Have a Fox anchor Foxsplain it for you:
Watch A Fox News Anchor Debunk His Network's Defense Of Indiana's "Religious Freedom" Law
* Adding for-profit companies is in line with the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision
* The "likely to be burdened" is for injunctions only
* non-government party cases is for civil suits, which still need to be argued before a judge.
In all ways, these additions don't equate to allowing discrimination anymore than the Federal law, or the other 30 States that have the law or case law to support it.
What I've seen thus far:
1. The Federal version was about minorities
No, it protects the religious freedoms of all Americans. Your inalienable rights are not reduced because of your identity.
2. The Federal Version wasn't about Christians and Gays
Which is irrelevant, given that the category of "Americans" includes "Christians and Gays"
3. The Federal Version didn't apply to private businesses
Actually it didn't say one way or the other on whether or not it did, however, four federal courts and the Obama Administration have all found and argued that it does.
So..... lay it out for us.
Last edited by cpwill; 04-01-15 at 10:50 AM.
Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.
Really? There is no 'compelling state interest' in universal conscription for the defense of a nation in war, BUT there is in universal conscription of bakers and cup-cakes?
This issue has become absurd. This is not Little Rock circa 1950, and lunatic hair pulling over public accommodations is WAY out of proportion to real discrimination.
The state did force her to either violate her religious beliefs and actively support gay marriage OR give up some or all of her business (such as giving up wedding photography in order to avoid another fine).If you are referring the photographer, the "state" did not put her out of business, as you claim. She chose to do something else, I'm assuming, since I can't find anything about her or her business besides the case. It may be that other forces put her out of business or her fight against the ruling cost her too much (although most of those lawyers defending rights will work either pro bono or are paid by a fund of donations). She was only required to pay about $7000 to the other woman/couple for their lawyer, and to agree not to discriminate. If she couldn't agree to that, which is a basic agreement when it comes to actually operating a business, a basic law, then she chose to be out of business. The state did not force her.
I don't support conscription for war, let alone conscription for wedding cupcakes.
Last edited by maxparrish; 04-01-15 at 11:12 AM.