The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This bill is bait for the federal courts...at the expense of Indiana's taxpayers.

What does the bill actually do? "Protect" business owners from potential customers who...wait for it...want to use the same product or service that is offered to their neighbors. The horror!

You don't want to bake that cake? Fine, send them my way. I like money, and I don't care who wants to give it to me.

I am a small-government conservative...what about this bill creates a smaller government? Who will pay for the lawsuits this bill will create? Is this really what our legislators do all day?

Indiana has a real need for good governance...not half-baked idealistic battles paid on the public dime, with dubious benefit to the paying public.

I can't wait to see this blow up in Pence's face...that POS RINO ideologue deserves to be out on his ass.

There is already a federal version; there are already double digit states that have versions of this bill; no carnage has blown up. There're no "NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED" signes in their store windows.

I agree with you though that it is sad that there seems to be a need to prevent the further erosion of property rights in the state.

 

[Denny347]

So Gencon wants to extort the Governor of the State of Indiana.....good luck with that.

I'm quite sure there will be along list right behind them. So, people use the gay cupcake ordeal as example why this was needed. I did not follow that incident. So, other than the big fuss the LGBT gave the business, were the owners forced to make the gay cake by the courts?

 

[steveh_131]

Nope. It only carves out an exemption for the religious. Creating a special class of people and protecting them from something they were already protected from by existing law. This doesn't cover every business owner. Just the religious.

So? I mean, I'd rather it protected everyone's property rights in general, but this is still a step in the right direction.

Do you have a problem with constitutional amendments that carved out a special class for black people?

 

[silverspoon]

Seems like a lotta money spent on passing a law that probably won't pass SCOTUS scrutiny. Between this and a couple other bills they have or or trying to force down our throats it's obvious the Indiana Republican party is becoming over confident. Time to vote something different next time around and shake things up. Not that I'm a little bitter or anything but it's the same Republican party that was against changing our time before they were for it in just a few short months and I still haven't fully recovered from that fiasco.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How hard is it to just go somewhere else to get what you want?

That's why I think this is a problem with today's people, society... It's too litigious and confrontational. Fascist.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm quite sure there will be along list right behind them. So, people use the gay cupcake ordeal as example why this was needed. I did not follow that incident. So, other than the big fuss the LGBT gave the business, were the owners forced to make the gay cake by the courts?

No, they weren't. In the most recent event the gay couple made note that the owners were bigots and moved on and got their cakes elsewhere, (gay folks have no special protections in Indiana). The cookie store a few years received no penalty. Just bad press.

 

[rob63]

I'm quite sure there will be along list right behind them. So, people use the gay cupcake ordeal as example why this was needed. I did not follow that incident. So, other than the big fuss the LGBT gave the business, were the owners forced to make the gay cake by the courts?

Yes.

 

[PaulF]

There is already a federal version; there are already double digit states that have versions of this bill; no carnage has blown up. There're no "NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED" signes in their store windows.

I agree with you though that it is sad that there seems to be a need to prevent the further erosion of property rights in the state.

Personally, I would rather have businesses post their bigotry on the front door (or website) than let them hide behind bad legislation. At least then I can opt out of their "service" as well.

You don't want to serve "my kind"? Fine, just make sure I know it before I slap my money down.

 

[jamil]

If we're to be a truly free people, we should reserver the right to work for whomever we choose. Laws requiring people, with their private businesses, to do work for others should be repugnant to every freedom loving people. But the various news outlets and Facebook is all spinning this that the only possible reason for this is to screw homosexuals. Let the free market work. There's nothing in this bill forcing anybody to do anything.

There's already a federal version of this that's been on the books for years--no "No Gays" signs in the windows yet. There's double digit states that already have a version of this on their books--no "No Gays" signs in the windows yet.

If there weren't such a movement afoot to force people to act against their beliefs across the country, there'd probably not be this sort of thing being contemplated.

Virtual rep will have to do.

+1
Amen! (ah, the irony)

Okay, so we've heard from the progressive libertarians, and I'm not astonished. I am curious though what the regular libertarians have to say about it.

So did folks in the South before 1964 (and some to this day).

We just cemented Indiana's reputation as a backwards state, and did it by a landslide.

Who elected these clowns, anyway?

Hate and discrimination are always repugnant, and doubly so when they hide behind the guise of religion.

Calm down. Your world is not ending. The sun will rise on the day after it's signed just like it did the day before. What makes you think this bill is about hate and discrimination? I think it's just a reaction to the gay cake thing. Colorado gets to have its expansion of the CRA, so what's wrong with Indiana deciding for itself to make sure that doesn't happen in Indiana?

Not necessarily a step backwards as I don't think it actually changes much. Can a gay couple legally force a shop owner to make them a cake in Indiana now, before the bill is signed? I just doubt you need to lament to the extent you are.

 

[Denny347]

No, they weren't. In the most recent event the gay couple made note that the owners were bigots and moved on and got their cakes elsewhere, (gay folks have no special protections in Indiana). The cookie store a few years received no penalty. Just bad press.

So I was correct in thinking this was a law that fixed nothing? It just makes a statement. Great.....

 

[OneBadV8]

No, they weren't. In the most recent event the gay couple made note that the owners were bigots and moved on and got their cakes elsewhere, (gay folks have no special protections in Indiana). The cookie store a few years received no penalty. Just bad press.

Yes.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes.

That's Colorado, where they have specific laws in place against discrimination. Indiana has no such laws and Colorado's laws do not apply here. Let's deal with Indiana cases only.

 

[Denny347]

Yes.

That's CO. They also have legal weed....neither affect us. We are just making a statement that makes this state look unflattering...

 

[rob63]

That's Colorado, where they have specific laws in place against discrimination. Indiana has no such laws and Colorado's laws do not apply here. Let's deal with Indiana cases only.

Yes, but everyone knows that the new law is in response to that case and it was the case that he was asking about.

 

[jamil]

That's Colorado, where they have specific laws in place against discrimination. Indiana has no such laws and Colorado's laws do not apply here.

Yep, in Colorado "sexual orientation" is a protected class. Indiana has decided to make double darn sure they're not protected at the expense of religious freedom. Denny's right, it's basically not much more than a statement. Not really worth all the hoopla, but also not really worth the time to write and pass the bill either.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems like a lotta money spent on passing a law that probably won't pass SCOTUS scrutiny. Between this and a couple other bills they have or or trying to force down our throats it's obvious the Indiana Republican party is becoming over confident. Time to vote something different next time around and shake things up. Not that I'm a little bitter or anything but it's the same Republican party that was against changing our time before they were for it in just a few short months and I still haven't fully recovered from that fiasco.

It already has. As I understand it, the proposed state version mimics the federal version. The federal version was originally wrtitten to apply to the states, I believe. There was a case some years ago that threw out the applicability to the states but kept the federal portion.

Again, the 1st Amendment is very clear. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the practice thereof." (or close to that). Now that the interpretations of the 14th Amendment has caused the 1st amendment to be incorporated by the states, that would mean a state cannot establish laws that establish nor prohibitl the exercise of religion. That practicing part does not mean religious folk get to go to church, it means they get to practice what they're taught to do, what they believe, the other 6 days per week.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, but everyone knows that the new law is in response to that case and it was the case that he was asking about.

It may have motivated the ignoramus's in our legislature who are unfamiliar with existing Indiana law, (oh, the irony), but it wasn't based in reality.

 

[rob63]

That's CO. They also have legal weed....neither affect us. We are just making a statement that makes this state look unflattering...

You asked the question about the case in CO, I just answered it.

 

[jamil]

Yes, but everyone knows that the new law is in response to that case and it was the case that he was asking about.

I thought he was asking about the Indianapolis case.

 

[mrjarrell]

It already has. As I understand it, the proposed state version mimics the federal version. The federal version was originally wrtitten to apply to the states, I believe. There was a case some years ago that threw out the applicability to the states but kept the federal portion.

Again, the 1st Amendment is very clear. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the practice thereof." (or close to that). Now that the interpretations of the 14th Amendment has caused the 1st amendment to be incorporated by the states, that would mean a state cannot establish laws that establish nor prohibitl the exercise of religion. That practicing part does not mean religious folk get to go to church, it means they get to practice what they're taught to do, what they believe, the other 6 days per week.

Gonna be interesting to see some of them refuse service to the Children of Ham.