Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

First of all, these laws go further than the federal law, otherwise there wouldn't be a push to make these laws at the state level, because the Federal statutes would already apply nationwide in a blanket fashion.

Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right.

Drakurii · Mar 31, 2015

Looks like Arkansas passed a similar bill bout an hour ago.

Defying Criticism, Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill on Religious Freedom - New York Times | USA News

Kedwyn · Mar 31, 2015

Supreme Court will end up striking this down eventually.

wormie · Mar 31, 2015

I wouldnt be so sure. Hobby Lobby opened up the flood gates to this shit.

Arbitrary · Mar 31, 2015

After Citizen's United I have no expectations that the Supreme Court will do anything positive.

Xevy · Mar 31, 2015

Indianapolis's city council already approved a resolution against the RFA and is just awaiting the Mayor (who is on board with it) to sign it.

We just need Andrew Luck to say he thinks it's unfair and it'd be undone in half a second and we'd have a statue of Paul Lind put up in the fucking Circle.

Royal · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
So tell me this, in the 20 years since the federal version of this law has been in effect, how many times has it been used to prevent the government from protecting people from discrimination? Or how about in the other states that have the same law?

It's been stated before, but this law is not a carbon copy of the federal act.

1) The Indiana law applies to disputes that do not involve the government (civil suits). The federal law does not.

2) The Indiana law extends protections to all manner of for-profit enterprises and corporations. Up until the recent Hobby Lobby ruling, the federal law only applied to individuals, religious organizations, and religious non-profits. Hobby Lobby extended it to closely held businesses.

3) The Indiana law effectively overrides local level laws in the state that give nondiscrimination protection on the basis of sexual orientation, making them subject to the compelling interest and least restrictive means tests in the event of legal action against those local governments. As the result of a SC decision in the 90's, the federal law cannot be used to challenge state or local laws (this incidently is why individual states have passed their own versions of the law)

Hoss · Mar 31, 2015

hodj_sl said:
First of all, these laws go further than the federal law, otherwise there wouldn't be a push to make these laws at the state level, because the Federal statutes would already apply nationwide in a blanket fashion.

Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right.

No the federal law didn't apply to states. These laws only go further in that they apply to individual states too. I don't know if you've noticed this, but there's not typically a lot of overlap between federal laws and state laws. But fine, forget the federal law since you're not familiar with it. What about all the other states who have the same law? What sort of abuses has it allowed?

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
No the federal law didn't apply to states. These laws only go further in that they apply to individual states too. I don't know if you've noticed this, but there's not typically a lot of overlap between federal laws and state laws. But fine, forget the federal law since you're not familiar with it. What about all the other states who have the same law? What sort of abuses has it allowed?

Using Religion to Discriminate | American Civil Liberties Union

Hoss · Mar 31, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Using Religion to Discriminate | American Civil Liberties Union

No, I get that. Some people are assholes. I didn't see any mention of these RRF laws being used to successfully defend those people though. That's what I'm asking about. The claim here is that this law will make it so people can do that with no consequences, I'm just asking if it's actually happened yet.

BrutulTM · Mar 31, 2015

Is this what the atheism thread and the politics thread are like?

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

Maybe we're talking past each other here.

The cases the ACLU cites at that link, most of which the discriminators lost in court over, would probably have gone the other way had these laws been in effect at that time. That's sorta the point.

Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock | American Civil Liberties Union
Ward v. Wilbanks et al. - Case Profile | American Civil Liberties Union

For a couple of quick examples.

Borzak · Mar 31, 2015

Surpsied you guys haven't thrown a fit about businesses that refuse to certain states that they don't agree with politically or didn't vote their way and impacted their business/industry.

Izo · Mar 31, 2015

Borzak_sl said:
Surpsied you guys haven't thrown a fit about businesses that refuse to certain states that they don't agree with politically or didn't vote their way and impacted their business/industry.

One issue at a time, mate.

Borzak · Mar 31, 2015

Izo_sl said:
One issue at a time, mate.

Edited, left out "to ship to". Not all that uncommon and they put on the website why as well.

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

Borzak_sl said:
Surpsied you guys haven't thrown a fit about businesses that refuse to certain states that they don't agree with politically or didn't vote their way and impacted their business/industry.

Honestly not sure I'd agree with that either.

Generally view boycotts as a waste of time, personally, regardless of the source or target.

Hoss · Mar 31, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Maybe we're talking past each other here.

The cases the ACLU cites at that link, most of which the discriminators lost in court over, would probably have gone the other way had these laws been in effect at that time. That's sorta the point.

Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock | American Civil Liberties Union
Ward v. Wilbanks et al. - Case Profile | American Civil Liberties Union

For a couple of quick examples.

And the word probably is my point. That's a wild assed guess on your part. I was just asking if it had happened yet. The federal law's been around 20 years, if anything like that was going to happen from it, surely we'd have seen it by now. I'm not sure how old the state laws are, so I can't say the same about them.

I joined the thread late, has anyone linked the text of the new law yet?

Hoss · Mar 31, 2015

Borzak_sl said:
Edited, left out "to ship to". Not all that uncommon and they put on the website why as well.

I've only seen this with guns or gun parts in places like california. In those cases I think it's justified because the added aggravation probably isn't worth the sale. When else have you seen it?

hodj_sl said:
Honestly not sure I'd agree with that either.

Generally view boycotts as a waste of time, personally, regardless of the source or target.

Same here, but if someone wants to boycott, they can knock themselves out. I boycott about 3 businesses for various reasons. But I don't have any delusions that my boycott is hurting them.

Royal · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
No, I get that. Some people are assholes. I didn't see any mention of these RRF laws being used to successfully defend those people though. That's what I'm asking about. The claim here is that this law will make it so people can do that with no consequences, I'm just asking if it's actually happened yet.

Just off the cuff, I'd point out that the blush isn't off of the Hobby Lobby rose yet. We haven't had a lot of time pass under the expanded scope of the RFRA and this is just the first of the state laws that exceeds it. More are coming and some may go even further. The backlash from Christian conservatives and others over the continuous repeal of state same sex marriage bans and the prospect of national same sex marriage hasn't reached it's crescendo. There's no reason to expect the next twenty years to look like the previous twenty.

hodj · Mar 31, 2015

Hoss_sl said:
And the word probably is my point. That's a wild assed guess on your part. I was just asking if it had happened yet. The federal law's been around 20 years, if anything like that was going to happen from it, surely we'd have seen it by now. I'm not sure how old the state laws are, so I can't say the same about them.

I joined the thread late, has anyone linked the text of the new law yet?

Sure I definitely made a supposition there, admittedly.

But im not sure it follows that we'd have had problems with the federal statutes if they weren't applicable at the state level as you asserted.

For me, the thing is that we're even talking about it as a possibility should be a warning sign that these types of laws could be used to this effect.

Look up the wedge strategy of I think the discovery institute for examples of how the goal is to get the foot in the door with things like "intelligent design" as a means of setting the stage for further infiltration by the religious right.

Wedge Document - RationalWiki

Wedge strategy - RationalWiki

http://www.discovery.org/f/349

The Wedge at Work

etc

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Vox Populi Jihadi

Golden Baron of the Realm

Silver Squire

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Tranny Chaser

Log Wizard

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Make America's Team Great Again

Vox Populi Jihadi

Make America's Team Great Again

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Tranny Chaser

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Make America's Team Great Again

Make America's Team Great Again

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Vox Populi Jihadi

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh