Indiana: The Us State That Has Just Signed A New Law Allowing People To Openly Discriminate Against Gay People

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/indiana-the-us-state-that-has-just-signed-a-new-law-allowing-people-to-openly-discriminate-against-gay-people-10142209.html

The state of Indiana has just passed a law that is billed as protecting religious freedoms, but which has been seen as a way for businesses and associations to openly discriminate against the LGBT community.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Republican led-state legislature and signed into law on Thursday, blocks local and state laws designed to protect gay people that “substantially burden” a person’s ability to follow his or her religious beliefs. It was signed by the Indiana’s Republican governor Mike Pence.

The definition of a “person” includes religious institutions, businesses and associations. Opponents say it is discriminatory against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and is broader than other states' religious freedom laws.

Could you use this law to discriminate against religious uptight nutjobs? Sorry your kind aren't welcome here, it ruins the fun and the karma?

[Bloo Loo]

The headline comes from the gay movement.

The Act simply stops the state forcing people to provide a service that burdens their religious beliefs.

So it actually applies to everyone...the gays simply feel they will suffer and like their ultra feminist allies, start up with the grievance of their rights, assuming their rights take precedence over everyone elses..

taking out the compulsion from either side actually evens things up.

[XswampyX]

But it puts religion above the law....

[Bloo Loo]

But it puts religion above the law....

their constitution prevents any laws concerning how a person beleives.

Thus, if a person beleives having a meat eater under their roof is a serious sin, then that person has a right to not provide any services to the meat eater, and with the new legislation, the state keeps out of the issue...whereas before, the state would have to waste a ton of time prosecuting the person because the other party was aggrieved.

It made the idea of beleifs a one sided affair.

The constitution saw that beleif was a difficult one to legislate for, so keeping out was best. I think it makes sense.

[Byron]

Although I support the idea of fair treatment of gays.

I must also support the fair treatment of people with odd religious beliefs.

I think that it best that the state keeps out of it and Indiana has probably learned this the hard way.

[whitevanman]

I don't see why it should only apply to religious beliefs. People should have freedom of association and indeed non-association.

Leftists like to think that only applies to them.

[XswampyX]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

martin niemoller

[Executive Sadman]

But it puts religion above the law....

How so?

Isnt freedom of association a basic constitutionally protected right...I don't see why they would need such a law in the first place, the constitution guarantee's such freedoms.

[Executive Sadman]

I don't see why it should only apply to religious beliefs. People should have freedom of association and indeed non-association.

Leftists like to think that only applies to them.

+1.

I dont want the separation of church and state as such, I want the separation of everything and state!

Leftists just want control. Remember it was the Democratic party in the US that went from supporting governmentally forced segregation in the 40s to governmentally forced integration by the 60s...with many of the same people toeing the party line.

Its abundantly clear they couldnt give a toss about segregation or integration...they just want to force people to do things they might not want to do.

[The Masked Tulip]

Indiana is a northern state but, in the early half of the 20th Century, it basically became the centre of the KKK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan

So, as you can see, it has a history of tolerance and brotherly love.

[wherebee]

So how would this work if someone followed a church that discriminated on grounds of colour? Would it enable racism, or not?

[Executive Sadman]

Although I support the idea of fair treatment of gays.

I must also support the fair treatment of people with odd religious beliefs.

I think that it best that the state keeps out of it and Indiana has probably learned this the hard way.

The police and government intervention on moral issues is obsolete anyway. Social media allows for the easy organization of boycotts and so forth of anti-gay organizations to ensure they are never more than a fringe group. Sure, some will put silly beliefs above money, like those bakers in Ulster, but most would prefer the money.

[Executive Sadman]

So how would this work if someone followed a church that discriminated on grounds of colour? Would it enable racism, or not?

Sure.

[XswampyX]

It will allow anybody and everybody to do pretty much any hateful thing they want to, and then hide behind religion to get away with it. Like we had 1500 years ago.

A great step forward. I think not.

[Executive Sadman]

It will allow anybody and everybody to do pretty much any hateful thing they want to, and then hide behind religion to get away with it. Like we had 1500 years ago.

A great step forward. I think not.

Rubbish. It wont allow anyone to do anything of the sort. Murder is still murder, theft is still theft, assault is still assault.

All it does is ensure all interaction is voluntary, and government can have no coercive influence or force people to pretend they like each other.

[Byron]

First they came for the Socialists.

I was not a socialist but I spoke out anyway.

They smashed my windows.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists.

I was not a Trade Unionist, but I spoke out anyway.

They kicked my teeth in.

Then they came for the Gays, I was not a Gay but I spoke out anyway.

I was in hospital for 6 weeks.

Then they came for me.

Those that were left said.

'We told you so, serve you right.

[MarkG]

Social media allows for the easy organization of boycotts and so forth of anti-gay organizations to ensure they are never more than a fringe group.

