Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[Woobie]

Pinning them in the corner with facts may not work.

Lol, QFT

 

[Lowe0]

How, pray tell, would a business "use" the Indiana RFRA? Can you describe a scenario where that would play out?

Sure. A business could refuse to rent space to a group such as Secular Together or Sunday Assembly, then use the RFRA as cover.

 

[MisterChester]

Yes. And a law that says, "...a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..." is the exact opposite of statism. It restricts what the state may do to interfere in the life of the individual.

Where did I say that this law was a result of social statism? Again, you are most certainly putting words in my mouth. Maybe you should stop assuming and simply ask what I meant if you didn't understand it. Mike Pence is a social statist, don't get me wrong, but he'll poo poo the government when government involvement does not further his agenda.

 

[rhino]

My problem with Gov. Pence is that he's done a crappy job of asserting the truth and facts regarding the Indiana RFRA. It's not like he didn't have enough time to prepare something more persuasive. In fact, it should have been done prior to signing the bill into law. It wouldn't have helped stop the masses of ignorant people or those who are purposely lying to further their own political agendae, but it would have been the right thing to do.

Backpedaling with additional legislation to "clarify" will make the public relations mess worse. We need to stick to facts, truth, and add a little reading comprehension.

Oh, and possibly buggy whip people who are advocating boycotting Indiana while at the same time advocating other states that have the same damn law on their books.

 

[chipbennett]

Sure. A business could refuse to rent space to a group such as Secular Together or Sunday Assembly, then use the RFRA as cover.

What would cause them to "use the RFRA as cover"? Flesh out the scenario.

Where did I say that this law was a result of social statism? Again, you are most certainly putting words in my mouth. Maybe you should stop assuming and simply ask what I meant if you didn't understand it. Mike Pence is a social statist, don't get me wrong, but he'll poo poo the government when government involvement does not further his agenda.

Lots of establishment republicans are statists; on that point, we will certainly agree, I'm sure.

 

[Lowe0]

What would cause them to "use the RFRA as cover"? Flesh out the scenario.

If said group opted to sue for religious discrimination. Unlikely in Indy, since it's easiest to just find somewhere else, but in areas with limited options for meeting space, I could see it being an issue.

 

[chipbennett]

If said group opted to sue for religious discrimination. Unlikely in Indy, since it's easiest to just find somewhere else, but in areas with limited options for meeting space, I could see it being an issue.

Okay, let's play this out.

Atheists R Us attempts to rent space for the purpose of holding atheism meetings, from Christian N. Tolerant, a landlord who has advertised a space available for rent. The landlord refuses to rent the space to be used for that purpose. ARU sues Mr. N. Tolerant for discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of religion. Mr. N. Tolerant invokes the RFRA, claiming that renting the space for atheism meetings is a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

Do I have that scenario right so far? If not, please feel free to make amendments.

But if so, my first question would be: would Mr. N. Tolerant's claim of substantial burden even be upheld? I do not believe that the court would find in his favor. Renting a space, available to the public for rent for presumably arbitrary purposes, does not reasonably represent a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Mr. N. Tolerant. And if that's the case, the balancing test in the RFRA is moot, and never even applied to the case.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Since we need to have a 2nd thread on this subject, apparently.

Relevant to the topic: An Elkhart teacher/coach threatened to burn down the pizza place.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...eedom-restoration-thread-105.html#post5767809

 

[Dean C.]

Just saying this law was redundant in the first place. It has always been legal do discriminate against gays in the state of Indiana........ That and if Pence was a smart man (he is not) he would have tabled it and let the law to into effect by default, or better yet vetoed the bill (but the morons at the IN GOP would not have liked that).

 

[miguel]

Just had some chocolate, so I'm on a sugar buzz...

Too bad Pence doesn't call a news conference today and say, "APRIL FOOLS!!! We are leaving this mafa as is, ya feel me???"

 

[chipbennett]

Just saying this law was redundant in the first place. It has always been legal do discriminate against gays in the state of Indiana........ That and if Pence was a smart man (he is not) he would have tabled it and let the law to into effect by default, or better yet vetoed the bill (but the morons at the IN GOP would not have liked that).

This is untrue. Lack of inclusion of sexual orientation as a "protected class" does not preclude seeking relief for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Dean C.]

This is untrue. Lack of inclusion of sexual orientation as a "protected class" does not preclude seeking relief for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Correct but they could not win.

 

[Lowe0]

Okay, let's play this out.

Atheists R Us attempts to rent space for the purpose of holding atheism meetings, from Christian N. Tolerant, a landlord who has advertised a space available for rent. The landlord refuses to rent the space to be used for that purpose. ARU sues Mr. N. Tolerant for discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of religion. Mr. N. Tolerant invokes the RFRA, claiming that renting the space for atheism meetings is a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

Do I have that scenario right so far? If not, please feel free to make amendments.

But if so, my first question would be: would Mr. N. Tolerant's claim of substantial burden even be upheld? I do not believe that the court would find in his favor. Renting a space, available to the public for rent for presumably arbitrary purposes, does not reasonably represent a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Mr. N. Tolerant. And if that's the case, the balancing test in the RFRA is moot, and never even applied to the case.

Absolutely. An opportunity to find in favor of a Christian over an atheist? You'd better believe they'd do it.

 

[chipbennett]

Absolutely. An opportunity to find in favor of a Christian over an atheist? You'd better believe they'd do it.

So, you're basing that assertion on nothing more than the belief that Indiana courts are pro-Christian/anti-atheist? No precedent case law?

(Hint: there's actually existing case law that would inform otherwise, or that would lead such a decision open to reversible error on appeal.)

 

[Lowe0]

So, you're basing that assertion on nothing more than the belief that Indiana courts are pro-Christian/anti-atheist? No precedent case law?

(Hint: there's actually existing case law that would inform otherwise, or that would lead such a decision open to reversible error on appeal.)

Works for Roy Moore in Alabama. Are we really any different here?

 

[chipbennett]

Works for Roy Moore in Alabama. Are we really any different here?

In what Indiana jurisdiction does Roy Moore make court decisions?

 

[Lowe0]

In what Indiana jurisdiction does Roy Moore make court decisions?

None. I'll repeat the question that ended my last post: are we really any different here?

 

[chipbennett]

None. I'll repeat the question that ended my last post: are we really any different here?

You have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Lowe0]

You have evidence to the contrary?

The RFRA itself. Look at the people lobbying for it and ask yourself what they think of atheists.

 

[chipbennett]

The RFRA itself. Look at the people lobbying for it and ask yourself what they think of atheists.

Begging the question. Fail.

Do you have any real evidence?