Jump to content

Indiana's New Law


Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting that. It's very helpful. As garfield says, it presents the case for just one side of debate about this bill, but it does so very clearly with much useful contextual history.

I'm not sure I'd give the Columbia letter as much weight as you. Their insights are obviously biased and exposed by their own statements. In their opinion, the Supremes were wrong in their interpretation of the Hobby Lobby case. That hardly makes them an unbiased panel of arbiters out of the proverbial box.

This has been a lively debate. Thanks for the civility that allowed the mods to keep it open.

Edited by garfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd give the Columbia letter as much weight as you. Their insights are obviously biased and exposed by their own statements. In their opinion, the Supremes were wrong in their interpretation of the Hobby Lobby case. That hardly makes them an unbiased panel of arbiters out of the proverbial box.

This has been a lively debate. Thanks for the civility that allowed the mods to keep it open.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by my giving it weight, and I would certainly welcome an equivalently helpful letter arguing the other side. As for its bias, I'd say that to agree with the Supreme Court on the Hobby Lobby decision is every bit as biased as to disagree with them. A hundred years hence, the Hobby Lobby decision might be seen to be just as flawed as most people now take the Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson decisions to have been. This particular law will probably be a forgotten relic far sooner, as more and more people become comfortable with gay marriage, whose opposition, which led to this law's passage, comes to be seen as being equivalent to opposition to miscegenation.

Agreed entirely on the commendable civility of this discussion.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Madison Scout Organization has issued a response to the Indiana situation. Anyone who has facebook can find it there...and post here if you feel it noteworthy. I've been unsuccessful in getting the message to copy and paste. Sorry...I'm pretty much a technological idiot.

EDIT: (Never mind...succeeded...link below in post #208).

Edited by HornTeacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd give the Columbia letter as much weight as you. Their insights are obviously biased and exposed by their own statements. In their opinion, the Supremes were wrong in their interpretation of the Hobby Lobby case. That hardly makes them an unbiased panel of arbiters out of the proverbial box.

This has been a lively debate. Thanks for the civility that allowed the mods to keep it open.

Pence et al. were straight up lying about the Indiana RFRA in claiming it was the same as the earlier RFRA laws, that it didn't target LGBTs, etc. The letter exposes that lie and there's really no way around it and no refuting. The law dramatically raised the stakes by requiring the government to prove that a burden on the exercise of religion be proved "essential" to compelling government interests. That may sound like a minor change but it's significant. It could allow the RFRA to run roughshod over Indiana's state and local anti-discrimination laws (though the state law, conveniently, does not consider LGBTs to be a protected group) and opens the state to all sorts of litigation that the proponents of the law probably didn't envisage when they were try to score some cheap political points.

By the way, the professors signing the letter represent a wide range of political and legal leanings. They're not unbiased but it is unlikely you'll find an opposing viewpoint that even comes close to being that even handed.

Edited by Rifuarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madison Scouts Organization's Response:

http://www.madisonscoutslive.com/mainsite/2015/03/madison-scouts-response-to-indiana-sb101/

Edited by HornTeacher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pence et al. were straight up lying about the Indiana RFRA in claiming it was the same as the earlier RFRA laws, that it didn't target LGBTs, etc. The letter exposes that lie and there's really no way around it and no refuting.

Well, I think I'm on your side as to the law, but as already noted, the letter disagrees with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, so it can certainly be refuted. We just agree with the letter and not with the refutation, is all. And while Pence may indeed be lying about the law's true intentions, at this point I'm not aware of anything that would show that definitively; he could, for instance, just be very ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting the link HornTeacher.

This is a wonderful statement and so follows the class of the Madison Scouts.

Bravo!

I fully concur, Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...