Regilious Freedom Act

setshot · March 30, 2015, 07:10:33 PM

Will the asinine "Spence" bill hurt Valpo's recruiting efforts? Will there be a campus protest march? Let me know as I would like to join the enlighten few from ole VU.

LaPorteAveApostle · March 30, 2015, 07:24:34 PM

Judging by your grammar and spelling, you sure are one of the "enlighten". Tell me more about your tolerance for these "regilious" types.

LaPorteAveApostle · March 30, 2015, 07:25:07 PM

I'd say given the makeup of our team, it can only help keep people like Bryce and the good kids he recruits here.

usc4valpo · March 30, 2015, 08:03:57 PM

On a national level, Pence is looking very Bachmann-esque, and that is not good.

VULB#62 · March 30, 2015, 09:30:43 PM

Besides assaulting my senses and my understanding of freedom of religion, speech and equal protection under the law taught to me by Dr. Willis Boyd at good old VU, the law is so poorly written that it affirms my stereotypic categorization of the stupidity of politicians and lawyers.

So I walk into Bubba's (__insert a religion of choice here__) House of Wings with a guy I have been best friends with my whole life. We both have families and grandkids. We haven't seen each other in a decade. We engage in a manly embrace just outside the establishment (guys do this all the time, right) and we walk in with our arms around each other at the hip. Bubba the owner, working the host podium and having seen the aforementioned contact and witnessing us entering his establishment, assumes we are a gay couple and turns us away on the grounds that his "religion" views our homosexual activity as sin.

Bubba, without any proof or evidence other than his perceptions clouded by whatever, has become the sole determiner as to my sexual preferences. And that arbitrary and baseless decision is protected by the State of Indiana in denying me services to which I, by law, am entitled. On the other hand, because he has chosen to be in a business that serves the "public," he is prohibited, by law, from denying services to anyone who is not the same color, religion, gender, age, race, ethnic background, citizenship, height, weight, or has disabilities or does not conform to the same economic strata -- regardless of what his "religion" considers sinful. Oh, and by the way, it's possible that Bubba is the pastor of the Church of What's Happing Now and he and his family are the only ones in the congregation.

I can't wait for the first challenge. The US Supreme Court will have a field day. The title of the bill is a blatant euphemism for the legalization of discrimination against the LGBT community. It has no place in this country.

valpopal · March 30, 2015, 09:42:14 PM

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

vu72 · March 30, 2015, 09:51:50 PM

President Heckler's statement:

http://www.valpo.edu/news/2015/03/30/president-heckler-issues-statement-on-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

vu84v2 · March 30, 2015, 10:57:31 PM

LPAP - I have no idea what that statement was supposed to mean.

I cannot speak highly enough of the statement by President Heckler. Indiana's law and Governor Pence's subsequent comments are disgraceful.

78crusader · March 31, 2015, 05:16:16 AM

As a lawyer, I thought I might try something really unusual and actually read the law and compare it to its federal counterpart, rather than rely on subjective reports from the media.

The federal law: "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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."

Here's the language of the Indiana law: "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."

Um. Nearly identical. The federal statute was passed in 1993 and was signed into law by President Clinton. 19 other states have passed identical laws, and President Obama supported just such a law when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Paul

wh · March 31, 2015, 05:58:35 AM

These 19 States Have Religious Freedom Laws Similar to Indiana's

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/31/these-19-states-have-religious-freedom-laws-similar-to-indianas-heres-what-that-means/

This is nothing new. Anyone who knows anything about the background understands the reason for it. It stems from incidents in other states where in 1 case a professional photographer was forced by the state to take pictures at a gay wedding after he objected on the basis of his religion teaching that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. A baker was fined and run out of business because she refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding on the same grounds.

It's no different than a kosher Deli refusing to serve pork on religious grounds. Or, a gay baker refusing to bake a cake for an anti-gay rally, or a veteran refusing to bake a cake for a party at the Westboro Baptist Church. This is just another dose of in your face hatred being spewed by perpetually offended, venomous activists from the homosexual community, who are out to destroy anyone who doesn't fully embrace that lifestyle (showing tolerance is never enough, of course).

