Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Locutus]

Please, dont pull that crap knowing the type of people our POTUS associates himself with.

I'm not pulling any crap.  Once again, when you don't like something that's pointed out to you as fact, you start deflecting.

That picture shows some of those who were there, and what they stand for.   Their mere presence there flies flat in the face of everything you and HH are saying about that despicable piece of legislation.  I can't help it if you don't like the facts, but the facts remain. 

[Locutus]

And in further developments:

(CNN)Indiana's top two state lawmakers pledged Monday to amend the state's controversial "religious freedom" law to clarify that it cannot be used to discriminate against gay people.

Republicans David Long and Brian Bosma, the state legislature's senate president pro tempore and house speaker, respectively, insisted Monday that the law would not and was not intended to allow discrimination against anyone.

"It is not the intent of the law to discriminate against anyone and it will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone," Long said. "To the extent that we need to clarify through legislative action that this law does not and will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone, we plan to do just that."


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/politics/indiana-legislators-fix-religious-freedom-law/index.html

[Locutus]

Sounds like the backlash is starting to have some effect on their thinking. 

Wonder what the three boys in the picture will think of their law if language is inserted into it to protect the rights of gay people?   Somehow, I don't think they'll like it so much. 

[me]

Ya know, someone walks into a store they don't have to fill out questionairs about their beliefs and can purchase anything they want but if they're asking the owner to do something that is against their beliefs or that they're unconfortable with, like catering a wedding or doing floral arangements, that is a different thing altogether. If I were in the catering business and someone wanted me to cater a satanist get together I'd darn sure refuse. Same difference.

[Henry Hawk]

Time to get out the illustrations for those who don't want to research and understand on their own.  This is EXACTLY what that bill was about.  To claim otherwise is just disingenuous. 

GLAAD is the epitome of hypocrisy.... it seems to me they are all about being intolerant, discriminating against Christians, they are full of hate.  Everything YOU claim Christians are.

Those guys in the photo, all have a voice and their opinions, but remember one thing, they were ELECTED by THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 

You guys are forcing me to take a stand on this.....by default.  I feel as if I HAVE TOO....

You hate Christians...you made that quite clear.  You hate anyone who has differing opinions than you do....For the life of me, it spells H Y P O C R I C Y....Take a look in the mirror before you attack. 

[Locutus]

GLAAD is the epitome of hypocrisy.... it seems to me they are all about being intolerant, discriminating against Christians, they are full of hate.  Everything YOU claim Christians are.

How exactly is GLADD intolerant toward Christians?  A few examples would be nice.  While you're at it, a few examples of how GLADD and/or its members can and have discriminated against Christians would be in order as well.  Even if you can provide some examples of what you claim, it doesn't change the fact that those 3 men were there at the signing ceremony, and that their presence speaks volumes about the intent of this law.

Those guys in the photo, all have a voice and their opinions, but remember one thing, they were ELECTED by THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 

I wasn't aware those three were elected, but it doesn't really matter.  They, and the people they represent, are very anti-gay; all of them.  You and 'me' don't like the fact that they were there because it paints a crystal clear picture of the genesis of this law in Indiana.  Do you really think those three would have been there if they didn't perceive this as a piece of anti-gay legislation?  C'mon HH, even you aren't that dense. 

You guys are forcing me to take a stand on this.....by default.  I feel as if I HAVE TOO....

You hate Christians...you made that quite clear.  You hate anyone who has differing opinions than you do....For the life of me, it spells H Y P O C R I C Y....Take a look in the mirror before you attack. 

I don't hate Christians.  I hate the ones (see above) who try to codify their biases and legislate their morality onto others.  This legislation had gays in the crosshairs from the very get go.  You and 'me' sitting here trying to deflect what it is all about fell flat on its face when the picture shows who was there right behind Pence as he signed the bill.

Pictures don't lie.  Case closed.

[Palehorse]

GLAAD is the epitome of hypocrisy.... it seems to me they are all about being intolerant, discriminating against Christians, they are full of hate.  Everything YOU claim Christians are.

