Religious Freedom Act

[zekko]

There's been a lot of talk (and controversy) about Indiana's new Religious Freedom Act. Governor Mike Pence said that the law never intended for it to protect discrimination, or to allow people to refuse service to gays, lesbians or anyone else. He said later in the week he would make sure that language is added to the bill to make that clear.

Here is my question: I've heard a lot of discussion about what this law ISN'T. If it doesn't allow people to refuse anyone service, just what does it do exactly? I haven't heard anyone talk about that at all.

 

[VikingKing]

There's been a lot of talk (and controversy) about Indiana's new Religious Freedom Act. Governor Mike Pence said that the law never intended for it to protect discrimination, or to allow people to refuse service to gays, lesbians or anyone else. He said later in the week he would make sure that language is added to the bill to make that clear.

Here is my question: I've heard a lot of discussion about what this law ISN'T. If it doesn't allow people to refuse anyone service, just what does it do exactly? I haven't heard anyone talk about that at all.

If condoning homosexuality in any way, shape or form is going against your religion then you don't have to condone it.

It's simply allowing businesses to do business in a manner that is congruent with there religious practices.

 

[Tictac]

Individuals and non-government organizations should have liberty to decide who they will and will not serve. Is this 'discrimination'? Of course it is. The word has a meaning outside the universe of the perennially indignant.

If people or businesses want to be stupid and limit their markets, let them.

Not making someone a wedding cake or a pizza because you don't want to is not a violation of any Consitutional right.

 

[zekko]

The last two posts seem to infer that the law allows businesses to refuse service to homosexuals. Considering Pence has been on TV repeatedly saying that the law does NOT allow businesses to refuse service to anyone, someone is lying here.

Repeat: If the law does not allow you to refuse service to anyone, what does the law do?

 

[speed dawg]

I agree with the premise of the bill but it is not needed, we have too many laws to begin with, similar to the NCAA rule book. That being said, all the non-discriminatory laws are also unneeded. So it's either scrap the whole thing, or pass this law.

Business is business to me. I'll take your money if you're gay, I could give less than a sh*t about that. Money is better used in straight hands than gay anyway.

Repeat: If the law does not allow you to refuse service to anyone, what does the law do?

Nothing. Governor and lawmakers are crumbling under the political correctness.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Gays are making this about gay rights.

Gays have the right to be married, but they DO NOT have the right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs in providing services to that marriage.

This means that religious people cannot discriminate against gays by not serving them, but they CAN refuse to provide services to a specific EVENT which violates their religion.

Lefties will make this about not serving gays, but the reality is that this is about serving the event itself.

I do not know what the intent of the law is, but I do know a violation of constitutional rights when I see it.

This, except gays don't have the universal right to marry just yet although they act as if they already do.

Also the law, which is based on a federal law in I think '92 that Clinton enacted, is to protect a business from being punished by the government or paying out in lawsuits for being a conscientious objector who refused to provide services to a gay wedding.

Personally, I don't think it goes far enough. Any private business should be able to decide who it wants to do business with or associate with. But because of federal infringement of personal liberties in 1964, that's not the case.

This short video is a good watch the-thugs-know-who-to-target-gay-couples-would-never-contemplate-entering-a-muslim-bakery-in-dearbornistan

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
Here is my question: I've heard a lot of discussion about what this law ISN'T. If it doesn't allow people to refuse anyone service, just what does it do exactly? I haven't heard anyone talk about that at all.

The act was intended to simply do as it's name states, to allow people the freedom to believe in which ever religion they choose. The problem is that quorum of manufactured outrage believes that everyone's religious beliefs will be used against them; and in turn, fight against it. People in the States call it the "War against Christianity." It is the thing that made some feel it was necessary to pass a law to protect their religious beliefs.

In the end you have a group professing that every belief system should be accepted as long as it isn't detrimental to their own livelihood. Personally, I see enough businesses capitalizing on the fact that they would serve anyone, and that's a good thing. It just confounds my why people choose not to frequent these establishments and let whatever bigotry exist, erode itself from the inside out.


There was separation from church and state for a reason; and while protecting the rights of its citizens, is there really protection needed when there are so many viable alternatives available to make purchases.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Personally, I see enough businesses capitalizing on the fact that they would serve anyone, and that's a good thing. It just confounds my why people choose not to frequent these establishments and let whatever bigotry exist, erode itself from the inside out.

is there really protection needed when there are so many viable alternatives available to make purchases.

See that's the thing, Congress and the Supreme court used (a new and broader application of) the Commerce Clause to justify the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Every private business became subject to the Commerce Clause and progressives and Marxist could decide whatever they want you to do with your business.

Choosing to be gay and marry isn't even a protected class (yet) and all ready there's a hysteria that you can't discriminate against them (because liberals made gays wealthy and powerful). Who or what will be the progressive's next sacred cow?

rand-paul-was-right-on-civil-rights-act/

When Title II of the Civil Rights Act was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Katzenbach v McClung, it was ruled to be ‘Constitutional’ based on the ‘Commerce Clause’ which grants Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” Although some parts of the ‘Civil Rights Act’ are based on the post-civil war Amendments, these were ruled by the District Court inapplicable to private businesses absent any action by the government. The same Supreme Court which ordered desegregation and bussing recognized that there is no ‘civil right’ to access the private business premises of another without giving the owner any choice in the matter. In actuality, the entire Constitutional justification of the law is that it makes it easier for “interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating.”



Simply put, the justification Congress had to pass Title II of the ‘1964 Civil Rights Act’ was that mandating such regulations on restaurants increased the likelihood that blacks would engage in interstate travel. With this reasoning, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing other such laws, for example mandating that all restaurants offer a full vegan menu in order to ‘promote interstate travel’ for vegans. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full Halal meal in order to promote interstate travel by Muslims. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full range of diet drinks and low calorie meals in order to facilitate interstate travel by overweight people.

If anyone dismisses that as just a partisan site link, well here's a liberal law professor explaining essentially the same thing about the commerce clause and the civil rights act on the American bar association site,civil-rights-act-of-1964--enduring-and-revolutionary.html

 

[zekko]

I guess what I'm hearing is that this law does nothing, Pence was lying, and that it WAS designed to deny service to gays and lesbians. Anyone dispute that?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Individuals and non-government organizations should have liberty to decide who they will and will not serve.

Well, yes and no. Denial of customers is ok...until the point at which it discriminates against a protected class of people, thereby invoking equal protection under the US Constitution. That discrimination need not be malevolent, or even intentional.

There's a big black reunion in Daytona Beach once a year. The owners of the hotels were losing money on all the damage caused by the partying, so they agreed to all just close that week to all guests. Uh-huh, no - that's denying a protected class of people equal protection under the law. Closing during the week that you have mostly black customers is the same thing as hanging a sign on the door that says "no coloreds." Attorneys quickly sued and got a court order preventing the hotel owners from closing during that week.

And it looks like the Supreme Court is going to declare sexual orientation to be a protected class, just like race, if they have not done so already:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/

One of the first problems I see is the difficulty of defining which alternative lifestyle people get protected and which don't. What if I'm a pansexual polygamist trying to buy a wedding cake with one groom and two brides on top, and the cake shop owner is an athiest bull dyke who hates men? If she kicks me out, do I get to sue her, just like when churchy people avoid gay customers?

 

[Stagger Lee]

I guess what I'm hearing is that this law does nothing, Pence was lying, and that it WAS designed to deny service to gays and lesbians. Anyone dispute that?

Yes it was already disputed above, leaving aside why should a private business be forced by the government to knowingly service gays in the first place. Did you watch the video or read the links? Ever heard of the concept of don't ask, don't tell? And private businesses aren't even in the military where the constitution doesn't exactly apply.

No one, religious or straight or not, should be forced to be involved with gay marriage. And gays shouldn't be forced to service normal weddings or heterosexuals either for that matter.

What's next? Being forced to serve halal otherwise you're denying service to muslims which already IS a protected class?

Individuals and non-government organizations should have liberty to decide who they will and will not serve.

Well, yes and no. Denial of customers is ok...until the point at which it discriminates against a protected class of people, thereby invoking equal protection under the US Constitution. That discrimination need not be malevolent, or even intentional.

The 14th amendment has more recently been used very broadly and also selectively. But how constitutionally can the government enforce protected classes on private individuals and on private property in the first place I believe is by claiming the commerce clause allows the government to tell any business to do whatever the government chooses. And no one kid them self, being white and male is both a protected class, but no way does the government apply it equally to them.

Most people don't understand that 14th amendment passed in the hysteria post Civil War and the commerce clause was reinterpreted many decades later to throw out the original constitution and set the stage for all sorts of things from multicolonism and dieversity to every other Marxist idea that comes down the pike. Return the 14th amendment and the commerce clause back to its original intent and you fix almost all of it.

The fed government even argued the commerce clause gave it authority for ObamaCare. Supposedly it's constitutional as a tax. I'm still not clear how you can force someone to buy something and tax them for it? I guess how I pay property tax to schools but have no kids but at least that's local government not fed?? I digress.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Christians and Muslims should not be required to provide marriage celebration services which violate their beliefs any more than liberals should be forced to provide services to a kkk meeting.

This is absolutely true because a KKK meeting is protected under the first ammendment and being gay and getting married is based on 1st amendment rights too.

But hey the KKK has to eat too to promote interstate commerce under the commerce clause, so I guess businesses should be forced to let them in wearing their costumes. The selective logic of the left :crazy:. Tolerance for me, bigotry and intolerance for thee.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I have been b!tching about the commerce clause ever since Raiche v Ashcroft. The Supremes, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that growing a pot plant and giving the weed to your next door neighbor - an act that is neither interstate, nor commerce, - is yet "interstate commerce" for the purposes of giving the Feds jurisdiction when they would not have it otherwise. They said giving weed to your neighbor would "substantially affect" the interstate trade of marijuana - a claim with no evidence that they just made up to support their ruling.

