Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

AND a Rabbi!

No brown people though, we wouldn't people to get the wrong idea...

 

[UncleSporky]

So how does this effect people are not religious? Are my sincerely held beliefs null and void in a courtroom because I am of no religion?

If the sincerely held belief comes from religion, are the people with the belief going to have to prove through their religions documentation that their religion was intended to to be applied that way? An example, people make the case all the time that homosexuality is a sin, but where does say (for sake of familiarity) in the Bible that if one is homosexual, it is a sin to render business services to them?

nicoga3000's post on the previous page seems to indicate that these laws are typically used for very specific religious actions like Amish buggies and lighting of candles and such.

If you wanted to ride a horse slowly down the middle of the street for non-religious reasons, I don't know what to tell you, I guess that strongly held belief wouldn't be reviewed by the government in the same way that an Amish person's belief would.

There's at least 20 other states with RFRA acts is what I've learned from all this.
Why have I never heard anything about this before now.

Honestly judging by recent posts it sounds like you haven't heard of it because it hasn't been spun as something bad before, since none of them have ever been abused in order to discriminate.

 

[Two Words]

Freedom of religion is intended to be preventing thought-crimes from being a thing, not allowing you to do something only because your alleged God says so.

 

[Sickboy007]

No brown people though, we wouldn't people to get the wrong idea...

Judeo-Christian roots, man. That's what religious freedom is all about.

 

[Anoregon]

Freedom of religion is intended to be preventing thought-crimes from being a thing, not allowing you to do something only because your alleged God says so.

The current situation with "religious freedom" is 100% newspeak. It's totally perverting the actual intent/meaning of the thing.

 

[Regurgitated]

You leave out the best part of why the bill was blocked for now.

A member of the subcommittee managed to pass an amendment that added text stating that the purpose of the bill was not to intentionally allow discrimination. This has been a claim of the side who favored the bill, but as soon as that became part of the actual text, the bill's supporters jumped ship.

It's almost as if adding that amendment ruined the intended effect of the bill in the first place.

Phew! For a second I thought Georgia wasn't the asshole of the world but now everything makes sense once again.

 

[Tigress]

I think we should wait until the law gets abused before we express outrage.

What? This isn't a law that was written badly and could be used for the wrong thing. This is a law that specifically and on purpose paves way for people to do the wrong thing. Would you say the same about a law that said they could kill gay people of the gay people offended their religion?

 

[UncleSporky]

What? This isn't a law that was written badly and could be used for the wrong thing. This is a law that specifically and on purpose paves way for people to do the wrong thing. Would you say the same about a law that said they could kill gay people of the gay people offended their religion?

According to this, the law already exists in 31 states and has never been abused:

That brings us to about 31 states that have RFRA in some way, shape, or form in effect. And that brings me back to the original question: can’t this law be used to refuse service to gays, or blacks, or anyone who I claim violates my “religion”?

Again, no. In the 22 years since this law has been put into effect anywhere, there has not been a single case where it has allowed someone to discriminate against someone based off of their sexual orientation. NOT.ONE. And that goes for race, too.

As a side note, that RFRA bill that was passed in Illinois? Supported by then-state senator Barack Obama. The federal RFRA bill passed in 1993? It was almost unanimous in support, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, supported by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Well,okay, then what’s this law for then? What was that about a “substantial burden”?

From the Washington Post:

"These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."

 

[jetjevons]

You leave out the best part of why the bill was blocked for now.

A member of the subcommittee managed to pass an amendment that added text stating that the purpose of the bill was not to intentionally allow discrimination. This has been a claim of the side who favored the bill, but as soon as that became part of the actual text, the bill's supporters jumped ship.

It's almost as if adding that amendment ruined the intended effect of the bill in the first place.

Proving the bill wasn't a slippery slope. It was a vertical waterslide straight to discrimination.

 

[Chococat]

If you wanted to ride a horse slowly down the middle of the street for non-religious reasons, I don't know what to tell you, I guess that strongly held belief wouldn't be reviewed by the government in the same way that an Amish person's belief would.

