Thoughts on what the RFRA uproar is all about...

[tt68]

As I have observed the INCREDIBLE outrage that has happened the last 10 days in response to RFRA, I have been asking myself why? It seems to me the way the state defended its banning of same sex marriage was way more deplorable than this law, but it didn't create near the amount of uproar.

The same-sex marriage war is over. Sure, there are a few skirmishes remaining, but the war has been won. That also had me wondering what was going on...why the uproar now?

I think I finally figured it out. The LGBT community and it supporters are going to make a push to get sexual orientation onto the list of protected classes that includes religion, gender, age, disability, race, national origin, etc. This already exists in some of the more liberal states as has been pointed out. I think the LGBT lobby saw this as an opportunity to start this war in earnest and Indiana has become the first major battle ground.

My guess is the way this is playing out is exceeding their wildest dreams by leaps and bounds. I know they didn't have all these organizations in their pocket ready to pounce once they saw the opportunity to strike. But wow, has it been effective.

So the question remains...what should Indiana politicians do? We do not want to be the battle ground for this debate. We are way to conservative and I don't think enough of our populace/representatives are ready to make a move making sexual orientation protected. Thus they only thing to do is repeal the law. If they don't do that and stop anywhere short of making sexual orientation a protected class, then there will be serious carnage in Indiana and ALOT of collateral damage. If they repeal the law, then they will go back to being like the other 30 states in the union that don't have sexual orientation as a protected class. All the ramifications will have to go away, there is not way these companies and organizations can continue to single out Indiana for not having a law that 30 other states don't have.

This is a debate that needs to happen. Both parts of it - what are people allowed to discriminate against because of their beliefs and should sexual orientation be a protected class. But I don't think we want Indiana to be the focal point of either one of these debates.

For the record, since most of you don't know me, I am a fiscal conservative, pro-life, sort of republican who thinks the government needs to get out of the marriage business (marriage should be a religious endeavor) and into the civil-union business for all couples (and if they don't do this, then everyone should be allowed to marry) and I don't think a baker should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple. I also think Pence is about the worst governor ever (and I think Mitch Daniels is one of the best).

 

[Hoops Cat]

So, the LGBT community, having won the culture war, decided to seize...

the higher ground the conservative Indiana legislature and Governor had staked out....Then they cleverly convinced the said powers-that-be to pass a law so repugnant that it would create a battleground to finally win their case.

Right here in little ole Indiana,

Right?

 

[tt68]

What kind of response is that? I think the next battle is going to be

for sexual orientation to become a protected class against discrimination everywhere. I think the RFRA law that the idiots passed opened up Indiana to be the first battle ground. The LGBT lobby started the snowball rolling (I know this was a coordinated effort to start with) and it got WAY bigger than they ever imagined. I don't think Indiana wants to be the first conservative state to have to fight this battle - because there will be seriously blood shed. Our citizens are not ready to give put sexual orientation in the same category as the other protected classes. Thus the Republicans need to repeal the law and try and move this debate somewhere else.

If I thought we could get sexual orientation as a protected class - then I would be all for it. But I don't think it will happen, and RFRA opens the state up in a way that is going to be (already has been) very damaging to the state.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think it is a GOP civil war

Yes, liberals would protest this law, but their power is limited. In Indiana the Chamber, Lilly, Cummins, and Mayor Ballard opposed it before it was signed (before the firestorm). WalMart is actively fighting Arkansas law and has been for quite some time. Angie's List was one of the first corporations to actually take some concrete step in deciding to cancel an expansion in Indianapolis. Angie's lists CEO was Mitch Daniels' campaign chair for one run. Kittles furniture came out against it, their CEO was state GOP chair. Even NASCAR is on board, are there a lot of gay NASCAR friends?

I think the business GOP has decided to take on the Christian conservative GOP. All the actions above (except NASCAR) happened long before Conn, took their position today. I don't know the political leanings of Salesforce, they were the first. But the others have long known GOP roots.

I'm sure many will tell me I'm wrong, but again stalwart Republican corporations/entities were opposing this before it became big. I'm not sure it doesn't become nearly as big if they sat on the sidelines. I think we're seeing a skirmish in the GOP, and it may be business GOP trying to position a pro-business candidate in 2016. That's just guesswork.

But something got business against this law before the first protest sign was printed.

 

[ryanmilli]

Diversity is big business . . .

There is a ton of competition for diversity for a lot of reasons. At bottom, big business believes diversity will make them more money because it makes their workforces more dynamic and productive. Then you have practical considerations like the fact that many businesses will often require other businesses to report their diversity statistics in response to RFPs or on a continuing basis and you are at a disadvantage in securing business when you have poor diversity numbers.

 

[Scott S]

Thanks Marvin, I had not thought of it

in that context, it will be interesting to see how this plays out and if your theory holds water so to speak and I vote that the idiots in the state house lose the war! vbg

I also can echo Ryan's post in big business Diversity is big business so I am/was not surprised by the response of those who are focused on the bottom line.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Excellent question tt,

Why has the moonbat left had such a public freakout over this law? It is an interesting question indeed.

I can understand some of the outrage because emotionalism is what the left does best with politics. I don't understand the emotional outbursts from lawyers who torture and read into the Indiana law highly unlikely interpretations and applications for no purpose other than to bring loud noises to the discussion. Take governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut, a democrat and a lawyer. He said that Indiana "turned back the clock" on gay rights and he will sign an order prohibiting state-funded travel to the Hoosier state. Malloy is just one more democrat/politician/lawyer who not only doesn't know what he is talking about, but is so proud of his emotional freakout he issues a press release about it.

As a matter of fact, Connecticut has had its RFRA for 20 years. Connecticut makes it much easier than Indiana for one to claim a religious basis to refuse service to gay people.

Connecticut:

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Indiana:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

The word "substantially" in the Indiana law is one of the reasons I distinguish between a public accommodation and individual participation in a personal service under the Indiana law. Because Connecticut does not require the "substantially" threshold before one can claim a religious reason for their refusal of service, an individual or business can turn away customers much easier in Connecticut than they could in Indiana. Essentially a Connecticut business has a much easier path to refuse service.

If the moonbat wing of the Democratic party really wants to focus objections to RFRA laws. they ought to look at Connecticut. But that won't happen because the Indiana issue is driven by emotionalism and feelings, not by logic and common sense. We have gotten to the point that nobody cares about what laws say, they only care about what feelings a law pricks. Feelings are fleeting, legal language is not; but this distinction no longer plays much of a role in politics.

And now the Mayor of Denver has banned nonessential travel to Indiana. The moonbat wing grows. The world has gone absolutely frickin' nuts.













This post was edited on 4/1 8:57 AM by CO. Hoosier

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think you are putting lipstick on a pig

The whole discussion about the Indiana law is nothing but an vacuous emotional temper tantrum. It is driven by those who see politics and public policy only with feelings instead of with a brain. The Connecticut example I pointed out above establishes this beyond all doubt.

 

[Ladoga]

The why is because

Indiana is a target rich environment politically. 7 of 9 Congressmen, a retiring SGOP Senator and a vulnerable Dem Senator, 71 of 100 Republicans in the House, 40 of 50 Republicans in the Senate, a Republican mayor of Indianapolis who isn't running again. You can shoot the leftist gun any direction and hit aw Republican elected official.

The national stage of the Final Four, passage of Right to Work a couple of ears ago, repeal of Common Construction Wage moving toward passage, restrictions of the excesses of teacher's unions, the battle over the Superintendent of public instruction.

Then there is the fanatical hatred of those behind the scenes on the left.

And here's the methodology. If you watch you can see Ol' Saul's rules at work. Not all of them apply here. They are the operators manual for Community Organizing.



Saul Alinsky's 12 Rules for Radicals

* RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood

* RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

* RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

* RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

* RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

* RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

* RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.

* RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

* RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

* RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

* RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think you are too focused

Cummins/Lilly/Chamber of Commerce opposed this bill BEFORE any backlash whatsoever. None. Angie's list (again with Daniels' campaign chair as CEO) opposed it before the backlash took off. WalMart has fought it in Arkansas since at least the beginning of 2015.

Pence and DeLong both say they were surprised at the backlash. Were they really surprised George Takei was angered? I doubt that. Were they surprised by San Francisco, or the GLBT groups? I doubt that. They KNEW those groups would oppose. They new Kos and Huffington would be mad. They knew that, you knew that.

