The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm pretty sure this was explained upthread, but I'll try again: According to Governor Pence and other lawyers, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal RFRA only applied in states which had similar state statutes. In effect, Indiana's RFRA simply enables the federal RFRA. Of course, I suppose the people of Indiana who had gay marriage laws forced on them by a federal court are just "whiners" because they had no say in the matter of how marriage should be defined in their state. Funny how that sounds worse than 3% of the population "whining" about how they should have a "right" that hadn't existed throughout most of the world for most of its history, doesn't it.

I read somewhere that the difference between the Indiana law and the federal law (and all the other state laws based on the federal law) is that the federal law only prohibits governmental entities from forcing people and businesses to do things that infringe on their religious beliefs, while the new Indiana law prohibits private parties from doing it also. So, the federal law actually didn't prohibit a private person from suing a business owner that refused service (obviously, since there have been lawsuits), but the Indiana law does prohibit a private person from suing a business owner for refusing service.

 

[Denny347]

How does this law change anything in our state besides public perception?

This is all political to me.

It changes nothing...legally. Indiana defigns a protected class by sex and race. Sexual orientation is not protected under current Indiana law. As such, there would be no legal basis for a suit if service was denied. So, in reality, nothing has changed by it. This was more a message than anything else.

 

[Roadie]

I read somewhere that the difference between the Indiana law and the federal law (and all the other state laws based on the federal law) is that the federal law only prohibits governmental entities from forcing people and businesses to do things that infringe on their religious beliefs, while the new Indiana law prohibits private parties from doing it also. So, the federal law actually didn't prohibit a private person from suing a business owner that refused service (obviously, since there have been lawsuits), but the Indiana law does prohibit a private person from suing a business owner for refusing service.

From what I read, that is not the case at all..

The way I read it,it limits how the State involves itself in those lawsuits, it doesn't prevent the lawsuits..

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

This was more a message than anything else.

From what I read, that is not the case at all..

The way I read it,it limits how the State involves itself in those lawsuits, it doesn't prevent the lawsuits..

See? That's the trouble with reading articles online. I really don't know. I read the actual law several times and I'm still not 100% sure.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I read somewhere that the difference between the Indiana law and the federal law (and all the other state laws based on the federal law) is that the federal law only prohibits governmental entities from forcing people and businesses to do things that infringe on their religious beliefs, while the new Indiana law prohibits private parties from doing it also. So, the federal law actually didn't prohibit a private person from suing a business owner that refused service (obviously, since there have been lawsuits), but the Indiana law does prohibit a private person from suing a business owner for refusing service.

Somewhere upthread an INGOer posted relevant quotes from both the federal RFRA and the state RFRA. As I recall, the purpose was to demonstrate that they were exactly the same.

 

[D-Ric902]

It's actually about race apparently
Who has Vanessa Summers as a Rep.
they were debating this bill.

18-Month-Old Republican's Son Is Racist, Democrat Says | The Daily Caller

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It's actually about race apparently
Who has Vanessa Summers as a Rep.
they were debating this bill.

18-Month-Old Republican's Son Is Racist, Democrat Says | The Daily Caller

The son is a dead-beat too; He doesn't go to school, he doesn't have a job. He just sponges off his parents.

 

[D-Ric902]

The son is a dead-beat too; He doesn't go to school, he doesn't have a job. He just sponges off his parents.

I hear his mama still wipes his tushie

 

[SteveM4A1]

It changes nothing...legally. Indiana defigns a protected class by sex and race. Sexual orientation is not protected under current Indiana law. As such, there would be no legal basis for a suit if service was denied. So, in reality, nothing has changed by it. This was more a message than anything else.

I know, but maybe others will read your reply and let it sink in.

I'm sure we will need to revisit reality again sometime soon within this thread.

 

[Scout]

Found this while trying to research some stuff on the subject. Analysis: Indiana Religious Freedom Law Is Not 'Anti-Gay'

 

[1775usmarine]

I guess after 18 states it has to become about gays at some point and Indiana somehow drew the short straw?

 

[Scout]

I've been involved in several Facebook threads on this, and after pointing out how it was originally signed into law in 1993, someone rebutted that that was 20+ years ago and the country has moved on since. My question is, if it is so bad, why is that original 1993 law still in effect?

Personally, I'm against gay marriage, so I'm not going to get gay married. You can if you want. I also disapprove of the tactics the gay community is using to "gain" their rights. I've never seen a "Straight Pride" parade or rally. I've never seen "Hetero Marriage" bumper stickers. I've never met anyone who defined themself by their straight sexuality.

 

[Arthur Dent]

My question is, if it is so bad, why is that original 1993 law still in effect?

There are loads of pointless and outdated laws still on the books so your question is really pointless. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books

 

[dusty88]

There are loads of pointless and outdated laws still on the books so your question is really pointless. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books

In this case, I think it was the other person's answer that was pointless and ignorant. The 90s weren't a bastion of gay freedom, but they weren't a bastion of the federal government stomping down on gays either. And that wasn't the point of the law or even an expected consequence. It arose so that some American Indians could continue to use drugs in their religious ceremonies.

There is nothing materially different about the Indiana law. The misinformed are just throwing that out there because they don't have an answer.

The real answer is that it looks bad politically, and it probably was brought up by the Republicans to make a superflous move towards the gay agenda. But legally, it's just like everyone else's law.

 

[gunsisgood]

The word discriminate is being used just like the word racist is, to cause division.
There is NO discrimination in this law in any way,shape, manner or form.
Sadly, ignorance rules the day on this issue.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There are loads of pointless and outdated laws still on the books so your question is really pointless. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books

In this article, it gives a few examples of where the law was used as a defense for things in recent years...state and federal.

National Review

 

[bmbutch]

The word discriminate is being used just like the word racist is, to cause division.
There is NO discrimination in this law in any way,shape, manner or form.
Sadly, ignorance rules the day on this issue.

^^^^This^^^^

 

[cobber]

So, why do LGBT folks hate Native American traditional religions?

As much purple as you need...

In this article, it gives a few examples of where the law was used as a defense for things in recent years...state and federal.

National Review

I am offended by the rationality inherent in your reply and the article. Shocked and offended. I think I'm having the vapours!

 

[Arthur Dent]

In this article, it gives a few examples of where the law was used as a defense for things in recent years...state and federal.

National Review

RFRA is a pointless law. It's only importance being a feel-good measure because of a few cases where someone refused service to someone else based on religious preferences. Something which I don't have a problem with, BTW. The people causing the problem are the ones trying to force someone to sell their services to them. Unless you live in a town without any stop lights you'll be able to find someone else that will help you.

It's also a distraction meant to keep the populace at large distracted and focused on the left hand so nobody sees what the right hand is doing. Much like sports and reality tv.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

RFRA is a pointless law. It's only importance being a feel-good measure because of a few cases where someone refused service to someone else based on religious preferences. Something which I don't have a problem with, BTW. The people causing the problem are the ones trying to force someone to sell their services to them. Unless you live in a town without any stop lights you'll be able to find someone else that will help you.

It's also a distraction meant to keep the populace at large distracted and focused on the left hand so nobody sees what the right hand is doing. Much like sports and reality tv.

I pretty much agree with you. I said elsewhere that if we're going to argue against this law, let's do it on the grounds that we're already protected under the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and not on the false claims of what this law allows or forces people to do.