#1 Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained by Cincinnatus 30.03.2015 15:43

avatar

For some reason the Establishment has chosen Indiana as the place to draw the line on any further laws of this kind since they already exist in over 20 sates and on the federal level. Why such laws are even needed given the 1st Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Religion but such are the times.

Here is a comparison of the federal law with Indiana's.

"Here's the text of the federal RFRA:

Government may substantially burden a person’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 compelling governmental interest.

And here is the text of Indiana's RFRA:

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."

The Weekly Standard has published an article about the IN law and how, once again, the MSM is misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

"Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really a license to discriminate against gay people?

No. Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former appellate court judge, tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email: "In the decades that states have had RFRA statutes, no business has been given the right to discriminate against gay customers, or anyone else."

So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and what does it say?

The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.

The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

So the law doesn't say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven't.

[snip]

The point of RFRA is not to discriminate against gay Americans. It is supposed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious Americans."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indi...641.html?page=3 (emphasis added mostly because of the irony of the federal law having been sponsored by that snake Schumer and signed by that other snake Clinton, a fact Schumer is most reluctant to discuss0.

"Late last night just outside the Senate chamber, I asked Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (who sponsored federal RFRA in 1993) to comment on the story. "Not right now," he replied. Schumer still hasn't found time to respond to this question on Twitter"

#2 RE: Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained by ThirstyMan 31.03.2015 07:49

avatar

I have relatives who are pushing this gay mantra of discrimination that's supposedly in this law.

The gay activists and the press are making false headlines by creating outrage over the law.

The governor of Indiana didn't do himself any favors in his interview with George Stehpanopoulos.

This is strangely reminiscent of the zest we saw from the Left over the fake "Hands up, Don't shoot" story.

Tons of irony here!

#3 RE: Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Explained by conservgramma 31.03.2015 09:41

avatar

There is no discrimination in this law - it does in fact mirror federal law that Bill Clinton passed and signed back in 1993, and with none of this outrage I might add.

What IS discriminating is to oppose this law - there's the real discrimination. Because by opposing this law you believe it is right to take away the constitutional rights of religious Americans, you believe it is right to use the power of the state to force others to believe as you do, and you think its a right that one segment of the population controls the other segment of the population. If that's where you stand you are a bigger bigot than religious Americans could ever be.

Apparently the gay mafia has decided to make Indiana its last stand to impose its lifestyle on every body else - you do what I say and believe what I tell you to or else type of approach. This law removes a bullet from their arsenal of targeting businesses and they aren't happy about it. Just once I wish one of them would target a Muslem business and see what happens to them!

Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor