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

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/senate-panel-quickly-advances-religious-freedom-bill/article_e296d5db-b9ea-5c22-a224-e0b9b2c3430f.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indiana = trash (but you already knew that)

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Clark, aren't you a religious minority? I'd think you'd be applauding this.

What? Why the f would that make me approve discrimination against gay people (like me)? Hinduism doesn't promote homphobia, and something tells me these conservative Christian Republicans won't be jumping to defend Hinduism if we come crying about something.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Pence is almost certain to sign it tomorrow, having expressed intention to do it previously. Business interests are already warning they may not do business in the state, especially conventions that are regularly held in Indianapolis. Indianapolis' Republican Mayor Greg Ballard has also announced his opposition to the bill.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pence-under-pressure-veto-controversial-religious-freedom-bill

Absolutely disgraceful.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Why has it taken so long for someone to nuke this trash state

^^^I agree.

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?

No, we would not attempt to pass a law creating a legal protection for gay people to discriminate.

Nice try though.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?

No, again this is false equivalency.

The gay rights movement was about securing their rights that did not violate anyone else's rights, no matter how people try and spin this (Christians are not persecuted in the U.S., white people are not the minority, etc.). This "religious freedom" movement is about giving legal sanction to discrimination, violating others' rights in a country that places secular rights above religious whims. It isn't just about not giving gay people wedding cake, but that's the primary motivation for the supporters of this.

One movement was about securing rights that did not harm anyone. The other is about hiding behind religion and your business to discriminate, and deny services and protections that could have severe real-life consequences for those discriminated against, violating others' rights as people.

That's it. And that's why this law is wrong.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Well, the question of whether simply being a person entitles you to anything is a whole different debate, but again, that was not my question. My question did not petain to the veracity of the arguments of the pro and anti-bill sides on this matter. Instead, it pertained to your original point, which appeared simply to be; because they are losing, and because society as a whole is no longer favourable to them, they should just give up. Now, again, I put it to you, if you and your people were losing on whatever issue, would you just give up in order to avoid 'lashing out'?

That wasn't my point, though.

My point is that discrimination is objectively wrong, and people who feel they need to do so and have done so for plenty of time are now angry that society has finally realized that there is an injustice to be fixed and will no longer enable them to do so, so they lash out and pass legislation like this that creates a state-sanctioned opportunity to hide behind their religion and business entities and continue to discriminate.

My point is not detached from the context of this situation. You cannot decontextualize this so you can say, "AHA! You hypocrite! You want others to give up when you won't!" when I say what you want me to say.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but then again from your posting history it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anything outside of your narrow, ideological point of view.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between religious thought, religious speech, and religious action (or thought, speech, and action in general)

The protections pertaining to your right to belief is absolute. You believe that homosexuality and abortion are immoral and go against your religion-based beliefs? That’s fine. No problem.

Your rights to speech are almost universally protected, only restricted in the time/manner/place sense and any legally-sanctioned restriction for government interest, among other things. You wanna give a speech about how abortion and homosexuality is wrong? Fine. People may disagree with you, using their freedom of speech, but the government cannot restrict you unless there is a time/manner/place issue, or if you do something like incite violence.

Your rights to action, however, are not universally protected.

Therein lies the problem with this bill.
 
The government is not going to fine someone or shut down their business because someone else complained about their beliefs. That’s a completely fabricated strawman you cooked up that conflates restrictions on action with a restriction on beliefs, and that we want to completely silence everyone who doesn't agree with us, which we don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You and the rest of the pro-discrimination crowd keep citing this statistic, and though it’s technically true, you conveniently ignore the context and time periods during which these laws were passed.

So let me explain this to you, since it seems to be so difficult to you and the rest of your kind understand:

In the 1980s, America suddenly became really self-conscious of the more unsavory things that had happened during its history, and began taking measures to right its wrongs. Native Americans, having faced centuries of genocide, abuse, and racism, had a predictably long list of grievances which they took to the courts and the government. Two court cases in 1988 and 1990 overruled Native American religious concerns regarding burial grounds and the use of peyote (regarded as an illegal psychoactive drug) outraged the public, and so in 1993 Congress passed the federal statue almost unanimously and Clinton signed it. The language was vague so it could apply to more than just Native Americans in instances such as Amish buggies or historic buildings that housed churches that wanted to modify the building (this last case is what I’m going to talk about next). I think two states jumped on with laws of their own just to add some padding.

