The backlash has to start somewhere.

that it's not just Indiana. It's a bunch of other states and the federal government.

I'm not sure everyone is aware of this.

Connecticut for instance has very strong protections. If a person at a business refuses service to a Gay person, they are guilty of a Class D Misdemeanor. The state long ago established a Strong compelling governmental interest in the banning of discrimination in public accommodations.

The law now serves to stop local governments from making laws that ban religious expression, such as building code inspectors ticketing Jews celebrating Sukkot by making temporary shelters in their yards.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

back when it was introduced and signed into law?

I honestly don't remember. If not, why? It was introduced and signed into law by Dems. This has me scratching my head.

"passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

The reason for all the state bills is that the Supreme Court found the part of the federal RFRA that applied to the states
was unconstitutional.

and owners of certain businesses like wedding photographers and cake shops that make wedding cakes
objecting to providing such services to same-sex weddings. This wasn't an issue when the original federal RFRA was
passed.

to turn away a potentially huge source of revenue. Hell, if I did wedding photography in a state that had marriage equality I would be raking it in.

.... I'm in favor of gays having equal rights of marriage but if a business doesn't want to work with them I'm kind of in the middle.

Frankly, I think if I were gay and they didn't want to do business with me because of that, I wouldn't want to do business with them either. There will be plenty of businesses that will welcome my business, screw the haters.

is it legalizes discrimination. That is a dangerous thing

... that implies that gays are a Federal "protected class". Are they?

that these states have made laws that say that it is ok to discriminate, and I hate to use the term but it is a slippery slope. I do not know if gay people are a federally protected class, but they should be.

Native tribes around two aspects of their religion, sacred lands and the use of peyote. The courts had allowed laws that interfered with religious practices as a side feature if the law applied to everyone and was not intended to interfere with religious practices. The RFRA basically said Native Americans can eat mescaline even though others can't, and some lands can be protected as religiously important lands.
It is of course worth noting that this act has never been applied more broadly. For example, more than one religion considers cannabis to be sacramental, yet they put Rasta people in jail for that sacrament, in spite of RFRA. Because it does not have actual standing as a long established religion and the use of cannabis is not ritualized or held apart from other life in that religion.
An established religion could also not suddenly announce that it was giving away holy heroin and get by with it.
The point of the law was to increase freedoms not to restrict freedoms, to allow actions in practice of religion that might otherwise be forbidden by law. It is well known that Native American religions make use of peyote in some ceremonies and rites. I have never known of any faith group in any religion or country that states that refusing to serve those they judge as ungodly is a practice of the faith. No Christian denominations cite such a teaching that I know of. So where is the established practice?

Many of those Senators now have second thoughts about voting for it.

like the use of peyote in certain ceremonies. The Supremes limited its application to the federal government, which is why some states have gone off the deep end and enacted their own versions, but based on the notion that it's a burden on religious people if they are prohibited from discriminating against others.

Thank you

I hope this is OK but I posted this morning on the same issue. 83 bills in 28 states. I'm just posting to put more information out there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026427987

I will delete if this isn't OK

Thank you for your post

to step back, look at all of the deaths and misery religion has caused over the years and seriously wonder, should it be abolished as a disruptive evil pestilence on mankind.

Too many people have died in the name of christ

Atheism is simply not believing in a god or gods. There is no dogma.

as did the subject...why did you put religion and atheism in the same question. Why would you think someone who wanted to get rid of religion also want to get rid of atheism. That's what prompted me question. It made my wonder.

Both are abhorrent suggestions.

Sorta..still, the comparison makes no sense but now I know where you're coming from.

"Somebody complained, I think, to Matthew Arnold that he was getting as dogmatic as Carlyle. He replied, “That may be true; but you overlook an obvious difference. I am dogmatic and right, and Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong.” The strong humour of the remark ought not to disguise from us its everlasting seriousness and common sense; no man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error. "

G. K. Chesterton

Some folks hate my wife for being Christian, and other folks hate me for being atheist.

So I've seen this from both sides.

It's not about who is right and who is wrong. (As if that's going to be settled anytime soon!...lol.)

Hate is always wrong.

There is a marriage law that has yet to be voted on by the Senate, but it turns out not to be anti gay at all.
If the Post got their info from HRW, that info was incorrect.

