Governor Pence finally did it (POL)

PJ - is there some religion I don't know about that promotes segregated lunch counters, or is it possible you are over-reacting?

PJ is ALWAYS at the forefront of perceived injustices - a modern day Nostradamus with his predictions. From now on I will refer to PJ as Nostrastroh.

Pence was asked point blank twice today if you are a business in Indiana if was OK to openly discriminate against a gay person and both times Pence refused to answer the question. So there is your answer.

I stand corrected apparently Pence refused to answer this question six times.

Poor old DonDiego, . . . ever the target of advancing decrepitude, . . . cited the above excerpt as included within the Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2015 (RFRA)". This is incorrect.

The above excerpt is, in fact, from the United States Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) passed by the United States Congress and signed into Law by President William Jefferson Clinton. This Federal Law was passed unanimously by the United States House of Representatives and 97-to-3 in the United States Senate; the 3 opposing passage of the RFRA were Jesse Helms (R-NC), Harlan Mathews (D-TN), and Robert Byrd (D-WV).

DonDiego must first apologize for his failure to recognize the hardships placed upon those opposing religious freedoms upon the signing of the RFRA of 1993. He is pleased to see that these perseverant and indefatigable folks still in the United States have survived the past 21 years under the Federal Statute.

The Federal RFRA was intended to apply to all branches of government, and both to Federal and State Law. However, subsequent Court Decisions, (e.g. the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)), held that the Federal RFRA exceeded Federal power when applied to State Laws. To redress this shortcoming 20 States now have Laws essentially instituting the Federal RFRA at the State level, as of the passage of the Indiana Statute.

The excerpt from the Indianapolis Statute corresponding to the Federal Statute reads:
". . . a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
Probably because poor old DonDiego is not a Lawyer and. in fact, has no formal legal training, he has difficulty distinguishing the differences in the intent of the Federal Statute and the Indiana Statute.
Nonetheless, he is certain that although he cannot, . . . those smarter than he can, . . . and he is certain that once the distinctions are recognized, given sufficient time those who can explain them will demonstrate the integrity and honor of President Clinton and the abominable character of Governor Pence.

It would seem that Angie may need to look beyond the borders of the United States to truly avoid the consequences of the Federal and State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. DonDiego would suggest a locale where religion is forbidden altogether or, perhaps, somewhere where all religions but one are strictly forbidden, thereby eliminating discrimination. These are not difficult to find.
Just in case poor old DonDiego were to be denied custom-created pastries for whatever religion-based-discriminatory reason evil entrepreneurs might apply, he is already searching the internets for alternate locations, . . . like County Cork, Ireland based upon his Father's heritage and The Black Forest region of Germany based on his Mother's ancestry.

Again, . . . DonDiego apologizes for his error posting an excerpt from the Federal Law in place of the Indiana Law which is the subject of this thread.
DonDiego especially apologizes to those who now indicate they side with the esteemed Senators Helms, Mathews, and Bryd in opposing such legislation.

My religious beliefs require that I refrain from any commerce, agreement or discourse with those shod with sandals. Surely there's a group somewhere that will raise a ruckus about my religious affiliation as an affront to the rights of sandal wearers. I fully expect that in the next year, we will be reviled, rebuked and heaped with scorn for our narrow minded and discriminatory obligations. But rest assured, I will not "like" the facebook page that opposes my sacred beliefs.

Just what I thought.....I asked for a rational scenario of what you thought might happen under this law and you cite the 1940's and my ignorance.

weggie

Nah, . . . Kentucky passed their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on 26 March 26 2013.

DonDiego apologizes. Tennessee passed their Religious Freedom Restoration Act on 1 July 2009.
Georgia remains an RFRA-free zone. However a Law entitled the "Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act." (PGOOREA) is currently under consideration.

The difference as I understand it is that most of those other jurisdictions consider sexual preference a protected class under state or local law and Indiana doesn't. When Pence was asked on the Sunday shows if he planned to make sexual preference a protected class to fix the Indiana law he said no that isn't a priority.

Furthermore the historical context of those laws in other jurisdictions weren't passing them on the heels of the federal courts legalizing gay marriage. The sponsor of this bill in Indiana when ask why we needed it said so businesses aren't forced to serve gay patrons and then gave several examples. This bill was specifically aimed to legalize discrimination against gay people.

Again the governor of the state when asked six times won't even give a simple yes or no if it is ok for business to not serve gay customers because of their sexual preference.

Precisely - other states passed religious freedom laws that would allow people to avoid government mandates that might hinder their own lives. For example - it would allow them to cite their religion as an excuse to opt out of any government mandated vaccination. BUT Those states coupled their religious freedom acts with clauses or other laws that specifically made discrimination against other people forbidden

Indiana passed no such coupling with their law....and when asked the specific question if the governor would pursue such a coupling he emphatically said "NO".