04-15-2015 10:25 PM
163 1234 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    For those who do not like that tag line I say tough the truth hurts.
    You do realize that the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from the blue state of New York?
    03-31-2015 05:38 PM
  2. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You do realize that the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from the blue state of New York?
    Even then same answer as sadly that guy is an expection not the norm. The gop tends be be pushing these bills.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    A895 likes this.
    03-31-2015 05:40 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    Even then same answer as sadly that guy is an expection not the norm. The gop tends be be pushing these bills.
    The other bills are copies of Chuck Schumer's bill. That is why they are also called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.

    Schumer set the template. Everyone is just following his example.
    03-31-2015 05:43 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    I read through the act and its not very clear as to the extent that "religious freedom " is being burdened. If this means the person can just deny to serve a single person or it has to be an event or group.
    First of all, kudos to you for at least reading the bill. I think a lot of people are forming their own opinion on what they think the bill says, not on what it actually says.

    SB 101 basically says that the government cannot substantially burden anyone's religious beliefs unless two conditions are met. The first condition is that there must be a compelling government interest. The second is that the government must be using the least restrictive method.

    To give an example, let's say some people don't believe in killing animals because that's against their religion. They decide to operate a restaurant that only serves vegan dishes.

    The government may decide to pass a law requiring every restaurant to serve chicken in order to boost the state's poultry industry. This would obviously violate any religious beliefs that don't condone the killing of animals, and the vegan restaurant owners could fight the law in court. They would make the argument that there is no compelling government interest to boost the poultry industry.

    Now, let's say the government passes a law saying that restaurants must periodically spray pesticides to kill roaches, ants, and other vermin. The restaurant owners refuse because they don't believe in killing animals, even if they are vermin, because it's still against their religion.

    The government can force the restaurant owners to comply with the law. The government has a compelling interest because vermin are a public health hazard. Spraying pesticides is the least restrictive method because vermin are difficult to control once they infest a building. Thus, the compelling government interest overrides the religious objections of the restaurant owners.

    You'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything about gay people and discrimination yet. It's because if you actually read SB 101, it does not say anything about them. It is not a bill that says you can discriminate against gay people if your religion says so.
    03-31-2015 06:52 PM
  5. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You'll notice that I haven't mentioned anything about gay people and discrimination yet. It's because if you actually read SB 101, it does not say anything about them. It is not a bill that says you can discriminate against gay people if your religion says so.
    Riiiiiight..that's why the governor had a bunch of anti-gay people standing behind him while he signed this bill. And why those people were celebrating this. Things are not always what they seem..The names of far right organizations which tend to be the opposite of what they really are, should tell you that. Deception is their game. And you just fell for it.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Attached Thumbnails Indiana & "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"-image.jpg  
    Scott7217 and A895 like this.
    04-01-2015 12:06 AM
  6. GadgetGator's Avatar
    The other bills are copies of Chuck Schumer's bill. That is why they are also called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.

    Schumer set the template. Everyone is just following his example.
    Well no..not really. This current crop of bills is coming about entirely because of two issues....the hobby lobby case and legalized gay marriages. Think about it......Indiana had decades to pass such a law but waited until now. So what changed?

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 and msndrstood like this.
    04-01-2015 12:11 AM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    Deception is their game. And you just fell for it.
    Then you'll have to include Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama to that list of deceivers because they supported the same legislation.

    You can't deny it because their voting record for the RFRA bills is public information.
    04-01-2015 12:23 AM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I don't think the GOP will win the White House for the next few terms. When Jeb Bush runs, we'll only be almost 8 years removed from his dope of a brother. I would hope that the American people aren't THAT forgetful. The only way I can see the GOP winning is if the next President the Dems field is so horrible that it sways the moderates towards the right.
    Not only that, but Bush has said this "was the right thing to do". Really? As a former governor, he more than anyone should understand that a governor's role is to foster a climate of job creation, economic stability and promote a good state image. Not destroy all of those things!

    You know you're on the wrong side of things when your own tourism board is against your actions. Well, at least one should know. Then again this is the same clueless individual who seemed to be caught flat footed on the blowback. As if Arizona's experience with a similar law never happened. He's not the brightest tool in the shed. And neither is Jeb Bush for jumping on this derailed train.

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2015 12:26 AM
  9. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Then you'll have to include Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama to that list of deceivers because they supported the same legislation.

    You can't deny it because their voting record for the RFRA bills is public information.
    Ah grasshopper, a very different time and place. Things have changed. Gay people are more accepted and conversely, discrimination against us is now not. These laws are being used for a different purpose. And that is why you have been deceived.

