• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas passes its own religious freedom bill despite uproar in Indiana

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,299
Reaction score
81,300
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arkansas passes its own religious freedom bill despite uproar in Indiana

March 31, 2015

The Arkansas Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that critics charge could allow discrimination against gays and lesbians in the name of religious beliefs. The passage came hours after Indiana’s governor promised a legislative fix for that state’s version of the bill, which has led to a national uproar and some boycotts.

Arkansas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act now heads to the desk of Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a moderate Republican, who has said he will sign it into law. Opponents, including retail giant Wal-Mart, called on him to veto the bill. Supporters argue the law protects religious freedom and is not designed to discriminate against any group. But opponents contend the class of laws allow businesses to deny service to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart called on the governor to veto the bill. In a statement, Chief Executive Doug McMillon said the legislation "threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation.” Mark Stodola, the Democratic mayor of Little Rock, the state's biggest city, announced this week he was opposing the law. “Any piece of legislation that is so divisive cannot possibly be good for the state of Arkansas and its people. With these kind of 'wedge issues,' no one is a winner on either side,” Stodola wrote.

Republicans control both chambers of the state Legislature. Arkansas lawmakers said they weren't seeking to modify their version. “There's not really any place to make any changes now,” Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger of Hindsville told the Associated Press and other reporters. “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”

The Republican majority legislative houses of Arkansas have sent HB1228 (RFRA) to the desk of Republican governor Asa Hutchinson who says he will sign the legislation into law. This legislation is similar to, and even broader than, a similar law recently passed in Indiana. From what I understand, only the Arkansas state legislature can write Arkansas nondiscriminatory law (no cities, towns, etc), and they have refused to include the LGBT community as a protected civil rights class. Whats more, the state legislature will go into recess in a day or two. In Arkansas, the state legislators tackle financial matters in one session, and other matters in the next legislative session. This means that the next legislative session that could address HB1228 won't convene until after the up-next financial session has concluded. Basically, two years from now.
 
LOL - “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”

yeah who cares who suffers and gets screwed over in the meantime and how unconstitutional it is right. Why even have a ****ing government? This kind of madness makes me want to have all state governments removed and just have the fed courts take over

this is the same state with a senator who quipped "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate."
 
LOL - “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”

yeah who cares who suffers and gets screwed over in the meantime and how unconstitutional it is right. Why even have a ****ing government? This kind of madness makes me want to have all state governments removed and just have the fed courts take over

this is the same state with a senator who quipped "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate."

That's interesting, because I feel the same way about Obamacare. The difference is I think the federal government needs to go back to what the foundrs intndd and lt th stats handl most issud.
 
LOL - “If there are questions in two years, we can fix it.”

yeah who cares who suffers and gets screwed over in the meantime and how unconstitutional it is right. Why even have a ****ing government? This kind of madness makes me want to have all state governments removed and just have the fed courts take over

this is the same state with a senator who quipped "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate."

Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??
 
That's interesting, because I feel the same way about Obamacare. The difference is I think the federal government needs to go back to what the foundrs intndd and lt th stats handl most issud.

That's interesting, because unlike the Arkansas politicians the Fed CONs have had all the time (and votes) in the world to 'defeat' the ACA. What the Federal Government 'needs to do' is quite subjective because it seems every CON believes their opinion is EXACTLY what the Founders had in mind... ;)

Oh yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the States had been left to decide what is equal rights and what time frame to implement... afterall no need for speed, it had only been a century since the Civil War before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and Sammy Davis could perform in a Casino but not stay there...
 
Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??
The Indiana and Arkansas new laws are far broader the the Federal RFRA law.

I highly doubt it is an unplanned coincidence that this bill was sent to the governor just a day before the Arkansas legislative session goes into recess.

They well know that the next legislative session that can reconsider this legislation is two years away.
 
Looks like plenty of States are determined to make a mess of this issue, Arkansas joins the list.
 
Simpleχity;1064483305 said:
The Indiana and Arkansas new laws are far broader the the Federal RFRA law.

I highly doubt it is an unplanned coincidence that this bill was sent to the governor just a day before the Arkansas legislative session goes into recess.

They well know that the next legislative session that can reconsider this legislation is two years away.

Not really, and in the history of RFRA's, not a single one has been successfully used to defend against discrimination, and if one DID the SCOTUS would shoot it down. So this is all inane tempest in a teapot stupidity.
 
Not really, and in the history of RFRA's, not a single one has been successfully used to defend against discrimination, and if one DID the SCOTUS would shoot it down. So this is all inane tempest in a teapot stupidity.
They are different. Read them. Stupidity is Arkansas passing an even broader law as the Indiana legislature scrambles to fix their defective version.
 
