DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Can doctors and hospitals refuse service under this law?

I'm picturing a Middle-Eastern doctor saying "He's a Christian or a Jew. I think that's wrong. I refuse to help him."

If everyone in your town is permitted to buy your delicious cake except for a couple whose lifestyle you reject based a literal interpretation of a part of your bible, yet you sell to others who violate worse sins as described in the bible is that right?

Or should you be allowed to deny the best health care in the region that you provide based on a message from God?

Or are you saying it should not be against the law to deny service to anyone.

Could you be allowed to deny service to anyone as long as long as you can provide evidence that proves they have sinned against other parts of the bible as well?

Should those businesses be expected to post "No Sinners Allowed" signs at the door?

The discussion seems to have gravitated toward people should be able to deny service, which most people I would assume would agree with. A bartender has an obligation to deny service to someone incapable of getting home safely.

But the reality is this law, although it's denied, is targeting one group for spiritual discrimination.

IMO we should stick with non-discrimination and if you can't follow that expectation then don't open a business here. It's hard to argue that since those who support discrimination say gays should have to go to a baker down the street, or in the next county.

In one case you're discriminating, in the other you're discriminating against discriminators who have no problem with discriminating.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

So if I run a cake shop and someone walks in who is a drug addict, divorced and remarried, or a drunkard, how am I supposed to know that? But when two men walk in requesting a wedding cake with two plastic guys on top...

Wake up and smell the coffee already.

As if you lost something. LOL....As if you or any political entity owns America. What makes you think you have the right to take anything that doesn't belong to you? What makes you think that you are entitled to own America. The majority rules here. So you may as well go crawl back into the 19th century or the hole you crawled out of, because laws like this will be shot down in flames by the majority of American's and the people and business's of Indiana will suffer the most for what nut jobs & stupid politicians think they are actually taking back America.

If you ran a cake shop everything would be half baked. Like your idea's

The Majority does not rule here, The Law and our Constitutional Rights rule here!

What makes you think the twisted Liberals who ignore the facts and run on pure hysterical emotional outbursts should tell me what my rights are? These laws are on the books in thirty other states and were passed by the Feds 20 years ago.

Talk about stupid.

Tim Cook at Apple has been having his emotional breakdown over this law while blocking Christian apps because he feels they don't represent what he feels is Apple's philosophy.

HYPOCRITES!

Step by step by step, we take America back from those who would pervert her.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...fferent/388997/


What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

There's a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. 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.


What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.


Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business's "free exercise" right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there's a lot of evidence that the new wave of "religious freedom" legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple's wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in "public accommodations" on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico's RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state's Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply "because the government is not a party."


Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down. The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is "nothing new."

Garrett Epps is a contributing editor for The Atlantic. He teaches constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore. His latest book is American Justice 2014: Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court.

Hate to break it to you, but the anti-gay religious movement is going to be the loser in this battle when all is said and done.

Society can most definitely determine your rights.

Years ago, you had the right to own a slave. Then you had the right to refuse a black man service on a restaurant, or tell him to get to the back of the bus.

Society took those rights away from you.

What if the first "Horror-Story" from this law isn't about gays and cakes? What if its a 92 year-old war vet freezing after a Muslim refuses to sell him gas in a blizzard?

"Arthur McDonald was getting low on gas. Returning from dialysis treatment, he pulled into his normal, rural gas station with the fuel light on. Muhammed declined to sell gas, as Arthur had not prayed towards Mecca that day. Muhammed ordered the 92-year-old veteran to leave the premises immediately. Arthur ran out of gas a few miles later and froze to death on the side of county road 442."

Pence is already back tracking on this and promising added legislation to defang the original.

This thing will die a quicker death than I expected:

So discrimination is wrong.

Unless you are discriminating against discriminators.

Which in turn makes you discriminatory.

Some people call this a self-detonating argument.

The principle to focus on is that non-violent actions should be legal. Whether that is smoking a joint or running your business however you want. If you aren't aggressing against people, there is no moral way to argue you should be aggressed against.

People are all hung up on the irrationalities of religion and bigotry. The bigger picture here is one of principles. The amount of people thrown in jail for smoking a joint is much more relevant in comparison to how many people will enforce discriminatory policies in their private businesses. Everyone gets all uppity about how they think the world should be, and the secular people disagree on things the religious think and vice versa. But if we had a principle of freedom and the government only interfering in lives when violence was enacted there wouldn't be an issue here.

People would naturally live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. This is called peace. When people stop trying to use violence to force others to act in a certain way or believe certain things.

So if Anytown, Mississippi's Chamber of Commerce comes to an agreement that no businesses in the town will serve or be open to blacks, you think that should be perfectly legal?

And also, telling Christians they can't refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation isn't discrimination.

If I said someone can't refuse to serve Asians, I'm not discriminating against racists. I'm making them follow the rules we all have to follow.

discrimination is definitely wrong, leads to stereotypes.

There is a difference between morally wrong and irrational.

Should people be arrested for assuming Snoop was the felon in that photo? They aren't being violent towards anyone by being wrong. If they go around beating people up, then yeah stomp them down and throw their ass in jail (friggen neo nazis come to mind).

If they go around shouting complete crap about homosexuality or race, you prove them wrong with evidence and arguments. If they start throwing rocks you arrest them.

Same goes for a dude smoking a little pot that a lot of people seem to think should get raped in prison over. He might be self-medicating and making some poor decisions on treatment, but there is no valid reason to arrest the dude or beat him up over it. Just people imposing their social preferences violently on peaceful people in the name of progress or the moral fabric of society or some crap.

All i'm trying to figure out is this.

I wonder if christian's and other people would've hit the streets if muslims passed a bill like this in Indiana.

or if it would've passed legislation if a muslim proposed this.


Cause we talk about religious freedom in this country...but we all know which religion it's actually for.

What? Isn't islam against gays? Or, in the middle east, is it just islamic countries that are anti gay....or is it just Iran, Iraq, etc....?

I guess I don't follow the thought process in your post.

If Muslims passed a law that said Muslim businesses don't have to provide food and other services for infidel ceremonies? I can't say I would have a big problem with that. I don't really want to do business with somebody who doesn't want to do business with me.

No. First of all, the Chamber of Commerce has no authority to do that. Second, this is another example of an institution dictating how a business has to operate.

because christians try to act tolerant but aren't tolerant of anything.

if a muslim tried to pass this legislations, islamaphobia would be all over the news, especially at Fox, with cries of Sharia law infiltrating our country.

but cause it's christians...well..

Here, this is the broadest brush I could find...

That didn't last too long.

It's really nice to think...a decade ago, anti-gay legislation was used to win a national election.

And here we are, voicing rejection of such nonsense so swiftly and decisively that it immediately has to be backtracked.

Still a long way to go, but there's reason for optimism.



http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/

(CNN)Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

But he insisted the problem isn't the law itself but how it's being perceived, saying a fix is needed only because of "frankly, the smear that's been leveled against this law." And he said the fix won't involve statewide anti-discrimination protections for LGBT Hoosiers.

The first-term Republican governor sought to tamp down the backlash Indiana has faced since he signed the law -- which its in-state supporters had claimed would allow businesses to turn away LGBT customers -- last week. He said he's asking state lawmakers to send him a followup measure before this week's end to ensure that's not the case.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

Pence's comments come amid intense criticism from major corporations like Apple, Walmart and tech giant Salesforce against Indiana's law and similar measures advancing in at least a dozen other states this year. The NCAA, which is set to host its men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis, has said it could move events elsewhere in the future.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest blasted Pence on Tuesday, saying the governor has tried to "falsely suggest" that Indiana's law simply mirrors a federal religious freedom law signed by President Bill Clinton.

That, he said, is "not true" because the Indiana law "a much more open-ended piece of legislation that could reasonably be used to try to justify discriminating against somebody because of who they love."

"We see business leaders saying that they are reluctant to do business in a state where their customers or even their employees could be subjected to greater discrimination just because of who they love," Earnest said.

"That's not fair. It's not consistent with our values as a country that we hold dear," he said. "And I think that's what has provoked the strong outcry, and I think it's what has provoked the previously defiant governor to consider a position of changing the law."

Republican contenders for the party's 2016 presidential nomination, meanwhile, have rallied to Pence's defense. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and several other likely candidates said Monday evening that they support religious freedom laws.

Democrats, meanwhile, have criticized Indiana's law. Hillary Clinton tweeted that it's "sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today." Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley called it "shameful" during an appearance in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

The debate touched a raw nerve in Indiana, which is just a year away from an emotional battle over a Republican-driven proposal to amend the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Just months before the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States, the religious freedom debate has offered a look at the next front in America's culture clashes -- and the cross-currents facing the Republican Party, with social conservatives seeing religious freedom laws as sturdier ground and the typically pro-GOP business community and younger voters seeing those measures as veiled efforts at discrimination.

"Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no," Pence admitted Tuesday.

He'd waffled in recent days over whether or not he would support a legislative fix to the law before finally announcing that he wanted one -- but he didn't say what that fix would be.

Voices from Indiana: Who supports, denounces the law?

Potentially complicating his effort to quell the criticism, Pence said he opposes adding sexual orientation to the list of Indiana's protected categories under state anti-discrimination law.

Democrats who'd seen their proposals to do just that rejected by the legislature in recent months said only a solution along those lines would suffice.

"You have to take affirmative action -- you can't just tinker with this language," state Senate Democratic leader Tim Lanane said.

Pence's statement came a day after Indiana's top state legislators announced they were working on a legislative fix to clarify the intent of the law and following an intense backlash against the law, especially from the business community in Indiana and across the country.

Pence and other Indiana Republicans have repeatedly insisted that the law was never intended to allow discrimination against anyone and have charged that, even in its current form, the law could not be used as a legal defense to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation.

Instead, Pence and his GOP allies have accused the media and opponents of the law of mischaracterizing the law and spreading misinformation. But opposition to the law was swift and broad-sweeping, with large organizations and top companies ranging from the NCAA to Apple and Salesforce raising red flags over the law.

The state's House speaker, Brian Bosma, said he "didn't see that [reaction] coming" in the Monday press conference announcing work on a legislative fix.

Indiana law reveals GOP's challenge

Pence, the Indiana Republican who has been floated as a potential 2016 presidential candidate, again repeated that he is unflinchingly opposed to discrimination.

He also noted that he joined civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis in a march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to commemorate the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when hundreds of activists fighting for civil rights for African-Americans were brutally assaulted by police officers.

Pence did get some beefy backup from the field of potential 2016 presidential contenders as former Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and others, including the only declared 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, rushing to defend the Indiana law.

Universal and timeless rights are still required to fit into societal norms. Actions can happen to change societal norms and recently it has happened with the acceptance of the LGBT community.



Let me see if I understood you correctly. I must change to accept societal changes in order to maintain my rights? I have the right to speak freely as long as society accepts my speech? I am certain that is not what you meant. Please could you clarify for me.



To me the debate is about do I have my Constitutional rights or do I not. What restrictions can the government put on my rights? Do the words of the 1st Amendment apply or do the not? Can the government deny my right to free speech or practice my religion freely without interference if I deny no other person their rights as well?



I do not believe there is a need for a law to protect an individual rights as the law already exists, the Constitution. I believe the violation of the law was not by the florist or baker, it was by the gay couples who felt they had a right to force another to serve them against their wishes. The gay couple was not being denied their right to a gay ceremony by the business, what it? The gay couple was not denied the ability to buy a cake or floral arrangement was it? The business did not use the power of the government to force another citizen to violate their rights did they? Everything is turned upside down and backwards.

don't care. it's true.

Of course it is.

PDR, change the Constitution if you wish to define my rights differently. Slavery was abolished in the USA with the 13th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be found unconstitutional or repealed by future legislation or Supreme Courts. It is not an amendment to the Constitution. Black citizens of the USA have the same rights as any other citizen in the USA. Their color does not afford them more rights. The Congress acted hastily and the courts acted unwisely by not using the Constitution as a basis for equality under the law for all peoples and instead using a legislative action. Gay citizens have the same rights as straight, bisexual, transgendered citizens have. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, though full of good intentions, has created a polarized, fractured citizenry that now defines their rights not by the Constitution but by their group identity.

I believe Defense of Marriage acts and Religious Freedom acts are a response to poor court rulings, poor legislation and aggressive fracturing of the society by groups who identify themselves as victims. I do not believe their is a need for DoM or RF acts because they are already afforded to the people under the Constitution.

you mean the civil right's act of 1964 prevented me from having to drink out the same fountain as the pet's of owners?

how monstrous of them to do that!!

The short answer is yes. If the business is a privately owned entity than yes. If the business collects any funds from the government, ex. hospital, school, grocery store, etc... than NO. The government cannot discriminate against their citizenry. It cannot support discrimination. It cannot infringe upon the liberties of its citizenry as long as the citizenry is not violating the rights of others.



I think the better question is why is a sexual orientation of a person even a consideration? If I am a gay person, identifying myself as a gay person, and defining my rights by my sexual preference that would be my mistake not those of the merchant. Telling a citizen whom they can associate with and whom they cannot associate with based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is claiming a power over another based on sexual orientation.



The same argument here as well. It is a poor economic policy to refuse service to another citizen, however, it is not unconstitutional. When you say making them follow the rules that all of us have to follow, please explain how a non-Christian is forced to follow the moral rules of a Christian?

Really? I do not even understand what you mean? Who made you drink from the fountain pets drank from? Any law that discriminated against you is unconstitutional because it is the government doing so. Would it be unconstitutional to offer you a drink from my garden hose that I also used to fill my dogs water bowl from when you are thirsty on a hot day? I think you may appreciate the kindness. If on the other hand, say unto me that I must open my home and allow you to drink from my kitchen tap, you have now invaded my rights and you are the violator, regardless of your race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used to discriminate and restrict rights of the citizens of the USA. I dare say, it is a prejudicial law in that it assumes people of color are unable to have rights common to the citizens of the USA and must have the government legislate them. I am saddened by the use of the CRA of 1964 as a crutch for allowing polarization of our nation rather than the healing it was promised to bring.

let me tell you why you will ALWAYS be on the losing side of this argument.

you're saying this is perfectly ok:



And there are waaaayyy worse images i could be posting, but i decided to keep it civil, before i get the pitchfork and torches crowd after me, again.

THAT'S why the civil right's act of 1964 prevents.

and THAT'S why i support gays not being discriminated against. the civil right's acts doesn't make one demographic special over the other. it HELPS so that people of different background are treated as EQUALS.

that's what you aren't getting. Gays, minorities, hell even women at one point, even though american citizens, were/are being treated as sub-human.

and you're arguing FOR the right to continue the hatred that has plagued our history for hundreds of years? just because some fairy tale book says it's ok?

ok man.

your religion is YOUR personal belief with god. not anybody else. in YOUR home, in YOUR church, you can do whatever the hell you want.

that nonsense shouldn't be allowed in our public streets.

YES! Exactly what I have been saying about Homosexuals!
Thanks for the backup Swish!

i'll only support that with homosexuals if you support that with your religion.

has to go both ways, buddy.

Not being able to get married is one off the top of my head.

Blue laws come to mind, as well.

Now I see Arkansas has passed a "Religious Freedom" bill similar to the Indiana law.

step by step by step...

I truly doubt you and I will find any common ground to discuss much more than the fact we obviously have 2 extremely different points of view about who is actually being oppressed.

I am a little confused by this statement. You support gays not being discriminated against? Please tell he how you do that? ALso you state that the CRA helps so that people of different backgrounds are treated as equals? Do you treat a black person equally because the law states you must or because you have a moral ideology that you treat ALL people equally. If you treat someone equally because the law says so and that is why you do it, I suggest you look for a more solid reasoning for your actions. Individualism is where your rights lay not in any group.

http://psychology.about.com/od/gindex/g/groupthink.htm



I am not arguing for such action. I am a bit confused that you took from anything I have said to mean that I advocate discriminating against anyone. I am only saying that in order to end discrimination, you are advocating discriminating and even worse, violating Constitutional rights of others in order to stop discrimination.



I am shocked and dismayed that you would make a statement such as this. If you say that I cannot use my religious morals or tenants to guide my actions in public, you are advocating tyranny. I thought we were winning, opening minds. I fear I may have given the nation too much credit.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or are so oblivious to the obvious that you believe it.

Pence went on TV this weekend to defend it. He stumbled over himself, and got showered with disapproval in the public and economic forum. Now he came out today and said he will neuter it.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court is going to vote 5-4, with Kennedy giving the majority opinion, that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. And the dominoes will fall from there.

You guys aren't taking steps. You're falling down a mountain like Homer Simpson, yelling 'D'oh!' with every thud.

I can't remember an instance where a governor took a staunch, political stand, and completely whimpered down the next day. Beyond the public outcry, there was private enterprise outcry.

And not to go to far off-topic...but bravo to the sports world for weighing in so heavily on this. I don't think it's disingenous to say that they were a major catalyst in the state putting its tail between its legs so quickly.

rockdogg,

I fear you may be correct. I still strive to change your mind. If nothing more, I would hope that you would think about what is actually going on. One side is advocating freedom and choice. The other side is advocating restrictions to freedoms and choice because it is the right thing to do.

They are not forced to follow the rules by Christians they are forced to follow the rules set by the government. It is not a Christian who is oppressing, it is the government. I am sure you could also add, stores closing on Christmas Day, New Years Day. Your argument is not with the Christian it is with the government. I agree with you that the government should not discriminate against it's citizens. I believe that citizens have a right to discriminate based on their own values, morals, and judgements free from oppression by the government. I would oppose any laws that forces a citizen to adhere to a specific religious belief or no religious belief at all.