Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:25 AM Mar 2015

Indiana's Top Lawmakers Looking To Clarify Religious Freedom Law

Source: TPM

-snip-

At a press conference early on Monday, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (pictured, left) and Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said that they would "encourage our colleagues to adopt a clarifying measure of some sort to remove this misconception about the bill." Long said this was a reaction to an "obvious misconception" about what the new law does.

Bosma and Long stressed that they hadn't anticipated the backlash of the law. Asked about both proponents of the law and opponents who said the law effectively discriminated against same-sex individuals. Long said that there was just a "small tribe" of people saying that.

"The fact is that it doesn't do that, it doesn't discriminate and anyone on either side of this issue suggesting otherwise is just plain flat wrong," Long said. Throughout the press conference, both lawmakers said repeatedly the legislation does not directly discriminate against anyone.

-snip-

Indiana Democrats quickly responded to the press conference saying that they wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a full repeal of the law.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brian-bosma-david-long-indiana-religious-freedom

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Indiana's Top Lawmakers Looking To Clarify Religious Freedom Law (Original Post) DonViejo Mar 2015 OP
"obvious misconception" Botany Mar 2015 #1
What a load of shit. SoapBox Mar 2015 #2
Social conservatives just focus on "religious freedom". stillwaiting Mar 2015 #10
My head hurts---make it stop! Demeter Mar 2015 #3
And that Sec 11 kind of exempts employers from any non-discrimination rules. immoderate Mar 2015 #6
Wow! Look at Chapter 9, Sec. 10.b.2. ("Compensatory damages") SpankMe Mar 2015 #16
We've been called on our bullshit! TlalocW Mar 2015 #4
The law does not say "You are free to discriminate against LGBT people" in those exact words alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #5
Yet,,, Cryptoad Mar 2015 #7
don't bother attempting to "clarify", you bigoted jerks. we know exactly what the law says, niyad Mar 2015 #8
"small tribe" Roy Rolling Mar 2015 #9
Thats what I said. WTF is "small tribe of people"????????????????????????? winstars Mar 2015 #21
The fact that he has to erect a transparent strawman skepticscott Mar 2015 #11
I think it was purposely so vaguely written ... Myrina Mar 2015 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author moondust Mar 2015 #13
Do you guys remember a movie that came out in the 1960s called "A Guide for the Married Man" Iliyah Mar 2015 #14
They might say: "I'm shocked, shocked to find a national backlash against this law." kairos12 Mar 2015 #15
To go along with this presser - asiliveandbreathe Mar 2015 #17
This reminds me of Arizona passing SB 1070 - immigration underpants Mar 2015 #18
translation "We got caught. Now we need more bullshit to cover it over rurallib Mar 2015 #19
Note the weasle word. lark Mar 2015 #20

Botany

(70,581 posts)
1. "obvious misconception"
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:28 AM
Mar 2015

No, it is pretty clear what the law was all about and that was to allow people to
use their religion as a cover to being a bigot.


Definition for 'You can't unring a bell'

This means that once something has been done, you have to live with the consequences as it can't be undone.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
2. What a load of shit.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:30 AM
Mar 2015

They just want to clarify how to discriminate against LGBT.

The only acceptable end is FULL repeal.

And what the fuck is with the small "tribe" comment? Sounds like a nasty comment tied to American Indians.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
10. Social conservatives just focus on "religious freedom".
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:55 AM
Mar 2015

That gives them the right to refuse service to LGBT people, but that is NOT discrimination you see. It is them exercising their religious freedom rights.

They don't believe that LGBT people get discriminated against even as they do so, and they don't believe they are racists even as they use the "n"-word and are overt racists.

They just don't live in our reality so it becomes impossible to understand them or communicate with them.

Pushing back is imperative, and I'm glad to see it happening.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
3. My head hurts---make it stop!
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:32 AM
Mar 2015

A discriminatory law that doesn't discriminate.....

Here is the full text of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

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

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

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.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

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


It's looking a lot like gobbledegook to me.
 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
6. And that Sec 11 kind of exempts employers from any non-discrimination rules.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:45 AM
Mar 2015

I wonder what could clarify this?

--imm

SpankMe

(2,966 posts)
16. Wow! Look at Chapter 9, Sec. 10.b.2. ("Compensatory damages")
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:19 PM
Mar 2015

This essentially says that you can sue the government for money if it "violates this chapter".

They don't want you to be able to sue a doctor for malpractice when he accidentally rips your colon out while drunk during an exam. But, be forced to make a cake for teh gheys - sue away!!

TlalocW

(15,391 posts)
4. We've been called on our bullshit!
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:33 AM
Mar 2015

We let our hatred of gays blind us to what we really worship - money - and we're in danger of losing it so now we have to do this dance to try and fool people!

TlalocW

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
5. The law does not say "You are free to discriminate against LGBT people" in those exact words
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:35 AM
Mar 2015

It uses other words to say the same thing. That's what these two bigots mean when they claim the law "does not directly discriminate against anyone." They are, of course, liars. The only reason this law was passed was to discriminate against LGBT people after their asinine anti-marriage-equality measure went down in flames. There was ZERO reason to pass this law now other than to stick a thumb in the eye of LGBT people ahead of this summer's court rulings. That's why they passed it, and they damn well know it, and so does everybody else. Claiming it wasn't explicitly designed as an anti-LGBT bill is an outright lie.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
7. Yet,,,
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:48 AM
Mar 2015

tehy all fail to give a simple "yes" "no" answer to the Question " Does this law give legal cover to anyone who discriminates because of religious reasons."?

niyad

(113,552 posts)
8. don't bother attempting to "clarify", you bigoted jerks. we know exactly what the law says,
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:49 AM
Mar 2015

and intends. you are only pissed because you were too stupid to anticipate the reaction. sorry for what few sane people might still be in the state, but the rest of you deserve all that will be the direct result of your hatred.

in addition to contacting gov, etc. make sure you contact state tourism board:

Contact Info & Staff Directory
Indiana Office of Tourism Development

One North Capitol Suite 600
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.232.8860 317.233.3261
Staff Directory

Mark Newman, Executive Director
317.233.3261 mnewman@visitindiana.com

http://www.visitindianatourism.com/contact-us

Roy Rolling

(6,933 posts)
9. "small tribe"
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:55 AM
Mar 2015

Just what is meant by "small tribe of people saying that"? He can't even stop bigotry from infecting his own brain and vocabulary, now he's gonna try to unring the bell?

winstars

(4,220 posts)
21. Thats what I said. WTF is "small tribe of people"?????????????????????????
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 04:54 PM
Mar 2015

SCUMBAGS find it harder and harder not to show how fucking racist they really are!!!!

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
11. The fact that he has to erect a transparent strawman
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:01 PM
Mar 2015

tells you all you need to know.

The law "doesn't discriminate" he says. No shit, Sherlock. It ALLOWS people to discriminate. It lets people get away with discriminatory business practices that would previously have been illegal, simply by saying that their religion requires them to be bigots.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
12. I think it was purposely so vaguely written ...
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:06 PM
Mar 2015

.... that way no court can say 'well yes it is' or 'no it isn't' ... its just a moosh bill, basically, designed to let assholes off the hook.

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
14. Do you guys remember a movie that came out in the 1960s called "A Guide for the Married Man"
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:17 PM
Mar 2015

starring Joey Bishop? There was a scene where Bishop was making out in bed with an younger women (not his wife) and his wife came home early and caught them. Bishop and the women acted like nothing happened, where both calmly put on their clothes and Bishop made up the bed all the while telling his wife per se that she didn't see anything. Eventually, the wife got confused and at the end believed him.

That is what the GOP party is doing with their base and trying to do the sane Americans. But it ain't gonna work!

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
17. To go along with this presser -
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

Let's not forget reports of businesses already discriminating...

BTW - WTF - Long said that there was just a "small tribe" of people saying that. A small tribe....????

Look around Long...me thinks your definition of Small, and my definition of small are two different definitions...

Perhaps Long and Pense can go on a journey around their state and clarify to those who are not serving someone because their ovens aren't working???? - When it is obvious this business is open for business....?????

underpants

(182,877 posts)
18. This reminds me of Arizona passing SB 1070 - immigration
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 01:05 PM
Mar 2015

If memory serves, they passed it and then made at least two changes the same day. Representatives, who had already voted on it, founding huge errors and illegalities in the bill. I think they had to pass other changes after Gov. Brewer had signed it.

rurallib

(62,448 posts)
19. translation "We got caught. Now we need more bullshit to cover it over
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 01:15 PM
Mar 2015

but we we still got to please the religious crazies."

lark

(23,155 posts)
20. Note the weasle word.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 04:47 PM
Mar 2015

"both lawmakers said repeatedly the legislation does not directly discriminate against anyone."

Yeah, a non-obvious gay person alone, is welcome to eat anywhere. It's only when they are with a same sex partner, or when they "look funny" that they receive legislateively approved discrimination.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Indiana's Top Lawmakers L...