Overreaching gay rights movement; Indiana's religious freedom act

[ObamaChristian]

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#digest-heading

"Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer."

Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

I see no issues with this bill, and yet the gay right activists are in full force once again attacking religious freedom.

If gay rights are truly so important, maybe they can satisfy the compelling interest to burden religion. Are they afraid they can't? If sexual orientation is truly the same as race, then the compelling interest should easily be met.

I think the homosexuals know that sexual orientation isn't nearly the same as race.

 

[variant]

I see no issues with this bill

Of course you don't, you're not the one against whom Indiana is legalizing discrimination.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If gay rights are truly so important, maybe they can satisfy the compelling interest to burden religion. Are they afraid they can't? If sexual orientation is truly the same as race, then the compelling interest should easily be met.

That's easy. The state already has nondiscrimination laws for sexual orientation, where it is listed alongside race, and they are treated equally as protected classes. The question is why religious people are being granted an exemption from this law. It's the religious people who have to justify their need for this special right to ignore the law.

 

[ObamaChristian]

That's easy. The state already has nondiscrimination laws for sexual orientation, where it is listed alongside race, and they are treated equally as protected classes. The question is why religious people are being granted an exemption from this law. It's the religious people who have to justify their need for this special right to ignore the law.

All this law does is codified what religious people already have under the first amendment.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Why does the religious people have to offer a reason to stop government from discriminating against religion?

This law just requires the government to not discriminate against religion without a compelling state interest.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All this law does is codified what religious people already have under the first amendment.

I don't see that discriminating against paying customers in your commercial establishment is part of the free exercise of religion. Capitalism is not religion.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Why does the religious people have to offer a reason to stop government from discriminating against religion?

The government is not discriminating against religion, so this bill won't stop any discrimination against religion. This bill enables discrimination against a group of people.

This law just requires the government to not discriminate against religion without a compelling state interest.

How can it discriminate against religious people, if people of all religions are held to the same standard? No one is allowed to discriminate against certain classes of customers in their business (unless an exemption like the one in Indiana is specifically granted to religious people as a special right).

 

[Belk]

All this law does is codified what religious people already have under the first amendment.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Why does the religious people have to offer a reason to stop government from discriminating against religion?

This law just requires the government to not discriminate against religion without a compelling state interest.

Then it is superfluous. Why would you need a law that does the same thing as a law encoded into a higher branch of government?

 

[Savior2006]

Man those people and their "overreaching" civil rights nonsense...

 

[ObamaChristian]

Then it is superfluous. Why would you need a law that does the same thing as a law encoded into a higher branch of government?

People do it all the time. Take for example California, the California Supreme Court took on a case regarding juvenile criminal penalties. The California Supreme Court was asked by various amicus groups to merely recite what the U.S. Supreme Court has already recited in their opinion.

The members of the California Supreme Court disagreed during oral argument. Some thought there was no need because the US Supreme Court already announced it. However, many superior courts were still not following it, the amicus argued that reciting it couldn't hurt and could only help. And it was recited.

They need it because human error happens all the time. Having something spelled out multiple times might just prevent some superior court judge in some little county from making a wrong ruling that has go through the appellate process before it's fixed.

Now with that being said: This bill isn't actually merely codifying the first amendment. It provides more protection to religious freedom. Which states can do, you cannot undercut rights but you can give broader ones.

The difference here is the exception to the rule of general applicability. Normally, if a law is of general applicability then it doesn't violate the first amendment. They made it so even laws of general applicability can violate religious freedom, so it's expanded.

However, legally, this law has no problems. It also doesn't on it's face discriminate against any group.

Here is the fear, I imagine gay advocates fear but they can't express in any clear or concise way.

A law of general applicability is a law that doesn't intentionally discriminate against religion, but is merely a law that is applicable to everyone. This law does not violate the first amendment, only laws that intentionally discriminate (I could be mistaken, there may be other ways such as extremely disproportionate effect as well), and does not satisfy a compelling state interest is violative of the first amendment.

A law that requires everyone to be treated the same, including sexual orientation, would be a law of general applicability that only incidentally discriminates against religion (if some religion was against homosexuality), here, however, religious freedom would apply in this situation absent the showing of some compelling state interest.

However, if treating people of various sexual orientations equally is truly like treating people of different races as the same, it will satisfy a compelling state interest, and have no effect therefore. So if it's truly the same as race, as many gay advocates keep saying, they'll meet that interest. I truly doubt they would meet that compelling interest though, because it's not the same.

EDIT:
Actually thinking more about it, the law might violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. But this isn't something the gay agenda people are even arguing at all. They seem to think the law needs to be overturned because it discriminates against gays, which has no legal basis nor factual basis at all.

However, this issue is tricky, because normally any expansion of any rights under the amendments are always allowed. You can always give more, but never less. In this case though, more religious freedom allocated would interfere with establishment right purposes. However that would be a nearly 20 page argument.

 

[morningstar2651]

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#digest-heading

"Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer."

Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

I see no issues with this bill, and yet the gay right activists are in full force once again attacking religious freedom.

If gay rights are truly so important, maybe they can satisfy the compelling interest to burden religion. Are they afraid they can't? If sexual orientation is truly the same as race, then the compelling interest should easily be met.

