Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,[1] is a law that mandates that religious liberty of individuals and corporations can only be limited by the “least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.”[2] The bill has been controversial. Opponents of the law claim that is targeted against LGBT people and other groups. The bill is similar to the controversial Arizona SB 1062 vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer in 2014, which expanded Arizona’s existing RFRA to include corporations.[3][4]
The bill was approved by a vote of 40-10[5] and on March 26, 2015, Mike Pence signed SB 101 into law.[6] The law’s signing was met with widespread criticism by such organizations as the NCAA, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, the gamer convention Gen Con, and the Disciples of Christ. Technology company Salesforce said it would halt its plans to expand in the state.
Pence is speaking now. He started off his speech by comparing himself to Clinton. What a nerve. He has probably spent a good portion of his life spitting on Bill Clinton.
Pence continues to make excuses. He says he and the general assembly will craft legislation that makes it clear that businesses don’t deny services to anyone. Then why have the law?
Meanwhile, Gov. McAuliffe has told Indiana corporations to come to Virginia. I like a guy that sees opportunity.
Silly debate.
The law simply gives someone of any faith the right to use his religious beliefs as a defense in a court case. It doesn’t determine the outcome of the case. Just a misleading conniption by the LGBT bully boys and their fellow lib travelers.
So basically, the libs and their LGBT bully boys are arguing that their civil rights superceed the religous freedoms guaranteed in the Consitution. The problem in a general sense is that Democrates would be hard pressed to argue that they have religous beliefs, so its really just another political attack on those mean Republicans. This explains McAuliffe’s response.
You two are off, presuming that the proponents of this are gay activists and liberals.
MOST PEOPLE under a certain age want homophobia to stop. It transcends the back-and-forth left/right issues of the day. Younger people, who understand implicitly that people are born with their orientation – I believe that when some older posters here were growing up, it was thought to be a mental disease or condition possibly caused by a bump to the head – don’t have sympathy to this fear of gayness.
Which is why, more and more, it’s becoming a political non-starter.
When I was in college and a psych major, homosexuality fell under the category of abnormal psychology and it was considered a mental illness. (also by the AMA) You are right, Rick. I think people had electric shock therapy for a cure.
How insane is that!!?? I think feelings are generational. Additionally, men are far more homophobic than women are. That is just an observation of mine, nothing scientific.
Here’s what that looks like on a chart – http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Out in the real world, gay men and women serve in the military, don’t hide their orientation, and there is no negative effect on morale.
A gay guy shared an NFL locker room with other players, and nobody much cared.
Unlike 20 or 30 years ago, teens come out as openly gay all across America.
The new generations don’t much care.
But some of you, as we all do, see the world as it was when you were younger. Not as it is now.
No, many of us see this same-sex marriage thing as proscribed by religious beliefs which have lasted 2000 years and are considered as valid now as they have ever been. Whether you believe that or not or whether X percentage of contemporary Americans believe that or not is immaterial. We are just asking that, in line with the traditions of religious freedom in this country, you keep your cotton picking hands off us and stop trying to force us into participation in something we consider to be sinful. Is that too much to ask? Or do some of you so enjoy trying to bully people of religious faith that you just can’t help yourselves?
As for the RFRA, remember the Hobby Lobby case? SCOTUS used the term “closely-held corporation” in giving that verdict to Hobby Lobby. “Closely-held” — as in a small bakery owned by a person of religious faith or a small catering business or a special occasion singer for hire perhaps? Sort of closely held businesses, if you get my drift. Seems to me that the 1993 federal RFRA has moved closer to the Indiana version of 2015.
@Wolve
I am not sure what people are prohibited from doing. This case seems long on opinions and short of facts.
Let’s discuss the converse. Why do you try to put your cotton picking hands on adults who want to marry? It works both ways. I don’t think we have a right to discriminate against anyone.
I am free to think what I want about same sex marriage. I can believe it is immoral. I can’t discriminate against married people who are same sex. Why do you think you should be able to?
@Moon-howler
Wolve, when I was growing up, all sorts of people thought miscegenation was wrong. They used to Bible to back up their thoughts. They also thought that school integration led to miscegenation. Bible beliefs.
You see where this is going. They can think what they want but they ultimately had to accept miscegenation as well as integration. It really didn’t matter what their religious beliefs were. I see no difference.
This has nothing to do with issues of the past like slavery, miscegenation, or school segregation any prior Biblical interpretations thereof. Each of these cases will be a very personal thing in present time. It involves one person of faith being forced to engage in something which is anathema to his faith. Are you telling me that, if I am owner of a small catering business, for instance, and am a dedicated follower of a religious faith which believes that same-sex marriage is a sin, I should be forced to cater a same-sex marriage, i.e take an active role in celebrating that sin, on pain of having my license to earn a living taken away? Is that what we have come to now? I am sure that the wedding party can find other caterers who have no compunction about same-sex marriages. So, why pick on the person who has a faith issue with it? Sounds downright perverse to me….like deliberate religious persecution.
Substitute the word and white in there for same sex. When I was growing up I will bet that 25 \% of the people I knew opposed miscegenation of religious grounds. Do you think that Christians who opposed blacks and whites marrying should have been allowed to refuse catering services?
I don’t think we get to cherry pick if we are in business to provide catering services. Perhaps a way to handle it would be to offer services through your church. Churches are exempt from following those kinds of rules, I think.
Virginia has an interesting exclusion going on. It is now restricting the number of celebrants per county. In Prince William County, weddings are no longer performed at the court house. The clerk of the court very much has control over who gets to be a celebrant and who doesn’t.
What was the problem that this kind of legislation was designed to address.? Pence and the Indiana legislators say that it was not intended to justify denial of service. It looks, on its face, as though it might do just that – by providing a defense or justification to someone who denies commerce to another based on a religious belief (we can leave to the side for a moment the question of what religion(s) requires its members not to sell cakes or whatever to others – not sure there are any). But if we take the Governor and the Speaker of the Indiana House at their word, then it’s very hard to understand what the point of this statute was, other than being one of those symbolic ticklers that are all the rage these recent years at the state and federal (even local) level among GOP pols.
One of the problems I see with these sorts of statutes is that they seem to put the courts smack dab in the middle of probing to see whether there was a valid underlying religious belief that was substantially impaired. The alternative to this is that anyone who says anything about a religious belief has to be accepted in court at face value, regardless of how silly the position is theologically.
Another, somewhat unrelated reaction I have to this is that all the talk from both sides is coming up in relation to same-sex marriages. The law is not so limited, and the federal law on which these state laws are patterned was intended to address things like Native America peyote use (which Justice Scalia and four of his buds on the SCt. found was unlawful and not protected by the First Amendment) and overbearing local zoning regs applied to church building projects. Because the drafters of the statutes are not dumb enough to target homosexual marriages directly, what are the limits on these things. As I mentioned in the other thread, those of us who remember the 1960s heard precisely these kinds of religious arguments in opposition to Civil Rights legislation and integration measures. As Mark Twain (I think) said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” The immediate context is same-sex weddings, but does this extend to hoteliers balking at same-sex guests, Muslim shopowners refusing women not wearing the naquib or burka, etc. If not, why not, given the neutral, unfocussed language of the statute.
Finally, this would appear to be self-regulating without the legislation. I certainly would not want a caterer or a photographer who didn’t want to be there working at my Bar Mitzvah, my male-female wedding, or even (hypothetically now) my same-sex wedding. That’s the last thing that any rational person would want. If one is getting bad vibes from a vendor, why use them? I understand that there have been a few cases where people have sicked the law on vendors who have stiffed them, but I would think word would soon get around about who welcomes business and who, because of internal attitudes, doesn’t deserve it.
and there were many people that said that their religion prohibited blacks and whites from eating at the same table or interracial marriage.
There are some that believe that man and woman living together is against their religions belief (fair housing laws prevent an uncharge or refusal).
Many have been killed and murdered in the name of Religion. Some of the KKK actions were ‘legitimized’ be religion tones.
Laws like this move of backwards – and will actually create a protected class of LBGT and other groups. Many of the laws backers are the same crowd as the marriage ban proponents.
Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians – you are not like him.
-attributed to Ghandi
And
..and Moses handed down the 11th commandment “thou shall not baketh cakes for soddomites”.
-unknown NYT poster
The feel goods of the few shall not outweigh the protected and espressed rights of the many – or something like that.
Oh please, this is just another small step in the moral decay of the nation as expressed by Alinsky and his followers, with no impact whatsoever, except that the Constitution itself is under attack. This is not Jim Crow that did not just legalize discrimination but required it. This is now about personal freedom and freedom of religion to exist in the home, in a company and in thre public – privately owned – square.
I don’t believe companies or corporations have religion.
blue, I think you are so full of it. Its all about civil rights and equal rights for all people. It isn’t about what I like or don’t like personally. Moral decay?
I think 2 people committed to each other is a hell of a lot better than rampant promiscuity, don’t you?
Strident voices are not going to protect it. Transparency won’t work – caterers need not say they won’t do it. They should just be booked that day.
“No, many of us see this same-sex marriage thing as proscribed by religious beliefs which have lasted 2000 years …”
Marriage is a function of the state.
But I will say this. I do believe that it’d be best not to force churches to participate in same-sex weddings if they don’t want to. If the law is narrowed down in that direction, to deal with churches rather than private businesses, I’d be okay with it.
Not because there’s anything rational or good about letting churches pretend that their bible even has much real to say about homosexuality. But just to enable us all not to fight about this small matter.
To let a business owner decide they don’t want a certain type of customer? Not a good idea.
Churches already get to marry who they want. If people do not pass muster, the church, which ever one, won’t marry them.
“and there were many people that said that their religion prohibited blacks and whites from eating at the same table or interracial marriage.”
Indeed, many Christian churches in the US taught that the “mark of Cain” was black skin, and that mixed-race couplings were inherently immoral.
I’m porting this over from the older Open Thread. Wolve said :
“Bullshit. The religious doctrines of many Americans say that same-sex marriage is not acceptable in the eyes of their deity. Who do you think you are to tell them that their beliefs are of no consequence and that they must be active participants in what they consider to be sins just because the “sinners” say they must do so? And that they will be punished by government if they refuse? ”
Yeah man. This is part of having a civil society. You can’t say something like “God told me that red-headed people are evil and I don’t want them coming to my shop for oil changes”. Or “No Christians allowed”.
“The real insanity is that, in a country where so many came in search of religious freedom, a part of our society so hates religion that they try every way they can to crap on the long-standing faith of the descendants of those immigrants.”
I’m not seeing that. What I’m seeing is that to younger generations, raised in an information age, religion is dying off.
“And I don’t believe that “this guy Jesus” meant that believers should feel free to engage voluntarily in sin just because Caesar said so. That’s atheist nonsense.”
Baking a cake for a wedding would qualify as “engaging in sin”? I work for a very large company, making money for many shareholders. If any of those shareholders are gay, am I “engaging in sin”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic dioceses in the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the Sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners.
black skin = looks different from me = sin, mark of Cain
gay mannerisms and same-sex affection = acts different from me = sin
@Rick Bentley
Ok, so whats your point Rick, that people did not and do not have the right to think that way? The issue here is whether the government can force people to act in a way contrary to their personnal beliefs – and more – in conflict with established religious beliefs. Just because you or I don’t share those beliefs does not make that right any less important under the Constitution. There is IMHO a difference between requiring discrimination or prohibiting an action under the law and a law that requires an individual to take an overt action that is in conflict with ones beliefs.
I think we would agree that requiring a minister to perform a gay marrige is out of line. I am also sure that we would agree that serving at a diner or a pharmacy or refusing to bake /sell a cake the basis of race or lifestyle is inappropriate because the service rendered has nothing to do with race or lifestyle. But, requireing a private baker to provide a cake to a gay marrige, giving legitimacy or credence to the ceremony, or marrige is entirely different and that is what I understand the Indiana and other laws – including the federal statute – to provide for. . Go to another baker, but leave this guy alone.
Think how you want. Act like a civilized human being. You could always just say you didn’t stock bride on bride whatever you call couples on a cake. Offer to do something else. Deliver their cake. Leave.
Don’t get me started on pharmacies. If you are a drug store, then stock normal prescription stuff. If you are a worker, you are in the wrong profession.
“But, requireing a private baker to provide a cake to a gay marrige, giving legitimacy or credence to the ceremony, or marrige is entirely different ”
Part of me wants to say, ok, leave the baker alone. Let some law be tailored that lets him bake cakes in peace.
But I’m not sure that’s in the common good. To codify discrimination based on an in-born characteristic.
I can see both sides of this. I wouldn’t want to have to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist church. So if the law is narrowly tailored I might be okay with it.
Funny how I slipped and said “him’ for the baker above instead of “him/her”. Too late to edit it now.
Is it that I saw a male image when I thought of a baker? or (more likely) saw a male image when I thought of someone disturbed at baking a cake for a gay wedding?
I don’t want to hijack this thread … but have to ask … can we talk about WHY anyone is disturbed about a gay wedding?
Is it the anal sex thing? Is it a belief that marriage is under attack and needs defense? I’m really not getting it.
