Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Indiana's religious freedom law at the Political Forums; While the Left screams, why don't we just look at what this ACTUALLY does... Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 03:26 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,738
Thanks: 2,294
Thanked 36,347 Times in 20,703 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

While the Left screams, why don't we just look at what this ACTUALLY does...

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained

Quote:
On Thursday, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, and some celebrities, politicians, and journalists--including Miley Cyrus, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few--are absolutely outraged. They say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people

Meanwhile, activists are calling for a boycott. The CEO of SalesForce, a company that does business in China, is pulling out of Indiana. The NCAA has expressed concern about holding events there in the future. And the city of San Francisco is banning taxpayer-funded travel to the state.

Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?

No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else."

So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?

The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.

The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't.

If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA?

Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections.

Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?

Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA:

Quote:
Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:

Quote:
A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Indiana's RFRA makes it explicit that the law applies to persons engaged in business as well as citizens in private lawsuits, but until quite recently it had always been understood that federal RFRA covered businesses and private lawsuits. (See this post by law professor Josh Blackman for more on these matters.)

Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied.

So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people?

We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books.
It's a shame that the lying narrative gets repeated and repeated and repeated until so many consider it gospel...

"Hangs up; let's be ignorant!!!!!"...:rolls
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 03:40 PM
Dave1's Avatar
...Fair and Balanced...
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,427
Thanks: 4,303
Thanked 5,432 Times in 3,202 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post

It's a shame that the lying narrative gets repeated and repeated and repeated until so many consider it gospel...
Sorry, Pence thru that trial balloon up for his possible presidential bid in 2016…..

It was red meat for his constituents and they all applaud it in conservative tree forts…..We have seen this before from other republican candidates positioning themselves before elections. He's trying to out right Ted Cruz after he threw his hat in the ring….

You laugh at the left for getting upset…..

Well, the left laughs at the right for thinking that this is a good idea….

Bottom line, perception is reality in the voting booth and as long as the right is willing to muddy the waters, they will have to deal with the consequences…



One way or another….
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave1 For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 03:55 PM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,535
Thanks: 1,075
Thanked 1,935 Times in 1,182 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
While the Left screams, why don't we just look at what this ACTUALLY does...
Then yes lets look at the law, ALL OF IT.

Quote:
Senate Bill 568

Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
You all can pontificate over the interpretation of it, I am just tired of one side or the other bitching that no one read the damn thing then only post some that has a little part of the full text and say they are right. If people would start reading the full text of thing, bill like Obama care and the Patriot act would not get passed so easily.
__________________
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:17 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,738
Thanks: 2,294
Thanked 36,347 Times in 20,703 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
You laugh at the left for getting upset…..

Well, the left laughs at the right for thinking that this is a good idea…..
Did you miss this part?...

Quote:
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
In other words, EVERYBODY thought it was a good idea...

The Left changed and became hypocrites...the Right didn't budge...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 04:40 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

cnredd, you're partaking in the classic bait and switch.
Not all RFRAs are equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Did you miss this part?...
In other words, EVERYBODY thought it was a good idea...
The Left changed and became hypocrites...the Right didn't budge...
The laws are not identical.

Here's a question for you...
Did the 1993 federal law suddenly dictate that laws against discrimination were suddenly N/A for religious excuses?
Hint: The answer is NO.

Is Indiana's law IDENTICAL to the federal RFRA?


Now, let's ask the same question regarding the Indiana law.
And let's talk to one of its proponents...
Eric Miller, who lobbied for Indiana’s new law as executive director of the group Advance America, said it could help Christian bakers, florists and photographers avoid punishment for “refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage,” protect Christian businesses that refuse “to allow a man to use the women’s restroom,” and insulate churches that refuse to allow their premises to be used for same-sex weddings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us...gays.html?_r=0

Gee. Now WHERE would we get the idea that this legislation would be used against gays?
From its proponents?
How many people do we have on this board arguing it will change situations like with gay marriage cakes, when they are against business anti-discrimination laws?


Here's a question for you cnredd.
What do you think changed with the enactment of Indiana's religious "freedom" law?
What scenario plays out different between before and after the law enactment?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 05:22 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,738
Thanks: 2,294
Thanked 36,347 Times in 20,703 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
cnredd, you're partaking in the classic bait and switch.
Not all RFRAs are equal.


The laws are not identical.
And it was addressed....You non-reader...

Quote:
Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?

Nothing significant. Here's the text of the federal RFRA:

Quote:
Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:

Quote:
A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 07:03 PM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,535
Thanks: 1,075
Thanked 1,935 Times in 1,182 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Guess we need the full text for the federal law too.

Quote:
42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

§ 2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

§ 2000bb-1. Free exercise of religion protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

§ 2000bb-2. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity;
(2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;
(3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title.

§ 2000bb-3. Applicability
(a) In general
This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993.
(b) Rule of construction
Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.
(c) Religious belief unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

§ 2000bb-4. Establishment clause unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. As used in this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
__________________
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 07:27 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,738
Thanks: 2,294
Thanked 36,347 Times in 20,703 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Just some commentary, I thought, was important...

Quote:
The fact is that the Indiana law is going to wind up being an important milestone for civil liberties no matter which way it goes in the end. We have a situation where activists are claiming that some form of discrimination exists against one subset of people (gays) and are perfectly willing to trample of the rights of another, less politically popular group of people (Christians) if it achieves their long term goals. Passing a law intended to correct this imbalance is setting people’s hair on fire in the usual circles, but it’s going to prove to be an instructive test case.

Beyond all of this, however, I have to feel a bit disappointed that the debate ever had to be constructed as one of religious liberty in the first place. True, the religious liberty aspect of it is an important one and the courts need to speak to it. But underneath it all we’re talking about the freedom of private business owners to conduct their business as they see fit. The hard core libertarian argument which underpins this rests on the fact that a private business can’t actually “discriminate” against you in the same fashion that the government can. For one example, the state can’t pass a law refusing to issue a driver’s license to black motorists. The state holds an absolute monopoly on licenses and the black motorist can’t simply go down the street to Bob’s House of Discount Licenses and get one there.

But a wedding cake is no different than any other food item once you remove the gay marriage element from the equation. Businesses who decide to refuse service to various people will be subject to the same market forces which always apply. If there is a market for any given goods or services and one owner chooses not to capitalize on that market, another will move in to fill the vacuum. If you refuse too many customers you will eventually go out of business, but that’s the nature of the business world. Sadly, the courts stopped defending the idea of free markets in cases where political correctness manages to stick its nose under the edge of the tent many decades ago. But the religious liberty aspect of this case gives it additional legs, so it won’t be batted aside as easily.
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 10:18 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 82,983
Thanks: 55,954
Thanked 26,444 Times in 18,944 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

if a state law makes it harder for a group of people to barter and sell, rent etc., then it will be struck down by the SC eventually.
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2015, 11:36 PM
indago's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midwest
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Thanks: 63
Thanked 405 Times in 279 Posts
Default Re: Indiana's religious freedom law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Why don't you present one...
See what you can / cannot find.

It amazes me how many people will whine about reverse discrimination to ignore real problems. Like that whole "war on Christmas" crap, but then the right refuses to acknowledge how bad racism is in this country.
You'll have to talk to the merchants about a "war on Christmas". I'm quite sure that they would be "up in arms" against it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
freedom, indiana, law, religious

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0