Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:50:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Author Topic: Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws  (Read 20949 times)
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: March 30, 2015, 06:03:37 PM »

Businesses seem to be very against it as well.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: March 30, 2015, 06:07:29 PM »
« Edited: March 30, 2015, 06:12:08 PM by HockeyDude »

Indiana House Speaker is "disappointed" in the way Pence has defended the bill to the public.


If this bill is just a bit of red meat to the base in order to get Pence something to talk about for a future election (President or just re-election), I think it's backfired at this point. The left was always going to hate this bill, but a lot of moderates are coming out against the bill as well, and I can't imagine the right thinks any more highly of Pence than before; after seeing him refusing to answer straight yes or no questions about the bill.

Obviously, because there are certain types of people who believe that "freedom" is defined by the ability of society to ostracize a group based on something as vague as "religious belief".  They fail to realize that they are free to feel any way they want but that the basic construct of a functioning society is some basic respect towards inate qualities and personal choices (not that being gay is a choice, but even if it was it wouldn't matter).  These types of people tend to be Republicans.  

EDIT: I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who whine and bitch about a TV channel suspending one of their employees for hateful speech, citing that his right to free speech should go way beyond the ability of his employer to take any action, also support these bills.  The only similarity is that they come down on the side of whoever is bashing the group that they hate.  The hypocrisy and true motivations of the SoCons are obvious and apparent and so few call them out on a national stage in this context. 
Logged
Brewer
BrewerPaul
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,622


Political Matrix
E: -6.90, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: March 30, 2015, 06:49:11 PM »

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: March 30, 2015, 06:58:19 PM »

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?

The Republican areas of Indiana are very, very conservative.  I'm not sure that this is going to hurt him too much outside of galvanizing what liberals the state has. 
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: March 30, 2015, 08:44:06 PM »

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?

The Republican areas of Indiana are very, very conservative.  I'm not sure that this is going to hurt him too much outside of galvanizing what liberals the state has. 

What if the dominoes keep falling as far as businesses refusing to do work there or the possibility of them losing out on a major sporting event?

It would be pretty ironic if the party of Muh Job Creators ended up killing/preventing the creation of jobs for sake of defending the bigotry and regressiveness of its supporters and elected officials.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: March 30, 2015, 08:52:39 PM »

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?

The Republican areas of Indiana are very, very conservative.  I'm not sure that this is going to hurt him too much outside of galvanizing what liberals the state has. 

What if the dominoes keep falling as far as businesses refusing to do work there or the possibility of them losing out on a major sporting event?

It would be pretty ironic if the party of Muh Job Creators ended up killing/preventing the creation of jobs for sake of defending the bigotry and regressiveness of its supporters and elected officials.

The puppetmasters of the GOP have no interest in creating jobs.  None. 
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: March 30, 2015, 08:58:56 PM »

Good job numbers aren't required when you are a GOP governor to be reelected. See Wisconsin and Kansas.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: March 31, 2015, 05:25:58 AM »

Indiana House Speaker is "disappointed" in the way Pence has defended the bill to the public.


If this bill is just a bit of red meat to the base in order to get Pence something to talk about for a future election (President or just re-election), I think it's backfired at this point. The left was always going to hate this bill, but a lot of moderates are coming out against the bill as well, and I can't imagine the right thinks any more highly of Pence than before; after seeing him refusing to answer straight yes or no questions about the bill.

Obviously, because there are certain types of people who believe that "freedom" is defined by the ability of society to ostracize a group based on something as vague as "religious belief".  They fail to realize that they are free to feel any way they want but that the basic construct of a functioning society is some basic respect towards inate qualities and personal choices (not that being gay is a choice, but even if it was it wouldn't matter).  These types of people tend to be Republicans.  

EDIT: I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who whine and bitch about a TV channel suspending one of their employees for hateful speech, citing that his right to free speech should go way beyond the ability of his employer to take any action, also support these bills.  The only similarity is that they come down on the side of whoever is bashing the group that they hate.  The hypocrisy and true motivations of the SoCons are obvious and apparent and so few call them out on a national stage in this context. 

Very well said. More people on the national stage need to call out and expose these SoCon hypocrites for the bigots that they are. I give kudos to George Stephanopolpus for asking the tough questions to the squirming Mike Pence. I also find it amusing how the party that blames the victim and thinks that there's no such thing as victimhood is now creating a false narrative that they are the "victims" of a "far left radical liberal socialist atheist secular government and mainstream media" that is "forcing" them to contradict their faux moral compasses. I guess in their minds, you're only a victim if you're a far-right evangelical Christian.   

