Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill

[gwb-trading]

"In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences,"

Differences are differences. That's what you asked for.

Those supporting a religious angle will say those differences will not amount to anything.
If you look around, legal experts are saying it does.

Keep in mind that the Washington Post's summary stated that Pence's assertion that Indiana's law is effectively the same as the law backed by Barack Obama is fundamentally correct. "Pence claimed the Indiana law was “same version” and the “very same language” as the Illinois version and, on a broad level, one can make a case that the two laws are roughly similar." It only awarded a single Pinocciho because Pence had "repeatedly ducked questions about whether the law will permit discrimination against gays and lesbians."

This also comes down to parsing grammar and where the commas are placed.

 

[Wallet]

Not just from the State any more but from anyone and any entity, so far without balancing redress

Anyone can sue a business for discrimination, that doesn't mean they will win. Indiana's law doesn't stop an individual from suing if they feel discriminated against. It stops the State and Local governments from passing laws infringing upon religious beliefs and or bringing suit and if sued the defendants will have the protection of their religious beliefs .... which will have to proven in the court.

The 1993 Federal act doesn't balance redress, I don't know why you keep throwing that in, this isn't about the plaintiff other than barring them from being the Government under most circumstances.

Educate yourself, the MSM's talking points are wrong.

 

[stu]

Keep in mind that the Washington Post's summary stated that Pence's assertion that Indiana's law is effectively the same as the law backed by Barack Obama is fundamentally correct. "Pence claimed the Indiana law was “same version” and the “very same language” as the Illinois version and, on a broad level, one can make a case that the two laws are roughly similar." It only awarded a single Pinocciho because Pence had "repeatedly ducked questions about whether the law will permit discrimination against gays and lesbians."

This also comes down to parsing grammar and where the commas are placed.

We were talking about Federal Law and Indiana law. Wallet's link which I've just replied to, shows in the quote I gave irrespective of parsing, that those two are fundamentally different and it's pretty clear how and why.

 

[stu]

Anyone can sue a business for discrimination, that doesn't mean they will win. Indiana's law doesn't stop an individual from suing if they feel discriminated against. It stops the State and Local governments from passing laws infringing upon religious beliefs and or bringing suit and if sued the defendants will have the protection of their religious beliefs .... which will have to proven in the court.

The 1993 Federal act doesn't balance redress, I don't know why you keep throwing that in, this isn't about the plaintiff other than barring them from being the Government under most circumstances.

Educate yourself, the MSM's talking points are wrong.

...especially if a law is introduced which allows the existence of itself to be defence against a suit for discrimination . The bill includes no explicit language ensuring that those with strong religious views are not exempt from anti-discrimination law. It has to specifically provide that the bill itself cannot eliminate a defense or counter action of discrimination, whether such discrimination was being considered as a religious right or whatever.

Even GW Bush didn't approve of law like this one so you can find reason to stop being the smart ass.

 

[gwb-trading]

We were talking about Federal Law and Indiana law. Wallet's link which I've just replied to, shows in the quote I gave irrespective of parsing, that those two are fundamentally different and it's pretty clear how and why.

I have been referring to Indiana's law vs. the same law in other states in my posts.

Let's go back to the first sentence of my first post on this thread which responded to you - "Please provide the text of Section 7 of the bill and show how the provisions are not found in the laws in other states."

 

[dbphoenix]

We were talking about Federal Law and Indiana law. Wallet's link which I've just replied to, shows in the quote I gave irrespective of parsing, that those two are fundamentally different and it's pretty clear how and why.

You have to remember who your audience is. I'm afraid you'll just have to spell it out.

 

[gwb-trading]

MSNBC Ed Schultz Can’t Win Debate With Conservative Guest, So He Cuts His Mic Off
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/e...servative-guest-so-he-cuts-his-mic-off-video/

 

[stu]

I have been referring to Indiana's law vs. the same law in other states in my posts.

Fair enough. That's where you were mistaken then.

 

[gwb-trading]

Fair enough. That's where you were mistaken then.

I will agree that Indiana's law is different than federal law. It is however similar to other state laws. Which gets back to the question - why are critics not calling for boycotts in 19 other states?

 

[dbphoenix]

You have to remember who your audience is. I'm afraid you'll just have to spell it out.

If you don't want to bother, even gwb and wallet ought to be able to understand this: Indiana Religious Freedom