Can we talk about how insane it is that this shit is actually going to be passed into law?

3/25/2015 4:20:22 PM

Aren't we already in the Christian-sharia law thread?

3/25/2015 5:21:58 PM

Isn't religious freedom a good thing?

3/26/2015 4:46:27 AM

the bill is anti religious freedom though

3/26/2015 8:47:09 AM

its about less pee pee in the doo doo

these things are important

3/26/2015 9:33:36 AM

Well, if it makes you feel better, the Presbyterian Church is now allowing gay marriage. Tit for tat. Eye for an eye. All even now.

3/27/2015 11:04:16 AM

PCUSA is also splitting apart because of it, a lot of presbyterians are moving to EPC

3/27/2015 11:11:30 AM

If I had to guess, a split is also coming to the United Methodist Church.

3/27/2015 1:11:37 PM

now there will be the "tolerate blacks but hate gays" branch of the methodists

3/27/2015 10:12:53 PM

This is is gonna be the Anabaptist rebellion all over again.

3/28/2015 2:01:16 PM

Oops:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/whoops-indianas-anti-gay-religious-freedom-act-opens-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/#.VRli84SBaso.facebook

3/30/2015 11:38:45 AM

This is gonna be a shit show no matter what. I wonder how many millions of dollars have been pissed away on all these pointless, sure to be knocked down laws, just to keep the retards happy?

3/30/2015 11:52:52 AM

So how is this a sure to be knocked down law? Isn't it basically a state level version of the federal RFRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act) which has already survived supreme court challenges (other than having applicability to the states stricken). I mean other than the explicit applicability to for-profit entities as well as not-for-profits, how is this substantially different from the federal laws on the books since the early 90's?

3/30/2015 2:55:44 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

3/30/2015 3:08:01 PM

It seems to answer your question in the 2nd paragraph:

Quote :

"The RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities."

So states are trying to bypass this by repassing the law at the state level.

3/30/2015 3:11:13 PM

^^ I don't find either of those distinctions particularly damning. The profit/non-profit line was already crossed in Burwell, and is frankly a ridiculous distinction unless you somehow think that the NFL or BCBS should have these rights, but a locally owned and operated Jewish or Islamic grocery store should not. That you have banded people together for the purposes of making money should not exclude those same people from having their religious freedoms.

The other distinction, that it's a defense in a private party suit, is a logical extension of law in general and seems like much ado about nothing. If someone is suing you for religious discrimination, they are doing so and asserting that some law (which is a government burden) requires you to do something. That the government itself isn't a party to the lawsuit should have no bearing on whether or not your you are within your rights under the law. Or do we really need every private action lawsuit under which an entity asserts these rights to be done with a counter suit naming the state as a defendant?

^ Ok, I still fail to see what makes this unusual. Congress exceeded its authority in applying a new law to the states. The states that want that law to apply to them are thereby making their own laws applicable to the state. Federalism FTW. It's essentially the same thing as the national drinking age. The feds have no authority to make law declaring 21 to be the drinking age across the nation. They do have authority to offer incentives and every state makes their own such law. This is well established precedent.



[Edited on March 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM. Reason : fgsdfg]

3/30/2015 3:34:27 PM

Quote :

" The other distinction, that it's a defense in a private party suit, is a logical extension of law in general and seems like much ado about nothing. If someone is suing you for religious discrimination, they are doing so and asserting that some law (which is a government burden) requires you to do something. That the government itself isn't a party to the lawsuit should have no bearing on whether or not your you are within your rights under the law. Or do we really need every private action lawsuit under which an entity asserts these rights to be done with a counter suit naming the state as a defendant?"

Perhaps not, but this IS where the outrage is originating from IMO. This bill has the most broadly written language of any of the RFRA. If the other bills opened up pandora's box, this bill kicks the door in. Only Texas (big surprise) has somewhat similarly broad language, but it at least explicitly exempts civil rights. The way the bill is written would also allow any anti-discrimination laws to remain on the books, even though in effect they would become useless in these specific cases.

The other source of the outrage is the timing. This isn't the early '90's or even the early '00s. Its 2015, the vast majority of the US supports gay rights, the supreme court is about to legalize gay marriage across the entire nation and this bill was obviously a response to that. They didn't pass the bill to uphold religious freedom, they passed it so they can continue to discriminate, that should be obvious to everyone.

[Edited on March 30, 2015 at 4:11 PM. Reason : If you arguing that a state law burdens you, why shouldn't the state get chance to defend its law??]

3/30/2015 4:09:29 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/whoops-indianas-anti-gay-religious-freedom-act-opens-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/

3/30/2015 4:31:58 PM

Quote :

"Can we talk about how insane it is that this shit is actually going to be passed into law?"

Can we talk about how it seems like independent thought in TSB is becoming rarer all the time? Why not just post comments in the echo chamber that told you to be outraged about this bill instead of posting here without adding any arguments of your own?

3/30/2015 4:58:51 PM

3/30/2015 4:59:09 PM

^^ if that's gonna be your angle, why not make an argument yourself?

3/30/2015 5:14:39 PM

What discourse is to be had on this even? I can't imagine many college educated people are supporting this. No Republicans I know think this a good idea.

And enough referencing the federal or other states "similar" laws as they are not even remotely the same.

3/30/2015 5:22:32 PM

Quote :

"http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/whoops-indianas-anti-gay-religious-freedom-act-opens-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/"

Not really that interesting considering that the original Federal law was passed in response to legal prohibitions on Native Americans from using peyote in religious ceremonies. RFRA has apparently also been used already by Sikhs to protect their religious icons in Federal buildings, Sateria priests to protect animal sacrifices, and Muslims with their bears in prison.

ACLU supported the original RFRA and also made pretty liberal use of it in their lawsuits early on, until they realized that larger organized religions figured out how to leverage it the same way. People forget the original Federal law was proposed by Ted Kennedy, voted overwhelmingly in Congress, and signed by President Clinton.

Best article I've seen online talking about the long history of RFRA laws:
http://hamilton-griffin.com/whose-fault-is-rfra/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/religious-freedom-state-laws_n_6316782.html

3/30/2015 6:11:29 PM

Quote :

"now there will be the "tolerate blacks but hate gays" branch of the methodists"

AME already has that covered.

3/30/2015 6:47:19 PM

Quote :

"The other source of the outrage is the timing. This isn't the early '90's or even the early '00s. Its 2015, the vast majority of the US supports gay rights, the supreme court is about to legalize gay marriage across the entire nation and this bill was obviously a response to that. They didn't pass the bill to uphold religious freedom, they passed it so they can continue to discriminate, that should be obvious to everyone."

Which is kind of irrelevant. I mean, don't get me wrong it's relevant in learning who you should and shouldn't vote for next election, but beyond that it isn't. Whether the cause is illicit drugs in ceremonies, outdated medical ideas, business practices that lose you money or any other particular issue you're against or for, if the protection of one group's crazy sky man beliefs is important enough to apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting it, then every group's crazy sky man beliefs are important enough. And no, the irony that a law that was originally used to defend illicit drug use that I'm sure got the conservative side of the aisle in a knot is now being backed by them as a great thing is not lost on me anymore than a law championed by the liberal side of that same aisle is suddenly a terrible terrible thing.

Quote :

"If you arguing that a state law burdens you, why shouldn't the state get chance to defend its law??"

That's a good question, but I don't think it's how things are generally done. Similar laws that come to mind would be things like Stand Your Ground, Good Samaritan (shield), and Whistle Blower laws. When there's a civil suit over something covered by one of these laws, is it common for the state to be named as a party on the lawsuit? I don't seem to recall that, but I honestly don't know the answer so I'm asking here.

Quote :

"And enough referencing the federal or other states "similar" laws as they are not even remotely the same."

How so? Aside from the aforementioned profit/non-profit distinction and the non-party clause, the whole thing is pretty much a word for word copy of the federal statute. That seems to qualify as at least "remotely similar"


Edit
-----------

Quote :

" The way the bill is written would also allow any anti-discrimination laws to remain on the books, even though in effect they would become useless in these specific cases. "

I'll be honest, I think it would take quite a substantial shift in judicial precedent for that to happen. The key component of the law is still that the state must show that the method in question is least intrusive method of carrying out the compelling state interest. Considering the varying anti-discrimination policies are already accepted as compelling state interest and given that there are very very specific carve outs with regards to that, I would think at worst you might see a very narrowly carved out exemption for something not already covered (like the exemptions that allow religious schools to restrict their hiring) and nothing broadly based. To be honest, even disagreeing with how the cake baker thing turned out, I don't see this sort of law helping there either unless they found a judge willing to declare that discriminatory businesses needed to post publicly visible and legislatively mandated signs (like the 30.06 signs in texas) declaring their discrimination. In this sort of political climate I think that would wind up a Pyrrhic victory on the discriminator's side.