Physicists are always look for the "dark matter" that they think is there, but can't quite find. It's the difference between a universe that will expand forever and a universe that will stop expanding and contract. The dark matter tips the balance to there being enough gravity to pull everything back together. Given Raiche, I think that dark matter must be actually be interstate commerce. It pervades the known universe - even though we can't see it - and therefore the Feds have jurisdiction over all living things.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Not making someone a wedding cake or a pizza because you don't want to is not a violation of any Consitutional right.

Yea, but it's certainly against the current herd mentality, in a BIG way.

Couple years (or more) Rand Paul mentioned that he thought businesses should be able to serve or kick out whomever they choose. After about three seconds of hysterical media frenzy, he backpedaled at lightning speed.

So the idea of Christians being FORCED to serve gays isn't going away any time soon.

Of course, if you're Muslim, it's ok to refuse service to gays.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I think that dark matter must be actually be interstate commerce. It pervades the known universe - even though we can't see it - and therefore the Feds have jurisdiction over all living things.

Wasn't there a case back in the depression where some farmer grew some wheat for himself, but was busted because of the Interstate Commerce deal?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Wasn't there a case back in the depression where some farmer grew some wheat for himself, but was busted because of the Interstate Commerce deal?

Yes, it was mentioned in the link I posted but I only partially quoted the story. It was in 1942 under Franklin Roosevelt's years of meddling. What I find hypocritical and ironic is nowadays local, State government and even private corporations meddle with interstate and sometimes international commerce more now than ever. For examples: One State's or Local officials and businesses will say, "don't do business with Indiana because they're "discriminating" against gays.". Or a state or local will work out a business deal to take major industry already in one state to ship it to another. Or a state will take tax dollars and spend it on a call center in India, or contract a major public works to china.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could prevent a farmer from growing wheat on his own land to feed his chickens because it affected the ‘interstate market’ in chicken feed. This was the culmination of a series of cases which ruled that the federal government could basically do anything it wanted, with justification under the ‘Commerce Clause,’ while ignoring all other parts of the Constitution.

Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court had regarded the ‘Commerce Clause’ to read what it’s authors intended: that only Congress should have the power to set regulations on trade between the various states, a clause inserted into the Constitution to prevent trade wars from erupting between states. For example, North Carolina can not place import tariffs on goods manufactured in Virginia. California may not forbid its citizens from traveling to or conducting business with Arizona.

All this changed under the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I guess what I'm hearing is that this law does nothing, Pence was lying, and that it WAS designed to deny service to gays and lesbians. Anyone dispute that?

Alright, I'm confused. From the explanations provided, how did you construe that the law was designed to deny service to gays and lesbians?

 

[zekko]

Alright, I'm confused. From the explanations provided, how did you construe that the law was designed to deny service to gays and lesbians?

I still haven't seen this refuted. The more I read about it, the more I have to conclude that was the purpose, despite Pence's backpedalling. I don't mean that a restaurant owner would not serve a gay person coming in for a meal, I mean that it protects a restaurant owner from catering a gay wedding if that's against his religion. Isn't that correct?

 

[Jaylan]

*shrug*

The laws have been amended in both Indiana and Arkansas in order to clarify the broad language and protect all people's rights. Seems like that turned this all into a big waste of time as the law now changes nothing that was already in effect prior to its passing.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I mean that it protects a restaurant owner from catering a gay wedding if that's against his religion. Isn't that correct?

I'm trying to understand why you think this would somehow be wrong and unlawful discrimination in the first place even without the religious freedom law?

Religion IS a protected class per the 14th Amendment. Being gay and having a gay marriage is NOT (yet anyway) a protected class.

How can someone hold the position that it's okay to infringe on protected religious freedom, but not ok to infringe on unprotected gay freedom?

If that's the case then it's discrimination to not provide say the KKK full service.

The purpose of this state law was to apply the same protection at the state level that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 singed by Clinton provided at the federal level and to Native Americans. For some inconsistent reason the federal government decided it didn't have the authority to enforce it at the state level. Yet the feds claim they have the right to enforce the other protected classes' rights at the state and private level-sex, race, national origin etc. Chew on that. Inconsistent application of the 14th amendment and the commerce clause strikes again.

The laws have been amended in both Indiana and Arkansas in order to clarify the broad language and protect all people's rights. Seems like that turned this all into a big waste of time as the law now changes nothing that was already in effect prior to its passing.

Well this wouldn't be the first time you put forward an erroneous liberal spin, "the law is now gutted haha, now all people's rights are protected haha.".

No, if that were the case then religious people's rights (who ARE a protected class) are not being protected.

How about if I say a black business must cater a KKK event so that all people's rights are protected haha. It's essentially the same thing.

Liberals were most in support of the Religious Freedom Act because it mostly protected American Indians, Jews and Muslims. Now that Christians want to be protected from the gay agenda, liberals are mostly against it Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act.