|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 9:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 1, 2015 10:38:12 GMT -5
Hmmm, wonder if he'll travel to CT? It has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 10:54:48 GMT -5
Hmmm, wonder if he'll travel to CT? It has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. The two laws are nothing alike. One in CT is protecting religious rights from the states by enabling the ability to sue the state to maintain personal freedom paralleling the 1993 federal statute. The other, IN, enables discrimination between individuals and the ability to sue between private parties allowing religious bigotry as a defense. Very different. Even the IN Governor Pence has called for clarification trying to say it doesn't say what it does.
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 1, 2015 11:29:43 GMT -5
Hmmm, wonder if he'll travel to CT? It has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. The two laws are nothing alike. One in CT is protecting religious rights from the states by enabling the ability to sue the state to maintain personal freedom paralleling the 1993 federal statute. The other, IN, enables discrimination between individuals and the ability to sue between private parties allowing religious bigotry as a defense. Very different. Even the IN Governor Pence has called for clarification trying to say it doesn't say what it does. Can't say I agree with you. In fact I'd say you're lying.
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 12:40:15 GMT -5
Then you haven't been paying attention to coverage. www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-indiana-religious-freedom-law-20150331-story.htmlthehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237471-pence-calls-for-immediate-fix-to-controversial-lawwww.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/"Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.he new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.)
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 1, 2015 14:54:24 GMT -5
The two laws are nothing alike. One in CT is protecting religious rights from the states by enabling the ability to sue the state to maintain personal freedom paralleling the 1993 federal statute. The other, IN, enables discrimination between individuals and the ability to sue between private parties allowing religious bigotry as a defense. Very different. Even the IN Governor Pence has called for clarification trying to say it doesn't say what it does. Can't say I agree with you. In fact I'd say you're lying. Soon we'll be demonizing butterflies for their role in the death and destruction left by hurricanes. A sad fact is that these days a significant and extremely vocal portion of our society is desperately in need a steady stream of people/things/entities to vilify. Just think back over the 'outrages' that we've seen in the last few years.... "hands up, don't shoot', Hobby Lobby, the evil Ted Cruz, the even more evil Koch Brothers, environment hating-science hating conservatives, women hating conservatives, racist conservatives, small business('you didn't build that), those really really evil one percenters stealing your American Dream(greedy bastards), that do-nothing evil Congress(but only the GOP members), and let's not forget those immigrant hating xenophobic racist republicans while we're at it. Aren't we getting a bit tired of this childish nonsense yet? Isn't it time we leave this orgasm of outrage behind? Isn't it time that we at least attempt to re-discover a balance built upon maturity? I read both the federal law and the Indiana law earlier today... evidently, those principles embodied in our 1st amendment rights that our ancestors fought so hard for are now examples of 'isms' of some sort. Native Americans can use peyote as it is a part of their religious belief system because our activist buddies are ok with that, but those who hold beliefs that are at odds with the our activist pals must drop their religious belief as those beliefs are not up to our activist friends sanctioned standards of religious beliefs. So, who is it that is the bully here? We live at a time when a significant portion of our society finds themselves driven from one outrage to another in order to satisfy their unquenchable distorted sense of 'justice.' The items in Ice's last post are ever so slightly misrepresentations, in part, as they assume that it is improper to acknowledge the Hobby Lobby ruling in new law. More importantly we are witnessing the manifestations of hyper political activist self delusion. We just don't actually care about much as long as we get to be outraged and have someone, anyone to demonize. I am agnostic but I have my own strong belief that religion is a very good thing for humanity and that ultimately religion is and should be practiced at the individual level. Outside of issues of life and death, it is not for me to use my government as a weapon to decide which religious beliefs that are widely held should be allowed and which should be disallowed. More importantly, a person should not be forced to leave their deeply held personal beliefs at the door of their business. Those beliefs are at their core and we should be tolerant of our differences and respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit. I hesitate to post this next thought as it is not a part of either the federal RFRA law nor is it effected by the Indiana RFRA law but I'm fairly certain that those who find some pleasure in twisting themselves into pretzels will find some nonsensical connection for themselves and begin to fling feces into the air to obfuscate the issue further:::: If someone doesn't want to serve me a cake or make up an arrangement of flowers for me, well, that's ok with me....I'll live happily with someone else's cake on my plate and flowers on my table. Tolerance for others allows me to hold no anger or grudge against a person who lives by a set of principles even if those principles means that they won't come out and play with me.... We have lost our balance, we have lost our tolerance, we have lost our way. What is happening to this country now is akin to a cancer attacking the vital organs of our society. We are feeding upon ourselves and are becoming a one-think collective with no tolerance for those who do not subscribe to politically correct thought. The CEO of Mozilla was forced out for a belief that he shared at the time with our current president... but just he was forced out... curious... sadly, there are many such examples of this intolerance alloyed with hypocrisy. I hope we grow up. For anyone so inclined, here you can find the relevant RFRA texts to read for yourself. They're both short--just three pages each... If you are fully determined to find boogie-men or boogie-women everywhere you look, of course, you will find them... but if you just want to read these documents without prejudice this whole kerfuffle will seem pretty silly to you. Federal RFRA of 1993 www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/07/24/act-pl103-141.pdfIndiana RFRA iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdfAF
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 15:14:46 GMT -5
I agree it is the result of the Hobby Lobby ruling (which is, also, connected to Citizens United) which will continue to play out in numerous problematic ways.
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 1, 2015 15:37:53 GMT -5
Then you haven't been paying attention to coverage. Oh I've paid attention. That's why I'm sick of all the lies put out by the Libs and the media. Having people lie to me and having people believe lies are a couple of my pet peeves.
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 1, 2015 15:38:34 GMT -5
I agree it is the result of the Hobby Lobby ruling (which connected to Citizens United which will continue to play out in numerous problematic ways. Another thing the left put out a bunch of lies about.
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 17:54:45 GMT -5
Boo, your link to the Indiana PDFs will not load.
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 17:55:37 GMT -5
Then you haven't been paying attention to coverage. Oh I've paid attention. That's why I'm sick of all the lies put out by the Libs and the media. Having people lie to me and having people believe lies are a couple of my pet peeves. Then you should have noted in posting the material I posted I did not lie.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 1, 2015 18:10:38 GMT -5
Boo, your link to the Indiana PDFs will not load. I'll look into it later... I've got an important call coming in that will keep me busy for awhile... Workaround:: type it into a browser or go to the Indiana.gov site... AF
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 19:16:47 GMT -5
Apparently, the issue was in attempting to load it onto the iPad. Using my MacBookPro alleviated the problem. Comparing the two side by side there is indeed the substantial difference I noted. It, also, means the reporting from the sources I provided was accurate.
Indiana includes the following. It is not in the Federal version and so raises new issue.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
It establishes the law as enforceable between individuals not just involving the establishment clause and the individual vs government.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 1, 2015 20:07:18 GMT -5
Apparently, the issue was in attempting to load it onto the iPad. Using my MacBookPro alleviated the problem. Comparing the two side by side there is indeed the substantial difference I noted. It, also, means the reporting from the sources I provided was accurate. Indiana includes the following. It is not in the Federal version and so raises new issue. Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter. It establishes the law as enforceable between individuals not just involving the establishment clause and the individual vs government. Evidently, our understanding of the word 'substantial' is very different. The law does little more than give sanction to raising the issue of burden of religious rights when in court. It does not give anyone the right to deny service to anyone of any stripe. This whole affair should be an embarrassment to all Americans. We are behaving like fools. We scream into the public bullhorn of the media that this 'could' or 'may' deny rights to the LGBT community when there is absolutely nothing in this law that allows that. What we have done is create an environment where public officials have to deny the rights of the religious in our country that have beliefs that run contrary to politically correct thinking. So, we have taken a situation where there was no truly aggrieved party and reworked the situation into one where we do have an aggrieved party. Shameful. Unfortunately this has become all to common in recent years... A situation is grossly misrepresented, the outrage machine gets spun up, folks get angry, ridiculous fixes are suggested and made, and even after it becomes obvious that the whole thing was massively mischaracterized we still stick to our outrage. We have become a ridiculous society willingly running headlong into oblivion. How many folks have worked themselves up before they even took a moment to look up the laws to see what the dust up is all about. So, in our bias and laziness, instead of actually understanding