Sounds as if they are actually working to clarify things today

[zeke4ahs]

On the law. According to news sources both Bosma and Long are saying they will clarify bill to prove it doesn't discriminate. Glad they are showing some leadership that Pence absolutely did not. This is exactly what I was expecting him to say yesterday. Hopefully this mess will be put to rest today.

 

[Noodle]

how in the world are they going to "clarify" what is now a law without....

actually amending the law via new legislation? If they merely plan to make statements on the record about what the law means or was intended to address, that's utterly meaningless. While the legislative history of a bill can sometimes be used to interpret the resulting law when there is some ambiguity, you can't create legislative history after the bill has been approved by the legislature. Anything short of amending or repealing the law, or {gasp!} making sexual orientation a protected class, is of no significance.

The funny thing is, Indiana may have put itself so deep into a corner that it may need to seriously consider making sexual orientation a protected class under state law.

 

[zeke4ahs]

No idea....

GOP had a 9:30 press conference and these quotes were coming from it. I think they know they have to get something addresses before the Final Four folks start arriving.

 

[NPT]

Why are we still debating

this when we could be debating why Hillary wiped out her email server?

 

[Sope Creek]

That's a silly question . . .

why debate something when we already know the answer?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

INDIANA RFRA DOES NOT ENABLE DISCRIMINATION! PERIOD!

All the hoo rah rah to the contrary is nothing but emotional bandwagoning that liberals are engaging in with increasing frequency. They are doing real damage to the country. They are looking like emotional idiots.

Let's clarify a few things.

RFRA will be mostly frequently used in land use and zoning situations. Locations of churches have been modified because of RFRA. Also in home prayer meetings have met land use challenges about which RFRA has applied.

RFRA does not provide any comfort or defense from those who want to discriminate in public accommodations. In those locations where homosexuals are a protected class, RFRA does not aid and abet those who want to keep homosexuals out of their places of business.

In the case of same sex weddings, RFRA prohibits the government from requiring people to personally participate in those weddings if they don't want to because of religious reasons. This appllies to ministers, or photographers, or other individuals. RFRA does not permit a florist to say they won't sell flowers to same sex couples, again assuming same sex couples are a protected class. Same for bakers. 99.9% percent of the comments about this are from emotional simpletons who cannot draw meaningful distinctions based upon common sense and logic. Here is how the law works. If Walmart sells flowers in thousands of stores across the USA, RFRA does not permit Walmart to not sell flowers to a same sex couple for their wedding. OTOH, if a flower arranger who does not operate a store, does not sell flowers to retail customers, but does provide consultation and flower design for weddings, RFRA would prohibit the government from forcing that person to personally participate in a same sex wedding. The key is "personal participation" and religious objections to personal participation. I've outlined the ends of the spectrum. In between there are lots of circumstances where RFRA might or might not offer protection. But the purpose of the law is to define the ground rules to help judges to make decisions.

As far as I am concerned the law is clear. Any further clarification would be solely the result of ignorance, emotionalism and those who wouldn't understand nuance if it were a bus and ran them over.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're making a lot of stuff up there.

That's really bad work, COH.

 

[Noodle]

yes, but he said it in all caps and with exclamation points!!!

You should try that in your next brief--judges love that sort of thing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

IT IS SPOT ON

Been there, done all of this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ha. When I write a brief

I appeal to common sense and logic. When talking about RFRA I must strip that away for those who can't/won't/don't understand what it is.

 

[Sope Creek]

He's seen MTIOTF capitalizing every word in the subject line . . .

and raised him to capitalizing EVERYTHING. GRIN . . . I mean GROAN.

This post was edited on 3/30 2:26 PM by Sope Creek

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have never capitalized "everything"

But I have capitalized "something" to bust through the emotional shell around liberal politics.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No this is worse.

You were wrong below, but now you are even more wrong, as you have invented yet another legal test from thin air to apply to the law.

 

[twenty02]

Bosma from Indy star

"The removal of the spectre of RFRA being a defense to a claim that services were denied may be one approach," Bosma said.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Don't hold back

What are you talking about ? I've been through federal RFRA often about land use and jail conditions. Maybe you'd like to outline your RFRA experience.

If you really think that language you argued below is some kind of authorization or even a recognition of a nongovernmental plaintiff, perhaps you could say what those claims might be beyond what you and I already agreed to.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

All while pointing fingers at others claiming they're being 'emotional'

I don't come here much, but when I do I find CO Hoosier to be one of the more respectful and reasonable people with which I do not agree. But now he's beginning to sound as tone deaf as the Indiana GOPers who got this bill passed to begin with. SO hung up on being 'right/correct' but completely tone deaf to the collateral damage that far outweighs the actual impact of the bill.

