Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Seems logical to include this Georgia bill in this discussion, but if the mods think it should be its own thread, they can move it.

Georgia Republicans are trying to shoehorn a similar bill through their state legislature. The Senate subcommittee tasked with crafting the bill actually voted it through to put it on the floor when the lone Democrat on the committee was in the bathroom.

Once it reached the floor, the bill was amended by Republican Mike Jacobs to include language that would prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, among other amendments. The GOP then tabled the bill, because as Sen. Josh McKoon, a Republican and author of the bill, said of the amendment: "Adoption of it negates the purpose of the bill.”

Sooooo, if adding an amendment that prohibits discrimination based on grounds of sexual orientation "negates the purpose of the bill," what then is the purpose of the bill?

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/stat...premium#3315ad28.3913704.735683#__federated=1

Not surprisingly, the convention industry is taking notice of how things went in Indiana and are warning passing a similar bill could be disastrous to business.
‘Religious liberty’ bill takes a sharp rightward turn, convention industry says $15 million in business at risk | Political Insider blog

 

Preach it, brother!

 

Allow me to change my "jurisprudence" to "assertions made by the Second, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits and the U.S. Department of Justice." In Wheaton College v. Burwell, the latter argued:

"... if plaintiff were sued by a plan participant or beneficiary in the future, plaintiff, in its defense of such an action, would have an opportunity to raise its contention that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the First Amendment. And, if plaintiff were to lose this hypothetical future ERISA action, the most plaintiff would have to do is provide coverage for emergency contraception – but only after the court determines that the requirement does not violate RFRA or the First Amendment."

 

Why not ask: What Would Jesus Do?

 

The greatest trick the liberals ever pulled was convincing people THEIR hatred was acceptable.

 

I think the guys with the clerical collars is an especially nice touch.

 

Posting cartoons to mock religion. That's not very open-minded of you, MC.

 

Here is a pretty good read on the law and how it differs from federal law and similar state laws. Bottom line, it cherry picks the least gay-friendly bits of other laws.

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation — The Atlantic

 

I'm not a "liberal."

 

Don't deny who you are. It's not healthy. Embrace yourself.

 

Indiana wants to pass a law to protect photographers and bakers from being required to provide their generally available to the public services to gays getting married. I'm going out on a limb and guessing the drafters looked at the New Mexico decision finding the photographer could not use the State's RFRA as a defense rather than a DOJ brief in determining the need to add language regarding private party suits. Presumably they also knew the federal courts had split on this issue, though.

As I noted in my first post and the second post of this thread, the Indiana law included a provision that explicitly extended its coverage to certain legal entities, thereby avoiding state level litigation of the issue. Similarly. the drafters also wanted to avoid litigation, and potential loss courts on the issue of private party suits because litigation on this issue had shown that this could limit the situations persons could raise the law as a defense. I'd have done the same thing if I wanted to draft a law to extend protections of a RFRA to persons who don't want to serve gays based on their sexual orientation.