Killed: House Bill 1599 would have prohibited public funding of any activity supporting same-sex marriage, likely leading to a confrontation between state and federal authorities.
Killed: House Bill 1598 would have protected a parent's right to bring a child to "conversion therapy" that aims to eliminate same-sex attraction.
Killed: House Bill 1371 would have allowed small businesses, like florists, bakers, or photographers, to refuse to provide wedding services if the business owner disagrees with the wedding on religious grounds.

And I don't plan on visiting again any time soon.

The bill was introduced as a backlash reaction to achieving marriage equality for same-sex couples in Indiana," said Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. "We are deeply disappointed that the governor and state lawmakers have been tone-deaf to the cries of legions of Hoosiers – including businesses, convention leaders, faith communities, and more than 10,000 people who signed petitions against the bill – who say they don’t want this harmful legislation to impair the reputation of our state and harm our ability to attract the best and brightest to Indiana."

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights-religion-belief/aclu-comment-indiana-gov-mike-pence-signing-discriminatory-religious-fre

is almost exactly the same as the federal version. And that of 18 other states.

negative national attention at this time.

We'll stop the legalized hatred for LGBT in these other states later.

Thanks for the heads up.

they are spreading legislation all over the place.

practices; for instance, not compelling an Orthodox Jew to work on the Sabbath, or allowing for the protection of tradition sacred lands. The Indiana law allows for individual bigotry.

Here is the text of the federal statute:

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
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.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS

CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action that directly or indirectly:

(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by a person; or compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion.

(b) The term includes:

(1) withholding a benefit from a person;

(2) assessing a criminal, a civil, or an administrative penalty against a person; or

(3) excluding a person from a governmental program or denying a person access to a governmental facility.
2015IN 568—LS 7497/DI 69

Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "compelling governmental interest" means a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.

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.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "person" means an individual, an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "state action" means:
(1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or policy; or

(2) the taking of any other action; by the state or a political subdivision of the state.

Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:

(1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
32
Sec. 7.
(a) A person whose exercise of religion:

(1) has been substantially burdened; or

(2) is likely to be substantially burdened; by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation, or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

(b) A person who asserts a claim or defense under subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief from a violation, or an impending violation, of section 6 of this chapter, including relief against the
state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief under this subsection includes any of the following:

(1) Injunctive relief.

(2) Declaratory relief.

(3) Compensatory damages.

(4) Recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

SECTION 2.
An emergency is declared for this act

Many are downplaying them - as if this is the same thing.

This should be its own OP.

but we defeated it. We do not have this law here. It passed the House but never got to the Senate floor for a vote.

Sorry, Wikipedia is fine for this report. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_House_Bill_2453

The state has a very strong anti-discrimination law that covers BOTH sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. See Sec. 46a of the State code.

The law in question only gives a person the right to challenge a law and has exceptions in (b) that the state has used to ban discrimination in public businesses.

From the Indiana law at: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

And with the exception of employment and internal rules in religious organizations, they apply broadly including in public accommodations.

The other states basically copied the federal law. Indiana's goes farther, including making it clear that businesses can claim religious objections. This is a point the governor and friends are being dishonest about when they say other states have "essentially" the same law.

More telling, they rejected proposed amendments along the way that would have said the law can NOT be used to discriminate over sexual orientation. Had they bundled that in with the package Indiana might not be the pariah it has become.

For example in IL, the law also stipulates that discrimination for any purpose is illegal. Indiana's has no such language.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

I'll put this simply without big block quotes of the relevant laws. Many of these states have TWO relevant provisions, as follows:

RELEVANT PROVISION 1: You cannot discriminate against a wide variety of classes of person, in business or for accommodations, etc. Among those classes are LGBT persons. The state has a compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination.

RELEVANT PROVISION 2: For any matter where the state DOES NOT have or CANNOT show a compelling interest, the state cannot require you to act against your religious beliefs.

The two provisions work together, the first limiting the second, and the second covering any ground not covered by the first. Here's the thing: INDIANA ONLY HAS THE SECOND (some of but not all of the other states, too).

So, what is so dishonest about the article and the OP? It points at the second provision and says "A ha! They all have Relevant Provision 2!!!" Why the hate? Of course, leaving out that many have Relevant Provision 1 completely obscures that Relevant Provision 2 functions completely differently without it.

and the republicans are ready to give birth to the turd and will probably be signed in by the head turd.

Gotta keep the religious fanatics on-board while destroying the country bit by bit

Boycotts are not pro-business and he comes from the pro-business side of the Rethug cesspool.

he is pro biz to the extreme, cutting their taxes left a huge whole he needs to plug.