[Edited on March 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM. Reason : one more ]

3/30/2015 7:32:54 PM

Quote :

"Which is kind of irrelevant. I mean, don't get me wrong it's relevant in learning who you should and shouldn't vote for next election, but beyond that it isn't. Whether the cause is illicit drugs in ceremonies, outdated medical ideas, business practices that lose you money or any other particular issue you're against or for, if the protection of one group's crazy sky man beliefs is important enough to apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting it, then every group's crazy sky man beliefs are important enough. And no, the irony that a law that was originally used to defend illicit drug use that I'm sure got the conservative side of the aisle in a knot is now being backed by them as a great thing is not lost on me anymore than a law championed by the liberal side of that same aisle is suddenly a terrible terrible thing."

You asked why there was outrage, when there wasn't for past RFRA, and the timing of this is clearly where a majority of the new outrage lies.

I recognize the irony as well, and I recognize that this law should, in theory apply to everyone's beliefs. Unfortunately, I think the underlying assumptions that 1)everyone has equal access to the court system and 2) judges will act impartially is a little naive. Time will tell on this though.

Quote :

"When there's a civil suit over something covered by one of these laws, is it common for the state to be named as a party on the lawsuit? I don't seem to recall that, but I honestly don't know the answer so I'm asking here"

I don't know the answer to this either, but that is how a vast majority of other RFRA laws have been written. The examples you listed seem more focused to me than this RFRA law. For example, stand your ground is a SPECIFIC defense written into statutes for assault, homicide, and thats it. Compare that to RFRA and how broad it is, it could affect nearly any state law. Personally, I think the state should have a chance to argue its case, due to how broad RFRA is and unintended consequences.

Quote :

"I'll be honest, I think it would take quite a substantial shift in judicial precedent for that to happen. The key component of the law is still that the state must show that the method in question is least intrusive method of carrying out the compelling state interest. "

Which would require them to argue before a judge, no? Or are you suggesting that a judge can find a law a substantial burden in one case, and make a decision, and only after that at a later date hear arguments from the state on why the law has a compelling interest?

3/30/2015 8:53:19 PM

He can't answer a single Yes/No question, and says that the nicest people in America are found in Indiana:

http://mic.com/articles/113938/governor-pence-can-t-answer-a-simple-yes-or-no-question-over-lgbt-discrimination
(must watch video)

If the nicest people are found in Indiana, can he explain why this student was treated the way he was by his fellow students and by the school authorities who turned on him and lied about him?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/tortured-for-being-gay-in-indiana.html

3/31/2015 6:14:17 AM

Welp Pence caved pretty fast. Wonder if his gay-hating lobbyist cohorts will stand behind him when he signs this "clarification" bill

3/31/2015 11:22:23 AM

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183

anybody see this earlier?

3/31/2015 11:31:42 AM

Just replace gay with interracial. This is the same persecution complex that conservative "christians" lamented when they wanted to keep interracial marriage illegal.

it's not about religious freedom, it's about wanting government sponsored discrimination.

3/31/2015 11:53:39 AM

i'm not a subscriber, what does it say?

3/31/2015 12:13:02 PM

in 2015, when somebody says, "I don't think it's a very good thing to be able to discriminate against anyone" some take that to mean, "I FUCKING HATE YOUR RELIGION AND YOUR FAKE GOD GO FUCK YOURSELF"

persecution complex at its best

gonna be hilarious to watch all of the 2016 candidates trip over themselves after they all supported this yesterday, only to have Pence walk it back this morning

3/31/2015 12:17:44 PM

Quote :

"Which would require them to argue before a judge, no? Or are you suggesting that a judge can find a law a substantial burden in one case, and make a decision, and only after that at a later date hear arguments from the state on why the law has a compelling interest?"

The state can still argue for a position without being party to the lawsuit itself. Presumably, the way this would work is Entity A would sue Entity B asserting a violation of rights. Entity B would assert defense against this, declaring the law nominally requiring them to act (or not act) a certain way is a violation of their religious rights. The state could then file an amicus brief with the court, arguing their position on the law. There's even a Federal Rule (and similar state level Rules) on notifying the state when this sort of thing happens (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_44), so it can't be that unusual. And courts have ruled on the applicability or constitutionality of laws without the state being a party to the case before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Ziherl).

3/31/2015 2:00:32 PM

Do these legislators have brains? At all? There was widespread criticism of Indiana's and now Arkansas just passed one and will send it to the GOP governor.

I guess they need to pander to the slack jawed yokels they represent.

3/31/2015 5:24:23 PM

My inner cynic feels as though Arkansas sees all of the focus on Indiana, so they feel as though there is only but so much attention the public/media can spend on this particular issue which enables them to scoot this through.

3/31/2015 7:34:59 PM

Quote :

"NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana. We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance. We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race."

http://deadspin.com/nascar-decries-indiana-anti-gay-law-1694802166

4/1/2015 1:07:01 AM

What kind of fucked up backwards version of 2015 are we in where Walmart is the voice of reason?

Also, if my a church attending Christian (Episcopalian) and I've never in my life once felt my religious freedom is under attack. Maybe I'm lucky? But more likely these people who support these laws just don't want to catch the gay.

4/1/2015 7:56:35 AM

^the thing is you probably don't view your religion as a means to an end for power (both in society and government). These dominionists (or whatever you want to call these very political christian groups) do feel threatened, not because they won't be able to worship as they see fit, but because they see their influence waning across the country. Their livelihoods, and probably their psyches, depend on staying relevant and "powerful." The sad part is that they don't realize they are partly responsible for fueling their path to irrelevance by lobbying for dumb shit like these bills to pass. Just my $0.02.



1337 b4k4

From your Rule 44 link, the statute the rule in trying to implement:

Quote :

"In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The State shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality."

So it looks to me like the state would have the ability to become a party to the case, assuming that state courts have similar rules as Federal courts. Interesting, and thank you for those links. This Indiana RFRA, while I still think it is very broadly written, may not be as different as those that preceded it in the way it will be implemented.

The last question I have on this Rule 44 angle is: Rule 44 requires that the defense in the case to more or less be "The law you are suing me under is a violation of my constitutional rights." at which point the clerk of court has to be notified of this defense. Is that different from "The law you are suing me under violates RFRA for my sincerely held beliefs?"

I think that they probably are different, and for that reason rule 44 may not apply. I understand that various RFRA laws draw their power from the 1st amendment, but using it as a defense vs. using the 1st amendment as a defense would, legally speaking, be considered differently by the courts?

[Edited on April 1, 2015 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ^tru]

4/1/2015 9:01:56 AM

always a great idea to go on TV and declare yourself a bigot

http://gawker.com/indiana-pizzeria-takes-brave-stand-of-denying-gays-pizz-1694992744

http://www.yelp.com/biz/memories-pizza-walkerton

do you think before jesus broke the loaves and fish, he made sure to ask the masses if there were any queers around?

4/1/2015 11:36:08 AM

4/1/2015 12:15:31 PM

Quote :

"I think that they probably are different, and for that reason rule 44 may not apply. I understand that various RFRA laws draw their power from the 1st amendment, but using it as a defense vs. using the 1st amendment as a defense would, legally speaking, be considered differently by the courts?"

I don't think it would be considered different for the purposes of notifying the state. Realistically, the RFRA is a legislative extension of 1st amendment rights in that the 1st amendment assures a given freedom (extended to the states via the 14th), court precedent has established there are cases where the 1st amendment can be limited in some cases of compelling state interests, and now the RFRA clarifies legislatively that in the case of religious freedoms, that the limits must themselves be as limited as possible while still accomplishing the goals of the compelling state interests. Ultimately, using the RFRA as a defense is still a claim that your constitutional rights are being violated, it's an additional claim that even allowing for a compelling state interest, it doesn't pass the muster of being sufficiently limited in scope.

I suspect the RFRA would be rarely if ever used on its own as a defense. The argument would be 1st amendment violation and RFRA violation at the same time. Sure the court may throw out the 1st amendment argument early on, but why give ground you don't have to give off the bat? The RFRA is not an "affirmative defense" (or doesn't appear to be), so you don't have to admit to a constitutionally valid restriction in order to use it. Of course this is all speculation on my part, but I think it would be odd for the courts to rule the state shouldn't or couldn't be notified and present (again even if just in an amicus brief) an argument that the restriction is sufficiently narrow, if for no other reason than it would mean the court itself would have to make that argument in order to make a determination.

Although I suppose an interesting question that comes from this is "does the court represent the state sufficiently to defend a law against a challenge (constitutional or not) or must there always be a state attorney to present an argument?"

Quote :

"always a great idea to go on TV and declare yourself a bigot"

It is, it lets the rest of us know where to avoid.

And again, I find myself asking why people want others who have no interest in serving them to be forced into it and want them to hide their biases. Think of it this way, you're a (Super) Trooper and every day you stop in a restaurant to order a burger. One day, the owner of the restaurant puts up a sign declaring all police to be bastards and won't serve them anymore. Why would you ever want to force them to take the sign down, force them to serve you and then spend the rest of your life wondering if every time you ate there someone spit in you burger rather than just going down the street to another burger joint?