That wrong because not only because it preferentially treatment to religious persons over agnostics and atheist, but there is no set standard amongst the religions as to what is actual tenant of their belief. So, religious people could make up just about anything and force it to be heard in the courts.
What good is it to have secular laws of America if religious groups are going to be able to circumvent the laws the rest of us must follow? Why should religious people get such a favored citizen status?

EDIT: not disagreeing with you personally, just the idea in general.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Wait until people that are not christians decide to use their religious freedom. It will be glorious.

 

[beast786]

Wtf.

Why is it so hard as species to respect equal rights. Why can't we pass this hurdle it's 2015. Please tell me why is this so hard. PLEASE

 

[Omegasquash]

Wtf.

Why is it so hard as species to respect equal rights. Why can't we pass this hurdle it's 2015. Please tell me why is this so hard. PLEASE

They're framing it as just that, which is the problem. This bill is going to be a centerpiece for debate in 2016. My gut says that was the idea all along.

 

[op_ivy]

what an asshole

 

[Pilgrimzero]

I'm sad to see that Gencon has backed out of what they said.

 

[Dude Abides]

According to this, the law already exists in 31 states and has never been abused:

How many of those states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? How ling have they had such prohibitions? How many times has a state RFRA been invoked as a defense to a claim of discrimination?

Without that information your statement is of little value.

 

[UncleSporky]

How many of those states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? How ling have they had such prohibitions? How many times has a state RFRA been invoked as a defense to a claim of discrimination?

Without that information your statement is of little value.

It's not exactly my statement, just something that was posted last page. I'd be interested in seeing if it's actually false and abuses of RFRA have indeed happened in those states.

 

[Escape Goat]

I'm sad to see that Gencon has backed out of what they said.

Huh?

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

I just caught wind of this this evening. As an Indiana resident, I am completely embarrassed for my state.

E: However, upon further research...Someone on the GenCon page posted this:



So maybe it's not as terrible as it sounds?

To address this:
1) Indiana's bill doesn't mirror the federal RFRA or RFRA bills in other states. Specifically, it makes explicit provisions of RFRA that were opened up (some might say "invented") by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby. Post-Hobby Lobby, RFRA is bad, bad law and needs to be reined back in. The Indiana bill uses that as a starting point and trudges further in the direction of being bad law.

Here's the federal RFRA's definition of "religious exercise":

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
(B) Rule
The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.

For contrast, here's Indiana's:

Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" means
the practice or observance of religion.
(b) The term includes a person's ability to:
(1) act; or
(2) refuse to act;
in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person's
sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious
belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

The federal one requires that you're talking about genuine religious exercise. Indiana's one qualifies anything you do that is "substantially motivated" by religion as the same.

You know that Georgia bill that just got sidelined? Georgia's bill used to have language that was almost exactly the language of the Indiana bill. It doesn't anymore, because the bill was losing support over how insanely broad that definition was. The Georgia bill now has language much closer to the federal definition, with a vague "includes but is not limited to" qualifier thrown in to try to leave a wedge to re-open the door in litigation should the bill pass.

2) Yes, there's a court decision that ruled the federal RFRA didn't apply to the states, but that court ruling came down in 1993. Pence was pressed to name any situation he'd seen in Indiana that prompted the need for this law, and he couldn't present anything real, only hypotheticals. So, given these facts, why is Indiana passing this law now?

 

[Pilgrimzero]

Huh?

Gencon sent a letter out that basically said we will take the con out of Indiana if this is signed.

It was signed.

Gencon has said that while Indiana sucks Indianapolis is still pretty cool despite, so we will stay.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Gencon sent a letter out that basically said we will take the con out of Indiana if this is signed.

It was signed.

Gencon has said that while Indiana sucks Indianapolis is still pretty cool despite, so we will stay.

Gencon said they'd reconsider hosting it in Indiana in the future. The problem is that they had already signed a contract to host the event in Indiana until 2020. So they can use this as a factor on whether or not to hold the 2021 GenCon in Indiana, but can't really do anything until then unless they can find a way to break their contract.

 

[xaosslug]

I'm sad to see that Gencon has backed out of what they said.

did they? I thought they said they're contracted through 2020, but after that's up they will have to seriously reconsider their options because of this law.

 

[UncleSporky]

Gencon sent a letter out that basically said we will take the con out of Indiana if this is signed.

It was signed.

