Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
so the back story is that the original bill signed by 20 states or rather 19 back in 1996?, the repubs have been bringing these anti gay bills up.
Indiana NOW signs it(LOL) 20 years later.... all of a sudden? i guess they just forgot about it?
I hardly think so. This hasnt been seen before the hobby lobby case, Virginia, ohio, Arkansas, all have these amazing ratifications...
fuck all to do with the original purpose.
Discrimination, not religious "liberty" is behind these "new" bills. being allowed to hate with impunity, Hate is behind it and looking for a reason to legally do it.
ta da
DADT was repealed by Obama even tho Clinton signed it into law, a shitty law now is no more.
Anyone that doesnt know that Obama has a WELL recorded evolvement on gay marriage has his head in his ass
Discrimination and hate is such a part of the christian ideology!!!!!
Did anyone watch Pence on ABC?
chicken shit gobbledygook bullshit asshole.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/
There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1990. Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
more states and anti gay laws
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/ohio-attorney-general-gays-already-have-too-much-power-thats-why-they-cant-get-married/comments/#disqus
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/13/no-gays-allowed-law-set-to-pass-in-virginia/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/whoops-indianas-anti-gay-religious-freedom-act-opens-the-door-for-the-first-church-of-cannabis/
PS
In 1997, in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) did not apply to the states.
Since 1997, 19 states have enacted state RFRAs. These laws are intended to echo the federal RFRA, but are not necessarily identical to the federal law. Mississippi is the most recent state to enact a RFRA, doing so in 2014.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS
Jurisdiction
Statute
Alabama
Ala. Const. Art. I, §3.01
Arizona
Ariz. Rev. Stat. §41-1493.01
Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-571b
Florida
Fla. Stat. §761.01, et seq.
Idaho
Idaho Code §73-402
Illinois
Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 775, §35/1, et seq.
Kansas
Kan. Stat. §60-5301, et seq.
Kentucky
Ky. Rev. Stat. §446.350
Louisiana
La. Rev. Stat. §13:5231, et seq.
Mississippi
Miss. Code §11-61-1
Missouri
Mo. Rev. Stat. §1.302
New Mexico
N.M. Stat. §28-22-1, et seq.
Oklahoma
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §251, et seq.
Pennsylvania
Pa. Stat. tit. 71, §2403
Rhode Island
R.I. Gen. Laws §42-80.1-1
South Carolina
S.C. Code §1-32-10, et seq.
Tennessee
Tenn. Code §4-1-407
Texas
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Remedies Code §110.003
Virginia
Va. Code §57-1
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx
< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 3/30/2015 7:56:34 AM >
_____________________________
(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \
\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \
(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \
Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love
|
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread