Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Palehorse]

[The Troll]

  These damn fucking churches have more freedom than all of the rest of us has now.    The damn bastards don't have to pay taxes and the people who give to them get a tax deduction.   

[Palehorse]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

[Exterminator]

All I am saying that when a photographer, who is a strong Christian, can be sued for NOT wanting to do a gay wedding....there is a problem..

Please provide every example you can find of people who have been successfully sued for refusing to service a gay wedding in any capacity.  The florist in the article posted by 'me' can serve as one example even though she broke the law.  Please provide others so that we can ascertain whether or not this is a real issue and weigh the potential real damages to these people against the tens of millions of dollars of potential losses from this inane legislation.

[Exterminator]

The exodus begins.

[Locutus]

I can't believe HH and 'me' support that ridiculous legislation. 

[me]

All this is just pure crazy IMO. Why can't these malcontents just go elsewhere and do business rather than make a big deal out of something and force other people to do something that is against their beliefs or face losing everything they have through a law suit. Just don't patronize those businesses you find objectionable period. There should never have been a need for this law in the first place. Not only is the law wrong the reason someone felt it necessary to make it wrong. Everyone wants things their way and it just isn't possible to please everyone.
Example, someone was reading something to my grandson's wife at work yesterday and they were away from everyone. A woman was walking past and told the one reading she found it objectionable and she should quit reading it even though she was invading their space and should have walked on rather than state, rather rudely I might add, that the girl had to quit reading what she was reading. That is just wrong. What the hell is wrong with people today?

[Locutus]

Just a casual observation from afar, and with the disclaimer that I know very little about Mike Pence, I dare say that he may not have signed this bill if he didn't have presidential aspirations. 

When you have chambers of commerce, and others, telling the governor of a state that something they're about to sign is going to be bad for business, they typically don't sign it.  That is, of course, unless they have something personal to gain. 

[Henry Hawk]

Please provide every example you can find of people who have been successfully sued for refusing to service a gay wedding in any capacity.  The florist in the article posted by 'me' can serve as one example even though she broke the law.  Please provide others so that we can ascertain whether or not this is a real issue and weigh the potential real damages to these people against the tens of millions of dollars of potential losses from this inane legislation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2013/08/28/entrepreneurship-threatened-by-ruling-in-new-mexico-gay-marriage-case/

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elane Photography along with her husband. Their small business is based in New Mexico. In 2006 she refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony for Vanessa Willock and her partner, citing religious beliefs. Elaine and her business came to national attention after the couple sued her, claiming discrimination. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person's sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

On August 22nd, 2013, New Mexico's highest court ruled against Elaine, stating "When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

It cannot be disputed that Elaine broke the law. What we can dispute is whether the long term consequences of having such a law in place are beneficial for society.
After the ruling, Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying "When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs."

Were this reasoning to be applied equally to all cases, as blind justice demands, then a business owned by a gay individual must provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church, if asked to. A Jewish entrepreneur must provide services to a neo-Nazi. MoveOn.org must sell ad space to Glenn Beck (ok, MoveOn.org doesn't sell ad space, but you get the idea).

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 85% of Americans believe Elaine had the right to refuse service to the gay couple. I suspect the percentage would be even higher if respondents had been asked not if a Christian woman could refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, but if a business owned by an African-American woman must provide services to the KKK.

It is important to reiterate that no harm was done to the gay couple other than to offend their sensibilities. Thomas Jefferson recognized that in the absence of physical harm or true aggression, a person's opinion "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Likewise, the refusal of service has not caused anyone's pocket to be picked nor anyone's leg to be broken.



Here is another case:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html
Sweet Cakes by Melissa isn't so sweet, after all. Last year, the Oregon bakery got into trouble with the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries for violating a state law prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the bakery, refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing their religious beliefs. After an investigation, the Bureau determined that their business had violated the law.
Last week, the Kleins suffered another legal setback.
  A Bakery, Not a Church
An administrative law judge ruled against the Kleins' motion to dismiss the case on the ground the Kleins were exercising their freedom of religious expression, The Oregonian reports. Oregon's law does allow exceptions for religious institutions, the Bureau's spokesman Charlie Burr said, but "[t]he bakery is not a religious institution under the law."

[Henry Hawk]

I can't believe HH and 'me' support that ridiculous legislation. 

Actually, I am still on the fence on this.  I see both sides.  You guys FORCE me to take a side sometimes....

[Henry Hawk]

Just a casual observation from afar, and with the disclaimer that I know very little about Mike Pence, I dare say that he may not have signed this bill if he didn't have presidential aspirations. 

When you have chambers of commerce, and others, telling the governor of a state that something they're about to sign is going to be bad for business, they typically don't sign it.  That is, of course, unless they have something personal to gain. 

Here listen to him explain it himself.  He has a very clear take and understanding on it.  Hard to disagree with him, if you are being honest and open-minded.

http://www.wibc.com/blogs/garrison/segments-interviews/pence-fires-back-media

[Palehorse]

All this is just pure crazy IMO. Why can't these malcontents just go elsewhere and do business rather than make a big deal out of something and force other people to do something that is against their beliefs or face losing everything they have through a law suit. . . .

The problem with doing that is it just blossoms from there. Like anything else in this world, you allow one thing and then it becomes three, then 12, and so on.

Using a similar approach, why can't all these religious zealots just go somewhere else rather than drag down an entire state?

The city of Indianapolis will be bankrupt within 5 years if this law is allowed to go forward unchallenged. The CIB alone will likely go belly up before that 5 year period, as these conventions and other events begin going to other states to hold their events. The VERY events used to justify the sunset tax imposed upon Marion County and the collar counties; which as of this moment now has had it's "sunset" moved out decades because of some ignorant legislation that panders to Christian extremists. It will just be a matter of time before it will become other religions as well, for constitutionally we are REQUIRED to treat all the exact same way. You cannot pander to one without pandering to all.

It just blows me away that so few see this!

[Palehorse]

Just a casual observation from afar, and with the disclaimer that I know very little about Mike Pence, I dare say that he may not have signed this bill if he didn't have presidential aspirations. 

When you have chambers of commerce, and others, telling the governor of a state that something they're about to sign is going to be bad for business, they typically don't sign it.  That is, of course, unless they have something personal to gain.

Yeah, he's another GOP Jackwagon with presidential aspirations. . . And this legislation all but guarantees those aspirations are yet another case of pissing in the wind. ANOTHER governor, and ANOTHER EPIC FAILURE! 

[Henry Hawk]

I think this is nothing more than hyperbole.  Listen to the interview I posted.  THEN, make a decision.

[Palehorse]

I think this is nothing more than hyperbole.  Listen to the interview I posted.  THEN, make a decision.

50 million plus in lost revenues to the city of Indianapolis right out of the gate. And a lot more where that came from. . . Enough said.