Gencon has said that while Indiana sucks Indianapolis is still pretty cool despite, so we will stay.

I'd heard there were indications that they couldn't pull out of their contract anyway, given that it lasts until 2020.

Their actual letter was posted here. I think their wording was intentionally left vague so they can be justified in leaving as soon as 2020 rolls around, if they're still as upset about the bill at that time, or stay if they decide to do so.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

Exactly they could break the contact.

Doing something 5 years and 250 million bucks later doesn't really have the same sting.

 

[UncleSporky]

Exactly they could break the contact.

Doing something 5 years and 250 million bucks later doesn't really have the same sting.

Yeah, but that's not really backing down. I don't think their original intent was ever "we're pulling out now and damn the contract," even if it sounded that way. They needed it to sound that way in order for the threat to be effective.

 

[Dude Abides]

It's not exactly my statement, just something that was posted last page. I'd be interested in seeing if it's actually false and abuses of RFRA have indeed happened in those states.

It could very well be true but without the information I indicated, it doesn't tell us much about how it might be used in the future.

 

[Mumei]

Well, here's something else:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

 

[djplaeskool]

You leave out the best part of why the bill was blocked for now.

A member of the subcommittee managed to pass an amendment that added text stating that the purpose of the bill was not to intentionally allow discrimination. This has been a claim of the side who favored the bill, but as soon as that became part of the actual text, the bill's supporters jumped ship.

It's almost as if adding that amendment ruined the intended effect of the bill in the first place.

Yeah,
I was pleasantly surprised when i heard that Georgia had tabled the bill on NPR, but when they got into specifics, it became painfully evident that it will simply be revisited to try to get around that "technicality" of not being expressly able to use it to discriminate.

 

[Skiptastic]

Well, here's something else:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

Yeah, I saw this yesterday and it gave me pause.

The real answer would be to have passed this bill alongside LGBT protections. That would have reset the focus of this bill to something like the Hobby Lobby case, which would get MUCH less attention than this presentation of it as anti-gay. There would be people who still dislike the bill with that focus, and that debate is valid, but let's get real: the nation wouldn't have cared.

But, of course, this is Mike Pence and the Republican statehouse, so there was no way in hell that would have passed. And it is a major reason why people are probably right to be skeptical that this won't have a discrimination effect.

 

[Besthelboy]

But Jesus said we need to love everyone and to not judge anyone or discriminate against anyone because we are all the same. I wish every one ignored the bad parts of religion what a wonderful place this would be.

 

[e_i]

Wouldn't this bill only hurt small business, not larger businesses like Walmart? I don't see Walmart allowing their employees to do this. Smaller businesses who use this to discriminate will lose money and get bad publicity.

 

[UncleSporky]

Wouldn't this bill only hurt small business, not larger businesses like Walmart? I don't see Walmart allowing their employees to do this. Smaller businesses who use this to discriminate will lose money and get bad publicity.

To quote Mumei above:

Well, here's something else:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

They'll lose money and get bad publicity because they'll lose in court by trying to apply this bill, which won't protect their attempt at discrimination.

 

[Kenai]

Exactly they could break the contact.

Doing something 5 years and 250 million bucks later doesn't really have the same sting.

It won't be this year since there's already been several deals finalized. Badges and hotel keys go on sale in January (entire blocks of the surrounding hotels are already booked), vendor tables start being reserved and paid for right after the con from last year, ect. This is a year-long process and it's not realistic to cancel all that immediately.

The chances of the convention pulling out before the contract is up in 2020 are quite high. Gencon has constantly broken attendance records every year it's been here, but I'm willing to bet this is the year that trend stops. They need time to get a business deal going elsewhere.

 

[thefro]

Someone has created the "First Church of Cannabis" in Indiana

Weed soon to be defacto legal

 

[Metaphoreus]

Someone has created the "First Church of Cannabis" in Indiana

Weed soon to be defacto legal

I hope they didn't have to spend any money to set that up, because it's not going to work out for them. See this Arizona case or this Washington case for how courts have dealt with arguments like that in the past.

 

[ivysaur12]

oh boy.

http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyle-rachel-local-business-owner-supports-bill-100-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Rfra bills are uncessary in pretty much all cases. The 1st amendment does all that is needed. All these bills do is restrict courts ability to judge if laws restrict any practice of religion

 

[Iolo]

According to this, the law already exists in 31 states and has never been abused:

Another perspective:

When Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a new state law that allows people and companies to claim a religious objection to doing business with same-sex couples, he pointed to Illinois and Kentucky, saying he was simply bringing the state in line with its neighbors.

But the Republican governor and possible presidential contender left out an important fact. While Illinois does have a law that gives special protections to religious objectors, it also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana, on the other hand, has no such ban.

That distinction is crucial, legal experts say, because anti-discrimination laws are considered stronger than religious exemptions.

 

[Derwind]

oh boy.

http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyle-rachel-local-business-owner-supports-bill-100-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/

Wow. What an absolute fuck.

 

[Ahasverus]

http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyle-rachel-local-business-owner-supports-bill-100-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/

So it begins

 

[Metaphoreus]

Some relevant items of interest that show how the tone of this debate has shifted over the past two decades:

Here are Al Gore and Bill Clinton speaking before Clinton signed the federal RFRA in 1993.

Below is a statement (PDF--see pp. 20-21) from the Senate sponsor of HB 2370 in the 90th General Assembly of Illinois. This bill became the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it was enacted in 1998. Barack Obama voted for it.

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify some remarks that I made on April 1st during the Floor debate on Senate Bill 1591 [the Senate version of HB 2370]. Those remarks have been interpreted to mean that [RFRA] does not apply to the civil rights laws, specifically the Illinois Human Rights Act, and that these laws necessarily constitute a compelling governmental interest. It is true that the [RFRA] is not intended to grant religious individuals or organizations an automatic exemption from any particular law or to restrict the power of governments to legislate in any given area of law. However, no area of law--including public health and safety, civil rights, education, and any others--is exempt from the standard that [RFRA] establishes. Again, no Statute necessarily constitutes a compelling governmental interest. As Section 10(b)(1) states, [RFRA] simply restores a standard of review to be applied to all State and local laws and ordinances in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. Although this standard is stringent, it is not intended to be impossible to satisfy. The government will win [RFRA] cases whenever it has chosen the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. By way of example only, courts in certain circumstances have found fire, public health and safety, civil rights, child welfare, and other laws as meeting the compelling government interest test. However, the existence of these cases does not foreclose successful [RFRA] claims in these areas; rather, they simply demonstrate that it is open to the State to [prove] its case in any context where a claim is raised. The outcome of future cases will thus depend on any objective assessment of the specific facts of each case.

HB 2370 was passed in the Illinois state senate by a vote of 56-0.

 

[benjipwns]

What do you think he was saying to Gore as they were walking out and then to the Congressman while signing? And why was Gore doing an opening act for him if they were going to say the same stuff?

Senator Mark Hatfield was mostly a cool dude.

Saw this in the related, RBG being introduced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHwoosXsybQ

Apparently she's a real moderate who rejects ideology.

 

[Sobriquet]

Angie's List is halting expansion plans in Indiana because of a controversial new law there

The project, which Oesterle said was due to break ground within days...

 

[jbug617]

NBA, Pacers and Fever make a statement.

From the NBA:

“The game of basketball is grounded in long established principles of inclusion and mutual respect. We will continue to ensure that all fans, players and employees feel welcome at all NBA and WNBA events in Indiana and elsewhere.”

Additionally, Pacers and Fever owner Herb Simon stated:

“The Indiana Pacers, Indiana Fever and Bankers Life Fieldhouse have the strongest possible commitment to inclusion and non-discrimination on any basis. Everyone is always welcome at Bankers Life Fieldhouse. That has always been the policy from the very beginning of the Simon family’s involvement and it always will be. ”

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So how does this effect people are not religious? Are my sincerely held beliefs null and void in a courtroom because I am of no religion?

If the sincerely held belief comes from religion, are the people with the belief going to have to prove through their religions documentation that their religion was intended to to be applied that way? An example, people make the case all the time that homosexuality is a sin, but where does say (for sake of familiarity) in the Bible that if one is homosexual, it is a sin to render business services to them?