Those guys in the photo, all have a voice and their opinions, but remember one thing, they were ELECTED by THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 

You guys are forcing me to take a stand on this.....by default.  I feel as if I HAVE TOO....

You hate Christians...you made that quite clear.  You hate anyone who has differing opinions than you do....For the life of me, it spells H Y P O C R I C Y....Take a look in the mirror before you attack. 

Don't trivialize an egregious violation of civil rights by ascribing validity to your opinions by expressing them as factual, and ironically by imposing them upon others.



The fact is Indiana's law is starkly different than every single one of the other state bills that have been passed, as well as the federal one.

Let's start with Section 9:

Under that section, a "person" (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose "exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" can use the law as "a claim or defense... regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana's is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

Then there is Section 5:

Which provides protections to religious practices "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." So entities can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.

Claiming Indiana's law is just like the other states is not only untrue, but it is nothing more than a huge lie! 

And finally, the Mayor of Indianapolis is the latest voice to decry this heinous legislation, and is calling for the General Assembly to add the two words, "sexual orientation" to this states protected classes under its civil rights laws.

[Locutus]

I have some additional questions HH. 

Would you support these efforts of the legislators as indicated above in fixing the legislation so that it is clarified by saying that it specifically can't be used to discriminate against gay people?

Do you think the three men in the picture will support such efforts?

Do you think Mike Pence will sign it or veto it?

[Palehorse]

And now corporate Indiana is weighing in against this legislation:

INDIANAPOLIS -
The leaders of some of Indiana's largest businesses have voiced their opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a letter to the state's Republican leadership.

The chief executive officers of nine companies, including Angie's List, Anthem, Cummins, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis Communications, IU Health, Roche Diagnostics and Salesforce Marketing sent the letter to Governor Mike Pence, Senate Pro Tem David Long and House Speaker Brian Bosma.

The letter reads:

"Regardless of the original intention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, we are deeply concerned about the impact it is having on our employees and on the reputation of our state. All of our companies seek to promote fair, diverse and inclusive workplaces. Our employees must not feel unwelcome in the place where they work and live.

"As we seek to attract and retain great talent from Indiana and around the world, it is critical that we make it clear that Indiana is the welcoming state we all believe it to be. As leaders in the Indiana business community, we call on you to take immediate action to ensure that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will not sanction or encourage discrimination against any residents or visitors to our state by anyone.

"By immediately enacting new legislation that makes it clear that neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor any other Indiana law can be used to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, our state's elected leaders can provide the reassurance to the people of our state, our nation and the world that is needed at this critical moment."



http://www.wthr.com/story/28653210/indianas-corporate-leaders-call-for-action-on-rfra

http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/wthr/pdf/RFRA_Letters.pdf

[Locutus]

Even the business leaders know what the intent is. 

[Palehorse]

Don't trivialize an egregious violation of civil rights by ascribing validity to your opinions by expressing them as factual, and ironically by imposing them upon others.



The fact is Indiana's law is starkly different than every single one of the other state bills that have been passed, as well as the federal one.

Let's start with Section 9:

Under that section, a "person" (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose "exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" can use the law as "a claim or defense... regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana's is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.

Then there is Section 5:

Which provides protections to religious practices "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." So entities can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.

Claiming Indiana's law is just like the other states is not only untrue, but it is nothing more than a huge lie! 

And finally, the Mayor of Indianapolis is the latest voice to decry this heinous legislation, and is calling for the General Assembly to add the two words, "sexual orientation" to this states protected classes under its civil rights laws.

And now corporate Indiana is weighing in against this legislation:

INDIANAPOLIS -
The leaders of some of Indiana's largest businesses have voiced their opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a letter to the state's Republican leadership.

The chief executive officers of nine companies, including Angie's List, Anthem, Cummins, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis Communications, IU Health, Roche Diagnostics and Salesforce Marketing sent the letter to Governor Mike Pence, Senate Pro Tem David Long and House Speaker Brian Bosma.

The letter reads:

"Regardless of the original intention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, we are deeply concerned about the impact it is having on our employees and on the reputation of our state. All of our companies seek to promote fair, diverse and inclusive workplaces. Our employees must not feel unwelcome in the place where they work and live.

"As we seek to attract and retain great talent from Indiana and around the world, it is critical that we make it clear that Indiana is the welcoming state we all believe it to be. As leaders in the Indiana business community, we call on you to take immediate action to ensure that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will not sanction or encourage discrimination against any residents or visitors to our state by anyone.

"By immediately enacting new legislation that makes it clear that neither the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor any other Indiana law can be used to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, our state's elected leaders can provide the reassurance to the people of our state, our nation and the world that is needed at this critical moment."



http://www.wthr.com/story/28653210/indianas-corporate-leaders-call-for-action-on-rfra

http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/wthr/pdf/RFRA_Letters.pdf

INDIANAPOLIS - An October conference has become the first to pull out of Indianapolis due to controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) announced Monday they are pulling their 2015 Women's Conference from the city in response to the legislation Governor Mike Pence signed into law last week. The conference was scheduled from October 9-11 at the JW Marriott.

"The 1.6 million members of AFSCME cannot in good conscience make such a sizable financial investment in Indiana knowing that women and men in that state are deliberately being targeted for discrimination," the organization said in a release.. . .

http://www.wthr.com/story/28651997/afscme-pulls-national-conference-out-of-indianapolis-over-rfra

So there you have it. When you call those of us who came out of the gate against this nefarious legislation "liars", and insinuate that the issue is "hyperbole", you do the same toward the Mayor of Indianapolis, and the Executive Leadership of almost every single Corporate entity with a presence in this state.

And every single one of us is saying the exact same thing; This law enables discriminatory practices against those leading an alternative lifestyle and is unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, and wrong as hell!

[Palehorse]

George Takei expresses things quite nicely Here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/george-takei-boycott-indiana?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

. . .I myself am a Buddhist, not a Christian. But I cannot help but think that if Christ ran a public establishment, it would be open to all, and He would be the last to refuse service to anyone. It is, simply put, the most un-Christian of notions.

So let us be clear what this is really about: divisive politics. The far right has lost the war over marriage equality, and quickly. It now has staked out a new ground and shrouded itself ostensibly within the ambit of the First Amendment – for who can deny that we ought to give religious freedom its full and fair due? It seeks refuge in the recent, and regrettable, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hobby Lobby, which appeared to open the door for exceptions to "government regulation" in the name of protecting religious beliefs. . . .

. . .We live in a pluralistic and civil society, where our social contract demands we sometimes relinquish individual liberties in the name of a more just and open society. This means that while we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, the extent and impact of those beliefs, and what we may impose because of them, stops at the tips of our noses. This also means we must learn to respect and, yes, even love our neighbors, despite our differences. . .

. . .The doors of a school or a restaurant or a business, held open to the public, must be open to all. The days are over where some may be denied a seat at the table simply because of who they are – or in this case, whom they love. We cannot, and must not, march backward from where we have come. . .

Please give his piece a read, no matter what side of this issue you stand upon.

[Locutus]

Mr. Takei is spot on. 

[Palehorse]

Mr. Takei is spot on. 

Indeed. And I am convinced that without his lending of his celebrity to the issue early on, it would not have gained the rapid elevation and attention it so desperately required in order to fix the problem. While it isn't done yet, it certainly has become a tsunami of "righteousness" very rapidly.

Mr Takei reminds me of another "George" that also tended to use his celebrity to breathe life into causes that otherwise may have died a desperate death. Namely, George Harrison. . .

True human beings with just souls; both of them. With voices that are much more than a "cry in the wilderness".

[Locutus]

I have some additional questions HH. 

Would you support these efforts of the legislators as indicated above in fixing the legislation so that it is clarified by saying that it specifically can't be used to discriminate against gay people?

Do you think the three men in the picture will support such efforts?

Do you think Mike Pence will sign it or veto it?

^^  ... since you're hanging around with nothing to do.