Anti-gay bill may cost Purdue talent.
- Thread starter ecouch
- Start date
It's dependent on an implication, much like the Federal RFRA.
"What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion." - Bill Clinton, 1993
What Bill was referencing (The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 1993, specifically, Section 2 (b)):
"(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government."
Indiana RFRA:
"A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened"
==========================
Those seem pretty similar to me. Perhaps the "likely to be" phrase greatly changes the meaning to you? If not, do you have an issue with the federal law and/or disagree with Clinton's assessment? I guess I could see one having an issue with the Indiana bill if they felt the implication wasn't strong enough in the Federal bill.
As I said in another thread - I would not have been on board with this bill. Mostly because the outrage it has caused (even though I feel it is due to a misinterpretation and/or hyperbole), greatly outweighs any positives that could be had due to it's passage.
"What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion." - Bill Clinton, 1993
What Bill was referencing (The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 1993, specifically, Section 2 (b)):
"(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government."
Indiana RFRA:
"A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened"
==========================
Those seem pretty similar to me. Perhaps the "likely to be" phrase greatly changes the meaning to you? If not, do you have an issue with the federal law and/or disagree with Clinton's assessment? I guess I could see one having an issue with the Indiana bill if they felt the implication wasn't strong enough in the Federal bill.
As I said in another thread - I would not have been on board with this bill. Mostly because the outrage it has caused (even though I feel it is due to a misinterpretation and/or hyperbole), greatly outweighs any positives that could be had due to it's passage.
Well apparently that was the "good" photo to come out of the closed doors, private bill signing. Another was found posted on the Advance America facebook page.
GLAAD identified some of the folks in this picture.
"SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana by providing protection for individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs, along with Christian businesses and churches. SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers)."
That gem is from Eric Miller, the guy standing right next to the governor. His lobbyist firm helped craft the bill.
Advance America was founded in 1980 by attorney Eric Miller with just 10
people. Today, the grassroots network includes over 45,000 families, 1,500
businesses, and over 3,700 churches around the state.
“Now is the time to support the American Family Association of Indiana. I
have known and worked with Micah Clark for over a decade, and I can
tell you that you’re standing behind a pro-family, pro-life leader who
is very effective in any political climate regardless of who is in power
in Washington or Indianapolis.”
– Indiana Congressman Mike Pence
This post was edited on 3/31 12:21 AM by ecouch
GLAAD identified some of the folks in this picture.
"SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana by providing protection for individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs, along with Christian businesses and churches. SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers)."
That gem is from Eric Miller, the guy standing right next to the governor. His lobbyist firm helped craft the bill.
Advance America was founded in 1980 by attorney Eric Miller with just 10
people. Today, the grassroots network includes over 45,000 families, 1,500
businesses, and over 3,700 churches around the state.
“Now is the time to support the American Family Association of Indiana. I
have known and worked with Micah Clark for over a decade, and I can
tell you that you’re standing behind a pro-family, pro-life leader who
is very effective in any political climate regardless of who is in power
in Washington or Indianapolis.”
– Indiana Congressman Mike Pence
This post was edited on 3/31 12:21 AM by ecouch
the differences are
1. The Indiana bill can be used in a dispute between two PRIVATE actors, where one private actor alleges the other private actor violated their rights/discriminated against them. The federal bill only applies to federal actions.
2. The federal bill's primary motivation was to protect American Indian holy grounds from federal encroachment. The Indiana bill's primary motivation is to protect gay discrimination on religious grounds.
The issue between Indiana and some of the other states that have this law, is that those states also have anti-gay discrimination laws, like Illinois. Indiana does not, and refuses to pass such a law.
1. The Indiana bill can be used in a dispute between two PRIVATE actors, where one private actor alleges the other private actor violated their rights/discriminated against them. The federal bill only applies to federal actions.
2. The federal bill's primary motivation was to protect American Indian holy grounds from federal encroachment. The Indiana bill's primary motivation is to protect gay discrimination on religious grounds.
The issue between Indiana and some of the other states that have this law, is that those states also have anti-gay discrimination laws, like Illinois. Indiana does not, and refuses to pass such a law.
thankfully
we are getting closer to holding all people in the same standing regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual preference, etc.
When that is finally complete, then there won't be a next "great civil rights movement."
But I'm curious, given the mocking tone, what civil rights movements do you think not worthy of the title "great?"
Just the gays, or other ones?
we are getting closer to holding all people in the same standing regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual preference, etc.
When that is finally complete, then there won't be a next "great civil rights movement."
But I'm curious, given the mocking tone, what civil rights movements do you think not worthy of the title "great?"
Just the gays, or other ones?
Is Horrock a talent?
If so, maybe someone can ask her if she's been denied service in any public place now that's she has "come out"
If so, maybe someone can ask her if she's been denied service in any public place now that's she has "come out"
Those "differences" only exist in the times the bills were passed.
Regardless of "intent", the bills are equivalent. The Federal law does not explicitly refer to American Indian religions - because that would be ridiculous (and a long list of "chosen" religions). Of course the Federal bill only applies to federal actions... that's why 19 other states already had such bills (with a further 12 having court decisions ruling similarly).
Of the 19 states that have this bill only 4(!) have anti-gay discrimination laws - Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. So, is Connecticut, who's now banning state funded travel to backward 'ol Indiana gonna ban such travel to Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Idaho, Arizona, Kansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, or Kentucky? No? That kind of wreaks of a political stunt, to me (same as with all the celebs who are suddenly so outraged, and the NCAA, NBA, etc.). For the record, Indianapolis and Marion County DO have such anti-discrimination laws, so George Takei and Jason Collins have nothing to worry about (as long as they don't wander into Hancock or Hamilton counties, I guess).
Really this is a political stunt (as was the bill, itself, in my opinion). The gullibility of the mob is always impressive, however. Maybe the Dems in Indiana can find there way back from the wilderness if they can label the next budget bill as unjustly discriminating against puppies or something.
This post was edited on 3/30 9:09 PM by indyogb
Regardless of "intent", the bills are equivalent. The Federal law does not explicitly refer to American Indian religions - because that would be ridiculous (and a long list of "chosen" religions). Of course the Federal bill only applies to federal actions... that's why 19 other states already had such bills (with a further 12 having court decisions ruling similarly).
Of the 19 states that have this bill only 4(!) have anti-gay discrimination laws - Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. So, is Connecticut, who's now banning state funded travel to backward 'ol Indiana gonna ban such travel to Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Idaho, Arizona, Kansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, or Kentucky? No? That kind of wreaks of a political stunt, to me (same as with all the celebs who are suddenly so outraged, and the NCAA, NBA, etc.). For the record, Indianapolis and Marion County DO have such anti-discrimination laws, so George Takei and Jason Collins have nothing to worry about (as long as they don't wander into Hancock or Hamilton counties, I guess).
Really this is a political stunt (as was the bill, itself, in my opinion). The gullibility of the mob is always impressive, however. Maybe the Dems in Indiana can find there way back from the wilderness if they can label the next budget bill as unjustly discriminating against puppies or something.
This post was edited on 3/30 9:09 PM by indyogb
Re: what other kinds of laws
You forget about this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/29/city-officials-launch-inquiry-cupcake-denial-gay-student-group/
I don't know there was ever an actual lawsuit filed, but they were told to comply in the future or lose their lease in the City Market.
You forget about this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/29/city-officials-launch-inquiry-cupcake-denial-gay-student-group/
I don't know there was ever an actual lawsuit filed, but they were told to comply in the future or lose their lease in the City Market.
I know.
I know the history of humanity dragging, kicking and screaming, religion into modernity. Someday you will be dragged along as well if history is any indicator.
You call the super-majority in the IN house and senate, along with the governorship, along with Advance Indiana and its 5K IN churches, the last gasp of Christian hardline fundamentalism? The monks, nuns, reverends, and pastors in those two pictures are hardline fundamentalists? A flag of sorts seems to be planted around gay acceptance and fundamentalism.
No one ever said these followers of Jesus Christ are like every other follower of Jesus Christ. Folks don't need to put qualifiers before every statement while having a conversation. Some things are understood. If the topic of conversation were Methodists Break Ground on New Hospital I'm sure folks wouldn't be demanding that it doesn't represent all Methodists. None the less, Methodists would insist their name be on the sign.
This post was edited on 3/30 10:52 PM by ecouch
I know the history of humanity dragging, kicking and screaming, religion into modernity. Someday you will be dragged along as well if history is any indicator.
You call the super-majority in the IN house and senate, along with the governorship, along with Advance Indiana and its 5K IN churches, the last gasp of Christian hardline fundamentalism? The monks, nuns, reverends, and pastors in those two pictures are hardline fundamentalists? A flag of sorts seems to be planted around gay acceptance and fundamentalism.
No one ever said these followers of Jesus Christ are like every other follower of Jesus Christ. Folks don't need to put qualifiers before every statement while having a conversation. Some things are understood. If the topic of conversation were Methodists Break Ground on New Hospital I'm sure folks wouldn't be demanding that it doesn't represent all Methodists. None the less, Methodists would insist their name be on the sign.
This post was edited on 3/30 10:52 PM by ecouch
Re: Is Horrock a talent?
Do you think it should be okay if a business did deny her service because she is gay?
What makes this look so much worse IMHO is that it seems many want the business to be allowed to and deep down hope this bill allows it but don't have the courage to come out and say it, instead it's blamed on leftist media creating a fuss and spreading misinformation leading to a misunderstanding.
It would probably gain Chik-Fil-A style support if the State would just say, yes this bill is intended to protect a Christians right to discriminate against those whose lifestyles conflict with their religious beliefs. Instead it the same old same old, intolerance from the tolerance crowd, Clinton, Obama, 19 states, just like the Feds.. blah blah blah.
Now if you think she should not be discriminated against because she is gay then why not just ask your rep to pass a law saying she can't be?
Do you think it should be okay if a business did deny her service because she is gay?
What makes this look so much worse IMHO is that it seems many want the business to be allowed to and deep down hope this bill allows it but don't have the courage to come out and say it, instead it's blamed on leftist media creating a fuss and spreading misinformation leading to a misunderstanding.
It would probably gain Chik-Fil-A style support if the State would just say, yes this bill is intended to protect a Christians right to discriminate against those whose lifestyles conflict with their religious beliefs. Instead it the same old same old, intolerance from the tolerance crowd, Clinton, Obama, 19 states, just like the Feds.. blah blah blah.
Now if you think she should not be discriminated against because she is gay then why not just ask your rep to pass a law saying she can't be?
Fair enough. I might be responding a bit sensitively. I appreciate your fair-mindedness in keeping in mind that there are those who dissent - not everyone does that.
Intent matters?
That only seems to be the case when it's expedient to the argument.
So the difference between Indiana and Virginia is intent? Indiana wants to hurt gays and Virginia does not, so they passed (essentially) the same law? Interesting - that must be why people are now conveniently piling on Indiana in a demonstration of their moral superiority while Virginia is quietly forgotten while sitting in the back corner (with Florida, Texas, et al.).
That only seems to be the case when it's expedient to the argument.
So the difference between Indiana and Virginia is intent? Indiana wants to hurt gays and Virginia does not, so they passed (essentially) the same law? Interesting - that must be why people are now conveniently piling on Indiana in a demonstration of their moral superiority while Virginia is quietly forgotten while sitting in the back corner (with Florida, Texas, et al.).
Re: Intent matters?
First, no, they didn't pass essentially the same law, Indiana's is unique, multiple people have said exactly why it is unique.
Second, sorry that the other states didn't get the treatment Indiana is getting.
Whether people weren't paying attention before, or the time wasn't right, or what have you, Indiana is getting noticed now. The whole "but they are doing it too" defense stopped being effective when one hits middle school.
First, no, they didn't pass essentially the same law, Indiana's is unique, multiple people have said exactly why it is unique.
Second, sorry that the other states didn't get the treatment Indiana is getting.
Whether people weren't paying attention before, or the time wasn't right, or what have you, Indiana is getting noticed now. The whole "but they are doing it too" defense stopped being effective when one hits middle school.
Please, don't lump Virginia in with the other states with RFRA. Theirs is much older and the wording has little in common with Indiana's own. The other liberal states have strong anti-gay protections. So let's stop with the false equivalence. Indiana so far as the most expansive RFRA and that explains why people have an issue with it.
Re: Intent matters?
No one has explained why it's unique, except to say "it's discriminatory". It's the same law, essentially. A little while ago, it was only "intent" that made it different. Now, it's really unique? Okay....
"Middle school"? I prefer to call it hypocrisy. I suppose it's also a hipster way of looking informed. I mean, if one celebrity says it, it must be so. One can't hope to control or even understand the mob, I guess. I digress.
I've think I've had enough of this topic. I don't really even like the bill (I find it unnecessary and of minimal potential for any type of return on the aggravation its causing). I despise "defending" something I don't like. I hope they just repeal it. If not, I hope the other states kick us out of the Union - we're too backward for the rest of the US, anyway
. On second thought, maybe repeal is the wrong way to go...
I gotta stop yapping about this BS and get back to work. I bid you good afternoon, sir.
No one has explained why it's unique, except to say "it's discriminatory". It's the same law, essentially. A little while ago, it was only "intent" that made it different. Now, it's really unique? Okay....
"Middle school"? I prefer to call it hypocrisy. I suppose it's also a hipster way of looking informed. I mean, if one celebrity says it, it must be so. One can't hope to control or even understand the mob, I guess. I digress.
I've think I've had enough of this topic. I don't really even like the bill (I find it unnecessary and of minimal potential for any type of return on the aggravation its causing). I despise "defending" something I don't like. I hope they just repeal it. If not, I hope the other states kick us out of the Union - we're too backward for the rest of the US, anyway
. On second thought, maybe repeal is the wrong way to go...
I gotta stop yapping about this BS and get back to work. I bid you good afternoon, sir.
Re: Intent matters?
1. The Indiana bill can be used in a dispute between two
PRIVATE actors, where one private actor alleges the other private actor
violated their rights/discriminated against them. The federal bill only
applies to federal actions.
1. The Indiana bill can be used in a dispute between two
PRIVATE actors, where one private actor alleges the other private actor
violated their rights/discriminated against them. The federal bill only
applies to federal actions.
Re: How can there be a case
No case from a legal standpoint, but certainly a case from a media/public perception standpoint. I'd argue that most of the time, these types of things play out in the court of public opinion (i.e. gay couple complains about discrimination to WTHR who covers the injustice, which spurs debate/demonstration, which spurs the laws). I don't recall such a case in Indiana, but I don't live there.
