Here are the proposed changes to Indiana's recently passed "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA): Quite an about-face from the originally passed law. I think this strikes a good balance, protecting members of the public from discrimination in their business dealings, while reiterating the protections that churches and religious organizations already enjoy. Thoughts? I'd prefer that discussion remain focused on the proposed changes above, please. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html (Yes, I know how much some here hate the Huffington Post, but it was the only place I could find that has the actual proposed language of the bill modifying the new RFRA.)
Of course it does, it negates the hysterical narrative by the left entirely. It does what all RFRA's are designed to do and that is to protect religious freedoms from an overzealous government. "This seems to mitigate many of the risks posed by RFRA, making clear that the law is not meant to provide exemptions from antidiscrimination law," said Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "This is important language." Text of the Conference Committee Report Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service; (2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service; (3)negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Sec 7.5. As used in this chapter, "provider" means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include: (1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)). (2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society.
Right, it reflects the intent of the Federal law except it is now the only one in the union that protects all from discrimination specifically.
No, it merely states that the statute itself doesnt authorize discrimination and provides no protections.
I don't know. Too legal or my puny brain, don't understand it. I'd say if the religious people find 2 guys swapping spit distasteful, why push it on em. A while back I wanted to get a book made of some of my photos. Two small print companies refused it. Said it was offensive to them. They were Mennonites and Amish. I didn't get bent out of shape. Should I have sued them? Even if I sued and won would they do a crappy job by being forced into it?I had about 6 transvestites and 3 nudes of women in the book. The rest of the 35 pix were non nude. If they find it distasteful and offensive to their religion, fine with me. I wont' push it on em. If queers go into a religious establishment for service they would not like it if the proprietor lectured them on how the bible tells believers to kill the queers and how wrong they are and will burn in hell. I'd tell the queers to go to queer friendly businesses for service. I'd tell the holy rollers to not lecture the queers, just refuse to go against your religious beliefs....or is that illegal now? To show you how screwy things are with queers... I was listening to Fresh Air a few days ago on the radio. They interviewed a queer. He said queers that refuse to have anal sex are labelled as homophobic! Wow, I never knew a queer can be a homophobic queer? (BTW...I am an atheist. I'm just saying.)
` 1) For those so inclined, here is the actual text of the amended RFRA., which Pence just signed. 2) Here is an explanation of the amended law.
Not in Indiana. It is illegal in several states and individual cities. Heres an Oregon Baker, fined $1000 and possibly $150,000 in damages for refusing to do a gay wedding cake, even though they simply went to another baker to get their cake. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/sweet_cakes_discrimination_hea_1.html
Thats why I suspect many on the gays and their supporters wont be satisfied with this revision. They generally insist upon special treatment based upon their sexual orientation and sexual identity. But then again, the revision convinced Perriquine that "Quite an about-face" has occured. This Pizza place could open back up under this law, the one without the revision and the one in existance before this new statute was even introduced, and refuse any service to gays, and they wouldnt have violated any law. Gays and their supporters believe they are entitled to special protections wherever they go. A homosexual entitlement mentality that convinces them that the world owes the homosexuals. Even in Indiana where they have no such laws.
