"So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone" - Stop WAR in Ukraine ! http://twitter.com/@euromaidan - "So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Stop WAR in Ukraine ! http://twitter.com/@euromaidan PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats, but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are encouraged to read the complete guidelines. As entertainment critic Roger Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."

"So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Conferences Off-Topic Forum (Protected)
Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Previous Topic \| Next Topic
Original message

kingfish 18171 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"	03-29-15, 12:24 PM (EST)
"So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"
...if the discriminator claims a religious basis? All under the guise of freedom of religion? That's a ugly distortion of the word "freedom".
Alert	Edit \| Reply \| Reply With Quote \| Top

Table of Contents

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

foonermints 13083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-29-15, 02:10 PM (EST)

1. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Hopefully not Sharia Law.

Handcrafted by RollDdice
Where is the link?
BobbleHead by Tribey
Dang! I need a burger!

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

foonermints 13083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-29-15, 02:15 PM (EST)

2. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Or was it Vegetarians? Vegetarianism is a fearful religion.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-29-15, 03:36 PM (EST)

3. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

The part I keep waiting to hit the bill-writers/backers over the head: it's any religion...

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-29-15, 06:10 PM (EST)

4. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

anyone may be unfairly discriminated against for not necessarily any reason at all
(warning: hoax story but the dumdums haven't realized it yet)
http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/
Marcus reacted with shock when he realized he had fallen victim to the very measure he had come to Indiana to support. “I was gobsmacked! I never realized a law meant to protect individuals’ religious freedoms would be twisted in such a way as to discriminate! Clearly, people are mis-applying this well-intentioned law.”

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 4382 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
03-30-15, 08:29 AM (EST)

6. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

I wonder if they'll think it's a great law when someone opens a Muslim only gun store.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 19286 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-30-15, 10:38 AM (EST)

9. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

LAST EDITED ON 03-30-15 AT 11:09 AM (EST)
The text of State Enrolled Act 101 can be found here.
The definition of "exercise of religion" is quite sweeping and not limited to an established religion and "person" covers any legal entity.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,
a system of religious belief.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:
(1) An individual.
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of
communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily
for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation,
a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an
unincorporated association, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a
system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity,
regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for
profit or nonprofit purposes.

Foo dogs by tribe
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Dear faculty, staff and students:
The recent passage of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act has brought significant negative attention to the state of Indiana throughout the nation and indeed the world, because the law is widely viewed as signaling an unwelcoming and discriminatory atmosphere in our state.
While Indiana University hopes that the controversy of the past few days will move the state government to reconsider this unnecessary legislation, the damage already done to Indiana's reputation is such that all public officials and public institutions in our state need to reaffirm our absolute commitment to the Hoosier values of fair treatment and non-discrimination.
For its part, Indiana University remains steadfast in our longstanding commitment to value and respect the benefits of a diverse society. It is a fundamental core value of our culture at Indiana University and one that we cherish. Indeed, in 2014 the trustees of Indiana University reaffirmed our commitment to the achievement of equal opportunity within the university.
To that end, Indiana University will recruit, hire, promote, educate and provide services to persons without regard to their age, race, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, marital status, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. Equally importantly, we will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of any of these same factors.
These are not merely words written in a policy and soon forgotten. These are core values by which every member of the Indiana University community is expected to treat his or her fellow colleagues, students and visitors.
I want to reassure the entire Indiana University community, including our students, faculty, staff and alumni, that each and every one of you is welcome and appreciated for the unique qualities that you bring to our community. We are all better as a result of our shared experiences, as different as those experiences in life may have been.
Sincerely,
Michael A. McRobbie
President, Indiana University

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 18171 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 12:41 PM (EST)

10. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Nice to see you here, C,
Appreciate the text of the bill, the definitions.
So, the definition of religion has no limits, and the definition of person also has no limits.
If your faith involves a chicken (or egg) god, you can legally refuse to hire or refuse service to anyone who likes to eat at KFC, or has a 401K investment in the parent company of Bo Jangles, as long as they are a sue-able entity.
Well, that clears that up.
I think there should be a movement in Indiana (and in those other states with similar laws - mine included) to evict those lawmakers on a wholesale basis.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 18171 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-30-15, 08:23 AM (EST)

5. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

The ultimate in discrimination, hate crimes, are now legal in the name of religion? Burning at the stake? Crucifixion?
The Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK get a rebirth?