SoCons, I think, realize their political clout is waning and these "religious freedom" bills are just Hail Marys and red meat. I love how outraged they were when A&E was threatening to pull the plug on Duck Dynasty after Phil Robertson make his asinine and bigoted remarks about blacks and gays but how silent they were at defending The Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines voiced her opposition to Bush and the war. I don't seem to recall any SoCons defending them when almost every country music radio station stopped playing their music after the remarks were made. Hypocrites, all of them. I'm exposed to them every day on my Facebook with trollish posts from Right Wing News, Conservative Tribune, Breitbart, Fox News, and other right-wing echo chambers.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: March 31, 2015, 06:34:02 AM »


What hypocrisy, considering Connecticut has the same exact law in place.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: March 31, 2015, 07:52:10 AM »

Is it the same exact law, though?

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-facebook-pin

Also, doesn't Connecticut, unlike Indiana, have state protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: March 31, 2015, 08:11:21 AM »

Is it the same exact law, though?

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-facebook-pin

Also, doesn't Connecticut, unlike Indiana, have state protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation?

States that copy laws from other states frequently add language to clarify their intent when courts have made rulings since the original law was enacted. It looks pretty clear that IN did exactly that to make clear that RFRA gets the interpretation they want from their courts.

Your second point is more important. RFRA has an exception that allows laws to impinge on religion where there is a compelling state interest. An anti-discrimination statute sets a basis for the state to make an argument that the state has a compelling interest to override RFRA in those cases.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: March 31, 2015, 08:46:25 AM »

Is it the same exact law, though?

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-facebook-pin

Also, doesn't Connecticut, unlike Indiana, have state protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation?

States that copy laws from other states frequently add language to clarify their intent when courts have made rulings since the original law was enacted. It looks pretty clear that IN did exactly that to make clear that RFRA gets the interpretation they want from their courts.

True. It seems to me that Connecticut passed its law under a different motivation in the 1990s (Muslims growing beards in prison, that kind of issue) and would not have introduced it under its new Hobby Lobby/gay discrimination gestalt.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: March 31, 2015, 08:54:56 AM »

Indiana House Speaker is "disappointed" in the way Pence has defended the bill to the public.


If this bill is just a bit of red meat to the base in order to get Pence something to talk about for a future election (President or just re-election), I think it's backfired at this point. The left was always going to hate this bill, but a lot of moderates are coming out against the bill as well, and I can't imagine the right thinks any more highly of Pence than before; after seeing him refusing to answer straight yes or no questions about the bill.

Obviously, because there are certain types of people who believe that "freedom" is defined by the ability of society to ostracize a group based on something as vague as "religious belief".  They fail to realize that they are free to feel any way they want but that the basic construct of a functioning society is some basic respect towards inate qualities and personal choices (not that being gay is a choice, but even if it was it wouldn't matter).  These types of people tend to be Republicans.  

EDIT: I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who whine and bitch about a TV channel suspending one of their employees for hateful speech, citing that his right to free speech should go way beyond the ability of his employer to take any action, also support these bills.  The only similarity is that they come down on the side of whoever is bashing the group that they hate.  The hypocrisy and true motivations of the SoCons are obvious and apparent and so few call them out on a national stage in this context. 

Very well said. More people on the national stage need to call out and expose these SoCon hypocrites for the bigots that they are. I give kudos to George Stephanopolpus for asking the tough questions to the squirming Mike Pence. I also find it amusing how the party that blames the victim and thinks that there's no such thing as victimhood is now creating a false narrative that they are the "victims" of a "far left radical liberal socialist atheist secular government and mainstream media" that is "forcing" them to contradict their faux moral compasses. I guess in their minds, you're only a victim if you're a far-right evangelical Christian.   

SoCons, I think, realize their political clout is waning and these "religious freedom" bills are just Hail Marys and red meat. I love how outraged they were when A&E was threatening to pull the plug on Duck Dynasty after Phil Robertson make his asinine and bigoted remarks about blacks and gays but how silent they were at defending The Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines voiced her opposition to Bush and the war. I don't seem to recall any SoCons defending them when almost every country music radio station stopped playing their music after the remarks were made. Hypocrites, all of them. I'm exposed to them every day on my Facebook with trollish posts from Right Wing News, Conservative Tribune, Breitbart, Fox News, and other right-wing echo chambers.

The only loyalty SoCons have is towards their own beliefs and the only principle they stand for is that their way of thinking is correct in all situations.  Anything and everything is completely dependent on whether or not they agree. 
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: March 31, 2015, 09:04:22 AM »

Just watched the George Stephanopoulos interview with Mike Pence and it's simply embarrassing.  Pence is such a POS.  His generic politician answers are ridiculous. 
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: March 31, 2015, 10:20:43 AM »

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference. 

