Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
57 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: "Indiana lawmakers announce proposed religious law changes" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

"The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service."

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmakers-announce-proposed-re...

(bold mine for emphasis)

So basically the people pushing this ended up helping get sexual orientation and gender identity being protected under Indiana Law (dont believe either was before) . And heads will be exploding all over the countryside. That was a fast delivery of Karma there now wasn't it?
18 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So what the hell was the point?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A distinct step in the right direction. At game night on Tuesday, I voiced the opinion that Indiana would end up having to make sexual orientation a protected class to have a chance of putting this behind them.

I think this is a good thing, but it will still be interesting to see where & how the Indiana RFRA law comes into play. It is so broadly worded that there's going to be some court cases to define the scope and balance of things. And potentially many, many court cases. But I'm cautiously optimistic at the very least.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Pandering. It's always the pandering phase in politics.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Pandering. It's always the pandering phase in politics.
And now comes the reality bites phase when they redraw it to make it an utterly pointless waster of tax payers money.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Setting aside the entertainment value of watching Gov Pence's national ambitions meltdown on a nuclear level, the points for me are.

1. The similar law in Arkansas was is in limbo now, and the law proposed in GA was pulled after people demanded that sexual orientation be protected as well.

and

2. The anti-LGTB crowd does not have as much power as they thing they have in relation to others.

The official announcement of this should be amusing to watch



11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
linoleum blownaparte
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
What's the difference between this and just revoking the law? Serious question.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Oops.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Setting aside the entertainment value of watching Gov Pence's national ambitions meltdown on a nuclear level, the points for me are.

1. The similar law in Arkansas was is in limbo now, and the law proposed in GA was pulled after people demanded that sexual orientation be protected as well.

and

2. The anti-LGTB crowd does not have as much power as they thing they have in relation to others.

The official announcement of this should be amusing to watch



Sorry, maybe I was not clear.

What the hell was the point of this law?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Oh good grief. The law was never about discriminating on sexual orientation. It was about protecting religious freedom.


Which is why all of the law's defenders had no problem with putting in anti-discrimination clauses oh wait they all didn't like that idea, funny how that works

Quote:
Look at all of the posts that Drew has put out there detailing the people whose religious rituals have been protected from government intervention and you'll get it.


which is why the Indiana law extended traditional RFRA protections to protections against private actors oh wait those are totally different issues
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
Linoleumblownaparte wrote:
What's the difference between this and just revoking the law? Serious question.


It will still apply to all kinds of situations where laws which do not explicitly target freedom of religion, but which do end up seriously burdening religion. The amendment just clarifies that it's not going to apply to things like the bakers and their cakes (or the pizzerias and their pies). I'm sure some will be disappointed with that outcome, but it's more consistent with the law prior to Smith.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Linoleumblownaparte wrote:
What's the difference between this and just revoking the law? Serious question.


Oh good grief. The law was never about discriminating on sexual orientation. It was about protecting religious freedom. Look at all of the posts that Drew has put out there detailing the people whose religious rituals have been protected from government intervention and you'll get it.


Thirty legal experts disagreed (bold mine)

"In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs."

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/g...

Summing it up nicely this way

"Yet, rather than advancing reasonable concerns about religious freedom, the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act is more a solution in search of a problem, or worse, if passed will create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests."

Also fact that this law was different from all those others Drew mentioned means that his claim was specious to be polite. Also the fact we had one idiot pizza shop state that they would not be able to discriminate undercuts it as well.





17 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
A non-nutty article about the law:

http://www.gazettextra.com/20150401/first_amendment_indiana_...

9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Setting aside the entertainment value of watching Gov Pence's national ambitions meltdown on a nuclear level, the points for me are.

1. The similar law in Arkansas was is in limbo now, and the law proposed in GA was pulled after people demanded that sexual orientation be protected as well.

and

2. The anti-LGTB crowd does not have as much power as they thing they have in relation to others.

The official announcement of this should be amusing to watch



Sorry, maybe I was not clear.

What the hell was the point of this law?


Oh the original point, that's obvious. Governor Pence wanted something to give to the anti LGTB crowd in anticipation of his national ambitions. Which is why this protection was not put in in the first place. A knee jerk reactionary law given that Gay Marriage is probably going to finally be upheld the SCOTUS.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Linoleumblownaparte wrote:
What's the difference between this and just revoking the law? Serious question.


The difference is that the law can still be used by an individual wishing to raise it as a defense against a civil proceeding. So the protections are good, but they may still be found to be an intrusion upon religious liberties in court.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
The law was never about discriminating on sexual orientation.


I'm sure this is true for you, but amendments were offered during the legislative process that would have stated this clearly. Why were they rejected if this was true? Have you seen some of the comments from the people that opposed these amendments? Have you seen the comments provided for similar amendments to bills in other states?

Quote:
Look at all of the posts that Drew has put out there detailing the people whose religious rituals have been protected from government intervention and you'll get it.


#1 - "all of the posts" really boils down to 10-20 total examples because there's massive duplication.

#2 - This is not the federal RFRA. Comparing it to either the federal law or any prior state law is simply a bad choice because the law is dramatically different. The letter from Columbia cited in this thread is a positively fantastic read on the subject.

#3 - Why should any of the examples cited require an RFRA in the first place? What the hell happened to the 1st amendment?

You're a good guy, BJ, and I've no issue believing in your sincerity. But there's a whole lot of people that don't think the way that you do. There was a story about a Kentucky High School basketball player encountering so much understanding when he came out that his team required police protection to complete the tournament they were participating. And an opposing team tried to beat the shit out of him and then chased him and the team bus in a car.

