Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[oldpink]

You're talking about a group of people who believe I deserve to suffer for all eternity, for having done... nothing. Starting from there, promising you'll treat everyone fairly is a tough sell.

And there it is for all to see: You create a boogeyman of Christians to justify your animus to your political opposition, all the better to rationalize your burning desire to both demonize and bully them.
Got it.
Enjoy that bile.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Lowe0 -

Please don't mistake "disagreement" with "hate"... We disagree about just about everything around here. And we're a bunch of gun guys and gals that you would think would agree about EVERYTHING.

You and I can disagree about all kinds of issues and still be friends, no? I have LOTs of Christian friends who probably convinced that I'm going to hell. We agree to disagree - and hopefully they see that I'm a reasonable person - and their position softens over time. I mean - the Westboro Baptist folks are LOATHED by most Christians I know - BECAUSE of their intolerance.

If you're willing to not hate me , I'm certainly willing to not hate you. No matter what we might disagree on... Heck mrjarrell and I disagree on a lot of things - often in very strong terms - and I don't have any hate for him...

 

[dusty88]

You're talking about a group of people who believe I deserve to suffer for all eternity, for having done... nothing.

I think that the judgment is supposed to be directed towards the 1st person individual, not others, and you should assume that is what someone is doing before you assume they "hate" you.

I also think the judgment is mis-applied when refusing to offer an extraneous service loosely connected to someone else's actions.

I've already used the "don't feed a glutton" example because I think it's one of the most obvious. What's also apparent is that religious offenses are selective based on current culture.

 

[chipbennett]

Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to harming others.

If you support the reasoning behind public access laws, you can't then claim that your religion would make the difference in what type of work you would do or who you would serve. If there is some "reason" that I am required to sell everyone pork at the same price, to offer everyone who asks the same photography service etc, then you claim someone is harmed if I don't do that.

Completely untrue. Go ahead and as a Muslim baker or printer to create something with the image of Mohammad, or words from the Koran.

And the substantial burden test absolutely differentiates between taking a portrait picture of someone, and providing wedding photography services for a homosexual wedding.

So now if you claim your "religious practice" prevents you from doing that, you are claiming you want to use your religion to harm someone or take away their rights.

What quantifiable harm has occurred? What rights have been taken away?

This is one of those times where rights appear to conflict. They only appear that way because government took away the rights of the business owner by falsely stating that people have a "right" to demand services of others.

RFRAs restore business rights, but only if your reasoning is religion. Or RFRA restores your right to put peyote in your body, but only if your reasoning is religion.

All I can do is point back to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious exercise provided for by the first amendment. If other entities need similar constitutional protection, start the process to amend the constitution. If religious exercise does not need such protection, start the process to amend the constitution.

 

[Ericpwp]

Okay, here are the words. Please point to the ones you don't like.

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) 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.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

 

[dusty88]

Completely untrue. Go ahead and as a Muslim baker or printer to create something with the image of Mohammad, or words from the Koran.

And the substantial burden test absolutely differentiates between taking a portrait picture of someone, and providing wedding photography services for a homosexual wedding.



What quantifiable harm has occurred? What rights have been taken away?



All I can do is point back to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious exercise provided for by the first amendment. If other entities need similar constitutional protection, start the process to amend the constitution. If religious exercise does not need such protection, start the process to amend the constitution.

Chip,

I'm not making this argument in terms of current case law. I'm making it in terms of morality, logic, the constitution, and the true meaning of personal rights.

Edit: when you have liberty, you don't need to prove religious burden in order to make your own business choices.

 

[Dead Duck]

Okay, here are the words. Please point to the ones you don't like.

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) 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.
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.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

OK - I found the word I don't like.
"Clause"
This is the word that always bothered me.
Why do lawyers always talk about Santa when it's not even Christmas time. They're just confusing kids! Not cool.....

 

[mrjarrell]

As usual, Penn is the voice of reason. The pro-RFRA woman in this sounded like she just copied Pence's TV performance.

[video]https://youtu.be/rsEtY-OvZC0[/video]

 

[Lowe0]

And there it is for all to see: You create a boogeyman of Christians to justify your animus to your political opposition, all the better to rationalize your burning desire to both demonize and bully them.
Got it.
Enjoy that bile.

How is pointing out that Christianity requires eternal torment for nonbelievers a bogeyman? It's a simple statement of fact.

 

[MisterChester]

OK - I found the word I don't like.
"Clause"
This is the word that always bothered me.
Why do lawyers always talk about Santa when it's not even Christmas time. They're just confusing kids! Not cool.....

Not only that, isn't it spelled "Claus"? We don't need spelling novices working on this

 

[Roscoe38]

Indiana's version is not the same as those other versions. We have added language in ours that is not present in the federal or other states, (except for Texas in one case).

After reading the text of both the In and Fed bills, I cannot identify one from the other.

Methinks you should stop fanning the flames and just plain SHUT UP.

 

[PaulF]

Take your personal bickering off-forum. This thread is closed.