That's interesting, because unlike the Arkansas politicians the Fed CONs have had all the time (and votes) in the world to 'defeat' the ACA. What the Federal Government 'needs to do' is quite subjective because it seems every CON believes their opinion is EXACTLY what the Founders had in mind... ;)

Oh yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the States had been left to decide what is equal rights and what time frame to implement... afterall no need for speed, it had only been a century since the Civil War before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and Sammy Davis could perform in a Casino but not stay there...

Regardless of what anybody thinks is "fair", our system was set up to give the states any powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution. And keep in mind it was the liberals in the north that wanted slaves counted as property and not as people, and that the Democrat party does a wonderful job of destroying lower income families with welfare dependency to buy their votes. In this issue, RFRA laws are designed to prevent 3% of the population from running over the rights of the rest. Color it any way you want, these laws are designed to protect the majority.
 
Regardless of what anybody thinks is "fair", our system was set up to give the states any powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution. And keep in mind it was the liberals in the north that wanted slaves counted as property and not as people, and that the Democrat party does a wonderful job of destroying lower income families with welfare dependency to buy their votes. In this issue, RFRA laws are designed to prevent 3% of the population from running over the rights of the rest. Color it any way you want, these laws are designed to protect the majority.

Ah the 'unnamed' rights CON... except the Rights that the Feds do jump into, like equal treatment under the law, are very clearly FEDERAL. I admire how some CONs can shrug off 'fair' when it isn't their toad being squashed... you aren't being kept out of a diner, bus or hotel.... so you shrug and say oh well, it is what the Founders wanted... the states ignoring the CONSTITUTION for a century after a brutal Civil War that the South LOST! :doh

Love the bending of our history... the North PERIOD didn't want slaves, that the SOUTH treated as property, counted to gain the South more reps in Congress... try and get just a tad closer to the truth!

The majority needs no protection from Gays, the Gays are not demanding kisses from straight folks, just equal access... again try and stand a bit closer to the truth
 
Simpleχity;1064483337 said:
They are different. Read them. Stupidity is Arkansas passing an even broader law as the Indiana legislature scrambles to fix their defective version.

Selective outrage assigned by the media, tempest in a teapot.
 
Selective outrage assigned by the media, tempest in a teapot.

It's not just the media. There isn't anything in arkansas worth boycotting and the situation for LGBT and all minorities in the deep south has always been hopeless, without federal court intervention

in other words we were already pissed at arkansas, alabama etc
 
Not really, and in the history of RFRA's, not a single one has been successfully used to defend against discrimination, and if one DID the SCOTUS would shoot it down. So this is all inane tempest in a teapot stupidity.

see: "hobby lobby"

i get what you mean though, it would have to be a unique case such as trying to force an employer to provide contraception coverage. The outrage at these has to do with the intent to target a specific minority they don't like. Just look at the 3 standing behind the indiana governor at the signing. They were all behind the gay marriage ban there too
 
Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??

The fed "RFRA" was back in the early 90's and was a response to some indian tribe's religion being trampled upon. In other words, it actually was an attempt to protect a religious minority (ie not christianity, which is all the indiana bigots care about). It isn't nearly as broad either.

I referred to federal courts in any case, not the equally useless federal legislature.

The recent slew of these by the states is no more than a last pathetic desperate attempt to oppress LGBT. Of course, it will fail just like every other attempt
 
I keep saying it...




Gays are just this generations niggers.


The sooner some people see and accept that analogy, the sooner they'll understand why they're on the wrong side of the issue.
 
The fed "RFRA" was back in the early 90's and was a response to some indian tribe's religion being trampled upon. In other words, it actually was an attempt to protect a religious minority (ie not christianity, which is all the indiana bigots care about). It isn't nearly as broad either.

I referred to federal courts in any case, not the equally useless federal legislature.

The recent slew of these by the states is no more than a last pathetic desperate attempt to oppress LGBT. Of course, it will fail just like every other attempt

No, it was about barring someone from employment because they were a drug user. Native Americans use Peyote as part of their religion, and you have a religious viewpoint being burdened by anti-drug laws. The Federal law has be leveraged for various reasons that all come down to a religious practice conflicting with a non-religous law. And that's the whole point of each RFRA.

The Indiana law added the word "significant" to the already established "burden", which actually makes it harder to apply. And they added that the law would apply to civil suits as well.

With this in mind, its impossible to conclude that the RFRA laws, in any state, can be used for ad-hoc "no gays allowed" applications, because it would NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACTUAL DEFENSE.
 
That's interesting, because unlike the Arkansas politicians the Fed CONs have had all the time (and votes) in the world to 'defeat' the ACA. What the Federal Government 'needs to do' is quite subjective because it seems every CON believes their opinion is EXACTLY what the Founders had in mind... ;)

Oh yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the States had been left to decide what is equal rights and what time frame to implement... afterall no need for speed, it had only been a century since the Civil War before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and Sammy Davis could perform in a Casino but not stay there...