And he has a legal foil on here from the other side of the political spectrum (TOHG) who disagrees with how he is interpreting the law. That's 100% fair and that's what will happen in the real world. But in the meantime, it's triggered massive blowback towards our state, not because of emotional media coverage as much as real lawyers with real legal experience not being able to agree about the impact of the law and what it does. Apparently not even Pence and Eric Miller can agree what the law does, if I understood Pence yesterday.

All the while, COH would have his head buried squarely in the sand next to Pence screaming out of his nether regions "I'm right, you're wrong! I'm right, you're wrong!" while millions of dollars of tax revenue go rushing out of our state.

Our Governor went on national TV and refused to say (by omission) that LGBT should not be discriminated against. That's all of the background info you need when paired with this law to understand what it's intent was by those who authored and passed it.

Be a legal beagle all you want....you may even be correct. I'm not saying your legal opinion is wrong. I'm saying you're being stupid to ignore the ramifications (and POSSIBILITY that you're NOT right) that simply aren't worth it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're adding to the law

your own language but further defining a burden on religious exercise as forced "actual participation." You're distinguishing between public accommodations and other types of business relationships.

Those distinctions may matter as various non-discrimination ordinances are litigated against the RFRA backdrop, but you are making it sound like they are inherently part of RFRA, which they are not. Indiana RFRA is written be as broad as possible. By its own text, it applies to pretty much everything. It's limitations will be determined by courts applying strict scrutiny to various other laws, and as you know, I think in practice it will find itself very limited in the world of non-discrimination, because I think most non-discrimination ordinances will easily meet the strict scrutiny standard, but it's simply not honest to portray the RFRA itself as inherently self-limited as you are doing.

The federal RFRA is irrelevant here. They are two different laws with the same name.

goat

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Don't think so

All the analysis about the conflict between anti-discrimination and RFRA must begin at the personal participation level. Even Hobby Lobby noted that and that case was not about protected classes. I see nothing in IRFRA that changes that approach.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I understand the concern

Most of my response to those inflicting collateral damage to Indiana and Hoosiers is that they are emotional, ignorant of the law and in some cases willfully ignorant. I also agree that the "fix" for this problem is to yield to all the overreaction and emotionalism. I don't think that is a way to run a railroad but that's life.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's because Hobby Lobby wasn't about non-discrimination law.

If RFRA is raised as a defense against a non-discrimination ordinance that does define a protected class, then it will be an issue.

goat

 

[Univee2]

Good grief, make it stop. Go down the street or around the

..corner or to the other side of town for your wedding cake, flowers or pictures.

It's not like this is an essential, such as food, water, medical care, clothing or housing.

We're told all the time to "change the channel, don't read the book or don't listen to the music if you don't want to be offended". Okay, that's what I do. Thus, I don't listen to Polka, read the NYT, eat beets (evil, vile weed) or watch Purdue football or basketball.

Progressives crack me up - all for choice, except ... when ... they're .... not. Empty-headed, overly-wrought, feverish fools.

 

[Noodle]

you need to come here (and post) more often, as that was a very....


good response. I'm an attorney, yet I have little interest in looking into the Indiana law in question to try to determine how it might differ from the analogous federal law or those in other states. That's why I have largely stayed out of the legal debate, and have instead limited my comments to the issue of public perception and the like. Right now that's what matters most for the state of Indiana, like it or not.

In some ways it's a little bit like the SAE affair at the Univ. of Oklahoma. Sure the two students should not have been expelled for exercising their 1st Amendment right. But so what? I'm not losing any sleep over it, and it's certainly not the most important issue for the incident.

 

[Moops]

Wanna be lawyer who can never see the forest for the trees.

Your mind is always clouded which is why you'll never do anything substantial.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sup, Moops.

Who put particulate silica in your feminine genital region?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Explain

how one can argue that a "deeply held religious belief" can be applied in any circumstance without individual personal participation as a starting point. I understand the IRFRA includes entities within its scope, but the entity must be seen as the alter ego of an individual. Bricks and mortar can't have a religion.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

So you'd rather be 'right' and lose billions, than compromise?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what it sounds like to me.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Not exactly

I'm willing to yield to ignorance and reserve the right to complain about it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's cuz

you must be productive with your time. I'm not similarly burdened.