My grandson expressed some homophobia around age 8, and I talked with him about it. And it was gone soon. I’m having a hard time understanding why some grown people retain homophobia.
Clearly, we need to implement a program ASAP where high-schoolers engage in gay sex as part of high school curriculum, so that they won’t be as afraid of it as many of their grandparents were. Or at a minimum, some hand-holding and kissing.
Ouch, I had surrounded that last paragraph with “sarc” tags, the mock-HTML tags that signify the beginning and end of a sarcastic claim for disambiguation, but they disappeared when posted.
“Just because you or I don’t share those beliefs does not make that right any less important under the Constitution.”
There are those who believe that murder is not immoral.
There are those who believe that rape is natural, and should not be prohibited. This is not a mainstream opinion, but it is a real one.
There are those who believe that “man-boy love” is natural and that our society’s prohibition on it is a tragedy.
There are those who believe that criminalizing possession of child pornography is an affront to freedom of information.
They can think those things. But if they act on them, the law kicks in.
I googled pro-rape. Who would be pro-rape? The Christian God. “Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape.”
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
It would be – is – a valid religious belief to think we could rape each other’s underage daughters and make up for it with monetary payments.
Those who want religion – and specifically, Judeo-Christian beliefs – a basis for laws and society should reflect on the fact that the Bible, particularly the “Old Testament”, justifies rape, murder, selling your daughter into slavery, and systematic racism as surely as it does keeping one’s distance from gays. An illustrated guide to Law and The Bible is here – http://www.bricktestament.com/the_law/
The whole Brick Testament section on “The Law” is worth reflecting on … try to imagine this one codified into local or federal laws – http://www.bricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_16a.html
Women’s periods should entail dove sacrifices. So sayeth Yahweh.
Leviticus 15:29
‘On the eighth day, she will take two doves or two young pigeons to the priest.’
Leviticus 15:30
‘The priest will offer one of them as a sacrifice for sin and the other as a burnt sacrifice. In this way he makes atonement for her before Yahweh for her unclean discharge. ‘
But there is no law that requires you to do those things regardless of you faith. That is the issue here. And BTW the Religious Freedom Act does not protect an asshole for refusing to provide a service, absent a clear, demonstrable religious conviction.
It’s either hilarious, or tragic, depending on your mindset.
Men have become familiar enough with women, and gotten over their fear of them, to let them off the hook on this idea that when they menstruate they should be isolated for seven days and then sacrifice a dove. They are allowed by good Christians to circulate in society even while blood flows from their orifices, due to the sin of Eve and the apple. However, gay people having a marriage is still something that we need to protect ourselves from.
The Bible says, don’t eat shrimp, don’t let menstruating women circulate in public, keep women subjugated, kill your family if they worship a different God, segregate your church on a racial basis, consider a woman’s virginity to be a tradable commodity and a basis for marriage, keep slaves as you see fit so long as you don’t mortally wound them, and don’t have gay sex.
Somehow in the minds of supposedly well-intentioned homophobic Christians, this is reduced down to, The Bible says don’t have gay sex.
I know people who do this, use “The Bible” to justify what are their own personal fears and desires. I grew up with them. I don’t respect it.
For a law with no problem – Pence has asked the legislature to bring forward legislation stating that the law cannot be used to justify discrimination. Arkansas is not saying that their bill needs changing before it will be signed into law.
Interesting article on RFRA: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/
I generally side with those who are wary of religious extremism, but the devil is in the details (pun intended). If these RFRA laws were only to protect those with a legitimate religious reason for their actions from government penalty I might be ok with them. But realistically, it appears that they will be used for cover for mischief.
I mean, does it really violate your religious beliefs to provide a cake to a gay wedding? Is that a sin on your part? Does selling a cake mean that you endorse the gay sexual act?
my comment above should say – Arkansas is NOW saying that their bill needs changing before it will be signed into law.
I’m often amazed at how important religious beliefs are to my right-winger friends when it comes to gay people or contraception, but they are strangely silent on other aspects of biblical teaching. I don’t hear cries of “do unto others” when torture of detainees is discussed. Jesus preached and lived his life in service to the poor and infirm, but the conservatives on this blog have been oddly silent on the severe cuts to programs helping the poor in the proposed GOP budget. And what happened to “love thine enemy” in regards to world affairs?
Now, I’m not religious and don’t pretend to be, but some on this blog have made it clear that they are. I’ll ask them: can one pick and choose which biblical teachings to follow, depending on the politics and the personal biases of the follower? What would Jesus say?
