I'm Trying To Break It Down Step-By-Step
You say it applies to purely private actions. I've seen arguments to the contrary. Both sides seem to start at the end of the argument and argue only the policy debate.
The language (at least) starts by referencing acts "under color of law" that "burden" some "exercise of religion.
If either side is right, they oughta to be able to walk through a step-by-step explanation of the statutory terms and explain how that language shows they are right.
In fact, I am trying force both sides to do this. I think it helps to avoid the Hoosier Hysteria of the past few days.
so - if you can - explain to me (and others) step-by-step how a statute that says a Government/state actor/color-of-law event which winds up allowing a Little Old Church Lady to say "stop that" involves this ugly balance of rights (religion vs. gay rights) we have seen displayed.
Example - I can understand the case where a Native American is arrested and charged with a criminal violation for having eagle feathers, and defends saying "I have a right to use them in my religious ceremonies."
I do not see how the "Granny refuses to photograph gay wedding" event winds up in a similar legislation-involving circumstance, mostly because Granny is not gonna get arrested or sued and need to use the statutory defense.
Maybe I'd understand if Granny said "Bloomington won't renew my business license because I won't work a gay wedding" or "charges me more/fines me/taxes my license" due to my refusal.
But if the only event is the one everybody seems to be talking about (Christian won't serve gay), where in the statute do I find the language that everyone else says "allows" Granny to tell the gay wedding to take a hike?
To me it is a legitimate question deserving of an answer BEFORE Indiana is tossed out of the Union.
Emotion-free answers only please. There has been enough casting of insults. I'm trying to have a reasonable, non-confrontational conversation.
Posted from
Rivals Mobile