4/1/2015 12:16:42 PM

Quote :

"And again, I find myself asking why people want others who have no interest in serving them to be forced into it and want them to hide their biases. Think of it this way, you're a (Super) Trooper and every day you stop in a restaurant to order a burger. One day, the owner of the restaurant puts up a sign declaring all police to be bastards and won't serve them anymore. Why would you ever want to force them to take the sign down, force them to serve you and then spend the rest of your life wondering if every time you ate there someone spit in you burger rather than just going down the street to another burger joint? "

If there was a history of people attacking and killing troopers just for being troopers, and other people who would just come short of saying troopers should be attacked, and yet other people who would take kids and put them in near torture situations to make sure they don't try and become a trooper, even though being a trooper is in their blood, and politicians who proudly proclaimed on a national stage they don't think troopers deserve equal treatment, then yes, I'd want them to be forced to take it down, if only at least to let future generations know that this type of behavior is wrong and not becoming of a civilized society.

4/1/2015 12:36:20 PM

Quote :

"rather than just going down the street to another burger joint?"

what if there isn't another burger joint?

4/1/2015 12:46:02 PM

A great big thank you to 1337 b4k4 and TerdFerguson for keeping this thread readable.

4/1/2015 1:40:53 PM

Quote :

" I'd want them to be forced to take it down, if only at least to let future generations know that this type of behavior is wrong and not becoming of a civilized society."

Which is more effective at letting future generations know the behavior is wrong. Legally hiding it and forcing it to go underground or letting it be exposed to light and allowing people to openly express their disgust at it? I still feel that allowing bigots to be bigots is the best way to ensure that their bigotry will not persist in future generations. Especially as legally hidden bigots tend to find more subtle (and therefore more easily accepted by others) ways of acting on their bigotry. The public tide turning towards gay marriage isn't from legal stamping out of bigotry, it's from openly expressed bigotry being mocked and compared to reality. So let the pizza place be a bigot and let them fail. Require them to post a sign, let them paint themselves with scarlet letters and proudly declare their lack of business sense so that everyone can know not to give them money.

Quote :

"what if there isn't another burger joint?"

In such a case, we can (and should) visit the issue over whether there is a compelling state interest to ensure that the service in question is provided to all. Don't mistake my general opposition to these types of laws as a declaration that they never have their place. I'm a huge fan of non-discrimination laws applied to governmental services for example. I can also reasonably see it applied to things like emergency services. But not everything is essential enough for this, and sometimes you're better off knowing rather than hoping they're professional enough to work around their biases.

My wife has health issues, and went to a new doctor to address them. One of her issues freaked the doctor out and the doctor insisted that he (and indeed the whole practice) did not and would not treat that issue (this despite the condition being listed as a treated condition on the practice website). After demanding to be transferred to another doctor in the practice (it was one of those conglomerate type deals), we were told that they wouldn't transfer her to another provider, but that the one who had just berated her and told her he wouldn't work with her had changed his mind. We chose to go elsewhere and as much as it sucked to waste money going there and then somewhere else, I'm happier having found out that this provider wouldn't treat my wife rather than having a law requiring him to and not being sure whether the treatment would be substandard because of his underlying biases. My only wish is that I had known before we went there, it would have been nice if this guy had a sign.

Again, I'm not saying this stuff doesn't suck. I'm saying sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

4/1/2015 2:10:52 PM

Interestingly, this law would also pave the way for muslim owned falafel joint to deny anybody who's not muslim into their business or require a head scarf or turban or some shit.

I'd love to see that play out in Indiana and see how equally the law would protect such a business.

4/1/2015 2:18:33 PM

some of these reviews are hilarious

Quote :

"http://www.yelp.com/biz/memories-pizza-walkerton"

4/1/2015 2:27:12 PM

^^ I don't see why it can't or shouldn't apply to those things as well. I mean dress codes are already are a thing for some businesses, so all that remains is really whether or not the availability of falafel for non-muslims is a compelling state interest.

4/1/2015 2:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Crystal's father, Kevin O'Connor, had this to say: That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose? It sounds like Kevin O'Connor sucked a dick and was like, "Nah." Can't fault a guy for knowing what he likes."

hahahhaha

[Edited on April 1, 2015 at 4:18 PM. Reason : from: http://gawker.com/indiana-pizzeria-takes-brave-stand-of-denying-gays-pizz-1694992744]

4/1/2015 4:17:52 PM

had an interesting discussion with a conservative today who thinks that gays are being "sore winners" about the amount of progress they've made over the years, given the backlash/embarrassment Indiana is facing right now. he basically chocked it up to "act like you've been there before, gays". lulz

4/1/2015 5:17:46 PM