I also love the feigned anger by sleazy politicians like Rob Emanuel, who invited IN business to come to Chicago, knowing full well that IL has the same law already in place (signed on to by then Sen.Barack Obama), or the soulless Gov. of Connecticut who suspended business travel to IN, despite also having the same law on the books there.

vu84v2 · March 31, 2015, 06:51:42 AM

The Federal Law, passed during the early years of the Clinton administration, was passed in response to Native Americans being discriminated against for smoking peyote in ceremonies. While the wording may be similar, the Indiana law was passed in response to courts overturning gay marriage bans and to politically please anti-gay marriage people who somehow feel that their religious freedom is being violated. As the New York Times said, this law is like building a moat (with or without ill-tempered sea bass) around yourself because you don't get what you want.

usc4valpo · March 31, 2015, 07:09:24 AM

Is it worth all the pain and controversy for the state of Indiana to pass this law?

vu84v2 · March 31, 2015, 07:16:59 AM

Here are quotes from the article posted by wh. The gentleman is from the Heritage Foundation and, while the language of the law may be similar to the Federal Law, you can clearly see the intent is different.

He argues that the law provides those with strong religious beliefs a shield from being discriminated against for dissenting against popular opinions about marriage or other faith-based matters.

"This debate has nothing to do with refusing to serve gays simply because they're gay, and this law wouldn't protect that," he told The Daily Signal.

The religious liberty concern centers on the reasonable belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The question is whether the government should discriminate against these citizens, should the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith? A Religious Freedom Restoration Act could protect these citizens. But it might not.

Some questions:
-Can people who have strong religious beliefs be in favor of gay marriage?
-Where is the line where dissenting against popular opinions about gay marriage or other faith based issues is OK? Can a business choose to not provide service for a gay couple celebrating a wedding anniversary? How about the baptism of their child? Can a teacher refuse to meet with both parents of a child if the parents are a gay couple?
-What does the "refusing to serve gay people simply because they are gay" mean? Does it mean that if they behave in some socially acceptable way for a couple, the business owner or other person can choose not to provide service.
-"Reasonable belief that marriage is a union of man and woman". Who makes the decision of reasonable belief? Some churches believe in gay marriage and some don't, while marriage from a legal standpoint does not have a religious aspect.

And a few last questions, for those of you not in favor of gay marriage do you really feel that it infringes on your religious freedom? What can't you do because of gay marriage? And perhaps most importantly, do you know any people that are gay, are they your friends, and how would you respond to them if they wanted to get married?

IndyValpo · March 31, 2015, 07:37:00 AM

Quote from: usc4valpo on March 30, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
On a national level, Pence is looking very Bachmann-esque, and that is not good.

Actually Pence makes Bachmann look like a genius.

IndyValpo · March 31, 2015, 07:41:16 AM

Quote from: usc4valpo on March 31, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
Is it worth all the pain and controversy for the state of Indiana to pass this law?

No, unfortunately our esteemed Governor is a moron and had no idea there would be a backlash. Sadly he isn't too bright and is surrounded by advisers who may be worse.

The amount of damage this has caused in a week is unbelievable.

IndyValpo · March 31, 2015, 07:45:14 AM

Quote from: 78crusader on March 31, 2015, 05:16:16 AM
As a lawyer, I thought I might try something really unusual and actually read the law and compare it to its federal counterpart, rather than rely on subjective reports from the media.

The federal law: "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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."

Here's the language of the Indiana law: "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."

Um. Nearly identical. The federal statute was passed in 1993 and was signed into law by President Clinton. 19 other states have passed identical laws, and President Obama supported just such a law when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Paul

Ah, the Obama defense, when Republicans start to use Obama as reasoning support for their cause you know how bad it is.

I think you will find that the difference between Indiana and all others relates to protected classes, who is and who isn't.

This could have been avoided with some simple wording in the bill but was not.

vu84v2 · March 31, 2015, 08:37:13 AM

And it should be noted that simple wording that the law did not allow discrimination against gays was proposed as an amendment during debate in the Indiana legislature. The amendment was denied and Pence never called for it. It wasn't an oversight...it was a conscious decison not to include that wording.

78crusader · March 31, 2015, 08:41:45 AM

This is not meant to be a smart alecky question, Indy Valpo, but if the difference is who is included in the protected classes covered by these laws, perhaps you could cite the statutory language which forms the basis for your statement.

Paul

IndyValpo · March 31, 2015, 09:10:32 AM

My knowledge of statutory language has to do with insurance accounting so I can't really do that.

There is no language in these laws. As it was explained to me (not claiming to be anywhere near an expert) the underlying protections are not in Indiana law.

IndyValpo · March 31, 2015, 11:53:36 AM

Per today's press conference....if the governor had any foresight none of this would have happen......

Embattled Indiana Gov. Mike Pence attempted again Tuesday morning to "clarify" the state's controversial new "religious freedom" law.

Pence said it has been a tough week and said "we've got a perception problem" that needs to be fixed.

Pence said he concluded that it is necessary to move legislation to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. He said he wanted legislation on his desk by the end of the week to accomplish that.

usc4valpo · March 31, 2015, 01:57:34 PM

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/college-football/story/_/id/12593229/usc-trojans-ad-pat-haden-boycott-college-football-playoff-meetings-indianapolis-religious-freedom-law

VULB#62 · March 31, 2015, 06:10:29 PM

Quote from: IndyValpo on March 31, 2015, 11:53:36 AM

Per today's press conference....if the governor had any foresight none of this would have happen......

Embattled Indiana Gov. Mike Pence attempted again Tuesday morning to "clarify" the state's controversial new "religious freedom" law.

Pence said it has been a tough week and said "we've got a perception problem" that needs to be fixed.

Pence said he concluded that it is necessary to move legislation to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. He said he wanted legislation on his desk by the end of the week to accomplish that..

Thanks Indy. I'm sure there were some well-meaning people involved in the initial development of this legislation. But, it goes back to what I said earlier. No one, in their zeal, looked at this carefully. It was very poorly written. And Pence's advisors must be a bunch of "Yes-people" with no one covering his (or our for that matter) six. A really pathetic example of poor legislation, leadership, myopic judgment and defending the indefensible - IMO. BTW - Arkansas just passed their version -- hope they learned from this mistake. But it's Arkansas, and maybe they didn't

a3uge · March 31, 2015, 10:34:18 PM

Can't believe gays are going to be banned from Indiana.

bbtds · March 31, 2015, 11:01:39 PM

Quote from: wh on March 31, 2015, 05:58:35 AMI also love the feigned anger by sleazy politicians like Rob Emanuel, who invited IN business to come to Chicago, knowing full well that IL has the same law already in place (signed on to by then Sen.Barack Obama), or the soulless Gov. of Connecticut who suspended business travel to IN, despite also having the same law on the books there.

The difference between Illinois and Indiana laws here is that Illinois also has a law protecting certain classes (gays, blacks etc.) against discrimination along with a law that protects religious groups against an infringement of their right to practice their religious beliefs. Indiana has no such law against discriminating against certain classes. The Indiana legislature had a proposed amendment to the RFRA law that would have protected those classes and Indiana unfortunately thought that was not needed. They voted against it. This huge blunder by the legislature and Gov. Pence, who didn't see the backlash coming, will cost Indiana multiple millions of dollars in lost business opportunities and loss of many other potential business opportunities. Gov. Pence has undone so much of the goodwill that Gov. Daniels built up in the business community. Even if the legislature goes back and rewrites the wording of the RFRA it will not do enough to repair the damage that was done. Rahm (not Rob, boy, you got so mad when they couldn't get Darien's name correct) Emanuel maybe sleazy in inviting the Indiana businesses to Illinois but his state will gain millions of dollars in business from Indiana due to Gov. Pence and the Indiana legislature's ineptitude in judging how the way the law was written would be interpreted by the rest of the country.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/03/31/column-work-clarify-indiana-law/70738526/

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/31/fallout-rfra-concerning/70744904/

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/gov-mike-pence-hold-news-conference-clarify-religious-freedom-law/70712968/

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-democrats-repeat-call-rfra-repeal/70723770/

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/former-vp-quayle-hurt-national-criticism-indiana/70741842/

bbtds · April 01, 2015, 02:34:36 AM

Quote from: a3uge on March 31, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
Can't believe gays are going to be banned from Indiana.

Notgay, Indiana. I'm not sure exactly where that city is but it's no where near the federal prison in Terre Haute.