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 4382 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
03-30-15, 09:30 AM (EST)

7. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

I'm obviously no biblical scholar so can someone point out the bible verses that say you go to hell for baking a cake for someone else who commits a sin? Do you go to hell for being the photographer at the wedding of a divorced man and his second wife? Could a supermarket cashier be doomed for eternity for ringing up a pork loin even if she doesn't eat pork herself?

If your religious beliefs come in conflict with your occupation, then maybe it's not the right occupation for you. Asking to government to give you the right to refuse service is not freedom of religion, it is freedom to discriminate.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 18171 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-30-15, 10:35 AM (EST)

8. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

LAST EDITED ON 03-30-15 AT 10:37 AM (EST)
The thing is, one doesn't have to be a biblical scholar, or be able to point to a specific verse in the bible, or any other religious text.
You just have to claim that that person is living contrary to what you as a religious person feels is righteous. Which pretty much opens the door on discrimination in general. I guess that is one form of egalitarianism.
Do they need proof? Although not relevant, apparently not.
Do they need a specific Biblical quote? Again, apparently not.
Do they even need a specific religion? (well, obviously the intention is that the religious beliefs should be Christian). But on the face of it, apparently not. (To quote Budda, or Fooner, or someone of vast knowledge in these things, Sharia Law anyone?).

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

foonermints 13083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 11:13 PM (EST)

19. "RE: So now, in Indiana, it's legal to discriminate against anyone"

Used to love that ole goddam Bhagwan. Coveted his Rolls Royces.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9333 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 01:42 PM (EST)

11. "Speaking of freedom"

There's a word I'm trying to think of right now. Something about forced labor, no choice, subject to penalty of pain upon noncompliance. What was that word? Where's my 1863 dictionary? I bet I'll find it in there.
This law is a shield, not a sword. It doesn't say you can't do something. It just says you can't make me violate my conscience and join in. Good for Indiana. And Tennessee. And the other 19 states with an RFRA on the books.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 03:23 PM (EST)

12. "RE: Speaking of freedom"

The similarities between the like-named federal law and the 19 like-named state laws ends at being like-named. This Indiana law allows any business owner in Indiana to discriminate against anyone they decide to discriminate against simply because the choose to discriminate against them. It is a hateful disgusting perversion of law.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 03:58 PM (EST)

13. "RE: Speaking of freedom"

I'd answer your question, but my faith requires me to just roll my eyes at you before throwing you out of my workplace. You don't want me going against my faith, do you?

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 04:17 PM (EST)

15. "RE: Speaking of freedom"

And fortunately for you you in no way have to prove that your faith requires you to be a hateful bigot, you can just go ahead and do it, and do it to anyone you like just because you get to decide for yourself who is and is not one of Them!

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 04:26 PM (EST)

16. "RE: Speaking of freedom"

LAST EDITED ON 03-31-15 AT 04:31 PM (EST)
Yep. I've been reading up on how religions become formally recognized and since I have no intention of going to the IRS and declaring my faith tax-free, do you know what I basically have to do? Say that this is what I believe, with as much consistency as I feel like using.
So here are the tenets of my new faith.
1. Heterosexuals are disgusting.
2. No one should ever support, help, aid, comfort, give solace to, or do anything positive to a heterosexual in any way.
3. Heterosexuals must be berated like the disgusting perverts they are, especially since they are going to be tortured eternally in the afterlife just because they're heterosexuals. I know this because it's what my holy text says, and the fact that I just wrote it doesn't make it any less holy.
4. Get 'em. Get 'em good.
And under Indiana law, as soon as I refuse to deal with you in a business setting due to all of the above, I am both legal and unsueable. So suffer. Because my new deity says you should, and the faith is always right.
How many Indiana residents do you think I can get to sign up in the first week?
BTW, I already saw an article concerning a Church Of Cannabis. Guess what they're going to use this legislation for? Aw, come on, guess...

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 06:11 PM (EST)

17. "RE: Speaking of freedom"

That will get here eventually, I'm sure. Hey, remember the Peyote Ritual People! Bring that along too, some of the folks around here could do with some serious straight-up religion like that.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 04:05 PM (EST)

14. "The 'We didn't really expect people to read it' press conference."