the issue, we let others who are politically motivated and are just as unknowledgeable as we are tell us what to think. We are becoming lemmings. We are also getting the declining America that we deserve. Ice, it appears that even you hadn't actually read the laws until I posted them for you... or why would you have put them up side by side once you could see them on your iPad.... this is a such a widespread and dreadful disease of willful ignorance trumping rational informed decision making. Democratic republics cannot survive this behavior. In the end, all that we have done is to swap which group is aggrieved and added to the list of folks who are sanctioned targets of the wrath of the PC movement. How many more will we add to that list before this thing burns itself out? Maybe it's just me but my hope would be that we could support the LGBT community without demeaning and diminishing various religious groups. LGBT community with enhanced political clout.... CHECK Religious communities diminished clout.... CHECK Our elected representatives bullied... CHECK Tolerance abandoned.... CHECK Given the growing list of groups that we all get to take potshots at with immunity these days, I have been reminded of a poem of my youth. To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller:: First they came for the Conservatives, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Conservative. Then they came for the Entrepreneurs, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Entrepreneur. Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Christian. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Well, I'm not a christian and I'm not ok with this intolerance. AF
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 1, 2015 20:32:12 GMT -5
I call it substantial because it moves from individual vs state to person vs person. It is a whole new area of law that will have lawyers licking their chops.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 1, 2015 20:50:16 GMT -5
The only thing that this law does differently is it allow the religious burden defense to be raised in court. Other than that, there is no change to what currently stands. It does not ensure a victory in court, it only allow for the burden defense to be raised... nothing more. nothing less. Very little has changed... the law was more symbolic than real, but when it comes to tolerance and rights of the individual any support is welcomed. There is no difference to an aggrieved person with respect to who caused the aggrievement... it does not matter whether the state brought the abuse of rights or another civilian brought the abuse... the abuse of rights can and should be repaired in court.
AF
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 2, 2015 5:16:48 GMT -5
Then it is odd that Gov. Pence and others are going crazy in a panic to add clarifying modifications in denial of possibility of it promoting the potential of discrimination and that they chose the method of passing the law they did with minimal opportunity for debate and that they had representatives of the AFA and other conservative religious groups present for the signing without including communities supportive of LGBT rights like the Metropolitan Church of Christ who have traditionally needed the very protection purported to be covered in the law.
Most inexcusable in the events of the past days surrounding this are those on either side and it has included both that have threatened violence against each other.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 2, 2015 9:19:13 GMT -5
Ice, you must know that the Governors must protect their states even if the attacks are as misguided as these are. They are faced with a landslide of misinformation coming from a lazy and misguided media that has created a irresponsible and unreasonable backlash against a non-existent harm that includes a form of their state's economic punishment... Faced with this, the Gov's have little they can do outside of caving to the pressure. We are witnessing a new form of McCarthyism coming from the left. Outrage must be found, political blood must be spilled and supporters of religious freedom must be punished. This sort of thing is an anathema to our most basic principles.
It was wrong when the Republicans in the 1950's did it and it is just as wrong in the 2010's when the Democrats do it. In order for a family in Indiana to remain faithful to their most deeply held religious beliefs they were honest about their beliefs and as a result they lost their family pizza restaurant.... let me say that again... a family lost their business and their income after a media outlet did a story on them and the backlash against this family was set aflame. This is disgraceful. It should be shockingly unacceptable to crush this family and so many others because their personal beliefs don't fit into the rigid PC guidelines.
BTW, I talked to a friend that served as a clerk to a Justice when we were both young.... it seems that the courts have repeatedly included supporting the 'person to person' aspect in evaluating cases of the 1993 Federal RFRA. I wish we would aim before we shoot, look before we leap, research before we form an opinion......
AF
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 2, 2015 9:44:02 GMT -5
Oh I've paid attention. That's why I'm sick of all the lies put out by the Libs and the media. Having people lie to me and having people believe lies are a couple of my pet peeves. Then you should have noted in posting the material I posted I did not lie. Sorry ice, you lied. You've lied to me before. Just the way you guys work. I realize this and I can work with it. I just don't believe much of what you say on particular subjects.
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 2, 2015 9:47:40 GMT -5
Then it is odd that Gov. Pence and others are going crazy in a panic to add clarifying modifications in denial of possibility of it promoting the potential of discrimination and that they chose the method of passing the law they did with minimal opportunity for debate and that they had representatives of the AFA and other conservative religious groups present for the signing without including communities supportive of LGBT rights like the Metropolitan Church of Christ who have traditionally needed the very protection purported to be covered in the law. Most inexcusable in the events of the past days surrounding this are those on either side and it has included both that have threatened violence against each other. It is odd, very odd. But that's what seems to happen when the left and the media get going with their lies and bullying. We see it happen all the time. I mean the lying works for you guys. That's why you use it.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 2, 2015 10:02:07 GMT -5
Then it is odd that Gov. Pence and others are going crazy in a panic to add clarifying modifications in denial of possibility of it promoting the potential of discrimination and that they chose the method of passing the law they did with minimal opportunity for debate and that they had representatives of the AFA and other conservative religious groups present for the signing without including communities supportive of LGBT rights like the Metropolitan Church of Christ who have traditionally needed the very protection purported to be covered in the law. Most inexcusable in the events of the past days surrounding this are those on either side and it has included both that have threatened violence against each other. It's possible that I may sprout wings and fly but I kinda doubt it will happen... As far as minimal opportunity for debate goes... it was the longest most extensively debated item of the session. Have you considered that the LGBT community was not included because there was absolutely NO connection to the LGBT community in the law... there is and was absolutely NO discrimination of the LGBT community in the law... let's repeat that... there is and was absolutely NO discrimination of the LGBT community in the law... That's why they were not included... btw it's the very same reason that pig farmers were not specifically included, carpenters were not specifically included, blue eye folks like me were not specifically included, women were not specifically included, men were not specifically included, tall people were not specifically included, short people were not specifically included... and on and on and on.... AF
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 2, 2015 12:10:10 GMT -5
Pretty clear that isn't true since several reports already indicate otherwise in actions taken by restaurants and others.
|
|
|
Post by Icebear on Apr 2, 2015 12:11:41 GMT -5
Then you should have noted in posting the material I posted I did not lie. Sorry ice, you lied. You've lied to me before. Just the way you guys work. I realize this and I can work with it. I just don't believe much of what you say on particular subjects. I have never lied to you. You may disagree with the sources I have provided but I have never lied.
|
|
|
Post by meyers7 on Apr 2, 2015 12:52:02 GMT -5
Sorry ice, you lied. You've lied to me before. Just the way you guys work. I realize this and I can work with it. I just don't believe much of what you say on particular subjects. I have never lied to you. You may disagree with the sources I have provided but I have never lied. That right there is a lie. Not a big deal. I know you do and anticipate accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by atticusfinch on Apr 2, 2015 13:04:22 GMT -5
Pretty clear that isn't true since several reports already indicate otherwise in actions taken by restaurants and others. Are you actually trying to argue that in the days since Gov Pence signed the law that the courts have upheld the right of restaurants to refuse service to those in the LGBT community.... time must fly at the speed of light in Indiana if that has happened. If restaurants are suddenly in violation of federal law by denying service to gay customers the issue will be sorted out in court as it should be. That is how our society functions. And let's remember that the issue at hand here is whether the state can compel a person to engage themselves in another's ceremony that is in conflict with their deeply held religious convictions. This has nothing to do with selling a slice of pizza or a flower arraignment to a customer. Again, this law has no effect upon serving a patron of a restaurant. It only covers the right to a defense of religious burden in court and the burden defense must first be accepted by the judge as reasonable in the case and then there is still no certainty of a win in the case by the person(s) bringing the RFRA burden defense. My goodness... I can't believe that we are still dealing with this after giving you the text of both the Indiana law and the Federal law as well as the common use of the federal law. But then I suppose some folks revel in their intolerance. When rights are in conflict there is very often no need to remove the rights of one to satisfy the rights of the other... This is a case of McCarthyism pure and simple. It is also a fine example of good people doing very very bad things. AF
|
|