carlimac Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/29/pence-indiana-law-not-about-discrimination-not-going-to-change/ The backlash to this is so childish!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Ironically, I have been working under RFRA ever since I became a chaplain, back in the '90s. The same-sex marriage movement has become the very thing they accused traditionalists of--intolerant bigots who are imposing their morality on us. They believe that the biblical prohibition against same-sex activity is hate. They now argue that we are just using our religion as a cover for our deep-seeded hate. They are moral, we are immoral, and they will use the force of government to bring us to their side. Edited March 31, 2015 by prisonchaplain askandanswer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Ironically, I have been working under RFRA ever since I became a chaplain, back in the '90s. The same-sex marriage movement has become the very thing they accused traditionalists of--intolerant bigots who are imposing their morality on us. They believe that the biblical prohibition against same-sex activity is hate. They now argue that we are just using our religion as a cover for our deep-seeded hate. They are moral, we are immoral, and they will use the force of government to bring us to their side. And the government caves each and every time for some cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The backlash is from people who emote, not think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I will bet you a pretty penny the Miley Ciruses of the world didn't even bother to read ONE word of the 4-page bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I will bet you a pretty penny the Miley Ciruses of the world didn't even bother to read ONE word of the 4-page bill. Well I sheepishly admit that I didn't either. But I'm not going to automatically think this is going to cause open season on LGBTS as the rich and famous are doing. Get a grip Hollywood and basketball fans! Edited March 31, 2015 by carlimac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) The text of the bill is online at https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197.Substantively, the state bill hews pretty closely to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. RFRA basically restored an analysis for evaluating whether government was infringing on religious freedom that was adopted by the US Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963 (the "Sherbert test") and abandoned in 1990 in Employment Division v. Smith.On the one hand, the Indiana statute--unlike the Federal version--specifically applies to business and corporate entities as well as people; and in the wake of Hobby Lobby I can understand a certain amount of angst about that. But for those of us who are Mormons and are cognizant of the prophecies about Babylon making open war on the Saints--this is hardly surprising.In an early Sherlock episode, someone (Mycroft?) observes that most people don't even see "the war", as he calls it, playing out on the streets--but that once you can see it, it's all you see. I feel the same way, to a certain degree, about political developments like this in the US. This is all working towards a predetermined end. Edited March 31, 2015 by Just_A_Guy char713 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 JAG, you're starting to sound like Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye, John Hagee, ... even prisonchaplain! classylady, Blackmarch and Just_A_Guy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Well, I dunno about that Illuminati stuff that Wikipedia says LaHaye is into . . . But yeah, I'm kind of doom-and-gloom about US politics. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I guess I am just stupid but I can't find the place in the bill where it states the bill's purpose is to allow discrimination against LGBT people. And I can't find the place in the bill where it states that this discrimination is allowed against only that community but prohibited against everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Leah, many religious conservatives have sympathized with the baker who did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the florist who did not want to provide flowers for a gay wedding. I believe both were bankrupted by state laws against discrimination. Many in the LBGT community supported the prosecution of these "bigots." They believe that these types are just haters who are trying to use religion as a shield for their bigotry. They fear that state versions of RFRA would allow them to do just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I really would like someone who is opposed to this to please point out why this bill is so much more reprehensible than the other states' bills of the same or even the federal bill. I don't mean that in any way to be critical...I just honestly don't understand why Indiana's bill is so horrible when other states and even a federal law protects religious rights. I have SEVERAL friends on FB that post horrendous hate about this bill (and anyone who supports it). In fact, I had to hide one friend's posts because it was so full of hate (which was surprising, because although he is gay and obviously pro-LGBT, his posts have always been so loving toward those who disagree with him). Perhaps, I'll try asking one of them.... carlimac 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, you need to ask them this specifically: 1.) Please copy and paste the line/s in the bill that allows discrimination against LGBT people. 2.) Please copy and paste the line/s in the bill that makes the Indiana bill stand out from the Federal RFRA and/or the RFRA bill from... say... Florida? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Do you know that in the Company-Wide Bank of America Family Planning and Support group (responsible for company projects such as "bring a kid to work day", etc.) intranet page, they changed the picture from a family of husband, wife, and kids to two guys? And Hollywood raise pitchforks against RFRA? We, religious folks, are doomed y'all... Communism is here to stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I really would like someone who is opposed to this to please point out why this bill is so much more reprehensible than the other states' bills of the same or even the federal bill. I don't mean that in any way to be critical...I just honestly don't understand why Indiana's bill is so horrible when other states and even a federal law protects religious rights. I have SEVERAL friends on FB that post horrendous hate about this bill (and anyone who supports it). In fact, I had to hide one friend's posts because it was so full of hate (which was surprising, because although he is gay and obviously pro-LGBT, his posts have always been so loving toward those who disagree with him). Perhaps, I'll try asking one of them.... The LBGT community has convinced many Hoosiers that this RFRA would allow religious people to deny business to their community, claiming religious objections. The narrative is that anyone who would not bake a cake or prepare flowers for LBGT weddings, etc. is really just a hater. This bill would give the bigot religious cover for their hate. "RFRA is the Jim Crow of Indiana!" It was not controversial when President Clinton signed it into law, because it was mostly seen as prison reform. The main change is not in the text, but the cultural context. There was no discussion of RFRA's effect on the LBGT community in 1993. Keep in mind that I support the Indiana RFRA. It's just wise to know what the other side is arguing. Edited March 31, 2015 by prisonchaplain Leah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I really would like someone who is opposed to this to please point out why this bill is so much more reprehensible than the other states' bills of the same or even the federal bill. I don't mean that in any way to be critical...I just honestly don't understand why Indiana's bill is so horrible when other states and even a federal law protects religious rights. I have SEVERAL friends on FB that post horrendous hate about this bill (and anyone who supports it). In fact, I had to hide one friend's posts because it was so full of hate (which was surprising, because although he is gay and obviously pro-LGBT, his posts have always been so loving toward those who disagree with him). Perhaps, I'll try asking one of them....Hi Beef, long time no talk :) So from what i understand the 2 key parts that worry people are 1) as JAG pointed out this Bill includes business and individuals. Prior religious freedom acts both federal and at state level don't cover this anda number of the people who lobbied for this bill specifically used examples of being forced to serve GLTB people as the basis for the need for taking this step. 2) Many including people who have a good understanding of the law feel the substantial burden part of the bill is very general and could lead to more than what was intended by the bill, not only in respect to gays, but other classes of people as well. What makes a substatial burden, how do you prove it, where does it become to excessive. Are there limits where this can't apply. from my understanding this is not clearly spelt out and can be used rather open endedly. Some people are wondering how this works with anti discrimination laws with protected classes of people being they find it not clear enough in the wording of the bill. Though it is interesting to note that when people suggested adding LGTB as a protected class the response was " But that will gut and defeat the purpose of the bill" which only helped worry gays that this was a bit more of a direct action against them than just a general move towards Religious freedom. With Gov Pence now saying he will clarify the legal language it might make things better or highlight some people worst fears. I admit some of the American way of doing things confuses me so i'm not expert and might be missing something so this is more just what I've come to understand from reading the bill and following the articles of some of the leagal article written on it. Lol i must admit I'm not as worried about Indiana as I am California with the move to get the Sodomite Suppression Act on the ballot. If you haven't heard about it look it up lol. Talk about giving Christians a bad name and making it hard to embrace religious freedom LOL. Sigh both sides need to take a big step back and breath lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The interesting thing, for me, is that this and similar acts really give the courts a HUGE amount of discretion in defining and applying terms like "infringe", "substantial burden", "compelling interest", etc.Frankly, I no longer trust the judiciary with that kind of discretion--not where this issue is concerned. The act may well turn out not to be worth the paper it's printed on, when all is said and done. Leah and Soulsearcher 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) 2) Many including people who have a good understanding of the law feel the substantial burden part of the bill is very general and could lead to more than what was intended by the bill, not only in respect to gays, but other classes of people as well. What makes a substatial burden, how do you prove it, where does it become to excessive. Are there limits where this can't apply. from my understanding this is not clearly spelt out and can be used rather open endedly.The statute's text mirrors a now-superseded common law doctrine (the Sherbert test) that was in use for nearly thirty years; so there should be plenty of precedent about what these terms mean--if the judiciary feels inclined to follow it (which, as I note above, I think may be in doubt). To my knowledge neither it nor RFRA has ever been successfully used to get an exemption to--say--the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (the law that prevents commercial discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc) or any state-law equivalent. Some people are wondering how this works with anti discrimination laws with protected classes of people being they find it not clear enough in the wording of the bill. Though it is interesting to note that when people suggested adding LGTB as a protected class the response was " But that will gut and defeat the purpose of the bill" which only helped worry gays that this was a bit more of a direct action against them than just a general move towards Religious freedom.I'm not convinced this is going to do what it's advocates hope or what it's detractors fear. If gays attain '"protected class" status by federal legislation, RFRA is highly unlikely to offer an "out" for refusing services per se to gays. These scenarios we keep hearing bakers/photographer/florist/T-shirt printers being compelled to assist in events celebrating homosexuality or gay sex are expressive services; and while I do happen to think there's a religious-freedom component in those cases I am inclined to think that our constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression (which logically implies a freedom to refrain from expression, as well) is much more applicable. Lol i must admit I'm not as worried about Indiana as I am California with the move to get the Sodomite Suppression Act on the ballot. If you haven't heard about it look it up lol. Talk about giving Christians a bad name and making it hard to embrace religious freedom LOL. Sigh both sides need to take a big step back and breath lol.The guy who submitted that measure is keeping an awfully low profile. I think there's still at least a 40% chance that this will turn out to be a false flag operation or simple trollery. The silver lining to all that is that whether this thing actually manages to gather the required signatures may provide some insight into the scope and depth of actual gay-hatred (not just disagreement or disapproval, but hatred) in California at this point. And the gay rights lobby will have the names and addresses of all the signatories, to boot. Edited March 31, 2015 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) See it's the "if " Gays get protected status that is worrisome right now. It seems as written right now and with how things in Indiana sit there's nothing to stop what many fear could happen. A few people have already said they won't accept adding gays to the protected classes because it will defeat the purpose of the bill as it stands now. With the SCOTUS hearing the marriage cases in april and a ruling expected in June if i remember right, that comes about a month before the Indiana bill takes hold. Will be interesting to see how it plays out, if it makes it that far. As for the SSA in California, I'm not worried about it really lol it wouldn't pass muster even if by some nightmare it passed, i think it just could show a side of christianity that people claim doesn't exist if he gets it on the ballot with over 300,000 signatures. Edited March 31, 2015 by Soulsearcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 As for the SSA in California, I'm not worried about it really lol it wouldn't pass muster even if by some nightmare it passed, i think it just could show a side of christianity that people claim doesn't exist if he gets it on the ballot with over 300,000 signatures. I'll take that bet. :) Prop 8 passed with seven million votes. I don't think this thing will get signatures totaling even one percent (70,000) of that amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'll take that bet. :) Prop 8 passed with seven million votes. I don't think this thing will get signatures totaling even one percent (70,000) of that amount.I really hope you are right and I'll admit, deep down i wondered if this was a really under handed trick by our side to give Christianity a black eye, but then i heard he's tried to get something on the ballot before and just sighed and shook my head. This really could give a bad name to good people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I really hope you are right and I'll admit, deep down i wondered if this was a really under handed trick by our side to give Christianity a black eye, but then i heard he's tried to get something on the ballot before and just sighed and shook my head. This really could give a bad name to good people. Yeah, but the last thing was also similarly trollish--trying to force public schools to study the King James Bible, or somesuch thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't get all the legalspeak. It's just Common Sense that is so severely lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't get all the legalspeak. It's just Common Sense that is so severely lacking.LOL but the legal speak is always where they get you. There is a reason they always say read the fine print. Might seem like common sense until it comes and bites you in the backside because you didn't bother to take a real close look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I really hope you are right and I'll admit, deep down i wondered if this was a really under handed trick by our side to give Christianity a black eye, but then i heard he's tried to get something on the ballot before and just sighed and shook my head. This really could give a bad name to good people. Who is this poster called Soulsearcher? I vaguely remember a person with that name. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.