All-Star Discriminatory Law In Indiana

[King]

I've heard it; Arkansas is also considering a similar law, but being truthful, 19 states have similar laws on the books as well.

I personally am not for these types of laws; religious freedom in this country is out of control, imo, when the fundamentals of our country prohibit religious laws because the Constitution was written specifically and clearly in a way that doesn't allow it.

A lot of those states have laws on top of this one that limits the extent of what the law can cover.

 

[SL&AM]

A lot of those states have laws on top of this one that limits the extent of what the law can cover.

I realize, but these types of laws do exist. I think Indiana is making waves because it doesn't have a limit put on it yet like the other states do and it's being passed in 2015 when discrimination is far more clear and open. That being said, I find it abhorrent and I would be embarrassed to be a resident in Indiana right now.

 

[catlady]

i bet the author is this bill never saw this coming...

Whoops: Indiana’s anti-gay ‘religious freedom’ act opens the door for the First Church of Cannabis

They better not get too excited. The Mormon's had the same issue with polygamy with the same fight under the protection of religious freedom, however, federal/state law still prevailed.

Very few states have sexual orientation as a protected class. So I'm honestly not sure what exactly this law does that wasn't allowed before?

I don't support it, but it seems like a bunch of law makers putting into legislature something that was already allowed anyway.

Below was a statement President Clinton made after DOMA was signed into effect in 1996, President Clinton has since come out and said he disagrees with this law. But, you are correct in the sense most states do not have sexual orientation specifically protected in their discriminatory laws.

President's statement on DOMA
Statement by President Bill Clinton
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.
I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

Common sense tells me this law actually is a big deal. Why would all these companies and organizations go to all this trouble to ban / boycott / pull out of Indiana?

Yes, common sense tells me this law could potentially cause a lot of problems. But I won't jump the gun until I see how it is handled by the people of Indiana. Maybe people in Indiana also have common sense and realize how ridiculous this law sounds. I can only hope.

It will be interesting to see what the EPs moves will be for next season. I can't see big businesses and organizations taking chances and spending time and money on big events with the uncertainty of whether gyms will bring their teams and families (and money) to the area. (I'm talking about cheer related things. since you posted this in the Cheer section and not Random, I assumed you wanted to talk about how this could affect our industry. Theres no doubt this could affect more than just the cheer industry in big ways.)

 

[ErinS]

Did any of you that commented actually read the law?? already calling for boycotts and a Jim Crow comment??
Indiana didn’t actually pass an anti-gay bill - MarketWatch

sometimes facts help!

Hate to beat this dead horse, but yes. I'm a librarian. Looking this up was the first thing I did. I'm sure all of us commenting first read the law or an article...which also based on which way we swing on issues swayed our own personal interpretations. Just like with everything else were presented with.

It opens the door to serve as a crutch to defend those who choose to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality at the end of the day.

And clearly (please look at my picture) my Jim Crow comment was being facetious.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cheermom1969]

What many are missing is that this law is almost exactly the same as the Federal law that Clinton signed in 1993.
Now if anyone can tell me what the following means, you are a legal scholar:
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.

Huh? :confused:

I don't even know why Indiana bothered to pass something that is already covered by the Feds. But I guess they needed something to fill their time.

 

[gymcatmomx2]

What many are missing is that this law is almost exactly the same as the Federal law that Clinton signed in 1993.
Now if anyone can tell me what the following means, you are a legal scholar:
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.

Huh? :confused:

I don't even know why Indiana bothered to pass something that is already covered by the Feds. But I guess they needed something to fill their time.

Most of those states enacted the law in 1993 without the context of marriage equality becoming law. States like Illinois have such laws but have specific protections for LGBTs. Indiana does not. Lobbyists for this bill specifically cited marriage equality as a threat to their religious freedom as reason the law is needed.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

Legislation happening at the state level is downright scary right now. While most focus on national news, the conservative powers that be have switched focus to state rights knowing the national majority will be hard to get. If stuff like this bothers you I urge you to get involved with your own state's politics. This is coming from a resident of one of the worst state offenders in the country.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Legislation happening at the state level is downright scary right now. While most focus on national news, the conservative powers that be have switched focus to state rights knowing the national majority will be hard to get. If stuff like this bothers you I urge you to get involved with your own state's politics. This is coming from a resident of one of the worst state offenders in the country.

DING DING DING!!

Everything looks great on paper, but I don't trust this thing in practice. Same with the law in Arizona. If the Governor of Indiana won't admit the potential dangerous scope of this legislation because he knows it will put him in a corner...yeah.

 

[Ashley]

DING DING DING!!

Everything looks great on paper, but I don't trust this thing in practice. Same with the law in Arizona. If the Governor of Indiana won't admit the potential dangerous scope of this legislation because he knows it will put him in a corner...yeah.

Connecticut has a similar Religious Freedom law. Which is funny since the governor just signed something banning state-funded travel to Indiana

 

[sltAL]

I think they're already back peddling. GOP leaders in the state assembly are supposed to be trying to "clarify" today that the law wouldn't allow discrimination of lgbt people. I watched George Stephanopoulos rake the governor over the coals yesterday. He refused to give him a straight answer. Made him look like an idiot.

Tim Cook has spoken out against it and Angie's List has cancelled a 40 million expansion in the state. It doesn't sound like most of the businesses want it. I think they're trying to get a handle on things before the Final Four rolls in.

 

[SL&AM]

I think they're already back peddling. GOP leaders in the state assembly are supposed to be trying to "clarify" today that the law wouldn't allow discrimination of lgbt people. I watched George Stephanopoulos rake the governor over the coals yesterday. He refused to give him a straight answer. Made him look like an idiot.

Tim Cook has spoken out against it and Angie's List has cancelled a 40 million expansion in the state. It doesn't sound like most of the businesses want it. I think they're trying to get a handle on things before the Final Four rolls in.

Money talks...the more business' fight it, the more it'll hurt them. Honestly, at this point, if a state wants that much religious freedom I think it's time to give it to them---as long as they sign a contract that takes away all of their federal funding for every level program across the state. It'll be interesting to see how fast they changed their tunes.

 

[getsum]

Connecticut has a similar Religious Freedom law. Which is funny since the governor just signed something banning state-funded travel to Indiana

seattle just did that as well...
Seattle mayor to ban city-funded travel to Indiana

 

[kristenthegreat]

Connecticut has a similar Religious Freedom law. Which is funny since the governor just signed something banning state-funded travel to Indiana

Ashley and I talked about this on my facebook page as well, so this isn't directed at her but I'm quoting it anyway :D-

There ARE 19 states with 'similar' laws, and similar is the key wording. CT does have a law for 'freedom from compulsion for religious INSTITUTIONS', which is the difference (personally, I say whack the whole kit and caboodle, but that's probably unpopular :D). The Indiana law allows for individuals, public companies, ANYONE to deny ANYONE service whatsoever on the grounds that it violates someone's 'religious freedoms.' Indiana, unlike CT, also DOES NOT have any protection clauses for LGBT citizens. CT does not allow for discrimination whatsoever for people of any race/gender/class/sexual orientation/religion etc.

Personally, if your 'deeply held religious beliefs' so often and so strongly affect your ability to do business, maybe you shouldn't be doing business. You don't want to make a floral arrangement for a gay wedding, but you'll do one for a second marriage? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

ETA: This is the Wikipedia article for the Act (Federal version). Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's main protector? NATIVE AMERICANS. As to protect them from the US government building on tribal lands and restricting the use of various ritualistic herbs. It was the Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby decision that got us all into this mess in the first place.

 

[CharlotteASMom]

The latest debate in NC is the religious exemption bill to allow magistrates the right to opt out of marrying gay couples (or anyone) based on religious beliefs. I have no words and am frankly embarrassed to be from NC.