Thread: Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Originally Posted by Somerville

It is not the SAME law, as several others have noted on the multiple threads about this boo-boo from Indiana, that was driven by unreasoning hatred and fear.

Originally Posted by Travis007

incorrect....

What is it with some people being so sure they are right(correct) even when it is easily shown that they really don't have the foggiest clue about reality?

THE difference between the federal RFRA and the Indiana one is the ever so small fact that the Indiana law specifically allows private individuals, partnerships, corporations, etc. to cite religious beliefs as a defense in a discrimination case when they have discriminated. The federal law is intended to allow individuals, partnerships, corporations, etc. to cite religious beliefs as a defense when they claim they have been discriminated against.

One allows discrimination - Indiana's law. The other - the federal RFRA, allows a defendant to claim religious reasons for violating a law or ordinance - in other words, the right to bring suit against a government body. The original case related to a Native American being fired from his job because a drug test found peyote in his system. The Supreme Court denied his defense that taking peyote was part of his religious beliefs, for which we have multiple attestations.

Originally Posted by Taylor

I wish it were that easy. To understand the law in a particular state, you can't simply read the statute, you need to be familiar with all of the relevant case law. This is why you're not likely to find a quick and easy summary of how the law works in every state, because to compile and maintain such a record requires a substantial amount of work.

For example, in California you can even walk into a Jewish establishment in Nazi regalia and they cannot (legally) refuse service. This would never be apparent from the statute, but the court decided that someone's Nazi political beliefs are analogous to religion and therefore they could not be denied service.

If that's true (about Cali - I don't live there so I don't know), then that's disgraceful. A Jewish man should be able to decide he doesn't want to engage in service with someone in Nazi regalia. That's exactly the kind of slippery slope I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Somerville

Anyone who says the RFRA bill isn't intended to discriminate against gay citizens ain't paying attention

Here's a picture/comment from GLAAD

Attachment 67182478

For 'some' reason, the governor's office is refusing to release names of those who attended the bill signing

Can't read any of those captions. Is there supposed to be something noteworthy in there?

Originally Posted by Removable Mind

To what end do you believe such laws serve the public at large when there is civil rights language in most states and federal law, which is to the contrary to zealot religious legislation? Think the S.C. will just look the other way?

Are tattoos on gays similar to those put on Jews who were encamped during WWII the next logical move for states like Indiana?

Or how about microchip implants for all gays. That way chip detection alarms can be installed in door ways of business who choose to impose their bigoted views on potential consumers who are gay...or may those who have green eyes, a different religion, skin color...etc. than that of the business owners.

wow

you guys need to be writing science fiction

you are taking this thing to the nth degree

some of you missed your calling.....

Originally Posted by Samhain

the additional language in the Indiana bill is to protect individuals from civil suits, where some courts have inappropriately applied public accommodation laws to non-public accommodation business. I believe there was a case in New Mexico.

Yep -- and the one discriminating lost. Elane Photograph v. Willock, the state Supreme Court would not allow a photographer to use the state’s RFRA law as a defense

Originally Posted by Travis007

incorrect.. they are NOT BIGOTS.. you are asking them to violate their religion...they shoudl have ther right to say "no" long as its not a life saving situation...

Yes, I am. If they want to violate my civil rights...correct, I'm doing just that.

Originally Posted by gdgyva

wow

you guys need to be writing science fiction

you are taking this thing to the nth degree

some of you missed your calling.....

Praise be...thank ya brother..