They are amazed that the Chamber told them not to pass it, then actually joined the protests. Same for Angie's List. Kittles was more quiet in their opposition, so I won't use them. They sure didn't expect Mayor Ballard, a Republican Marine Corps veteran, to harshly slam them at every possible opportunity.

If this is people just misreading a bill, why did WalMart OPPOSE the Arkansas bill long before it was ever brought for a vote? Note WalMart and the Walton family heavily contribute to conservative causes and the GOP.

Lastly, let me point out Scott Walker has said Wisconsin has no interest in this bill. Let me suggest Scott Walker is being groomed to be the corporate wing's candidate in 2016.

Angie's List came out against this immediately after SalesForce. It was unknown at that moment how big the outcry would become. Corporations don't routinely try to get ahead of social movements (same for WalMart). NASCAR waited until yesterday, I could see that as just giving into the emotions (as you call it). The Chamber? Mayor Ballard? WalMart? These aren't groups/individuals usually at the fore of progressive social movements.

As to Connecticut, I saw a libertarian take on that yesterday I thought was funny. Why is Connecticut hypocritical for coming out against RFRA when they have RFRA when Hobby Lobby was not hypocritical for saying it was against their religion to provide plan B when their insurance already offered plan B?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

True, which seems to agree with my civil war concept

George's Pizza may want RFRA. He owns the business, he can use RFRA. Lilly never could, they would never qualify. In addition, Lilly has to worry about the public perception. And as they testified, they have to recruit to Indiana. Their needs are different.

 

[Noodle]

Under the Hobby Lobby approach to "substantially burden" I would say...

there is no meaningful distinction between "burden" and "substantially burden." In HL, the majority essentially deferred to the judgment of the person claiming a burden when it comes to determining if that burden is "substantial." And frankly, that's the way it should be, since one person's concept of the substantiality of burden is not the same as another's.

Two cake bakers might both believe that a same sex marriage violates their own religious beliefs. However, their views on the significance of baking a cake for the wedding might differ widely. One might view it as no big deal, while the other might see it participating or facilitating a mortal sin and therefore abhorrent to their own faith. The first see's it as just another paying customer, while the second sees it as a hugely substantial burden on their religious faith if they are forced to bake the cake for the wedding. Why should a court be able to tell the second baker to suck it up and get over it, determining that the connection between the baker's religious objection and baking cake be too attenuated to rank as substantial? That's no different than the court improperly examining whether there is some legitimate basis (e.g., in scripture) for someone's claim of religious belief rather than only looking at the sincerity of that belief.

Besides that, Connecticut has sexual orientation as a protected class, while Indiana does not. That's a huge difference in that I don't think CT's RFRA will protect the cake baker due to "subsection (b)." Is CT law going to allow a cake baker to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple on religious grounds? Of course not.

 

[hoot1]

Isn't it emotional intelligence...

...which politicians from both parties use to get elected?

When CoH says, "Emotionalism is what the left does best with politics," he is claiming the left deals in emotions while of course implying the right deals with intellect. What CoH is doing is what most politicians do, and that is using emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence being the skill in perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions and feelings. A skill which politicians and those who manage political campaigns from both parties use effectively. A skill which appears in practically all political advertising and can be heard to at least some degree whenever a politicians lips are moving.

 

[Rockfish1]

The "moonbat left"

Apparently includes the Indianapolis Star, Republican Mayor Greg Ballard, the NBA, the WNBA, the Indiana Pacers, NASCAR, Apple, the Gap, Levi Strauss, Angie's List, the NCAA, Gen Con, Amazon, Jim Irsay, Anthem, Cummins, Dow AgroSciences, Eli Lilly and Co., Emmis Communications, IU Health, Roche Diagnostics, Salesforce Marketing, Accenture, Yelp, the Disciples of Christ, the Episcopalian Diocese, IU, Purdue, Butler, and the Chamber of Commerce.