But in 1997, SCOTUS was like “Hey guys, we know your intentions are good and you’re trying to protect people and all, but this federal law regulating states in addition to the federal government is technically unconstitutional per the 14th Amendment. So while Congress can regulate the federal government that is it a part of, we have to strike down the part regulating the states. Sorry y’all :/” So a bunch of states (and many of them have significant Native American populations, or in the case of Pennsylvania and Indiana’s previously weaker law, large Amish populations) were like, “oh sh*t, we gotta make sure the state government doesn’t violate these peoples’ rights unnecessarily!” and passed most of their laws IMMEDIATELY IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SCOTUS DECISION IN THE LATE-1990S AND EARLY-2000S.

So nothing really happens in the meantime until the 2010s, when gay marriage becomes widely accepted and legalized following referendums and court decisions, culminating in the 2013 striking down of DOMA.

So conservative Christians, being the sore losers that they are, and believing themselves “persecuted”, had to find new ways to lash out against a society and legal system that was increasingly intolerant of their behavior. Also in the 2010s, Obamacare became a thing, so conservatives had to destroy that, and generally being religious, sought to hide behind their religion by asking SCOTUS to strike down the contraception mandate for employers in Obamacare, claiming that it constituted abortion (though most doctors and scientists disagreed, but that doesn’t stop religious conservatives, does it?) and they just couldn’t have that, and in a 5 -4 decision down ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.

So what does that have to do with this? Well, the broadness of the ruling, being a landmark ruling with no precedent, meant that conservatives now can try and exploit the ruling to their advantage, and businesses can now (theoretically, since SCOTUS has yet to deal with this more) claim exemption from pretty much any law, except tax laws, on “religious grounds”.

So SoCons are now turning to these intentionally vague “religious freedom” laws, justifying it with the broad and vague SCOTUS ruling, to allow businesses to discriminate against people and things they don’t like. This isn’t just about gay marriage and wedding cake, but also has profound implications for healthcare coverage, childcare services, employment, and general service. That’s why Mississippi and Indiana have now passed these laws, appropriating otherwise well-intentioned but vague and general laws for their SoCon agenda. WOW what a coincidence that sudden renewed interest in these laws arises just as SoCons lose their battle on gay marriage.

Same thing with the IRS “targeting scandal”: conservative groups began exploiting 501(c)4s starting in 2009 as a way to circumvent financial disclosure laws, and they start crying about how “persecuted” they are when the IRS is like, “What’s up with the sudden surge in applications for 501(c)4s, that seem to be primarily right-wing groups with some left-wing ones? Maybe we should check this out to make sure there's no fraud going on” and did so in a questionable but not really illegal way. They are exploiting an otherwise uncontroversial thing for their own gain (not that I’m absolving liberals of doing this in general, but in these specific cases it just so happens to be conservatives) then crying about it.

The laws you cite in other states were passed over a decade ago for entirely different reasons than what Indiana and Mississippi have passed, and what many other states are now considering.

Remember the difference between belief, speech, and action? The "new" interpretation of this will be used to justify discriminatory actions, and now they can claim legal protection for it, per SCOTUS. Sometimes they will win, sometimes they may lose, heck they could do nothing but lose, but in life or death situations, by the time the ruling has been made the damage will already be done. THAT is the problem.

You, being straight, can't seem to see our problem with it. We're just making everything up and whining for special protections that allow us to discriminate against everyone else, right? Too bad that Advance America, a group that lobbied Pence to sign it, announced on their page that it was primarily about discriminating against gays: http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?cat=5

So for those who cannot seem to understand this, they seem to be either a.) willfully ignorant because you really don’t like “those whiny homosexuals, always demanding special treatment” and so twist your language into sounding like this is a totally harmless bill with no malicious underlying intentions, and everyone is making a big deal about nothing, or b.) actually ignorant.

Looks like it might be both in your case.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It is about beliefs, not just the action (or more accurately the lack of action).  If someone couldn't photoshoot a gay wedding because they already had that date booked, no one would think of bringing a case against them.  

Yes, I know it's about beliefs, because they're using it as an excuse to discriminate. Belief-based actions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I have not read every word of the decision, if that's what you're asking, but am familiar enough with the gist of it. I never said it created a blanket allowance. The problem is that people will try and cite laws like this to bring about the next court decision in their favor when they want to discriminate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't. Read my post again in the part above the IRS paragraph, where I specifically say it's not just about gay marriage. Are you not reading the things people post here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, rather clarified, and tied with non-discrimination legislation. And these concerns are not hypothetical. They're pretty real to those of us who may fall into disfavor with a landlord, store owner, employer, county marriage clerks, and police officers, among virtually any person in the world, for things other than our sexual orientation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, so then what are you? If it's something other than straight, chances are you could find yourself on the recieving end of poor treatment. And then all the modifications to RFRA laws, like the one introduced in South Dakota, would prohibit you from bringing a lawsuit if it just so happened to deal with your sexual orientation. You keep trying to act "above it all" as if this is happening somewhere it can't affect you, but these "hypothetical concerns" could get real personal for you, real fast.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Some of the proposed versions of RFRA laws are not good, like the one you cited introduced in  SD, which is why like in SD they tend not to get very far even in conservative states. There's nothing like that prohibition on bringing a suit in the IN law. The RFRA laws are generally about allowing possible line of defense in cases of a suit, not barring the suit to begin with, and don't deal specifically with sexual orientation.  

