Author Topic: Indiana Facepalm  (Read 1270 times)

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87064
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Indiana Facepalm
« on: April 02, 2015, 01:46:44 pm »
So, this doesn't really qualify as major news (as it is a symptom rather than a cause of fuckery), but it is relevant to my interests, so.

There's that law in Indiana that is supposedly a "Freedom of Religion" law, but many say it's a "down with gays" law.  I decided to find the bill itself and see what it says.  It's amusing, in it's way.

Sections 1-4: Blah blah blah, definitions, not intended to violate constitution, boilerplate.

Section 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.
Interesting.  To me, this seems to be saying that it's not just core or common beliefs that are in scope, but any side beliefs a religious person might have.  So potentially, a Christian sect that believes redheads have no souls should be covered.

Section 6: More definitions.

Section 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.
That's pretty much everyone and everything.  However, (3)(B) could be a sticking point.  Take, for example, that pizza place that stepped up and said they won't serve gays.  Wouldn't they have to show that their establishment "exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief"?  Their refusal to serve gays has nothing to do with the act of making pizza, nor is making pizza a part of their religious practices.  I know the argument can be made that their beliefs are what precludes them from serving gays, but in that case, don't they have to prove that their system of religion prohibits them from feeding gays?

Section 8: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, 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.
The "compelling governmental interest" bit could be fun, if you can finds something in the state constitution that has wording containing "all citizens" in it.

Section 9: If the law is violated, you can sue the government.

Section 10: If you win, you might get a government payout for compensatory damages, and court costs! Maybe.

Section 11: This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
Cute.  The owners can sue the government, but an employee who's discriminated against can't sue the employer.  So a bakery can sue for having to serve a gay couple, but a christian couple can't sue if denied service and a gay bakery.

Doktor Howl

  • SHIT FIXER
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 385702
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2015, 03:12:41 pm »
It's also worth noting that planned parenthood got shut down in Indiana, and now they have a massive HIV outbreak.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87064
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2015, 05:25:22 pm »
But how possibly could one influence the other!?

MMIX

  • Доктор мом
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 16620
  • FUNEX? S, VFX. FUNEM? S, VFM
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2015, 10:50:30 pm »
Wow, Indiana, just wow  :eek:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/02/3642060/senator-says-critics-indiana-get-perspective-thankful-state-doesnt-execute-gays/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3

I am pretty sure that my perspective is a bit different than Senator Cotton's but I do have one. Luckily for me my gay ass is a long, long way away from his godforsaken state
If the answer is Donald J Trump then it must have been a fucking stupid question.
Trump cultists; "and some, I assume, are good people"
Collusion??? ~ "If it truly was a nothingburger, there’s nothing here, why not open the kimono?”

Doktor Howl

  • SHIT FIXER
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 385702
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2015, 04:18:42 am »
Wow, Indiana, just wow  :eek:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/02/3642060/senator-says-critics-indiana-get-perspective-thankful-state-doesnt-execute-gays/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3

I am pretty sure that my perspective is a bit different than Senator Cotton's but I do have one. Luckily for me my gay ass is a long, long way away from his godforsaken state

I try to tell Europeans how bad it is here, but nobody really believes me.  Except Cain, but he's a professional at this sorta shit.

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104977
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2015, 12:10:54 pm »
So then, where does the proposed fix leave the law?

It looks like it removes the worst aspects of the bill ("language added to the bill says unambiguously that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) may not be used as a legal defense for companies to decline services, goods, public accommodation, employment or housing on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation").

But....well, we all know the law is a tricky beast.  What have they left out?

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87064
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2015, 01:20:40 am »
I'm trying to figure out what that leaves the law to enforce. If anything, it just codifies common sense (i.e. A catholic priest asked to preside over a bat mitzvah).

Pergamos

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15995
  • Did it for the cookies.
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2015, 02:10:38 am »
I'm trying to figure out what that leaves the law to enforce. If anything, it just codifies common sense (i.e. A catholic priest asked to preside over a bat mitzvah).

It allows the Church of Cannabis to use cannabis as a sacrament, or at least that is how the church has interpreted it.  We'll see how well that holds up.  I have also been hearing rumors of Polygamy and naked rituals at the capital, although somehow those seem less likely to succeed.

Emo Howard

  • Anti-Neanderthal-Defamation-Social-Justice-Warrior
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 32229
    • View Profile
Re: Indiana Facepalm
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2015, 01:26:56 pm »
Wasn't there something about birth control, or something?