "duty" to follow unconstitutional laws. Rather, we have a risk assessment that determines the nature of resistance to those laws. I don't carry in "Gun Free Zones", not because I believe I have an obligation to follow an unconstitutional law, but rather because the risk is more than I'm willing to take on, when there are more effective means to counter such laws.

If a law would force me to violate my conscience with respect to sincerely held religious beliefs, I would absolutely violate that law, without a second thought. Fortunately, I've never had to make such a choice.

They certainly have created a protected class. The religious. This law does not extend to anyone who is secular, nor to people with sincerely held political beliefs that would refuse service. It's only for the people who adhere to particular religious based beliefs. They are protected from non-existent "persecution".

Again, if you don't like it, begin the process to amend the constitution - in particular, the clause that says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You are absolutely correct: the constitutional protection of the natural right of free exercise of religion does not extend to those who are not religious and therefore do not exercise their religious beliefs. Though, one could reasonably make an argument that the free exercise clause also protects your right NOT to exercise religion. So you're part of the so-called "protected class", too.

And on the matter of persecution, globally and locally, you are woefully ignorant.