Also, regarding "lawyers who torture and read into the Indiana law highly unlikely interpretations and applications for no purpose other than to bring loud noises to the discussion": Do you have a mirror handy?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Things we haven't heard

We haven't heard that Clinton was a drug dealer who murdered Vince Foster. Or that Obama isn't an American but an African communist Muslim. Benghazi hasn't been chanted like a call to prayer. We haven't heard that Newtown and Aurora were false flag attacks to take away our guns. We haven't heard that RFRA was required to prevent government from forcing churches to marry gays. We haven't heard that gay marriage will lead to legalizing sex with animals or children. We haven't heard Obama was going to pass an executive order making him eligible for a 3rd term. And we certainly never heard that Obama was trying to infect Americans with Ebola so the government could take control of the health care system.

In fact, it is often like we are debating against Vulcans.

 

[NPT]

I've heard all the arguing about

the IN law. Would someone please give me a real world example of what could be done under the IN law that the IL law would forbid and why that is so? I don't want the generic "It allows a discrimination" answer.

 

[tt68]

your last paragraph is what I am talking about...

I really, truly believe this about making sexual orientation a protected class.

And what worries me is pence and the house will be just as blind to this as COH is and this is about religious freedom. If it was a direct attack on religious freedom, it would be worth fighting, but it is not and thus Indiana lawmakers need to concede defeat and let this battle be fought elsewhere.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Noodle]

the right uses emotionalism just as much as the left

albeit in different ways at times. For example, the right often plays to the emotion of fear, while the left often plays to the emotion of pity (OK, call it compassion if you want).

Sure, it's an overgeneralization, but take this example:
right: the left wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants who will take your job, etc.
left: why should someone who has been here for 20 years have to continue living in the shadows?

And there are other instances where both sides play to the emotion of fear:
right: they want to take your guns!
left: they don't care if more kids die from guns!


Of course all of this is rather silly when you think about it. Politicians are constantly marketing their beliefs--that's how they get elected. And marketing these days tends to be more emotional based than rationally based. In the past, that wasn't necessarily the case. This marketing mantra applies equally well to politics:

People buy on emotion then justify their decision with facts.

Don't believe me? If the above statement did not apply to politics, John Huntsman would have been the Republican nominee for President in 2012, and quite possibly our current President.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Those are fair comments

Making gays a protected class makes a huge difference in how we look at RFRA; and I have said this all along. Courts are unamious in saying protected class legislation is a vital public interest and RFRA must yield to those laws. But the moonbat left is having none of that. They would rather pontificate.

I agree that judicial interpretation of the statute will tend to level out the differences among states and the states and the feds. However, once again, the emotional moonbat left is having none of that either. When I suggested that whenever a law protects religion, the courts invariably add that the religious beliefs must be "sincerely" or "deeply" held, some lawyers here criticized me for adding language to the Indiana law that wasn't there. Those lawyers would rather interpret and apply IRFRA to support their preferred emotional reactions.

The subjective nature of the beliefs is also an important consideration, as you noted. The emotional reaction to the Indiana law tends to be a one size fits all, which of course is not how this will be applied.

Bottom line for me, those who should know better are fueling emotional hysteria about IRFRA and Indiana is paying a heavy price. This is all really stupid.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Please marv . . . .

Both sides have their wing nuts, moonbats, and ignoramuses. The difference here is that the moonbat left has traction. Those right wing nut jobs never had influence beyond their own minds. That is because people on the right don't always wear their feelings on their sleeves. When mainstream corporations and institutions announce boycotts of Indiana because of moonbat emotionalism, we are playing on a different field. Feelings and emotions run the left these days; not objectivity and logic.








This post was edited on 4/1 10:51 AM by CO. Hoosier

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Simply put, outrage works

PACs and parties have found that getting people to agree with something is nice, but get them outraged and you have a money maker. Everything is designed to lead to outrage.

And I agree 100% about Huntsman.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not talking aobut "opposing" the law.

The civilized democratic way for opposition to a law is to state your opposition, make arguments, and then respect the process and accept the results. The emotional moonbat way is to throw temper tantrums, announce boycotts and bans, make asinine stupid comments, and generally act like asses.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We must be talking past each other

Cummins, Lilly, WalMart, Mayor Ballard, the Indiana Chamber all opposed this law before it was a law, before there was any outrage. Angie's List responded when outrage was in its infancy. Maybe they knew that this wouldn't be usual outrage, maybe they are that good at prognosticating. But if they are, why didn't the people who signed it listen? I know if you were perfectly able to predict the future I'd pay attention. But you probably believe the White Sox will be winners.

