Jump to content

Indiana's New Law


Recommended Posts

*non-opinion lawyer hat*

"Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees."

AN interpretation of that law is that the state/local government will not intervene against an individual/business that performs a normally actionable offense if they perform said action/inaction due to religious motivations. how this relates to DCI is that some people worry that businesses will violate title2 (equal access) and claim they did so because of their religion.

there are many, many more qualified people who are interpreting and predicting the consequences of this act who you could turn to, I suggest doing research on your favorite and least favorite media sites...that way you get both sides of the story :)

Bad idea. The media is about the least qualified institution to be assessing the effect of this law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a letter signed by dozens of legal scholars - including several IU law professors I know personally - which, among other things, explains why the Indiana RFRA differs from the state and federal RFRAs of the 90s. Though I recommend reading the entire letter you can jump to page 5 for the relevant information.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. I think people who are actually interested in the substance of the law, rather than the overinflated, political rhetoric, should read this letter and the one I posted before jumping to conclusions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI will be in a position where they have to get commitments from their partners during Championships Week that they will serve everyone equally and make sure that information is very visible. This is like going back in time 50 years.

Ultimately, I think this law will get thrown out because it grants discriminatory rights to religious people that it does not grant to non-religious. I can refuse to serve you because of my religion while Bob cannot refuse to serve you because he has no religion. I cannot fathom why that should be alright.

It doesn't "grant discriminatory rights" to anyone. There is virtually no risk that it will be "thrown out," as you say. Edited by jasgre2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply not true. The Indiana RFRA is no more onerous or discriminatory than the plethora of similar laws that have been on the books for years (which merely restore first amendment protections that were eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the early 1990s).

Look ... I am gay. The last thing I would ever do is support and celebrate a law that was passed for the purpose of discriminating against gay people. That isn't what this law does, regardless of the rhetoric that some with political agendas want to spread. The law simply guarantees the freedom of religion that is provided for in the constitution.

For anyone that wants the truth, rather than the rhetoric, read this well written letter from several constitutional experts in support of the law:

http://www.faithlafayette.org/uploads/Church/LetterSupportingReligiousFreedomRestoration.pdf

One of the signers is a former law professor of mine, and I can assure you that he is about as liberal and pro-gay rights as they come. Frankly, I find the way this has been twisted by some to be rather appalling.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I think DCI's statement was perfect.

Wow. Just wow. Thanks so much for posting that powerful letter.

Everyone, on both sides of the issue, should read it beginning to end. It points out case law and real-life situations that the Indiana law attempts to resolve. It names the ONLY case (nearly 30 years ago) where religious exemption was claimed to justify not serving gays and lesbians simply because they were gay (Incidentally, the party seeking the religious exemption LOST that case), and it describes an example where the burden applied by the government actually cost a person her life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Response to MelloDude, there have been a few businesses here and there that have turned down gay business and turned up in the news. Biggest issue that I remember is some that had a contract and then found out it was a gay event and tried to back out. Then it got messy with what takes precedence, the contract or the beliefs of the owner. My thought is if a business doesn't want gay business then they should be honest/brave enough to post at the door they don't want it. That way there will be no surprises. Just dust off the old "No Blacks/Irish/Chinese/Jews Allowed" signs.

IOW the opposite of the blue circle stickers (pay attention DCI) some IN businesses are putting up saying they allow all in their stores.

PS In PA you can fire for sexual orientation, local business did it and firing was upheld because "LGBT" is not in the list of groups that are protected. Sometimes it's what is NOT written down that bites you.

Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Edited by jasgre2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

We have a winner; well said!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

AMEN. This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad idea. The media is about the least qualified institution to be assessing the effect of this law.

I think this is an interesting statement - one which I do not entirely agree with.

There are benefits to media analysis but I also think there are also dangers to listening to only one media outlet which happens so often. I think to get the most objective analysis one should listen to what multiple outlets are saying and then decide for themselves.

  • Like 1
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...