It's the latest chapter in the ongoing narrative of division in this country. Indiana hasn't done anything that several other states including the federal government have done in the past , but it makes good fodder for the media. When this has run its course we will be back to guns or another racial disturbance, something new to stir the pot and keep everyone's focus off real problems.
Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
You're wrong as DBP and Ricter point out. It's different to other laws in its construct by allowing for discrimination against others. All they need do is word it better so that there cannot be room for that. Other states have.
Please point out the discrepancy in the language, I've read both Indiana's and the 1993 Federal act, they seem to convey the same imo.
No one is suggesting that businesses discriminate, it only protects individuals from undue burdens from the State in regards to religious beliefs. Its a false narrative bring touted in the MSM.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM STU?
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) In General.--Government shall not substantially burden a
person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception.--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.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Amendment
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.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308/text
https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf
1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) In General.--Government shall not substantially burden a
person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception.--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.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Amendment
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.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308/text
https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/9/2/b/a/92bab197/SB0101.05.ENRS.pdf
Last edited:
The homo nazis and the racial grievance lobby appear to have divided up the calendar. One gets to bitch and whine one month, then it's the other's turn.
The Indiana Law is not the same as RFRA 1993 or pretty much any other state's law.
Indiana Law is based on RFRA 1993 but has additional provisions which allow free exercise of religion rights to any corporation, business or groups, irrespective of their religious beliefs . RFRA does not do that. The discrepancy in language is made abundantly clear in Sec 7 of the bill.
Indiana is opening the door wide open to any kind of broad ranged discrimination against race, sexual orientation etc., on religious grounds, whether or not any individual claiming their religious rights is even religious. So it's badly thought out law anyway.
At the same time it provides no counter against those being discriminated against by any so called - undue religious burden -
...or bigotry to give it its real description.
Last edited:
Please provide the text of Section 7 of the bill and show how the provisions are not found in the laws in other states.
All the comparisons I have seen online regarding the text of the Indiana bill makes it clear that it is nearly a photo-copy of bills enacted in other states.
IMO - this entire thing is a tempest in a teacup.... a media created uproar over a law that is actually very much aligned with laws in 19 other states.
Let me also say that turning away business due to the orientation of the customer is simply stupid business practice. Businesses that discriminate in this manner deserve the inevitable consequences of their failure.
Bullshit answer. All section seven does is define the word "person". The Context of the law is defined in section Eight.
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.
The context of the law defined in section 8 is virtually identical. Yes it applies to individuals, the businesses they own, Corporations they may hold stock in and the Churches they attend. Not to exclude the Corp and Church themselves.
For your other concerns they are not addressed in the 1993 Federal Act.
The rights of a person who feels they have been discriminated against haven't diminished, they have avenues to seek on an individual basis. This keeps Governments out of the process and protects religious rights.
Try again.