Pence signs his backwardsass bill.....
- Thread starter Zizkov
- Start date
In his words.
This is from Mike Pence. Everyone should judge for themselves if he is sincere, or if the media reporting this is correct. I offer no judgement.
"Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith.
The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.
One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.
Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act-limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.
Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states-including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky-have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action.
In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.
This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.
Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith."
This is from Mike Pence. Everyone should judge for themselves if he is sincere, or if the media reporting this is correct. I offer no judgement.
"Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith.
The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.
One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.
Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act-limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.
Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states-including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky-have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action.
In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.
This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.
Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith."
Does This Mean We Don't Have To Play The Blue Devils If We Don't Want?
Or the Demon Deacons?
(Unintended consequences are always the best kind.)
Or the Demon Deacons?
(Unintended consequences are always the best kind.)
It Means We Can Take Your Business and Give to the Poor
You didn't build that, and - whether you like it or not - you can't keep it.
(Politics is Fu-un!)
You didn't build that, and - whether you like it or not - you can't keep it.
(Politics is Fu-un!)
Don't let dumb people with dumb rhetoric define you. Point out that it was
only 6 years ago when the "diversity" oasis that is California voted to ban SS marriages on a ballot initiative. They can't even blame the politicians. The citizens did it. Some CEO from California has no room to act like Indiana is the land of intolerance.
About 3 years ago Obama was against it. His stance is/was based on the same thing as Pence's--politics. If Pence is a bigot, then so is Obama.
I'm not ashamed to be American or a Hoosier (or anything else really), but I don't base my self worth on the opinions of our dumb@ss politicians.
I get the concerns about perception, but we'll just have to point out that our problem is dumb@ss politicians. That's something everybody can relate to. Vbg
only 6 years ago when the "diversity" oasis that is California voted to ban SS marriages on a ballot initiative. They can't even blame the politicians. The citizens did it. Some CEO from California has no room to act like Indiana is the land of intolerance.
About 3 years ago Obama was against it. His stance is/was based on the same thing as Pence's--politics. If Pence is a bigot, then so is Obama.
I'm not ashamed to be American or a Hoosier (or anything else really), but I don't base my self worth on the opinions of our dumb@ss politicians.
I get the concerns about perception, but we'll just have to point out that our problem is dumb@ss politicians. That's something everybody can relate to. Vbg
I'm Gonna Open A "Reject" Mail Order Store
Anybody who gets refused service under the new law can order from me.
I'm gonna be a dozen-airre!
Anybody who gets refused service under the new law can order from me.
I'm gonna be a dozen-airre!
It's not quite the same thing.
The type of refusal of service protected by this law wouldn't be refusal of service based solely on the fact you disagree with someone, but only if the act of serving them would be something you would consider to be against your religion.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't offer any protections at all to atheists, but the right to refuse service to someone based on religion would not be one of them.
For most businesses, that action would be barred by federal law, anyway.
goat
The type of refusal of service protected by this law wouldn't be refusal of service based solely on the fact you disagree with someone, but only if the act of serving them would be something you would consider to be against your religion.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't offer any protections at all to atheists, but the right to refuse service to someone based on religion would not be one of them.
For most businesses, that action would be barred by federal law, anyway.
goat
The point of the bill is divisiveness.
Keep the 99%-ers squabbling amongst themselves so the focus is not on the uber-wealthy. Either that or so we will stop talking about Tom Crean. I see the hand of Fred Glass behind this.
Keep the 99%-ers squabbling amongst themselves so the focus is not on the uber-wealthy. Either that or so we will stop talking about Tom Crean. I see the hand of Fred Glass behind this.
I don't think you have to worry.
I don't think this law changes the rules for when you can and can't fire an employee. As far as raising the law to defend actions of a business, it can only be raised to defend the religious beliefs of the person or persons who own a controlling portion of the company. It doesn't change protections afforded mere employees. In fact, it may actually grant employers more latitude, as it could offer them a way to get around certain non-discrimination laws.
Maybe. I think most courts would find that the government does in fact have a compelling interest in enforcing non-discrimination employment laws and that the laws in place are in fact the least restrictive they can be and still achieve their goals.
goat
I don't think this law changes the rules for when you can and can't fire an employee. As far as raising the law to defend actions of a business, it can only be raised to defend the religious beliefs of the person or persons who own a controlling portion of the company. It doesn't change protections afforded mere employees. In fact, it may actually grant employers more latitude, as it could offer them a way to get around certain non-discrimination laws.
Maybe. I think most courts would find that the government does in fact have a compelling interest in enforcing non-discrimination employment laws and that the laws in place are in fact the least restrictive they can be and still achieve their goals.
goat
It's the bastardization
of one religion. Can we please stop this phacking stupid pissing match between everyone. That being said, it has no business bring part of public policy. Since we're all being given lemons, we should just make lemonade. Now the bigots will be more easily identified, boycotted, and shamed. In the ledger supporting this, I'd hate to see a minority made to offer services to the KKK. The law is idiotic and I wish we were all better than this, but I guess not.
of one religion. Can we please stop this phacking stupid pissing match between everyone. That being said, it has no business bring part of public policy. Since we're all being given lemons, we should just make lemonade. Now the bigots will be more easily identified, boycotted, and shamed. In the ledger supporting this, I'd hate to see a minority made to offer services to the KKK. The law is idiotic and I wish we were all better than this, but I guess not.
exactly....
Aren't most people social liberal-moderates and fiscal conservative? Instead our parties are on the polar end of each
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Aren't most people social liberal-moderates and fiscal conservative? Instead our parties are on the polar end of each
Posted from Rivals Mobile
good to know...
I don't see any of our employees doing that but if they did they will be looking for a new job. I am all for turning bad business away but good business is hard enough to find. Turn away good business because of sexual orientation or religion kiss your booty good bye.
I don't see any of our employees doing that but if they did they will be looking for a new job. I am all for turning bad business away but good business is hard enough to find. Turn away good business because of sexual orientation or religion kiss your booty good bye.
No, its not a national issue...
at least as far as Pubes are concerned.
This is a bottom up issue (see what I did there?). State government is largely in the hands of Pubes, and they are pushing back against the larger acceptance of LBGTxyz that has occurred on the national platform.
I'm not arguing your larger point that this is, at this point, a popcorn fart, but I think its pretty clueless for Indiana Pubes to take this stance. They are flippin bullet proof if they just stick to their knitting - but this could be the kind of the thing that gives the Indiana Demoncrats a foothold to changes the status quo in the next election.
at least as far as Pubes are concerned.
This is a bottom up issue (see what I did there?). State government is largely in the hands of Pubes, and they are pushing back against the larger acceptance of LBGTxyz that has occurred on the national platform.
I'm not arguing your larger point that this is, at this point, a popcorn fart, but I think its pretty clueless for Indiana Pubes to take this stance. They are flippin bullet proof if they just stick to their knitting - but this could be the kind of the thing that gives the Indiana Demoncrats a foothold to changes the status quo in the next election.
Not sure I follow your logic on Sams and Collins's pro careers..
They aren't good enough to garner a pro contract. Am I wrong? WTF does that have to do with this issue?
and unfortunately, our politics is now 100% special interests. Super PACs have enabled that, and its not going to get any better. This law is simply the result of the influence of an wealthy and bigoted minority with no checks on how much they can spend to support (that is "control") their representatives.
They aren't good enough to garner a pro contract. Am I wrong? WTF does that have to do with this issue?
and unfortunately, our politics is now 100% special interests. Super PACs have enabled that, and its not going to get any better. This law is simply the result of the influence of an wealthy and bigoted minority with no checks on how much they can spend to support (that is "control") their representatives.
Michael Jordan famously said...
When asked if he was a Republican or Democrat, he replied, "They both buy shoes."
Throughout my entire business career, I have tried to always remember that.
When asked if he was a Republican or Democrat, he replied, "They both buy shoes."
Throughout my entire business career, I have tried to always remember that.
exactly
The negative backlash from this bill will far far far outweigh any legitimate protection it would provide.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The negative backlash from this bill will far far far outweigh any legitimate protection it would provide.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
You sure are on the muscle on this....
and I'm not sure why.
Are you really saying that Sams isn't playing in the NFL because the league is homophobic? The NFL? Really? That league is all about money, and nothing more. If Sams was good, he'd be playing. Fact is, he was a tweener, and being SEC player of the year isn't quite like winning a Heisman. And that award immediately makes you an NFL stud, no?
Right? Right?
Hello?
All I hear is crickets.
And Collins played for years. He earned it, when he was good enough. If he could still play, he would be.
Why do those leagues need to make a big splash? In fact, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about there.
and I'm not sure why.
Are you really saying that Sams isn't playing in the NFL because the league is homophobic? The NFL? Really? That league is all about money, and nothing more. If Sams was good, he'd be playing. Fact is, he was a tweener, and being SEC player of the year isn't quite like winning a Heisman. And that award immediately makes you an NFL stud, no?
Right? Right?
Hello?
All I hear is crickets.
And Collins played for years. He earned it, when he was good enough. If he could still play, he would be.
Why do those leagues need to make a big splash? In fact, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about there.
Good luck to the first biz owner
That actually tries to use the RFRA to actually deny service to a gay/lesbian. The chit storm that will reign down from social media and everywhere else will make them want to move to the north pole.
Of course it's unlikely to ever happen, since we can't come up with a case where it has happened in this state to-date.
That actually tries to use the RFRA to actually deny service to a gay/lesbian. The chit storm that will reign down from social media and everywhere else will make them want to move to the north pole.
Of course it's unlikely to ever happen, since we can't come up with a case where it has happened in this state to-date.
How is it different?
Indiana doesn't consider LGBT people a protected class. That's what makes it much different from Illinois.
If you don't understand the message this sends, you are lost. Really really lost.
Indiana doesn't consider LGBT people a protected class. That's what makes it much different from Illinois.
If you don't understand the message this sends, you are lost. Really really lost.
Similar threads