But many companies are wising up, and no longer take left-wing boycotts seriously, because past widely-advertised boycotts have shown that the lefties 'boycotting' them are rarely actually their customers. Hence the demand for laws to force their views on everyone instead.

They just can't stand the idea of anyone having the freedom to do anything other than what they're told.

BTW, I don't know whether it's true, but I've read that this law just brings the state in line with about two thirds of US states which already have such laws. Because free association and that.

[Qetesuesi]

The police and government intervention on moral issues is obsolete anyway. Social media allows for the easy organization of boycotts and so forth of anti-gay organizations to ensure they are never more than a fringe group. Sure, some will put silly beliefs above money, like those bakers in Ulster, but most would prefer the money.

How would you like the state to force you to put a "Support HPI" poster in your window on pain of losing your house?

[StainlessSteelCat]

But many companies are wising up, and no longer take left-wing boycotts seriously, because past widely-advertised boycotts have shown that the lefties 'boycotting' them are rarely actually their customers. Hence the demand for laws to force their views on everyone instead.

They just can't stand the idea of anyone having the freedom to do anything other than what they're told.

BTW, I don't know whether it's true, but I've read that this law just brings the state in line with about two thirds of US states which already have such laws. Because free association and that.

Interesting. Do you have any pointers to evidence for this? And does it equally apply to right-wing boycotts - i.e. boycotts don't work full shop?

[Executive Sadman]

How would you like the state to force you to put a "Support HPI" poster in your window on pain of losing your house?

I'm not sure what your point is, or how its relevant in any way.

The law is about prohibiting government from forcing people to do things, not forcing people to do things.

[Executive Sadman]

But many companies are wising up, and no longer take left-wing boycotts seriously, because past widely-advertised boycotts have shown that the lefties 'boycotting' them are rarely actually their customers. Hence the demand for laws to force their views on everyone instead.

They just can't stand the idea of anyone having the freedom to do anything other than what they're told.

BTW, I don't know whether it's true, but I've read that this law just brings the state in line with about two thirds of US states which already have such laws. Because free association and that.

Probably, and I doubt it has any correlation whatsoever with would-be hate 'crimes' in those states with and those states without.

Japan (to their credit) have no civil rights laws protecting homosexuality, yet there is no anti-homosexual apocalypse going on there...probably because there is not much in the way of superstitious religious ******** in Japan. Ultimately intolerance comes from religion, of which I would consider statism/socialism to be a form of.

Civil rights laws simply put group rights above individual rights (human rights). Any civil society which follows the rule of law shouldnt even entertain foisting civil rights upon the populace.

[MarkG]

Interesting. Do you have any pointers to evidence for this? And does it equally apply to right-wing boycotts - i.e. boycotts don't work full shop?

After several companies that caved to left-wing Twitterati 'boycotts' saw many of their customers leave as a result, most widely-publicised recent 'boycott' campaigns seem to have been dismal failures. Just getting a few thousand Twits to post 'You suck' no longer seems to be causing an immediate knee-jerk reaction.

[dinker]

This is how things would proceed in a Libertarian society:

http://takimag.com/article/a_civilization_steeped_in_dishonesty_john_derbyshire#axzz3VkrJ4QpV

[Hail the Tripod]

http://abc7chicago.com/news/church-of-cannabis-approved-under-indiana-religious-freedom-law/605042/

Marijuana is currently illegal for medical or recreational use in Indiana, though the church may skirt the law under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which limits the government from intervening with a person's exercise of religion.

Nearly 18,000 people have "liked" the First Church of Cannabis' Facebook page since it went live on March 26th. Levin says he's astounded by the outpouring of support, and is hoping to expand the religion to accommodate the faithful.

"In my mind's eye, I thought I'd get 200-300 people from Indiana," Levin said. "I have to think different now. I didn't realize I was going to have the most popular religion in the country."

While the new religion was founded on Indiana's RFRA, Levin says he plans to move forward with the church regardless of changes to the law.

The church has already received thousands of dollars in donations, and plans to ask members for $4.20 per month in donations.

Levin says he is currently looking for a physical location for a "sanctuary" for the church.

[richc]

their constitution prevents any laws concerning how a person beleives.

Thus, if a person beleives having a meat eater under their roof is a serious sin, then that person has a right to not provide any services to the meat eater, and with the new legislation, the state keeps out of the issue...whereas before, the state would have to waste a ton of time prosecuting the person because the other party was aggrieved.

It made the idea of beleifs a one sided affair.

The constitution saw that beleif was a difficult one to legislate for, so keeping out was best. I think it makes sense.

Yes, makes perfect sense ...

I think, in theory, you do have a point. People should be able to do as they please and interact with whom they choose, but that ignores the historical and social reality that some people are actively discriminated against which creates great societal harm. It would be nice if that were not true, but that's not the case.