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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Leaving aside the point over corporate personhood, the lawsuit point if followed the way you would like would have the odd effect that if anti-discrimination laws were enforced by government action instead of personal lawsuits they would be subject to RFRAs.  The mechanism of enforcement shouldn't affect the efficacy of RFRA laws.  Either they should apply in both cases or in neither case.

[memphis]

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.

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

nascar has condemned the bill. checkmate, indiana.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

It wasn't that long ago that only a few nutters believed that a wedding, by definition, would not be between only a man and a woman. That's the problem with trying to define the law without taking into consideration those who are nutters or stupid. What's considered to be neither nuts nor stupid changes. Basing the law on actual damages to be prevented is less mutable.

[cinyc]

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

Please explain why anyone should be compelled, under penalty of law, to participate in someone else's wedding ceremony, religious, civil or whatever.

[Mr. Illini]

Chicago Tribune - Rutter: Indiana's Legion of Stupid comes out of its closet

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A scathing editorial coming from my home state. As terrible as the Indiana situation is, I've been happy with the way Illinois has made it so clear how embarrassed we are to share a border with them.

[Brittain33]

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

Please explain why anyone should be compelled, under penalty of law, to participate in someone else's wedding ceremony, religious, civil or whatever.

Again, we seem to be relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one is insisting "anyone," this is about vendors who provide services to couples that are not religious in nature outside of people's tortured rationales.

[Smash255]

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

Please explain why anyone should be compelled, under penalty of law, to participate in someone else's wedding ceremony, religious, civil or whatever.

No one is compelled to do anything, but if you go into a certain business, there are rules you must follow.  Not being discriminatory is one of them (or well in this case should be).  If you want to be discriminatory in your personal life have at it.  If you can't put your hate aside to not be discriminatory in business, well no one is forcing you or compelling you to go into the business.

[user12345]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, we seem to be relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one is insisting "anyone," this is about vendors who provide services to couples that are not religious in nature outside of people's tortured rationales.

Whether it be peyote use, marriage, or any other topic, when it comes to religion, it isn't up to government to decide what is a rational belief. That's why when it comes to impinging religion it should be the burden of those doing the impinging to show that harm would result if the belief were not impinged. That's all that RFRA laws do. They allow persons who feel an action would impinge upon their beliefs to raise that fact in court and place the burden upon the impinger. The only significant difference between Indiana's law and other RFRA laws is that it explicitly includes nongovernmental impingers among those held to that standard.

[Brittain33]

That's all that RFRA laws do. They allow persons who feel an action would impinge upon their beliefs to raise that fact in court and place the burden upon the impinger.

No need for obscuring abstractions to "persons" and "actions" when we are talking about specific cases. The issue here is that Indiana considers persons to equal vendors, public accommodations, and businesses who participate in the economy and now would like to pick and choose among customers if they don't like gays. Back to my previous point, we are relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Jeb Bush distancing himself from the bill:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/jeb-bush-religious-freedom-law/index.html

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's all that RFRA laws do. They allow persons who feel an action would impinge upon their beliefs to raise that fact in court and place the burden upon the impinger.

No need for obscuring abstractions to "persons" and "actions" when we are talking about specific cases. The issue here is that Indiana considers persons to equal vendors, public accommodations, and businesses who participate in the economy and now would like to pick and choose among customers if they don't like gays. Back to my previous point, we are relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Not really. The CRA has always included exceptions for religious groups. The Hobby Lobby case made clear that religious exemptions are not to be limited to groups.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

The clarification more or less says that you can't discriminate against LGBT's in cities/counties that have nondiscrimination ordinances that cover LGBT discrimination. You can still do it in locations that don't have these ordinances. You can also still discriminate for other reasons - such as the fact that the customer voted for Obama or is an athiest - as long as you claim you're doing it for religious reasons.

[King]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

The clarification more or less says that you can't discriminate against LGBT's in cities/counties that have nondiscrimination ordinances that cover LGBT discrimination. You can still do it in locations that don't have these ordinances. You can also still discriminate for other reasons - such as the fact that the customer voted for Obama or is an athiest - as long as you claim you're doing it for religious reasons.

