continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

But what does the law actually say?

All they tell is in that article is

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom" has left the NCAA fretting ahead of next week's men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis.

"We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

He said the NCAA will "work diligently" to ensure competitors and visitors at next week's Final Four are not "negatively impacted by this bill." Emmert also said the organization, which is based in Indianapolis, will "closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

And on the other side:

Pence said in an interview with the WIBC radio station in Indianapolis on Thursday that the new law became controversial "because of the way some in the media have reported this."

Without referencing gay rights directly, he insisted that "this is not about any contemporary issue."

"This was a measure that frankly, Indiana should have enacted many years ago," Pence said. "It gives our courts guidance about evaluating government action and puts the highest standard -- it essentially says, if a government is going to compel you to act in a way that violates your religious beliefs, there has to be a compelling state interest."

This article is just fanning the flames of controversy on both sides without ever quoting the language in the new law that might allow discrimination. Personally I prefer it when news articles take the trouble to give us the facts first. Then if we need to we can do drama.

It's getting fun:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2015/03/28/swarens-gov-mike-pence-push-clarification-religious-freedom-law/70611906/

All I know right now is that people who supported it did indeed see it as a way to avoid service to the LG community:

"Eric Miller, who lobbied for Indiana’s new law as executive director of the group Advance America, said it could help Christian bakers, florists and photographers avoid punishment for “refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage,” protect Christian businesses that refuse “to allow a man to use the women’s restroom,” and insulate churches that refuse to allow their premises to be used for same-sex weddings."

The text is here:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

the relevant text (with terms defined earlier):

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (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.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

In other words, the law cannot be used to make someone do something against their religious beliefs unless the government can show compelling reason to do so. This is very vague, so likely will be interpreted the way the local government wants to....and I think it's clear which way supporters of the present Indiana government leans, even if Pence is backpedalling.

Thanks Halfy!
Yes, I'd say that language was written to be intentionally vague.  
I can see the legal hawks on both sides now, sharpening their talons and looking for a potential test case bunny that can make it all the way to SCOTA in 2016.  
Nothing brings out the vote in an election year like a good partisan battle in the Supreme Court.

Yeah, fuck this bill.

It's heartening to see from the response how far public opinion has swung on this issue in the last few years, though.

This made me smile- I sometimes watch this lassies Who reviews and season recaps, but this as a bit different and political-

the funny thing is Ted Cruz always does look like he's wearing make-up.


For the Indiana law, it's reasonable on the face of it, but clearly designed to need interpretation. I think the public response has effectively nullified the interpretation conservatives hoped to quietly apply.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This made me smile- I sometimes watch this lassies Who reviews and season recaps, but this as a bit different and political-

Loved it great girl !

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana-gov-mike-pence-controversial-religious-freedom-law/story?id=29985752

The guy can't even answer a yes or no question. Typical politician I suppose.

How can Ted Cruz run for prez if he was born in Canada?

bungobaggins wrote:How can Ted Cruz run for prez if he was born in Canada?

The Constitution restricts Presidential eligibility to "natural born" US citizens or those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption (since there hadn't been such a thing as the United States when most people alive at that time were born). Most jurists agree that natural born citizen means anyone who was entitled to citizenship at birth, which includes people with at least one US parent, regardless of where they were born, as well as all those born on US soil, regardless of parentage.  Cruz's mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.

Canada also offers citizenship to everyone born within its borders, regardless of parentage, so Cruz was born with dual citizenship even though neither of his parents were Canadian. He relinquished his Canadian citizenship last year to try to stave off any potential birtherism.

but 'Murica!!!!!!!!!!

{{{thanks for the explanation }}}

The really funny thing is that for all the fuss over birtherism a few years back, it had no relevance whatsoever.  Obama could have been born in fucking Antarctica and he still would have been considered a natural born citizen because of his mother. Some people argue that because the Constitution doesn't define the term "natural born" we don't really know for sure, but an examination of the historical usage of that phrase really only supports one interpretation.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

{{{No problem. }}}

More importantly, how did any Texans let Ted Cruz become a senator in Texas if he was born in Canada?

Shh, don't tell them!

A history based counter argument against the popular backlash to the Indiana law:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indiana-didnt-actually-pass-an-anti-gay-bill-2015-03-30?page=1

I think he makes the reasonable point that even if the writers of the law in Indiana did have the intent to allow discrimination, there are very similar laws in 30 other states, and historically 'conservative' causes have been rejected by courts, while 'liberal' causes have been upheld.

Yes, that article looks to be much better researched an written. His point that there seems to be a general mob assumption that we have to choose between sexual freedom and religious freedom is particularly worth thinking about.