This was the question I kept waiting for: "So when are you going to tell Luke that you're his father?"
Dear gawds. If you didn't see any part of the live broadcast you may assume all those noises you're hearing on the replay have been edited in. And while I can't speak for the accuracy without knowing exactly which replay you wound up with.. please trust me that I had the live streaming feed. And the Loud Nasal Breathing.
Seek and ye shall find. And if you're in Indiana, grab an oxygen mask, because I think he used most of the free stuff up.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 19286 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-31-15, 10:55 PM (EST)

18. "RE: The 'We didn't really expect people to read it' press conference."

Well, now Gov Pence wants to "fix" the law, saying that he did not anticipate the reaction it got. Mike Pence: "Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no."
Then he writes to the WSJ (which publishes his letter) to blame other parties for the law being "grossly misconstrued as a license to discriminate".
It doesn't take a genius to read the text I posted above and make some sense out of it. No, it doesn't explicitly say anything about gender or sexual orientation. In fact, grounds for discrimination could be for anything that's not already protected under the state's anti-discrimination law. But... potentially complicating his effort to quell the criticism, Pence said he opposes adding sexual orientation to the list of Indiana's protected categories under state anti-discrimination law.
Then we have a Cruz ship full of aspiring Pub wannabe Prez candidates who have come out and supported this nonsense.
So, my dear Governor Pence, what are you going to do? Listen to your constituency, business and academic leaders, or follow the path of the religiously self-righteous to the gates of Hell?

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-01-15, 05:56 AM (EST)

20. "RE: The 'We didn't really expect people to read it' press conference."

I keep waiting for the anti-equality businesses to flood their support into Indiana, replacing the pros who keep pulling out. This seems to be taking a while. And when NASCAR starts talking against your policy...
Arkansas is expected to sign their version into law pretty soon -- but they're getting pressure from, of all corporations, Walmart. And if Walmart left the state... well... tiny bit of economic impact there.
But as far as the march to the gates... remember, part of what's behind this is the belief that They Are Doing What Needs To Be Done In The Name Of God. A belief which generally racks up a pretty impressive body count. Why care about what the opposition thinks? The opposition is not only wrong, they're damned.
So they may just march into Fiscal Hell. Because doing so gets them into Cloud Heaven.
In the battle of faith vs. common sense, common sense is often the first thing many religions try to ban.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-01-15, 09:49 AM (EST)

22. "RE: The 'We didn't really expect people to read it' press conference."

LAST EDITED ON 04-01-15 AT 09:51 AM (EST)
It is all stinky bull hind end stuff.
They did pass the law they intended to pass, they got what they wanted, and despite many many warnings they did not expect to get caught.
They deservedly caught Hell!
And now they are in Deny and Damage Control mode and hoping to salvage as much of the law they wanted and intentionally made, they will never admit the truth.
Liars! Dissembling hypocrites! Stinky bull hind end stuff artists!
Do not give them an inch, hold them up to the light, do not drink any of their Kool Aid!

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9333 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-01-15, 06:12 AM (EST)

21. "RFRA in action "

Those darn long- haired, drug drinking, feather dancing Christians.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/31/americans-benefit-from-religious-freedom-act-column/70672108/

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-01-15, 09:57 AM (EST)

23. "RE: RFRA in action "

Wayne, I will not fault you for having drunk the Kool Aid. That's why they keep putting it out there, to get as many people to drink it as possible.
But it is the Kool Aid and if I can get you to wake up and realize that, it is worth the effort.
Love and respect and all like that,
dabo

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 18171 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-01-15, 11:45 AM (EST)

24. "RE: RFRA in action "

It's astonishing to me that any rational and self proclaimed moral person can condone a law that allows anyone to discriminate against anyone else on the basis of natural characteristics or biases, or whatever. Or religion. Or lack thereof.
If one agrees that gender, race, sexual preference discrimination, etc. is immoral, then this law is clearly immoral, and the fact that it's defenders can declare legitimacy based on whatever they feel are religious grounds is troubling, insidious, and blatantly wrong.
It doesn't matter whether it's labeled a shield or a sword, what matters is that it can be used as a sword, as Indiana's and other state's laws can.
And it matters little whether the intent was or was not to allow discrimination, only that it does allow discrimination, and therefore will be used that way.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9333 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-02-15, 11:30 AM (EST)

25. "Some thoughts"

So, I've been looking at this for a couple days. I've been asking and wondering about two questions. First, what does it say that has people so worked up? Second, what makes this law different than the federal version and the 19 other states with a similar law?
I've also been considering some of the thoughts posted here and valid concerns and/or right or wrong in their position. In other words, is the claim or concern plausible on the surface and if so, does it pass mustard once you get past the rhetoric and look at the language and practice.
So, the federal RFRA has been around 20+ years, and the when the SC said it only applied to federal abuses of religious freedom, states began passing their own versions. So what is different about this law than other versions? Well, I couldn't point out differences for each state. But I did look at my own (Tennessee's, enacted in 2009 by Democrat Phil Bredesen) and saw some things that stood out to me. One, TN's version specifies that a case found to be frivolous will be paid for by the person who brought the case. It doesn't define "person" and it limits complaints to those against the government, not against individuals. It also provides for the three-pronged "substantial burden", "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive means" tests. It may be read here:
http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc0573.pdf
The Indiana law does define "person" and it also extends the range of complaints to those against other persons or groups. It also includes a "likely to be burdened" clause, I presume as a matter of prevention of undue burdens rather than compensation after the fact. These are changes I like. The Indiana law also does not have a provision for frivolous lawsuits which would put the cost of such a suit on the person who brought the case. This is something I think is sorely missing.
Now, what neither law nor the federal law does is give a person carte blanche in discrimination. What it does do is allow for a person to seek court protection from an overstepping government, or in the case of Indiana, a person or group using the government to overstep their rights above another. If you have a complaint, you better be able to back it up or you will lose.
From what I've heard one thing that bothers a lot of people about this law in Indiana is that unlike other states with this, Indiana does not have legislation specifically protecting LGBT (did I miss any letters) from discrimination, such as in the workplace. If that is the case, then I'd say that is something Indiana needs to address. And when I say address, I mean I'd have no issues if they want to add that type of law to their books.
Now, while I do agree with Cahaya's statement that "exercise of religion" is very broad, I do have to think that the further an "exercise" is from an established religion's tenets, the less protection it would find from a court or judge. Also, I don't think "person" is as widespread a term as he does. I think it holds to the "closely held company" test the SC used to rightly find in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga last year. So for all those large conglomerates and universities who are coming out so high and mighty with there tweats about how this doesn't represent them and they wouldn't stand for it in their company, good for you, but it's pointless because this law couldn't apply to you, even if you wanted it to.
You just have to claim ... the rest of that is absurd, so I'll stop where plausibility ends. You can't just make a claim and then, you win. making the claim only gets you a day in court.
Do they need proof? Do they need a specific Biblical quote? Do they even need a specific religion? You'll need something, otherwise you're going to get obliterated when your court date comes.
The similarities between the like-named federal law and the 19 like-named state laws ends at being like-named. By my comparison, no they don't. The result is very similar. A day in court to defend your position. No guarantees, just an opportunity. That is why this bill is a shield, not a sword. It allows you to defend your position.
Dabo, my thoughts are not based on Kool-Aid consumption. They are my own, based on my own reasoning of many things, including my reading and belief in Scripture. I do appreciate the sentiment, though.
what matters is that it can be used as a sword, as Indiana's and other state's laws can I'm not saying they don't exist, but so far I've not seen one case mentioned where these type of protections were used to successfully defend illegal discrimination. If anyone can provide me with an example, I would appreciate it.
I suppose I could say more, but I guess that's enough for now.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 26794 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-02-15, 12:44 PM (EST)

26. "RE: Some thoughts"

Thumbs up. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I appreciate you taking the time to fully explore this issue. I ask you to bear in mind one thing, that similarities between various laws ends absolutely when differences occur, any differences at all make for different laws.
Similarities are not the issue, differences are.
That said, I link this simply for educational purposes, no slights intended. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/30/look-history-religious-freedom-laws/70648294/
The 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom, to which Gov. Mike Pence has pointed as the model for the state's controversial new law, grew out of two Native Americans' use of peyote in a religious ceremony.
The law sparked state versions after the Supreme Court said in 1997 that the federal statute couldn't apply to state and local governments.
But the Supreme Court expanded the application of the law at the federal level last year by ruling that its protections apply to closely held corporations that did not want to include contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.
Pence cited the court's decision in the Hobby Lobby craft store chain's dispute over contraception as an example of why Indiana needs its own law.
Here's how we got to that point:
•April 17, 1990: Supreme Court changes standard for the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
The Supreme Court ruled against two Oregon drug and alcohol counselors who had been fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization for ingesting the hallucinogen peyote as part of a religious ceremony at their Native American church. Ingesting peyote was illegal in Oregon.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the use of peyote was not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that allowing someone to break a law because of a religious belief "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
As a result, governments no longer had to prove a compelling interest for a law that violated someone's religious belief. Instead, the new test became whether the law was religiously neutral and generally applicable.
•Nov. 16, 1993: President Bill Clinton signs new law.
Backed by a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Lawmakers said they needed to restore the "compelling interest" test the Supreme Court rejected in its 1990 decision. Introduced by Democrats and passed with a near-unanimous vote, the legislation said a government can "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion only if it advances an important government interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible. When Clinton signed the bill, he said it "re-establishes a standard that better protects all Americans of all faiths in the exercise of their religion."
In other words, what anyone does as an act of faith (religion) which does not harm or involve peoples outside the faith (religion) should not be held against them. My interpretation, admittedly, but I fully agree with myself.
•June 25, 1997: Supreme Court rules the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't apply to states.
In a case involving the archbishop of San Antonio's dispute with local zoning authorities over a church expansion, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional as applied to states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that Congress lacked the authority to impose the law on states. He also said Congress hadn't shown a record of extensive denials of religious liberty and had acted out of proportion to what it was trying to achieve.
•Feb. 21, 2006: Supreme Court upholds Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the federal level.
In a unanimous decision, the court said a small religious sect could continue to import a hallucinogenic tea used in religious ceremonies. The tea contains a drug prohibited by federal law. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the government to show a compelling interest in banning the organization's use of the drug for religious purposes, and it had not done so.
By the time of the ruling, 13 states had passed their own versions of the federal law, in reaction to the court's previous decision that it didn't apply to states.
•June 30, 2014: Supreme Court upholds religious challenge to Affordable Care Act.
A divided Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations can decide for religious reasons not to include contraception coverage in health insurance plans offered to employees.
The five justices in the majority characterized their opinion as a narrow ruling applying to four types of birth control and to the two family-owned corporations that brought the challenge — the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker. But the four justices who dissented said the ruling expanded the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect companies.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith." She said, for example, that a company could decide that covering vaccinations or paying the minimum wage violates their religious belief. And she noted past religious freedom challenges brought by a restaurant chain that didn't want to serve African-Americans and by a photography studio that didn't want to take pictures at a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
Kevin Russell, a former Supreme Court law clerk who argues frequently before the high court, wrote in an analysis after the decision that the court has never decided whether the government has the compelling interest required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ban discrimination based on sex, disability or sexual orientation.
"It seems likely that the debate will have to be settled in further litigation," he wrote.
•March 26, 2015: Pence signs Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, Pence said Indiana needs its own version of the federal law to "ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law."
Indiana became the 20th state to enact such a law, although the laws are not all the same.
While Pence compares Indiana's law to the one Illinois created in 1998, Indiana's protections cover businesses, not just people who believe their religious rights have been infringed. Indiana's law also allows a claim to be made when two private parties are involved, not just the government.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 4382 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
04-02-15, 12:57 PM (EST)

27. "RE: Some thoughts"

"I do have to think that the further an "exercise" is from an established religion's tenets, the less protection it would find from a court or judge"

How? A judge is supposed to determine what constitutes an "established religion"? Sounds like asking a judge to decide which religions are true religions and which are not. If just one guy has a certain religious belief, it isn't worthy of religious freedom?

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 57085 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
04-02-15, 02:07 PM (EST)

28. "RE: Some thoughts"

If just one guy has a certain religious belief, it isn't worthy of religious freedom?
Absolutely correct. For legal precedent, please see People Of Rome Vs. Jesus Christ.

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -

about this site • advertise on this site • contact us • privacy policy •