So it's not as bad, therefore it's not bad at all? The fact that there are legislators trying to push this shows that there are people who will not stop at anything to continue pushing their agenda. Amendments are things that often are passed in the middle of the night or passed when no one is looking, and can have profound implications.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does this even mean? Your language is so empty and vague and broad that it means absolutely nothing, and can be interpreted in an infinte number of ways.

Yeah, you can "live out your faith" and I can "live our my faith", but when I attempt to use that as an excuse to discriminate against someone, it's a violation of another person's rights. I "live out my faith" by choosing to dedicate my life to non-profits and charities, treat everyone I meet with respect even if I don't like them, not mentally wish harm on others, and not drink, smoke, have promiscous sex, and do care for my body. I no way does me living out my faith in the above situations violate anyone's rights or discriminate.

You keep ignoring the point I am repeating: the problem is that some will try and interpret these laws so they can discriminate and violate others' rights. Whether the courts side with them or not in the end, the damage can already have been done.

Religion is not an excuse for antisocial behavior, which the groups lobbying in favor of these laws have specifically said on their own damn website is the point, and that they are proud that they are defending Christians from having to serve homosexuals and transgender people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is so empty. In what ways do you practice your beliefs that you are scared the government is going to punish you? Give us some specific examples of what you practice and are afraid the government (oh no evil boogeyman) is going to actually come and do to you for that, or that someone will be offended.  

A substantial burden to religious freedom is not the same as any and all religious objections. Even the burden being substantial isn't enough, as it must then be weighed against other rights. Violating another's rights IS "actively aggressing on someone". Crying "religious freedom" is not a trump card; it does not mean everyone else automatically has to pack up their bags and go home.

If you want to limit another person's rights, you better have a better reason than "religious freedom", as far as I (and much of the legal basis of this country) is concerned.  

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does this even mean? Your language is so empty and vague and broad that it means absolutely nothing, and can be interpreted in an infinte number of ways.

Religion can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways?  Imagine that!

You know damn well I wasn't talking about the vagueness of religious beliefs, but rather your phrase "I defend the rights of _____", which literally means nothing because pretty much everyone agrees with that. It's as meaningless as saying you love freedom.

Stop dodging my questions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by antisocial behavior you mean limiting one's social interaction in certain ways, yes, it very much is for a great many religions.   You are free not to like it, but do not pretend you are not thereby restricting religious freedom in a time-honored fashion.  Wide scale persecution, at least in the modern Protestant West, has rarely been merely on account of belief in the abstract divorced from social manifestations.
[/quote]
You are free not to associate with people you do not like in your personal life, but when a business claims to be open to the public for business they cannot cite religious beliefs to discriminate, because a business has no religious beliefs. Indiana's law grants corporate personhood and says "religious freedom" can be invoked as a defense when the government is not a party, which makes you objectively wrong when you claimed the text was the same as the federal law and the laws in 19 other states.

----------------------------
So here's what's been happening in this entire thread with you: You keep dropping your own arguments, cherry picking people's posts, and keep stating truisms ("I support people's rights to live out their faith" Yeah, everyone does, until you violate anothers' rights). You keep running away from points when people have shown you to be flat-out incorrect or point out flaws in your logic or call you out for your truisms. When someone calls you out on your points, you completely ignore it, or try and spin it like you just did above.

Basically, you are avoiding saying anything of substance, then running away from your own arguments, dropping them like flies. You're not arguing anything. You don't seem to be able to understand that "religious freedom" is not a trump card to violate others' rights here in the United States. I'm getting the vibe that you don't really want to reveal the real reasons why you support this law.

If you don't like gay people, just come out and say it.

If it's something else, just come out and say it.

Stop beating around the bush and hiding behind your truism of "I support the rights of others to live out their faith", because that means nothing. The Big Bad Government is not going to come after you for what you believe or what you say; only if you act. You keep ignoring that. I'd expect something a little better from someone with nearly 13,000 posts over 7 years.

If you're not going to man up and debate this properly, then I'm not wasting my time on a useful idiot for the religious right or a closet bigot hiding behind "religious freedom", whatever you are.

[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.