I think the homosexuals know that sexual orientation isn't nearly the same as race.

Coming from someone who wants to gut the bill of rights and specifically desires to deny equal rights to homosexuals, I'm not surprised you have no problem with this.

There is no religious freedom to infringe on the rights of homosexuals.

 

[ObamaChristian]

I don't see that discriminating against paying customers in your commercial establishment is part of the free exercise of religion. Capitalism is not religion.



The government is not discriminating against religion, so this bill won't stop any discrimination against religion. This bill enables discrimination against a group of people.



How can it discriminate against religious people, if people of all religions are held to the same standard? No one is allowed to discriminate against certain classes of customers in their business (unless an exemption like the one in Indiana is specifically granted to religious people as a special right).

I am unaware that Indiana has any laws that makes it illegal for a business to refuse service because of sexual orientation. There are no federal laws that prevent discrimination against sexual orientation. It is not part of the federal civil rights act.

So unless Indiana has some specific law that forbids it, I am unaware if it does nor does not. A business can refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

[ObamaChristian]

Coming from someone who wants to gut the bill of rights and specifically desires to deny equal rights to homosexuals, I'm not surprised you have no problem with this.

There is no religious freedom to infringe on the rights of homosexuals.

You assume there even exists such rights to infringe on. Which is ambiguous at best.

Equal protection only applies to state action, equal protection is relevant in the setting of gay marriage because marriage is a state sanction license. Equal protection is also applicable when it comes to state statutes.

However, even if a private party is engaged in a business transaction, unless that setting is heavily related to the state, absent a specific state statue, there is no violation.

There is against race and gender and ect. because of the federal civil rights act, that does not include homosexuals.

Technically if Indiana doesn't have a state specific statue that prevents discrimination against gays, any business owner can kick out gays.

 

[morningstar2651]

You assume there even exists such rights to infringe on. Which is ambiguous at best.

Equal protection only applies to state action, equal protection is relevant in the setting of gay marriage because marriage is a state sanction license. Equal protection is also applicable when it comes to state statutes.

However, even if a private party is engaged in a business transaction, unless that setting is heavily related to the state, absent a specific state statue, there is no violation.

There is against race and gender and ect. because of the federal civil rights act, that does not include homosexuals.

Technically if Indiana doesn't have a state specific statue that prevents discrimination against gays, any business owner can kick out gays.

Start a business, put a "No gays allowed" sign out front, and let me know how the resultant supreme court case goes for you. I'll give you a hint of how it will end - read the civil rights act of 1964.

 

[ObamaChristian]

Start a business, kick out all homosexuals, and let me know how that goes for you.

I know lots of bars that have a specific no homo policy, and they are doing just fine.

 

[morningstar2651]

I know lots of bars that have a specific no homo policy, and they are doing just fine.

Really? Name one.

 

[ObamaChristian]

Start a business, put a "No gays allowed" sign out front, and let me know how the resultant supreme court case goes for you. I'll give you a hint of how it will end - read the civil rights act of 1964.

You realize the civil rights act does not apply to sexual orientation right?

You also realize, this case would never make it to the Supreme Court, unless I was renting state owned land, and my business required a lot of state permits to operate, and I'm receiving state subsidizes right?

 

[ObamaChristian]

Really? Name one.

I'm not telling you bars that I frequent. I know the bartender does not serve gays though. He specifically denied drinks. If you find that hard to believe so be it.

EDIT: But no, in case your wondering he doesn't have a big sign that says no gays allowed. Just like most store owners don't have a sign that says no serial rapist, serial killing, armed robbery plotting patrons allowed, because it's a stupid marketing ploy. Even if the owner would kick out serial rapists/killers, he doesn't need a big sign saying that outside.

I'm against serial killers, but I'd think twice about going into a store that had a big sign that said no serial killers allowed.

 

[morningstar2651]

You realize the civil rights act does not apply to sexual orientation right?

You also realize, this case would never make it to the Supreme Court, unless I was renting state owned land, and my business required a lot of state permits to operate, and I'm receiving state subsidizes right?

Discrimination against sexual orientation is discrimination against sex. You raise no objections to women who are married to men, but you are downright awful to men who are married with men.

What is the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple? The sexes of the couple. If a gay man were a woman, you wouldn't be as terrible to them.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm against serial killers, but I'd think twice about going into a store that had a big sign that said no serial killers allowed.

...are you saying you're a serial killer?

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm not telling you bars that I frequent. I know the bartender does not serve gays though. He specifically denied drinks. If you find that hard to believe so be it.

EDIT: But no, in case your wondering he doesn't have a big sign that says no gays allowed. Just like most store owners don't have a sign that says no serial rapist, serial killing, armed robbery plotting patrons allowed, because it's a stupid marketing ploy. Even if the owner would kick out serial rapists/killers, he doesn't need a big sign saying that outside.

I'm against serial killers, but I'd think twice about going into a store that had a big sign that said no serial killers allowed.

So several bars became one bar with no name...

I don't think this bar exists. You're making it up.

 

[ObamaChristian]

So several bars became one bar with no name...

I don't think this bar exists. You're making it up.

Think what you want. But I'm not telling you where I live, which is essentially a block away from where i go to drink. You got me there though, it's not several, it's one.