Those are the people that pushed hard for the law. Those are the people that largely wrote the law. And those are the people that most of the politicians that support the law have been pandering to. And that's why the anti-discrimination language/amendments either don't get added or kill the bill when they do.
21 
 Thumb up
1.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
perfalbion wrote:


#3 - Why should any of the examples cited require an RFRA in the first place? What the hell happened to the 1st amendment?


You lost me here. The whole reason federal RFRA was passed in the first place was because Smith had chosen to interpret the First Amendment in a particular way that did not favor religious freedom.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
I have a cunning plan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The fact that high tech companies are against the current crop of RFRA bills is not surprising - there's a strong correlation between liberal social attitudes and the workforces they depend on.

The fact that Walmart and NASCAR are coming out against them is utterly gobsmacking. It makes me feel like the world has really undergone a seismic shift.
15 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
You lost me here. The whole reason federal RFRA was passed in the first place was because Smith had chosen to interpret the First Amendment in a particular way that did not favor religious freedom.


Yeah - I thought they were wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aiabx wrote:
The fact that high tech companies are against the current crop of RFRA bills is not surprising - there's a strong correlation between liberal social attitudes and the workforces they depend on.

The fact that Walmart and NASCAR are coming out against them is utterly gobsmacking. It makes me feel like the world has really undergone a seismic shift.


Wal-Mart's growth plan for the next ten years is completely centered on growing their presence in urban areas. They're already dominant with rural, conservative America. They need strong PR with city-dwellers, and that means making sure they're perceived more as a store that happens to cater to hyper-conservatives and not an organization run by backwoods rednecks. They're trying hard to distance themselves from the "people of Wal-Mart" perception so they can compete more readily with Target. It won't work, most likely, but they're trying.

I imagine NASCAR is in the same boat. They're looking at organizations like pro hockey and professional wrestling that have traditionally very conservative fanbases and seeing them promote tolerance and gay rights without any repercussions among the fans. If John Cena can go on TV and call anti-gay bigots "downright ignorant" and not lose any popularity, it stands to reason NASCAR can do it too.

I think it's a positive thing--it shows both that public opinion has really moved on the issue, but it also shows that those companies respect their customers as more than just stereotypes and recognize that just assuming all their customers/fans represent the worst of those stereotypes is not only a mistake, but bad for business.
20 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:

Wal-Mart's growth plan for the next ten years is completely centered on growing their presence in urban areas. They're already dominant with rural, conservative America. They need strong PR with city-dwellers...


You wouldn't catch me dead in Walmart...Oh, yeah, yes, you are totally correct.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:

Wal-Mart's growth plan for the next ten years is completely centered on growing their presence in urban areas. They're already dominant with rural, conservative America. They need strong PR with city-dwellers...


You wouldn't catch me dead in Walmart...Oh, yeah, yes, you are totally correct.



I don't shop there, but not for any political reasons or some bullshit about minimum wage jobs paying a living wage or anything. I just plain don't like the store. It's always dirty, it smells bad, and there's nothing there I want to buy that I can't get almost as affordably on Amazon without going into a soul-sucking retail hellhole. I'll pay an extra quarter for shampoo if it means not having to deal with that place, thanks.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So what the hell was the point?


Setting aside the entertainment value of watching Gov Pence's national ambitions meltdown on a nuclear level, the points for me are.

1. The similar law in Arkansas was is in limbo now, and the law proposed in GA was pulled after people demanded that sexual orientation be protected as well.

and

2. The anti-LGTB crowd does not have as much power as they thing they have in relation to others.

The official announcement of this should be amusing to watch



Sorry, maybe I was not clear.

What the hell was the point of this law?


Political pandering.
'
Deeply misguided, myopic, political pandering.

That didn't work at *all* and in fact backfired hilariously.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:

Wal-Mart's growth plan for the next ten years is completely centered on growing their presence in urban areas. They're already dominant with rural, conservative America. They need strong PR with city-dwellers...


You wouldn't catch me dead in Walmart...Oh, yeah, yes, you are totally correct.



I don't shop there, but not for any political reasons or some bullshit about minimum wage jobs paying a living wage or anything. I just plain don't like the store. It's always dirty, it smells bad, and there's nothing there I want to buy that I can't get almost as affordably on Amazon without going into a soul-sucking retail hellhole. I'll pay an extra quarter for shampoo if it means not having to deal with that place, thanks.


Plus gas to drive to the store and back, wear and tear on your own car, sometimes the item is not in stock (or not carried at all due to that "sell only the top selling 3 items out of 20 or whoever will give us the lowest price/biggest kickback" thing business has going these days. Plus at certain times of day, a 30 to 45 minute wait to check out (crazy overcutting of staff to save money drives away customers).

That and externalizing employee costs to the rest of society so they can undercut prices of businesses which are not externalizing costs to everyone else.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:

Wal-Mart's growth plan for the next ten years is completely centered on growing their presence in urban areas. They're already dominant with rural, conservative America. They need strong PR with city-dwellers...


You wouldn't catch me dead in Walmart...Oh, yeah, yes, you are totally correct.



I don't shop there, but not for any political reasons or some bullshit about minimum wage jobs paying a living wage or anything. I just plain don't like the store. It's always dirty, it smells bad, and there's nothing there I want to buy that I can't get almost as affordably on Amazon without going into a soul-sucking retail hellhole. I'll pay an extra quarter for shampoo if it means not having to deal with that place, thanks.

So much this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.