So Limbaugh has no influence beyond his own mind, as he brought up the Ebola concept? How about Hannity? How about O'Reilly? They don't use emotion in their appeals?

Take a look at the Iranian debate a couple pages back, what came up but the idea that liberals were going to stand by and watch another holocaust. That's not emotion?

Conservatives introduce no emotion into the border debate?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

One word, Obamacare

Compare and contrast on "respect the process and accept the results".

Angie's List is the company that said they were halting expansion plans in Indiana. That is a Republican controlled corporation. It happened before the outrage really took off.

 

[GOIU]

I find the companies at least the multinational ones

A little disingenuous . Are the going to stop doing business with countries that will put a gay person to death, do they speak out about that?

 

[Rockfish1]

The "moonbat left"


Would be perfectly happy if the General Assembly prohibited discrimination against LGBT people -- as noted moonbats like Republican Mayor Greg Ballard have called upon them to do. But Indiana Republicans rejected an amendment that would have done just that, and House Speaker Brian Bosma says no such thing is being contemplated now. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that they're playing to their wingnut base?

 

[Noodle]

one thing that I still don't get is this....


Before IRFRA, would it have been illegal (or give support to a civil claim) for a cake baker in Indiana to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding? I suspect that it would not have been, but I could be wrong.

Does IRFRA change that, at least in a court of law (as opposed to the court of public opinion)?

As for the emotional response to IRFRA, I have no problem with it because, while IRFRA may be of little significance legally (particularly for things like the cake baker), the message behind it is objectionable. Sure you can say that's all made up by the media and others, but that's not entirely true at all. A significant portion of the support for IRFRA is from those who oppose same-sex marriage, gay rights, etc. And many of those who support it for other reasons are too cowardly to stand up to those that do. So now they're all backed into a corner with, in my opinion, only one way out in the end--making sexual orientation a protected class in the state of Indiana.

So maybe some good will come out of all of this in the end.

 

[Rockfish1]

It currently is legal to discriminate against LGBT people in Indiana

Except in cities (like Indianapolis, South Bend, and Bloomington) that have enacted broader human rights ordinances. It's those ordinances that IRFRA calls into question.

 

[Sope Creek]

Hey tt . . .

I had sort of the same reaction that Hoops Cat did, in that it hasn't been the LGBT agenda that caused this uproar in Indiana; it was the social conservative legislators and Gov. Pence who teed it up for everybody else to tee off on.

Sure, the LGBT community is pushing for change because the opportunity presented itself . . . but it's not the LGBT community who started this fight, nor are they operating in a support vacuum. Popular support for general anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation has been building for the last 30 years, and has become mainstream over the last 5-6 years. And the hell of it is that the primary legitimizing factor has been the big business community.

I think Marv's right, this is more of a war within the GOP - social conservatives and mainstream GOPers - than it is a war between LGBT and conservatives generally.

 

[zeke4ahs]

is it impossible for you to write a post

Without your ridiculous rhetoric? It's interesting that you call the ultra conservative Indy Star, the GOP Governor, and all the other conservatives against this the Moonbat Left. Marvin is correct. It's mainly about whether the GOP will let their extreme Tea Party right dictate their platform, as Pence has done. Worked out well for him, didn't it. We'll see if the GOP learns anything from this. With all the presidential hopefuls hopping on board, looks as if the answer is no. And that's a good things for Dems.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ryanmilli]

Our mayor shares your view . . .

I don't see how the law could be interpreted to override local anti-discrimination ordinances, but I don't see any harm in clarifying that.

 

[IU1]

you and I think alike

tt68 you and I have a very similar belief system with the only exception I am pro-choice.

I agree with your comment that LGBT are trying to become a protected class and I'd say this is probably the catalyst for that.

I think what the way Democrats tried to smear Hobby Lobby showed that private businesses are under attack and being made to conform to something that might not be within an owner's belief system and it doesn't appear Democrats are going to stop. That scares me.

So my question is, if a Muslim T-shirt printer refused service to a person wanting to depict the prophet Mohammed, what would happen? As bad as I think this law is and I think it has to be repealed, what do we do to protect people from compromising their value system Yo satisfy someone else?

I believe we've got to get rid of all protected classes because the only way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.

 

[zeke4ahs]

please... the right works on emotion

As much as the left. The right does fear better thought. A decade ago the right was winning elections by running ads against gay marriage in conservative areas. The old white guys don't realize this doesn't play any longer. As for fear... before W was reelected we had those color levels of warning to keep us all worried about the next attack. They disappeared soon after. Obama is going to take your guns. Fox News counts on scaring old folks so much they don't want to leave their homes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Noodle]

Do you think those ordinances might survive under the second part of IRFRA?


i.e., that the burden on religion is (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest?

Surely state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of, say, race satisfy the exception under IRFRA (essential to further gov't interest and least restrictive means), the same way such anti-discrimination laws are acceptable under federal law and our Constitution. So why wouldn't municipal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation survive in the same manner? The least restrictive means portion of the test could not logically result in a different outcome for sexual orientation laws than racial discrimination laws. And if you try to make a distinction under part (1) (compelling governmental interest), all a court would be doing is effectively negating a city's right to decide for itself what groups should be given protection within that city.

And the fact that discriminating against LGBT people was already legal under Indiana law merely further highlights what an absolute mess the legislature and governor have made. Legal eagle's with too much time on their hands (i.e., COH) are up in arms pointing out why the outrage is not justified given their assertion that there really is no legal affect of the law on the LGBT community, while others are outraged thinking that it is suddenly legal to discriminate against LGBT people in Indiana where it was not before. While the second group may be incorrect from a legal standpoint, they are, in my opinion, rightfully angered due to, if nothing else, the message IRFRA sends to people. Right or wrong, that matters--a lot.

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't know

I think there's a legitimate concern that the courts might conclude that the statute trumps the ordinances. We really won't know what the law means until it's applied. Meanwhile the politicos are reportedly working on a fix that would go further than I'd have expected.

I couldn't agree more with your final point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here's what I don't get . . . .


"A significant portion of the support for IRFRA is from those who oppose same-sex marriage, gay rights, etc."

Why would you judge the merits of a law, or the meaning of the statutory language, by those who "support" it? I have my own reasons why I have posted the way I have about IRFRA and I can assure you that those reasons have nothing to do with the comments by those who "support" it. If lawyers can't look at a law and write about it applying our own views to objective standards, who can?

The irony of all RFRA laws is that it is religious based while religious discrimination is banned in all federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The logical outcome would be to allow a devoutly Christian florist to say he or she will not provide services for wedding ceremonies unless they take place in a Christian church. That would solve much of the ambiguity in RFRA, but that would also be illegal discrimination. Law is a strange master. Lawyers should strive to keep the emotion out of it, to the extent possible.

A law school question for you: You are a florist with mild Christian beliefs but you are not fundamental or devout. You are asked to provide flowers to a Muslim arranged marriage where the father of the bride insisted that his 16 year-old daughter marry the 30 year-old son of an important Muslim businessman. The reason for the marriage is for business purposes only. You don't want to have anything to do with that ceremony. What can you legally say to get out of it?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm glad you said "a significant portion"


Because I'm living proof that one can be supportive of a law like RFRA and also be supportive of equal marriage rights for gay couples.

So is David Brooks, who penned a terrific column about this yesterday. I think Brooks is right: sadly, the gay rights movement is turning into one defined more by coercion than liberation. This isn't the only example. Think also of the Mozilla guy who was drummed out of his job for opposing gay marriage.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

CoH

You have provided several examples of beneficial uses of these kinds of statutes. However, you still have not cited specific statutory language in the Indiana version which will obtain these results and-potentially-avoid the adverse consequences the left is citing. Any chance you can be that specific in the "emotionless" thread I started above?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I guess we are

And I plead guilty to using the emotion of hyperbole to making a point. Talk show hosts do the same thing. Emotion is part of most policy debates, some more than others. But the difference is what is the moving force behind the debate. 1993 was the epicenter for RFRA laws. That had nothing to do with same sex marriage; as I previously pointed out and was accused of "bad lawyering". RFRA was not concerived in the emotional hot bed the liberals of today try to say. In today's world, same sex marriage and RFRA is mostly about emotion. In a practical sense, RFRA applies mostly to a host of other boring issues where governmental regulation interfaces with religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby is exhibit "A".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am giving that some thought*


.