But still I can't figure out why the editors include statements like "If you’d read the text of the law, you’d understand right away," and then don't quote the law or even provide a link to it. It sometimes seems like the editors almost go out of their way to exclude the facts.

Editors or writers? I think editors are allowing writers to exclude facts.

Conversely editors often shovel in what ever seems to be related. I have a friend who turned himself into a travel/adventure writer (you get free trips, it's a total racket!), and says anytime you see a story that seems to jump around and not flow smoothly, it's usually the editors pulling stuff out and inserting other stuff....post haste right before it goes to print.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

David H wrote:Yes, that article looks to be much better researched an written. His point that there seems to be a general mob assumption that we have to choose between sexual freedom and religious freedom is particularly worth thinking about.

I don't think that's accurate at all.  The question is whether business owners should be able to discriminate against the LGBT population.  Since the federal government has yet to classify LGBT people as a protected class, the question is being decided by the state.  The "religious freedom" issue is being used as a mask -- regardless of whether that's the case in Indiana specifically, that defense has been invoked enough times in recent years that you can hardly blame people for assuming that this law is more of the same.  It wouldn't matter what justification -- religion or anything else -- someone gave for their discrimination if the victims were Jews or African-Americans (although social disapproval for racist and anti-Semitic discrimination is a relatively recent development), and it shouldn't matter here either.

To respond to the article:

Instead, the law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so — the “compelling interest” rule. If it tries to do so, you can go to court and plead legal objection under the religious-freedom law. The court will have to decide if there is a compelling reason to override your religious freedom, or not. Combating discrimination, incidentally, might well be such a reason.

If Indiana is not trying to hedge its bets for a future legal showdown on this issue, then it is a massive coincidence that they suddenly felt worried that religious freedom needed shoring up at this particular juncture, given the numerous high-profile legal cases about anti-gay "religious freedom" in the past couple years.

Eldorion wrote:

David H wrote:Yes, that article looks to be much better researched an written. His point that there seems to be a general mob assumption that we have to choose between sexual freedom and religious freedom is particularly worth thinking about.

I don't think that's accurate at all.  The question is whether business owners should be able to discriminate against the LGBT population.  Since the federal government has yet to classify LGBT people as a protected class, the question is being decided by the state.  The "religious freedom" issue is being used as a mask -- regardless of whether that's the case in Indiana specifically, that defense has been invoked enough times in recent years that you can hardly blame people for assuming that this law is more of the same.

I understand where the assumption comes from and I'm certainly not placing blame. My comment above was based on my experience that there a quite a few members of the LGBT community who take their faith seriously, or for that matter identify as Republican or Libertarian. It's not uncommon, at least out here in the West, to find religious rights, legalized pot, gun rights, and LGBT rights all lumped under the Libertarian banner. It's quite logical if you think about it.

The timing of Indiana's bill probably isn't a coincidence. I'm sure it's intended to stir the pot in the run-up to presidential elections, at least by some, and it looks like it's been quite successful by the volume of press. But the assumption in some of the articles that a pro-religion law is fundamentally a thinly disguised anti-gay law seems to me to be cultivating a shallow stereotype. There are more colors to this than black and white.

But you shouldn't get libertarians mixed up with christian oriented republicans. Pence is no libertarian, and based on what we've seen of the bill's supporters, this is not being driven by libertarians.

So you're saying that this media furor shouldn't be seen so much an attack on the bill as an attack on Pence and the bills supporters, right?

I think that was my original point once I'd seen the actual language: that this was just another political straw man. Like the Benghazi furor is really more an attack on Hillary, and the Affordable Healthcare Act furor is really more an attack on Obama.  

And for the sake of attacking Pence, it looks like laws that are on the books and useful in many other states are going to get dragged through the muck.

I'm not complaining, just observing that this is the point in the election cycle when we as a nation start really going wacko.

Yup.

Ok this issue is confusing me- I get the idea of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, even if I dont agree religion should be exempt from normal law everyone else has to obey on the basis a super powerful invisible, unprovable mega being says so, laws like equality, or not stoning people to death- but twice now when looking at this story on Fox (granted this is Fox) they mentioned Obamacare in the same breath as religious freedom- how does free healthcare fit into this? I dont get it.

Also if its your right to refuse to serve a gay couple because you disapprove on moral grounds and think it will send you to hell- then why arent they defending the right for muslims to stone people to death fo adultery, bigotry for religous groups that practice it, or slavery as set out and endorsed by God in the Christian Bible? Its the same thing.
I seem to recall you got rid of slavery, and I strongly suspect at the time some idiot was claiming they had a religious right to keep slaves then too.

In a secular state, surely there are laws involving equality? or can people be sued for acting in ways which are discriminatory?