LOL, so as Keyser so eloquently stated last night, I researched RFRA

[TarHeelEer]

And the libs have knee-jerked their feet into their mouths once this clears up.

RFRA has a 20 year run so far, afterall. Indiana's law is almost exactly word for word what the federal law is. The debate over RFRA in the courts is whether it could be used personally or privately, contrasting with only where the government is involved.

RFRA is not a get out of jail free card. Why it initially came up is that an Indian smoked some heavy weed, was busted, and lost his job and couldnt receive unemployment due to the heavy weed. He sued, claimed religious freedom (this weed smoking was part of their rituals), and that he should be given compensation. The judge said regardless of the ritual implications, he couldnt even bring it up as a defense in this situation.

All RFRA does is give a complaintant or defendent the right to bring relugious freedom up as a defense. It doesnt speak to the right/wrong of whatever the situation is.

You've earned the title Libtards on this one.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I've done the same

And it clearly seems to be overblown.

The Indiana governer is calling for it to be rewritten by the end of the week to clearly reflect it's intended purpose.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Re: I've done the same

Originally posted by WhiteTailEER:
And it clearly seems to be overblown.

The Indiana governer is calling for it to be rewritten by the end of the week to clearly reflect it's intended purpose.

Rewritten or provided with additional arguments to its legality? I'm confused on the next steps as well.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I don't think they are "almost exactly" alike...

Involving personal/private businesses in the Indiana RFRA is a pretty big departure. Allowing people/private business a religious defense to discriminate against private citizens is a pretty big deal. Not sure how you don't see that? Even Indiana has figured it out and are going to change their law.

 

[TarHeelEer]

It clears it up for the courts

Several circuit courts were already stating it could be used for personal/private.

Nothing about the intent of the law, other than that, has been changed. Again, RFRA speaks nothing to the validity of whatever religious argument they're attempting to make. It only allows them to try.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I find that disingenuous


We all know what is at play here. When you look at the pols defending this, we all know who they are playing to. If it walks like a duck....

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Most of the legal experts I read said it would only add confusion...

I'm not arguing intent either, though I think the Indiana lobbyist screwed that pooch. All for naught, the law is being changed.

 

[TarHeelEer]

^^^ Libtard #1

Did HuffPo let you down?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Re: Most of the legal experts I read said it would only add confusion...

Originally posted by WVUCOOPER:
I'm not arguing intent either, though I think the Indiana lobbyist screwed that pooch. All for naught, the law is being changed.

Are they changing it or providing amplifying information? I heard the latter.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Re: Most of the legal experts I read said it would only add confusion...

Originally posted by DvlDog4WVU:

Originally posted by WVUCOOPER:
I'm not arguing intent either, though I think the Indiana lobbyist screwed that pooch. All for naught, the law is being changed.

Are they changing it or providing amplifying information? I heard the latter.

On NPR last night they were saying it is being changed to clarify that this law doesn't mean open license to discriminate in private business. I'm taking a wait and see approach to see what happens with it.

 

[TarHeelEer]

it may clarify but the precedence is already set in the courts

It does not.

 

[Keyser76]

Well you need to clue in Walmart!


Or ask the pizza shop that already declared they don't have to serve Gays in Indiana. Like I give a sh*t whether you agree that the GOP is self inflicting needless ridicule upon the brand by pandering to the shrinking base on issue where everyone with a brain has already moved on and is in the majority of agreement. Might want to check out the different wording in Indianas RFRA though.

 

[Keyser76]

Lol Good comeback Potts!


nm

 

[Keyser76]

Can't wait to see the new changes!

Maybe it will differ from the others?

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Give me an example of how this law.....


would restore religious freedom. serious question. What will this law accomplish? What problem does it fix?

 

[TarHeelEer]

I don't have to clue in anyone, I can sit back and chuckle as always

The pizza shop is screwed.

You can try to create a fake crisis on a law that doesn't imply what you say, but you will fail.

Libtard #2.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I'm not the one making fanciful accusations such as you yesterday

Research it yourself libtard.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Re: Give me an example of how this law.....


Hmmmm? Could it simply be revenge for marriage equality laws?

Now more and more people and corporations are protesting Indiana and Arkansas is jumping in the fire by passing a similar law.

 

[Keyser76]

Ask Mike Pence if he thinks this is a "fake" crisis! Lol Glad

to be #2 to RichardPeterJohnsons number 1. What libtard number is the CEO of Walmart or the Head of NASCAR? Those bastions of liberal thought got duped along with me!

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Well, the whole world knows how this law can be used to discriminate....

as evidenced by the back-lash from corporate America. I haven't heard anyone explain what the benefits of this law would be or what problem it's a solution to. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Keyser76]

Doesn't fix a problem but it sure created one!!


nm

 

[Keyser76]

So why is Walmart and NASCAR complaining?

Think they have done any research? Especially "economic" research?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Re: Most of the legal experts I read said it would only add confusion...

They're going to change it but use language to help them save face. Tis politics.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It's started a national dialogue

Originally posted by RichardPeterJohnson:


What will this law accomplish?

I know that's not what you meant and time will tell if this national dialogue ends up being net positive or not.

To be fair 20-30 other states have similar/same laws. Not sure exactly what made this one so controversial. I'm not a legal expert and don't have the time or inclination to examine all those other states' laws to see what different nuance this one may have, if it has one at all.