[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Indiana religion law is Jim Crow of our time
Source: Cincinnati.com
URL Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opi ... on-law-jim-crow-time/70617014/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Ryan Messer
Post Date: 2015-03-29 04:44:12 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 28870
Comments: 127

The arguments for Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguments are strikingly similar to the arguments for racial discrimination some 50 years ago. Then, the nation debated whether it was right and just for someone to be barred from service at a lunch counter because of the color of his or her skin. Astonishingly, here we are again, having to combat arguments that it should be legal to bar someone from the same lunch counter based on the gender of the person they love.

Let’s tell it like it is: The so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Jim Crow legislation of our time. Today, African-Americans are protected from discrimination of this kind – and that’s exactly how it should be in the Land of the Free. Alas, LGBT people enjoy no such protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but at least always had trusted their home state legislatures and governors not to turn on them.

I take this personally because, as of Thursday, my family and I are not protected from discrimination when we visit family and friends in the state of my birth. This is real and wrong and grieves me deeply.

The passage of this discriminatory legislation brings back painful memories in Cincinnati of a charter amendment, commonly known as Article XII, that prohibited City Council from passing any ordinance that would have granted LGBT people equal protection under the law. It was a sorry moment in our city’s history – one in which an entire class of people was singled out for non-protection.

The city’s image was damaged throughout the country, and the economic impact was significant, with conventions being canceled and prestigious companies choosing not to do business in our city. I was a resident of Cincinnati at the time, and the passage of the charter amendment created a cloud over the city that ultimately contributed to my decision to leave. I wasn’t alone. Many people I knew moved to cities that they viewed as more welcoming: Chicago, Atlanta, San Diego. I moved to New York.

Fortunately, the citizens of Cincinnati rediscovered their essential instinct for justice and repealed Article XII, and I moved back as soon as I could. Cincinnati now is seen as one of those welcoming cities – one dramatically different from what it was. Did we fall into the dream that the rest of American had taken that journey with us? If so, we’ve had a rude awakening.

Now I have to question where in Indiana my family can go without discrimination. Can we visit the Indianapolis Children’s Museum? Will a hotel turn us away? Would we be allowed to buy a cupcake at a bakery? If you can, put yourself in our shoes for a moment you can see how unsettling and infuriating this situation is.

Maybe the good people of Indiana will come back to their senses as the good people of Cincinnati did some years ago. While they’re pondering what they’ve done, we Cincinnatians should contact the convention organizers who have announced they will pull their meetings out of Indiana and let them know that they are heartily welcome in the Queen City.

We should work with the business leaders who have decided not to expand in Indiana and let them know that they are very welcome to locate in our Ohio and Kentucky counties. And we certainly should let all the talented Hoosiers who happen to be LGBT know that they are welcome to live, work, love and play here.

Indiana may have lost its sense of justice and good sense for a while but the rest of us understand the human and business cases for diversity and inclusion. Let’s cash in on the progress we’ve made in Cincinnati and elevate our status as a city that welcomes diversity of all kinds and declines to discriminate against any of our citizens.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-18) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#19. To: A K A Stone (#15)

So someone from the KKK should be allowed to force a black baker to bake a cake that says "Put The Niggers In Chains"

I don't think you'd have to force him...
as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   11:07:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Willie Green (#19)

I don't think you'd have to force him... as long as the Klansman actually ate the cake, I'm sure there'd be plenty of black bakers who would volunteer to bake it for him.

That is fine if one wanted to back such a cake. But one should never be forced to.

Just like the decent folks who are trying to be forced to bake cakes for Sodomites.

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:10:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   11:10:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Willie Green (#21)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

You're confusing my examples. Or I didn't write clearly enough.

They are different examples.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

That seems like a good policy. Meguro seemed to be a big part of why LP was a cess pool of flame wars, and LP became a forum for insulting people, while LF is a forum for discussing ideas. Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Byelstin (#21)

Some people practice Judaism.

Not if they're in the KKK.

This sounds like a request for the boys in purple robes!

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:21:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nativist nationalist (#23)

LF is a forum for discussing ideas

I like that idea.

But truthfully I insult people sometimes.

Less lately.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   11:22:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: tomder55 (#17)

"misterwhite ,Rand Paul took it on the chin for daring to point out that the Civil Rights laws banned institutional discrimination ....but that laws trampling on freedom of association are unconstitutional ;commerce clause or otherwise."

If the federal government wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to the the federal government.

If any state wants to pass Civil Rights legislation, fine. Those laws would only apply to that particular state government.

But, in my opinion, there is no way any Civil Rights legislation should apply to individuals or private sector corporations. Let the individual (or business) succeed or fail on their decisions.

Rand Paul took it on the chin for for his flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act. In 2010, he said the law gave the federal government too much power in telling business owners what they could and could not do. In May 2012, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for the bill in 1964 if he had the chance.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)

But truthfully I insult people sometimes.

Less lately.

Every once in a while an idea would get discussed on LP, but it was the exception to the rule. There is a huge difference between what LF is and what LP had become. I recall that the guys who would things down over there mentioned that he had some friends check out LP, and that they were appalled by what they saw.

I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks. Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:35:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nativist nationalist (#23)

"Based upon the empirical results the no fag policy creates a more civil atmosphere."

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:36:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nativist nationalist (#27)

"and what LP had become."

There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum.

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   11:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Again, based upon the empirical results. If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value. The ones who turned LP into a cess pool could be identified not by race or religion, but by their deviant lifestyles.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   11:43:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. ---

-- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

True enough, refusing a class of people service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce, but it has a lot to do with having an open to the public restaurant refuse to serve a specific class of people for specious and biased reasons. -- Reasons that violate our constitutional principles.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   12:02:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite (#29)

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

That it was. Goldi was of the Hebrew faith; I think the advice Jethro gave to his son-in-law Moses would have served LP very well. If Meguro were here it would have ended up being banned anyway, so Stone's "no fags" rule or Devil Anse would have led to the same point anyway

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-29   12:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#29)

There was nothing wrong with LP that a good moderator couldn't have fixed. The inmates took over the asylum.

Translation:--- Goldie allowed libertarians to post opinions that countered the majority rule agitprop posted by misterwhite and his sycophants.

Actually, LP was a good example of Libertarianism run amok.

Translation:--- The majority rule group couldn't gain control, and misterwhite is still in a snit about it..

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   12:19:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: tpaine (#31)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. ---

-- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

The tenets of my faith *is" personal, and NOT superseded by a tyrannical gubmint that ignores MY civil rights.

And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist. Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? )

Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith?

So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake?

Nice support of this insanity.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone, Willie Green, tpaine (#11)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

WELL, gentlemen??

These hypocritical crusading "Rights!!" libertarian jihadists may as well be demanding bakers be compelled to scrawl on a cake, "THE BAKER OF THIS CAKE IS A %$#!@ CHRISTIAN HOMOPHOBE AND RACIST! %$#! YOU!!"

As per the the spirit USCON and Bill of Right, right?

Pffft.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post, for the same reasons you support a business owner to not have to cater to a certain type of people.

Meguro is a pickle smooching freak of nature.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-29   12:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#27)

I had a friend who would look at LP on his own, he did not post, and Meguro was the one in his mind that seem to make the place degenerate. I should have him check out LF and see what he thinks.

Without Meguro this is a far more civil atmosphere, Meguro seemed to bring out the worst in people, in addition to its own degeneracy.

A agree with your observations.

Meguro was a homofascist and degenerate troll, period. His "job" was exactly to sabotage LP. Speaking of "sabotage"...

I also used to suggest that friends check out LP...only to be aghast at the infamous "canary-in-the-coalmine" yukon turning it into a giant dung-flinging baboon cage. That is why it never grew, and LP could not be recommended.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:49:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: misterwhite, nativist nationalist (#28)

Yeah. Now we need to ban the blacks, Hispanics, Jews and liberals from posting, and this forum will be great.

Boring as hell, but really great.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or disingenuous....

ALL of the above demos could well be the most conservative poster at any of these forums. Homos, NOT so much.

There is a huge difference between trolls whose prime objective is advancing subversiveness and anarchy and crapping all over the forum in order to discredit it. Intellectually honest discourse from different perspectives.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-29   12:56:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: GrandIsland (#36)

"There is no reason why Stone shouldn't have the same rights to cater to whom he wants to post"

Just offering some helpful suggestions.

Meguro was disruptive because he/she was allowed to be disruptive, turning every thread into a debate about homosexuality. He/she could have been controlled, but wasn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   12:58:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Liberator (#35)

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for me?

CORRECTION: That sentence should read.

Willie. Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for them.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   12:59:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Liberator, Tpaine (#35)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   13:01:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Liberator (#34)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a business licensed to be open to the public has the constitutionally protected right to bar specific classes of people from service for personally biased reasons. --- -- I'd say no, --- seeing that the owner has agreed to operate his open to the public business under the protection of a license, -- he must serve the public without personal bias.

Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me. It sounds...fascist.

Calm yourself. I'm against most types of business licensing, but licensing is constitutional, so I accept it as a necessary evil.

Are you now advocating this gubmint has the constitutional right to license our very defecation?? (after all, it IS "business," is it not, because a fee is paid to a sewage utility which "serves the public," correct? ) --- Moreover, isn't "licensing" and over-regulation (as is proposed in this case) just another way to blackmail, extort, and impose morality upon individuals and businesses that violate the tenets of our faith?

Yep, we agree that morality should be self imposed.

So in your opinion, you're advocating the fascist enforcement Christian bakery should be compelled to bake a pornographic-topped cake? A Jewish bakery a Swastika-top cake?

No, In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Nice support of this insanity.

Yep, the whole issue is insane all right, but it ain't me that's going crazy about it...

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   13:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited)

Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;"

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

Seems to me the transhumanist/postgenderist activists in this case have assumed dominion over the baker and forced the baker's craftsmanship to conform with and propagate their own, UN-natural, opinions - opinions with which the baker does not agree. I think forcing the baker to bake a cake to propagate opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   13:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   13:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Willie Green (#0)

Should I be able to walk into the gift shop at the local natural history museum's planetarium and demand they sell me a model of the Universe with the Earth at its center?

Human reproductive sexuality, Male and Female, was selected for by billions of years of evolution.

Deal with it.

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   13:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: A K A Stone (#20)

By the way I discriminate. No Sodomites are allowed to post here. Meguro is an example.

Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?

Too bad you don't believe in Darwin, dude. I can assure both you AND meguro that those of us who are truly heterosexual NEVER experience homosexual fantasies. The mere thought is naturally repugnant, and we don't need Holy Scripture to tell us that.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-03-29   13:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Willie Green (#46) (Edited)

The mere thought is naturally repugnant

Yep, as naturally repugnant as the odor of rotten food.

But the tranhumanist/postgenderists have learned from past experience that sort of natural common sense can be desensitized.

It's not surprising such cancerous, cultural, self-destructiveness reflects the #1 objective on the NWO todo list...

VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   14:12:56 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Liberator (#34)

"And btw Paine, your opinion on this matter doesn't sound very libertarian to me."

It's not. Hell, it's not even conservative.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   17:53:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#41)

"Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also?"

I agree with Ayn Rand on this one: "In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement."

Period.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-29   18:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: tpaine (#44)

In my opinion, a licensed wedding

Why should you need a license to bake cakes?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   18:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Willie Green (#46)

Are you afraid meguro might lead you astray and tempt you to indulge in the sins of the flesh?

Nah. I just thought he was an asshole to be honest.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-29   18:11:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: tomder55, Willie Green (#2)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA) of 1993 is a federal law aimed at preventing laws that "substantially burden" a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by then Congressman Chuck Schumer in the House ,and Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy in the Senate ,and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate .It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf

107 STAT. 1488 PUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16,1993

Public Law 103-141 
103d Congress

An Act

To protect the free exercise of religion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act of 1993".

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.

       (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
            (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise 
       of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in 
       the First Amendment to the Constitution;
            (2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious 
       exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious 
       exercise;
            (3) governments should not substantially burden religious 
       exercise without compelling justification;
            (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) 
       the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that 
       the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed 
       by laws neutral toward religion; and
            (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal 
       court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances 
       between religious liberty and competing prior governmental 
       interests.
       (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
            (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in 
       Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. 
       Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application 
       in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially 
       burdened; and
            (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious 
       exercise is substantially burdened by government.

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 per-
son'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 compel­
ling governmental interest.
       (c) Judicial Relief.—A person whose religious exercise has 
been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation 
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate 
relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense 
under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing 
under article III of the Constitution.

SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.

       (a) Judicial Proceedings.—Section 722 of the Revised Stat­
utes (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious Free­
dom Restoration Act of 1993 " before "or title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964".
       (b) Administrative Proceedings.—Section 504(b)(l)(C) of title 
5, United States Code, is amended—
            (1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) 
and inserting ", and"; and
            (3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act of 1993;" after clause (iii).

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act—
            (1) the term "government" includes a branch, department, 
agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting 
under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivi­
sion of a State;
            (2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and 
possession of the United States;
            (3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of 
going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
            (4) the term "exercise of religion means the exercise of 
religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act applies to all Federal and State 
law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or 
otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of 
this Act.
       (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Federal statutory law adopted 
after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act 
unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference 
to this Act.
       (c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this Act shall 
be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious 
belief.

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.

     Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, 
or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibit­
ing laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in 
this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government 
funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under 
the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this 
Act. As used in this section, the term "granting", used with respect 
to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include 
the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

Approved November 16, 1993.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   19:02:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: nativist nationalist, Murron (#30) (Edited)

If Murron were not here we would be poorer for her absence, so banning blacks would not make for a better forum, but one of lower value

Murron is not black, but she has a grandkid who is. She (Rebel Gal) posted a photo of herself years ago. It makes no difference, but she needs to be pinged anyway. So...

((((( PING )))))


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-03-29   19:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: A K A Stone (#14)

Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   19:57:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#50)

Should a Baker be forced to bake a cake? Or should they be forced to bake a cake and put words on it also? Would either of those be a violation of freedom of speech?

In my opinion, a licensed wedding cake bakery should serve the public, sell decorated cakes, but should refuse to decorate a cake with the silly bullshit demanded.

Forcing a baker to decorate a cake with crap offensive to him would be a violation of his rights.

Why should you need a license to bake cakes?

Ask the majority rule devotees, like misterwhite. -- They usually claim that food preparers, restaurants, etc -- must be licensed to protect the public's health.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-29   20:00:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#54) (Edited)

Don't you love hit piece articles that don't show what the legislation actually says.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

First Regular Session 119th General Assembly (2015)

PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.

Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2014 Regular Session and 2014 Second Regular Technical Session of the General Assembly.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:

(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws


2

respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.

(c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:

(1) State government.

(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).

(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

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.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,


3

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.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:

(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and

(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.

(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:

(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.

(2) Compensatory damages.

(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter. Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of


4

action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   20:28:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: nolu chan (#56)

Where's the Jim Crow claim?

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   20:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, willie green (#56)

Before anyone boycotts riding trains through Indiana below link is a better explanation of the law.

Important to note 28 other states have such a law and Bill Clinton signed into law a very similar bill in 1993. Schumer voted yes also.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom- restoration-act- explained_900641.html

This is leftist hysteria from not knowing history.

"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   20:55:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: misterwhite, Willie Green (#6)

The nation should debate whether the owner of a private business has the constitutionally protected right to bar anyone from service for any reason.

Refusing someone service at a lunch counter has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-ii/section-2000a/

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS - 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2012)

§2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a) Equal access

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments

Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined

The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Support by State action

Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) Private establishments

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title II, §201, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 243.)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-29   21:00:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (60 - 127) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com