So they are trying to repeal it in Indianapolis and the Chicago suburbs to stop the protest and let the country bumpkin voters have it still.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

The clarification more or less says that you can't discriminate against LGBT's in cities/counties that have nondiscrimination ordinances that cover LGBT discrimination. You can still do it in locations that don't have these ordinances. You can also still discriminate for other reasons - such as the fact that the customer voted for Obama or is an athiest - as long as you claim you're doing it for religious reasons.

Since Obama is the latest incarnation of Angra Mainyu, I'd expect all followers of Ahura Mazda to have no dealings with those who follow his opposite.

[Brittain33]

It's interesting to read this case about a high school basketball player who came out and consider that the opposing team's behavior can be defended as a religious objection by these laws. Read it.

http://www.outsports.com/2015/4/1/8316867/dalton-maldonado-gay-basketball-kentucky

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Question: I'm starting a religion that involves blowing coke off the hoods of police cars in rural bumbkin counties in Indiana.  Does Mike Pence have my back? 

[TJ in Oregon]

Question: I'm starting a religion that involves blowing coke off the hoods of police cars in rural bumbkin counties in Indiana.  Does Mike Pence have my back? 

Doubtful. You're not the first one to try that sort of thing. First you would need to be able to convince a court your beliefs are sincerely held, which given your posting history will not be easy. Next even after that you would need to argue there is no compelling government interest in preventing you from doing so, or that the government interest could be alternatively furthered by some more accommodating means. You would not be the first to try and apply the RFRA to drug use and the legal track record isn't so good.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The problem Pence and others seem to have here is an inability to understand that their "fix" still does the one thing people are really really outraged and protesting over -- allow discrimination against gays.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Question: I'm starting a religion that involves blowing coke off the hoods of police cars in rural bumbkin counties in Indiana.  Does Mike Pence have my back? 

Doubtful. You're not the first one to try that sort of thing. First you would need to be able to convince a court your beliefs are sincerely held, which given your posting history will not be easy. Next even after that you would need to argue there is no compelling government interest in preventing you from doing so, or that the government interest could be alternatively furthered by some more accommodating means. You would not be the first to try and apply the RFRA to drug use and the legal track record isn't so good.

I know I know... but I am illustrating a point.  You HAVE freedom of religion if you are not doing anything already illegal.  But if whatever you are doing isn't illegal, why do we need bills to reenforce freedom of religion?  It's just another angle where the real motives of this bill are illuminated by the light of my justice. 

[cinyc]

Again, we seem to be relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one is insisting "anyone," this is about vendors who provide services to couples that are not religious in nature outside of people's tortured rationales.

We are not relitigating the Civil Rights Act.  We are relitigating Hobby Lobby, which held that closely held businesses are just as entitled to freedom of religion as individuals under the federal version of RFRA.  Whether the thing that the government is forcing a business to do is religious in nature is irrelevant.  Providing birth control in itself isn't religious in nature.  But forcing someone who believes birth control is a sin to buy birth control for its workers violates the federal RFRA statute.  Indiana is just creating a state version of the same statute, updated to reflect Hobby Lobby - a federal law which was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, that evil "conservative" bigot.

Should gay bakeries be required to create cakes with messages supporting marriage as only being between a man and a woman?  Should Jewish bakers be required to create swastika cakes for their neo-nazi clients?  Of course not, because that's offensive to them.  Well, gay marriage is just as offensive to some religious people.  Why should they be coerced under penalty of law to support your "progressive" secular beliefs when you're not compelled under penalty of law to support their religious beliefs?  After all, you're just a "vendor" providing services.

[memphis]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

[cinyc]

No one is compelled to do anything, but if you go into a certain business, there are rules you must follow.  Not being discriminatory is one of them (or well in this case should be).  If you want to be discriminatory in your personal life have at it.  If you can't put your hate aside to not be discriminatory in business, well no one is forcing you or compelling you to go into the business.

The notion that you have to check your religious beliefs at the door when you go into business is so pre-Hobby Lobby.  And if a gay baker can't just put his "hate" aside and not discriminate against religious people wanting a pro-traditional marriage cake, well, no one is forcing or compelling him to go into business, right?  Should black restaurants be forced to cater the next Klan rally, too?