It's inappropriate to try and apply logical standards to subjective interpretations of fantastical texts. Religious laws are rarely worth the paper they're printed on. In the US they exist almost solely so Christians don't have to interact with or help religious undesirables.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Wouldn't this bill only hurt small business, not larger businesses like Walmart? I don't see Walmart allowing their employees to do this. Smaller businesses who use this to discriminate will lose money and get bad publicity.

Discrimination "works" because the vast majority of the population does not give a flying fuck about the minority of people being excluded. People who are actively hateful thrive on the apathy of their peers.

The market cannot be depended on to correct itself, it's why we have anti discrimination laws in the first place.

 

[benjipwns]

It's also why we needed segregation and Jim Crow and the minimum wage laws. Those uppity blacks money and labor worked the same as a god-fearing white man's. The dang old business fat cats don't care about good morals as long as they make a buck.

 

[PhoenixDark]

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

Indiana has come under fire for a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Mike Pence (R) that would allow businesses to refuse service for religious reasons. The NCAA has voiced its concern ahead of Final Four in Indianapolis next week, there are calls to boycott the state, and Miley Cyrus has even weighed in, calling Pence a name that we can't reprint on this family Web site in an Instagram post.

But Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:

Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.

A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states' bills, prohibiting the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest" and is doing so in the least restrictive means.

[Indiana is the battle over religious freedom that Arizona never was]

The fact that legislation like this is so widespread probably gave Pence some confidence in signing the bill, despite the controversy in Arizona last year over its bill that was ultimately scrapped, and in other states, like Georgia, which are considering similar measures this year (the NCSL found 13 additional states are considering their own RFRA legislation).

Pence has begun to feel the fallout from his decision. But while Indiana is being criticized, the NCAA didn't say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky's RFRA when games were played there last week, there aren't any plans to boycott states like Illinois or Connecticut, and Miley Cyrus has yet to post a photo of President Clinton or any of the 19 other governors who have also signed RFRAs.

Indiana might be treated as if it's the only state with a bill like this, but it's not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

 

[Intheflorsh]

I'm embarrassed for my state and ashamed to live here

.

I'll be getting the fuck out after college.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Some relevant items of interest that show how the tone of this debate has shifted over the past two decades:

Here are Al Gore and Bill Clinton speaking before Clinton signed the federal RFRA in 1993.

Below is a statement (PDF--see pp. 20-21) from the Senate sponsor of HB 2370 in the 90th General Assembly of Illinois. This bill became the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it was enacted in 1998. Barack Obama voted for it.



HB 2370 was passed in the Illinois state senate by a vote of 56-0.

Of course, Illinois also has anti-LGBT discrimination laws that Indiana has, and the Illinois law is different from the Indiana law in several different ways.

The IN law is much more detailed. In particular it includes corporations as part of the definition of person. It also clarifies that the only test if if the claimant “claims” a sincere religious belief, even if that sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

The scope of the IN law reads wider, at least to me, and I predict quite a lot of litigation to come out of it.

And it’s true it doesn’t focus on gays and lesbians. The benefits of the law accrue to any one

So yes, it is clear that IN corporations can now discriminate against Christians that do not approve of SSM if you are Episcopalian and claim that your religion requires you to discriminate against traditional Christians.

More seriously, all of the hypotheticals that someone mentioned earlier, like refusing to work along women or refusing to carry alcohol in my cab are totally within the scope of this law.

This law allows for the following religious exemptions, in addition to opting out of civil rights laws pertaining to LGBT persons:

(1) employers who have a religious objection to hiring women

(2) employers who have a religious objection to hiring women who would be in supervisory positions over men

(3) employers who have a religious objection to men and women working closely together

(4) employers who have a religious objection to providing benefits for spouses in (or children from) second (or other subsequent) marriages

(5) employers who have a religious objection to providing insurance coverage for children born to unmarried parents

(6) employers who have a religious objection to providing time off for employees who request it for religious purposes, if that religion is not approved of by said employer

(7) employees who have a religious objection to their employer requiring them to be supervised by a woman

(8) employees who have a religious objection to their employer requiring them to work with women who do not abide by said employee’s religious dress code for women

(9) employers or employees who have a religious objection to working with those from certain other religions

& etc., all while still retaining full rights to public monies from the taxpayers.