For your reading pleasure:

Gays Win, Blacks Lose, Grammy’s Gay Marriage Glamorized as Black Artist’s Talents Dissed | Universal Soul Power
 
No, it was about barring someone from employment because they were a drug user. Native Americans use Peyote as part of their religion, and you have a religious viewpoint being burdened by anti-drug laws. The Federal law has be leveraged for various reasons that all come down to a religious practice conflicting with a non-religous law. And that's the whole point of each RFRA.

The Indiana law added the word "significant" to the already established "burden", which actually makes it harder to apply. And they added that the law would apply to civil suits as well.

With this in mind, its impossible to conclude that the RFRA laws, in any state, can be used for ad-hoc "no gays allowed" applications, because it would NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACTUAL DEFENSE.

BUT that doesn't push forward the anti-Gay meme...don't you know. ;)
 
Since the FEDS have the same law... how can that be an improvement??

It depends.

Take the Indiana law for example, it does have some striing difference from the FED's version.

I actually read Indiana's law (with some difficulty of course due to lack of formal training in law).
 
No, it was about barring someone from employment because they were a drug user. Native Americans use Peyote as part of their religion, and you have a religious viewpoint being burdened by anti-drug laws. The Federal law has be leveraged for various reasons that all come down to a religious practice conflicting with a non-religous law. And that's the whole point of each RFRA.

The Indiana law added the word "significant" to the already established "burden", which actually makes it harder to apply. And they added that the law would apply to civil suits as well.

With this in mind, its impossible to conclude that the RFRA laws, in any state, can be used for ad-hoc "no gays allowed" applications, because it would NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACTUAL DEFENSE.

The federal "RFRA" doesn't apply to business service the way indiana does and what constitutes a "significant burden" is obviously open to interpretation and an attempt to get away with what they can without the courts striking the whole thing down, as much as "sincerely held religious belief" relies on mind reading. It's asinine thru and thru, the worst kind of ad hoc law making, where the courts will very possibly come to contradictory rulings on identical cases

You clearly missed my point as well which is that indiana bigots are targeting LGBT with this law, unlike the early 90s RFRAs. The fact it will fail doesn't make it any less heinous
 
Looks like plenty of States are determined to make a mess of this issue, Arkansas joins the list.


Mornin OS. :2wave: Well they did mention that the left now is out and cheering on business and corporations for speaking out.

Before, as you know they were running around saying businesses and corporations aren't people. For some reason they have evolved. :lol:
 
The federal "RFRA" doesn't apply to business service the way indiana does and what constitutes a "significant burden" is obviously open to interpretation and an attempt to get away with what they can without the courts striking the whole thing down, as much as "sincerely held religious belief" relies on mind reading. It's asinine thru and thru, the worst kind of ad hoc law making, where the courts will very possibly come to contradictory rulings on identical cases

You clearly missed my point as well which is that indiana bigots are targeting LGBT with this law, unlike the early 90s RFRAs. The fact it will fail doesn't make it any less heinous

Perhaps the biggest thing to note.

Indiana took "person" from the FED RFRA and made it hilariously broad in definition.
 
The federal "RFRA" doesn't apply to business service the way indiana does and what constitutes a "significant burden" is obviously open to interpretation and an attempt to get away with what they can without the courts striking the whole thing down, as much as "sincerely held religious belief" relies on mind reading. It's asinine thru and thru, the worst kind of ad hoc law making, where the courts will very possibly come to contradictory rulings on identical cases

You clearly missed my point as well which is that indiana bigots are targeting LGBT with this law, unlike the early 90s RFRAs. The fact it will fail doesn't make it any less heinous

Nothing in any of the RFRA laws target anyone, and you are just projecting your incorrect views. Like myself & legal experts have stated, and the opponents of these laws won't accept, is the RFRA has NEVER been used to successfully discriminate by denying service. But keep beating that drum.
 
Mornin OS. :2wave: Well they did mention that the left now is out and cheering on business and corporations for speaking out.

Before, as you know they were running around saying businesses and corporations aren't people. For some reason they have evolved. :lol:

That is nothing more than convenience. There was a time, back during the Prop 8 vote in California, that these same groups published information on businesses owned by those that supported the measure in boycott efforts.

This is what I am talking about with the mess we have made. Try the voter, do not like the results and rush to the courts. Try the courts, do not like the results and rush to the polls for an alternative try.

At the end of the day we have social conservatism that wants government on their side, social liberalism wants government on their side. We should have left government out the picture from the start, it is most unfortunate that we are so far past that now the only option left is government forced protections for some with question on Constitutionality.

This is another one of those subjects that the history books will not look to kind on, I suspect putting the anti-gay movement of today right up there with racists of the 50's and 60's.
 
Back
Top Bottom