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2015 12:32 AM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    Well no..not really.
    I would disagree. You can simply do a text comparison with Chuck Schumer's bill (now codified as 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb) and Indiana's SB 101.

    42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected

    Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

    (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

    (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


    Indiana SB 101 Sec. 8 (b)

    A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

    (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

    (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
    04-01-2015 12:36 AM
  11. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I would disagree. You can simply do a text comparison with Chuck Schumer's bill (now codified as 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb) and Indiana's SB 101.

    42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected

    Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

    (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

    (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


    Indiana SB 101 Sec. 8 (b)

    A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

    (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

    (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
    Is that the only difference? Are you sure?

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-01-2015 12:58 AM
  12. A895's Avatar
    Which is why Religion shouldn't influence lawmakers decisions. It should be decided what is best for who they serve. This continued BS from the right about how we should follow the Bible is utter trash.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    04-01-2015 06:48 AM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I finally got around to reading the bill(with my non-lawyer eyes):

    The whole law is very vague. The phrase "substantially burden" is used repeatedly, and I do know what legal repercussions that phrase has. The law does however give both a criteria for defense based on using religion as a reason and for the government to make exceptions to bypass the law.

    My conclusion is that the actual effects from this law will be decided in court cases. The courts will decide how much religious protection this law does or does not give.


    I still do not understand why everyone is flipping out. While I can conceive circumstances that the law could be used for discrimination, there is nothing to indicate that it will be or that the courts will interpret the law as such to even entertain the idea. Some of the backers of the legislation may hope to use it as such, but there is no indication that they will be allowed yet and interpreting the law as such is a stretch at best.

    Sent from my XT1096
    Scott7217 likes this.
    04-01-2015 08:54 AM
  14. A895's Avatar
    I finally got around to reading the bill(with my non-lawyer eyes):

    The whole law is very vague. The phrase "substantially burden" is used repeatedly, and I do know what legal repercussions that phrase has. The law does however give both a criteria for defense based on using religion as a reason and for the government to make exceptions to bypass the law.

    My conclusion is that the actual effects from this law will be decided in court cases. The courts will decide how much religious protection this law does or does not give.


    I still do not understand why everyone is flipping out. While I can conceive circumstances that the law could be used for discrimination, there is nothing to indicate that it will be or that the courts will interpret the law as such to even entertain the idea. Some of the backers of the legislation may hope to use it as such, but there is no indication that they will be allowed yet and interpreting the law as such is a stretch at best.

    Sent from my XT1096
    When it comes to law, you prepare for the worst interpretation so you can't be surprised if a law is interpreted in that way. Cut if off before it becomes a problem later. Example: Patriot Act.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    04-01-2015 10:29 AM
  15. Mooncatt's Avatar
    These laws are being used for a different purpose. And that is why you have been deceived.

    Posted via Android Central App
    So are you saying that in one case, the law is ok, but in another, the exact same law isn't? If the Indiana law isn't ok, then shouldn't the left also be fired up against the other state laws already in existence and the federal law that is almost the exact same as the one in Indiana that was signed by Bill Clinton and supported by a number of prominent democrats?
    Scott7217 likes this.
    04-01-2015 12:22 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    Think about it......Indiana had decades to pass such a law but waited until now. So what changed?
    I'm not surprised to see bills move at a snail's pace, consistent with the speed of government inefficiency.

    People had decades to complain about the RFRA. It's only now that some people are unhappy. I guess they were asleep at the wheel.

    Anyway, here's a list of states that have bills pending for their own RFRA laws:

    Arkansas
    Colorado
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Michigan
    Montana
    Nevada
    North Carolina
    South Dakota
    Utah
    Wyoming

    These 11 states could potentially join the federal government and the other 20 states that already have RFRA laws on the books.
    04-01-2015 03:02 PM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    What's your take?
    I would say that the law is designed to protect people like Mary Stinemetz.

    The Kansas City Star -- Jehovah's Witness who needed bloodless transplant dies (article link)

    Mary Stinemetz was a patient in Kansas who required a liver transplant to live. However, as a Jehovah's Witness, she was against blood transfusions, and the only liver transplants available in Kansas required blood transfusions. So she asked Medicaid for a bloodless liver transplant from Nebraska.

    Medicaid denied her request because it only pays for out-of-state procedures if they are medically necessary, and, in the government's opinion, a religious objection did not constitute a medical necessity.

