Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[oldpink]

"TEAvengelists?"
Well, apparently some bigotry is okay and even good, while other types, even if totally hypothetical and fanciful, is bad.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[mrjarrell]

"TEAvengelists?"
Well, apparently some bigotry is okay and even good, while other types, even if totally hypothetical and fanciful, is bad.

TEAvangelicals. If you're going to quote it at least get it right. It's a very descriptive word for a very specific kind of agenda pusher here in Indiana. I can't claim credit for it, though. It came from elsewhere. It's hardly bigoted, either. Just descriptive. Sorry if you think you fall under that umbrella.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Kutnupe, apparently you have forgotten that this law basically replicates the federal RFRA, which has been in effect since 1993. I'm guessing (Hobby Lobby) that the Supreme Court has already ruled on it, and they upheld it.

 

[oldpink]

TEAvangelicals. If you're going to quote it at least get it right. It's a very descriptive word for a very specific kind of agenda pusher here in Indiana. I can't claim credit for it, though. It came from elsewhere. It's hardly bigoted, either. Just descriptive. Sorry if you think you fall under that umbrella.

Oh, I knew it came from elsewhere, more than likely DailyKooks, MoonbatsMoveOn, DemocrapUnderground, or AlterStatesNet.
I wouldn't expect you to come up with a single thing that was a totally original thought, even if the term is so buzzowordy as to be pathetically laughable.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh, I knew it came from elsewhere, more than likely DailyKooks, MoonbatsMoveOn, DemocrapUnderground, or AlterStatesNet.
I wouldn't expect you to come up with a single thing that was a totally original thought, even if the term is so buzzowordy as to be pathetically laughable.

Nope. Came from an individual right here in Indiana. Sorry you didn't understand it, though. They should cover it next year when you return to middle school.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, apparently you have forgotten that this law basically replicates the federal RFRA, which has been in effect since 1993. I'm guessing (Hobby Lobby) that the Supreme Court has already ruled on it, and they upheld it.

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

 

[KG1]

Nope. Came from an individual right here in Indiana. Sorry you didn't understand it, though. They should cover it next year when you return to middle school.

Don't be so hard on oldpink. Sometimes it's a challenge to keep up with the smartest person on INGO.

 

[kludge]

It's funny that some of the same people who argued against the "parking lot law" (they own the property, they make the rules) are now arguing against this law (they own the property, but we have to force them to serve everyone).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

Supreme Court upheld the law. If you want to go with the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; . . . "(emphasis mine). If you want to go with: there should be no laws that have anything to do with helping or hindering any religious practice whatsoever, then I can agree with you. But that also means that government can't tell an individual he must do (or not do) anything that touches his "religion", whether that be an established "religion" or merely a deeply held belief like "a-theism" or "humanism" or "global warming is manmade." But be that as it may, the Supreme Court says RFRA is acceptable law, and Indiana law doesn't differ to any great degree, as far as I can tell.

 

[Twangbanger]

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

And what does the U.S. Constitution, precisely, say about this?

I don't recall it saying, "The Indiana Legislature shall make no law..."

I think the actual wording is something more like, "Congress shall make no law..."

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't be so hard on oldpink. Sometimes it's a challenge to keep up with the smartest person on INGO.

He's not trying to keep up with Bill Of Rights. He's just doing his regular schtick.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What does the U.S. Constitution, precisely, say about this? I don't recall it saying, "The Indiana Legislature shall make no law..."

I think the actual wording is more like, "Congress shall make no law..."

You are exactly right. And truth be told, this law WOULD be kosher if applied as originally envisioned by the founders (IMO). However this has been incorporated (as are the rest of the BoRs), and is thus uniformly applied to the states. If you disagree, then you are essentially of the belief the states can regulate firearms, just as long as the federal govt does not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If it's called the RFRA, it doesn't make a difference who did it first, second, or at what level.... it's a law respecting the establishment of religion and is verboten according to the constitution. If this is going to fly, it should be re-worded to indicate "beliefs," to allow non-religious entities the same right.

No, it's not. That's not what the 1st Amendment is about. This is a common mistake in understanding. It was about the federal government not making the Anglican Church, the Methodists, the Presbytarians, Human Seclarists, Wiccans, or Church of Cannibis the official religion of the country. Then the second part of that was the federal government was not to enact laws to prevent the exercise of your chosen religion.

It's a freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, it's not. That's not what the 1st Amendment is about. This is a common mistake in understanding. It was about the federal government not making the Anglican Church, the Methodists, the Presbytarians, Human Seclarists, Wiccans, or Church of Cannibis the official religion of the country. Then the second part of that was the federal government was not to enact laws to prevent the exercise of your chosen religion.

It's a freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what it is. It's specifically extending a right to a religious entity.

 

[LP1]

Mike Pence didn't write the legislation

A distinction without a difference. He came out in favor of it, and signed it.

I'd like to think that we the people will be smart enough to vote him out, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, that's EXACTLY what it is. It's specifically extending a right to a religious entity.

People keep saying that. It's simply not true. It's not extending any particular right to any specific religious entity. It's protecting all religious entities.

 

[Kutnupe14]

People keep saying that. It's simply not true. It's not extending any particular right to any specific religious entity. It's protecting all religious entities.

That I am in agreement with.... but what about non-religious entities, are they covered by this legislation?

 

[phylodog]

I see a difference.

Wonder if we can get the law changed to simply state that no person or business can be sued for refusing to provide a service for any reason they feel prudent? If it's an employee (private or public) they employer can have whatever policy they'd like so they could fire an employee if they wanted to and public employees could be restricted from denying services by policy. Which special interest group might that offend?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That I am in agreement with.... but what about non-religious entities, are they covered by this legislation?

What this was intended to do is guide the courts, when making 1st Amendment related decisions, that they are to follow strict scrutiny of the amendment in arriving at their decisions. It is about restraining the government from infringing on one of our core constitutional rights.