Quote from: Icy on March 30, 2015, 02:29:42 PM

Yeah, in a decent world, that would work Meta.

That's not how it works though.

19 other states have laws like this.

Okay, and? In Texas, you can fuck a horse because the law says it's okay. That doesn't mean we should continue to pass laws in other states condoning sex with animals. You can marry your first cousin in 23 states as well.

Just because one state has a law does not mean it should be acceptable or pushed for practice in other states.

And yet the world hasn't ended. This really isn't anything new, and I think people on both sides of the aisle are blowing it out of proportions.

Let's take a look at the lobbyists who helped write and push for the law, shall we?



Guy with the yellow tie, goatee? That's Micah Clark, a dude who is well known for his anti-homosexuality rhetoric to the point that he publicly raged against a lesbian teenager for wearing a tuxedo. He continued to spread the belief that it is a curable disease.

Guy directly behind Mr. Clark in the tan suit is Mr. Curt Smith, the President of the Indiana Family Institute and a man who has publicly compared homosexuality to bestiality and adultery. He himself helped write the bill. A bit more information on him

There is no "religious belief" that says a business leader should not be able to serve someone because they are gay, or because they are black, or because they are female. The argument that this law is meant to protect religious businesses due to their beliefs fails on that argument because no where in the bible does God, Jesus, or any other religious icon say "Hey, dude. You own a bakery and follow my practices? Great! You can stop serving those people"

This is simply a practice by religious leaders to try and give themselves as much breathing room as possible as they continue to see their arguments in other issues (Gay Marriage) crumble. That is all this bill amounts to, and the signing of it by Mike Pence simply amounts to him lobbying for conservatives ahead of announcing a Presidential run.

Quote from: Icy on March 30, 2015, 07:05:42 PM

But the law is not like the other 19 (At least?) states. Compare the language yourself.

I've read it. Nowhere does it explicitly apply to disputes between private citizens. In fact, the word 'citizen' isn't even in the text, and 'private' only refers to private employers, in which it states the bill doesn't give cause to private employees. It very explicitly states it's relating to government entities.

And yet still, Columbia Law School disagrees with you still on the fact that the Indiana law is highly different from the others. Here's a portion of their letter penned to the author of the bill:

Third, the state RFRA bills do not, in fact, mirror the language of the federal RFRA. The
federal RFRA and most other state RFRAs provide that in order to pass constitutional muster the
alleged burden on the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs must be “in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest.” Some versions of the state RFRA now pending before the
Indiana Legislature, by contrast, set forth that the state must demonstrate that “applying the
burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental
interest; . . .” This difference in language, creating a much higher burden for the state in defending the application of otherwise generally applicable laws in cases where there is an
alleged burden on religious liberty rights, is extremely important. This higher burden will be
particularly critical in cases where RFRA rights might be asserted as a defense to a claim of
discrimination; the RFRA claimant will be encouraged to assert a range of ways, including the
market, in which application of the anti-discrimination law is non-essential. Further, the
definition of “person” under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the
federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of
entities than that currently recognized by federal law.

In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably
demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create
confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights
in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This
confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers,
landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting
in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious
justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their
employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious
beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not “open a door” to conversation,
but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and
individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be
asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and
responsibilities in a pluralistic society.33