World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

Despite the conservative angle of the current Supreme Court, I suspect when this law is challenged all the way there it will be shot down, or at least gutted. As worded it is far too broad and gives far too much latitude for discrimination with nothing but a simple assertion of faith. The over-broad nature of the law pretty much guarantees it will not survive legal challenges as worded.

[pepharytheworm]

Gov. Pence interview. Geez, if I ever had any doubt for what this bill was really for I don't anymore.

[aaron]

Gov. Pence interview. Geez, if I ever had any doubt for what this bill was really for I don't anymore.

i like this one better:

[Jmustang1968]

Gov. Pence interview. Geez, if I ever had any doubt for what this bill was really for I don't anymore.

i like this one better:

That was pretty horrible.

[aaron]

i like this one better:

That was pretty horrible.

k.

[pepharytheworm]

Gov. Pence interview. Geez, if I ever had any doubt for what this bill was really for I don't anymore.

I actually linked the wrong video Fixed now.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Here's a question, not trying to be an ass here:

If the RFRA in Indiana had its wording changed to be the same as that of the one on the federal level, would this be a problem? From what I understand, the main issue with Indiana's compared to the federal one, and the ones used by other states, is it allows individuals to bring cases against other individuals and the government, rather than just the government. I'm just curious because I've found positive stories that have come out of RFRA's, only one of which applied to Christianity. The others involved multiple forms of Native American religion, Santeria, multiple denominations (sects? I'm not sure what word they use for that) of Islam, and one case related to Voudon.

EDIT: I'm trying to get clarification on the bolded part here after reading a couple of other articles. As I'm understanding it now, the difference is that the government can be invoked in cases where the government is not a party. (This might be a case where its legal speak I don't understand and they are referring to the same thing, or that I'm just flat out not getting where the difference is.)

[Blu]

I think that's a great question!

If it was the same wording, and the LGBT community was a protected community under the definition of the law, I don't think we'd have an issue at all. That seems to be the root of the issue, per George Stephanopoulos' video. And it offers no protections for civil rights or against discrimination.

This Atlantic Article sums it up pretty good though:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nt/388997/

Sounds like this went through the General Assembly with no real checks, Governor signed it, and this shit hit the fan. He makes mention of Hobby Lobby as a rationale to say the state of Indiana was right to make this change, so it seems as if it is religiously fueled. And he tiptoed right around all of George's Questions and didn't give a straight answer, so what's that all about?

Basically, if you're a person from the LGBT community, better not venture into a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby.

[dsheinem]

The IndyStar has a nice editorial on this today which, I think, proposes a solution that would make pretty much everyone happy:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2 ... /70698802/

We are at a critical moment in Indiana's history.

And much is at stake.

Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract talented workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers.

All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future.

The consequences will only get worse if our state leaders delay in fixing the deep mess created.

Half steps will not be enough. Half steps will not undo the damage.

Only bold action — action that sends an unmistakable message to the world that our state will not tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens — will be enough to reverse the damage.

Gov. Mike Pence and the General Assembly need to enact a state law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Those protections and RFRA can co-exist. They do elsewhere.

Laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity are not foreign to Indiana.

Indianapolis, for example, has had those legal protections in place for nearly a decade. Indy's law applies to businesses with more than six employees, and exempts religious organizations and non-profit groups.

The city's human rights ordinance provides strong legal protection — and peace of mind —for LGBT citizens; yet, it has not placed an undue burden on businesses.

Importantly, passage of a state human rights law would send a clear message that Indiana will not tolerate discrimination. It's crucial for that message to be communicated widely.

On a practical level, by basing the state law on a 10-year-old ordinance, the General Assembly could move quickly to adopt the measure without fear of unintended consequences. If lawmakers can't act in the next month, the governor should call a special session immediately after the regular session ends in April to take up human rights legislation.

Why not simply repeal RFRA? First, it appears to be politically unacceptable for the governor and many Republican lawmakers.

Second, there are Hoosiers who support RFRA out of a genuine desire to protect religious freedom. To safeguard that essential freedom, 19 states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws, largely without controversy. But states like Illinois not only protect religious freedom through RFRA but also provide gay and lesbian residents with protected legal status.

Third, repeal might get rid of the heat but it would not do what is most important – to move the state forward.

We urge Gov. Pence and lawmakers to stop clinging to arguments about whether RFRA really does what critics fear; to stop clinging to ideology or personal preferences; to focus instead on fixing this.

Governor, Indiana is in a state of crisis. It is worse than you seem to understand.

You must act with courage and wisdom. You must lead us forward now. You must ensure that all Hoosiers have strong protections against discrimination.

The laws can co-exist. And so can we.

[Sarge]

Conforming it to other RFRAs seems perfectly reasonable. I agree that both protections based on sexuality and protection of religious freedom can co-exist, and should co-exist.