Indiana rednecks looking to stick it to the gays have got to be pissed.  You know they were just itching to throw out the next fag that walked in. 
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: March 31, 2015, 11:34:13 AM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 11:42:04 AM by Snowguy716 »

Well all anyone has to do is claim a strongly held religious belief that black people are evil and shouldnt be allowed.

God I hope someone does it.  If the gays cant claw these idiots blind eyes out, maybe the blacks can.

Republicans...literally so focused on all the pretty colors that they don't see the dirt being clawed away under their feet.  And when they stumble..they blame it on all the pretty colors.

Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: March 31, 2015, 11:38:37 AM »

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference. 

Indiana rednecks looking to stick it to the gays have got to be pissed.  You know they were just itching to throw out the next fag that walked in. 

I'm gonna laugh if they end up almost passing a form of ENDA.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: March 31, 2015, 12:34:05 PM »

Well all anyone has to do is claim a strongly held religious belief that black people are evil and shouldnt be allowed.
Actually no.  RFRA laws only allow religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in a lawsuit.  It doesn't make them automatic defenses to avoid a lawsuit.  Why is it that the opponents of such laws have to resort to outlandish hypotheticals instead of pointing to actual uses of them in the states that have already passed such laws?  Perhaps it's because what they claim to fear hasn't actually happened?

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: March 31, 2015, 12:44:24 PM »

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: March 31, 2015, 12:51:43 PM »

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 

I don't deny that.  But I don't forget that a contract between two people doesn't usually involve third parties who weren't part of the contract negotiations.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: March 31, 2015, 12:52:49 PM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 12:56:56 PM by Clarko95 »

Actually no.  RFRA laws only allow religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in a lawsuit.  It doesn't make them automatic defenses to avoid a lawsuit.  Why is it that the opponents of such laws have to resort to outlandish hypotheticals instead of pointing to actual uses of them in the states that have already passed such laws?  Perhaps it's because what they claim to fear hasn't actually happened?

It probably has to do with the fact that this is the first time an RFRA law was passed that specifically recognized businesses as legal "people" capable of holding religious beliefs, and that this is the first time an RFRA law now applies to civil lawsuits where the government is a party.

Again, it's not the same law that is present at the federal level and with 19 other states and the pro-RFRA crowd have been repeating ad nauseum. AFAIK, none of them grant corporate personhood or apply RFRAs to lawsuits that don't involve a unit of local/state/federal government.

If the Indiana bill did not include those two provisions, no one would care. If those two parts are gone, I would support an RFRA bill, because then it would mostly match the other aforementioned state and federal statutes. I'm glad Pence and his SoCon friends have been called out over this.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: March 31, 2015, 01:33:29 PM »

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-bans-non-essential-state-travel-indiana
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: March 31, 2015, 01:58:31 PM »

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 

I don't deny that.  But I don't forget that a contract between two people doesn't usually involve third parties who weren't part of the contract negotiations.

Oh c'mon.  How much are they involved?  How many people have a judge do this stuff?  It's well-accepted and has been for a long time for a heterosexual couple to sign some paperwork over at the municipal court.  The idea of marriage as strictly religious or must necessarily be religious at all is dead. 

You see, conservatives love to make it all about principle when it suits them.  Muh religious freedumb.  Muh Constitooshun.  But the Supreme Court has said many a time over on many a different issue that a compelling interest must be shown; fancy talk for why and what's your motivation.  This would never hold up because the motivation for these laws is so blatant and obvious to discriminate against gay people.  This almost lands in the "fire in a crowded theatre" category.  You have freedom of speech/religion/press/etc. but there are limits on how it can be used when it comes to the effect on what we perceive to the be rights of others around you.  This has been so reviewed that it's almost as fundamental an American principle as the text of the Bill of Rights itself. 
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: March 31, 2015, 04:48:47 PM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 04:52:25 PM by memphis »

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.
Viewed by whom? You may want to take a look at the religious demographics of people who are of prime marrying age. About 1/3 of young adults claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. And yet, most of these folks still want to get married sooner or later should they find the right partner. Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.
And Pence is now blaming "Obamacare" for his anti-gay law. If ever a suggested deserved a Roll Eyes this is it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pence-pins-need-indiana-religious-freedom-law-obamacare-n332926
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: March 31, 2015, 08:31:11 PM »

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.
Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.
If flowers or catering were a requirement for civil marriage, you'd have a point.  My point is that there are people who view marriage as a primarily churchy thing and requiring them to participate in a marriage ceremony that their religion would not allow is an impingement upon freedom of religion.  A minor impingement to be sure, and if it were for something more vital than celebrating a wedding, say ensuring that people could travel freely or have a reasonably equal opportunity to get a job or housing, it's an impingement that would be necessary to secure the rights of others.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.