    Stinemetz took the government to court and won. Medicaid agreed to pay for the out-of-state liver transplant. Unfortunately, Stinemetz's condition deteriorated so much that it was too late for a liver transplant, so she died as a result.

    If Kansas had an RFRA law in place, Mary Stinemetz might have gotten the bloodless liver transplant that she needed.
    04-01-2015 04:15 PM
  18. GadgetGator's Avatar
    So are you saying that in one case, the law is ok, but in another, the exact same law isn't? If the Indiana law isn't ok, then shouldn't the left also be fired up against the other state laws already in existence and the federal law that is almost the exact same as the one in Indiana that was signed by Bill Clinton and supported by a number of prominent democrats?
    That is exactly what I am saying. These laws started out for the purpose of protecting Native Americans ability to smoke peyote. Not to be used as a weapon against gay people. The use of these laws is different now and entirely a reaction to legal gay marriages and not wanting to deal with that. A loophole to discriminate. A far cry from the original intent 20 years ago. The language of the laws isn't the same either.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    04-01-2015 07:48 PM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I finally got around to reading the bill(with my non-lawyer eyes):

    The whole law is very vague. The phrase "substantially burden" is used repeatedly, and I do know what legal repercussions that phrase has. The law does however give both a criteria for defense based on using religion as a reason and for the government to make exceptions to bypass the law.

    My conclusion is that the actual effects from this law will be decided in court cases. The courts will decide how much religious protection this law does or does not give.


    I still do not understand why everyone is flipping out. While I can conceive circumstances that the law could be used for discrimination, there is nothing to indicate that it will be or that the courts will interpret the law as such to even entertain the idea. Some of the backers of the legislation may hope to use it as such, but there is no indication that they will be allowed yet and interpreting the law as such is a stretch at best.

    Sent from my XT1096
    You answered your own question. Because it is conceivable that these laws are used for discrimination. And leave it up to the courts? Really? Why go into something blindly and hope it turns out okay? That doesn't sound like a very good plan.

    As for the notion that there is nothing to indicate it will be used that way, please scroll up and look at the photo I posted. That is all the evidence anyone should need.

    But when you combine it with the fact that Pence wanted to ban gays from the military, ban gay marriages, reject the notion that gays should be considered a protected class, and that funding should be pulled from any AIDS organization that didn't denounce homosexuality, the picture becomes quite clear. The man is a homophobic bigot with less than pure motives. But great to know he'll walk out of a restaurant that doesn't serve me. What a stand up guy. And a hypocrite.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-01-2015 08:03 PM
  20. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'm not surprised to see bills move at a snail's pace, consistent with the speed of government inefficiency.

    People had decades to complain about the RFRA. It's only now that some people are unhappy. I guess they were asleep at the wheel.

    Anyway, here's a list of states that have bills pending for their own RFRA laws:

    Arkansas
    Colorado
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Michigan
    Montana
    Nevada
    North Carolina
    South Dakota
    Utah
    Wyoming

    These 11 states could potentially join the federal government and the other 20 states that already have RFRA laws on the books.
    You are the one who is asleep at the wheel. Either that or you are attempting deflection and excuses for some reason. There was no dragging of feet here, and lawmakers can move quite quickly when they want to. This is entirely related to hobby lobby (Pence even said that) as well as anti gay marriage recently made legal in that state.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-01-2015 08:10 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    That is exactly what I am saying. These laws started out for the purpose of protecting Native Americans ability to smoke peyote. Not to be used as a weapon against gay people. The use of these laws is different now and entirely a reaction to legal gay marriages and not wanting to deal with that. A loophole to discriminate. A far cry from the original intent 20 years ago. The language of the laws isn't the same either.
    I'll give you credit for consistency, though I would argue about the language being different. Of all the different examples I've heard, they all essentially say the government can't create an undue burden on someone's religious beliefs unless there's a compelling government interest, and then it must only use the least burdening method of compliance. Scott7217 covered that in post #29 and a couple others on this thread.

    Have there been any wide spread cases where RFRA laws have been used to openly discriminate against gays? I wouldn't be surprised if there were an extreme case here or there like in the baker or photographer case, but I'm talking about on a large scale like the left seems to be predicting.