Just be nice and keep your thoughts to yourself.
It is also funny how people’s perspectives can make a BIG change when they are affected by immediate family (sometimes not). And how some of the big talkers change their tune.
@Lyssa
..and Moses handed down the 11th commandment “thou shall not baketh cakes for soddomites”.
-unknown NYT poster
Hmmm, I’m sensing a business opportunity here…I bake, you market…
a lot of noise, smoke and buzzwords here. Could someone please explain what the problem is that the Indiana statute is intended to address?
@ Blue: what weird religion is it that requires a cake to give legitimacy to a marriage? I’ve never heard of such a thing. (re comment # 25).
@Scout
“a lot of noise, smoke and buzzwords here. Could someone please explain what the problem is that the Indiana statute is intended to address?”
It is to prevent activists from putting people out of business merely for refusing to acquiesce to their demands, such as demanding that a Christian photographer participate in a gay wedding. Or a baker in baking a wedding cake to celebrate said wedding.
The irony is that the same people demanding that the law be overturned are the same people that celebrated Clinton’s signing of the same type of law; that celebrated the liberal Brennan court protecting religious rights…..as long as it was some form of minority religious right, that is. Apparently, mainstream religious belief need not apply.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/01/many-liberals-sensible-retreat-from-the-old-justice-brennanaclu-position-on-religious-exemptions/
This is ALL the RFRA does:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/01/how-rfra-works-explained-in-one-chart/
The Indiana RFRA went further than the federal one, according to most of the talking heads.
Funny how gay bakers got upset and refused to do business when asked to bake a cake:
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/
While I don’t completely agree with Shoebat…… I find it highly amusing that its okay for discrimination to happen from the other side.
This guy is an asshole. Sorry. He is bear baiting them. The woman on the phone is correct. What he wants her to do is hateful.
He was bullying her.
One of the videos wasn;t even in the United States.
The problem is that we are using governmental force to force a business person to provide a service, infringing upon that person’s without due process. To force a private person to provide goods and services to another is tantamount to government seizure of labor and goods. I think we had a name for that once.
By the way……none of these laws nor these businesses are saying that gay people are not being served due to their natures/choice/predilections… whatever you want to call it.
The businesses do not want to support AN ACTION by these people. An action is NOT an inherent quality. The same would be if a Jewish sign maker was being requested to print up signs for the local skinhead/nazi rally, denouncing Jews. Or if a black photographer was requested to print up recruiting flyers for the KKK.
Businesses should be allowed to refuse service for ANY or NO reason. The precedent has been set, though. We have conflicting liberties and a “good-intentioned” mob. Yes… mob. That is exactly what the media has become, spreading lies about the laws. All that is missing are torches and pitchforks.
As for Apple, Wal-Mart, etc….. I hope they have plans to “not do business” in those other states…and those countries that actually persecute gay people, minorities, and women.
If a private business can refuse me service for carrying a gun into the property, which is the exercise of an actual enumerated right, then they should be able to refuse any service to anyone.
@Moon-howler
This debate is about forcing an individual in the year 2015 to provide support to activities which are considered by his religious faith to be a sin. Nothing else.
@Scout
You can stop the puffed up, pedantic posts, Scout. The law in question is simple. It gives the defendant standing in court to use his religious faith as a legal argument to defend his refusal to participate in activities contrary to his faith beliefs. That’s it. Plain and simple. It does not even guarantee a legal victory, since it is the court which decides if the argument is valid in each case.
@Rick Bentley
I recall taking the time some weeks ago to explain on this blog how Christianity in the form of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ served to release believers 2000 years ago from most of the Mosaic laws found in the Old Testament. Please wrap your atheist brain around that concept and stop posting ridiculous comments about eating shrimp, altar sacrifices, female menstruation, and the like.
I think Rick’s point might be that the crucifixion and the resurrection also released believers from any hatred of “sodomites.”
I can’t recall Christ having anything to say at all about gay folks.
Stop playing the dummy, Scout. You know damned well what the law is.
Hmmmm, I imagine Ghandi would be rather upset by the rash of gang rapes in modern India.
HuH??? Where is that coming from? I feel certain any peaceful people of good will are upset by rashes of gang rapes anywhere.
“Now, I’m not religious and don’t pretend to be……”
Funny how that line always comes up when a non-believer starts lecturing a believer on the latter’s own faith.
I am guessing, if Rick said that, at a point in his life he was religious.
Just because people aren’t religious doesn’t mean they are not believers, just for the record.