    And in thinking about this more, I believe there's already laws saying public businesses can't simply refuse service to people for being a protected class. So take the Christian baker, for example. The baker couldn't refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person, but could refuse to cater a gay wedding (because it would amount to supporting homosexuality, involving him in a private event going against his beliefs, and he probably doesn't even have same sex cake toppers). Or to use a non-gay rights issue and speaking from personal experience, it wouldn't prevent a Muslim from checking me out at the grocery store, but would allow one to refuse to ring up my bottle of alcohol.
    04-01-2015 09:37 PM
  22. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'll give you credit for consistency, though I would argue about the language being different. Of all the different examples I've heard, they all essentially say the government can't create an undue burden on someone's religious beliefs unless there's a compelling government interest, and then it must only use the least burdening method of compliance. Scott7217 covered that in post #29 and a couple others on this thread.

    Have there been any wide spread cases where RFRA laws have been used to openly discriminate against gays? I wouldn't be surprised if there were an extreme case here or there like in the baker or photographer case, but I'm talking about on a large scale like the left seems to be predicting.

    And in thinking about this more, I believe there's already laws saying public businesses can't simply refuse service to people for being a protected class. So take the Christian baker, for example. The baker couldn't refuse to sell a birthday cake to a gay person, but could refuse to cater a gay wedding (because it would amount to supporting homosexuality, involving him in a private event going against his beliefs, and he probably doesn't even have same sex cake toppers). Or to use a non-gay rights issue and speaking from personal experience, it wouldn't prevent a Muslim from checking me out at the grocery store, but would allow one to refuse to ring up my bottle of alcohol.
    Gays are not a protected class in Indiana. Additionally, the Indiana law is so broadly written, that many think it could be used by the state to override local city non discrimination ordinances. This issue was brought up during the bills debate and they refused to add an amendment preventing that. Which says to me that is one of their goals.

    You know, I have to ask this question here because it seems to come up over and over. Why do so many here assume innocent intentions when it comes to laws that affect gay people? Or voting rights. It isn't hard to read between the lines and see what is really going on. It's blatant even. I really wonder what it takes for people to believe and understand,....a piano dropping on their heads? Someone admitting that the purpose of something is to discriminate?

    Of course people aren't going to admit this. Therefore they try to hide it as something else. So you have to look into things deeper. I was on to that game a long time ago. But why aren't others? Why are people so easily mislead? To listen to republicans, one would think racism was a thing of the past and that there was no bigotry in the world anymore. That is deflection I guess because that notion couldn't be further from the truth.

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 and msndrstood like this.
    04-01-2015 10:36 PM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    You are the one who is asleep at the wheel.
    Would you say that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination against gay people?

    If you say yes, then the RFRA will protect gay people.

    This is why Barack Obama had no problem voting for the RFRA in Illinois.
    04-01-2015 11:30 PM
  24. anon8126715's Avatar
    I finally got around to reading the bill(with my non-lawyer eyes):

    The whole law is very vague. The phrase "substantially burden" is used repeatedly, and I do know what legal repercussions that phrase has. The law does however give both a criteria for defense based on using religion as a reason and for the government to make exceptions to bypass the law.

    My conclusion is that the actual effects from this law will be decided in court cases. The courts will decide how much religious protection this law does or does not give.


    I still do not understand why everyone is flipping out. While I can conceive circumstances that the law could be used for discrimination, there is nothing to indicate that it will be or that the courts will interpret the law as such to even entertain the idea. Some of the backers of the legislation may hope to use it as such, but there is no indication that they will be allowed yet and interpreting the law as such is a stretch at best.

    Sent from my XT1096
    This sounds like the same line of thinking one might have used in defense of the "Separate but equal" law.
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2015 11:35 PM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Would you say that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination against gay people?

    If you say yes, then the RFRA will protect gay people.

    This is why Barack Obama had no problem voting for the RFRA in Illinois.
    Aye. You just don't get it do you? Go back and read what the original issue was that caused these laws to be written. Hint: it wasn't to protect gay people.

    Why do you think anti-gay groups are so excited about these laws? Why do you think Pence had anti-gay people lined up in a row behind him at the signing of this bill?

    Like I said above, it appears that it takes a piano or anvil to fall before some people get it.

    Posted via Android Central App
    A895 likes this.
    04-01-2015 11:39 PM
163 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Problem restoring apps from Google Play Store?
    By Akshay Dwivedi in forum Google Play Store
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-23-2017, 01:25 PM
  2. S Health Restore
    By AHamp10 in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 08:29 AM
  3. How can I restore my S5?
    By cr500taco in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2015, 02:35 PM
  4. How can I restore my LG L90 backup?
    By AC Question in forum LG L90
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2015, 01:18 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2015, 09:03 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD