Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:The laws are actually quite different, and its kind of a misnomer to quantify them as the same when the wording is nothing like the one in Indiana.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
And how are they different? No explanation. None whatsoever. Just blather and parroted talking points. Why am I not surprised.

RFRD 1993 text
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
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.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

SB 101
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.
(2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.
(c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:
(1) State government.
(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).
(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision
(1) or
(2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:
(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.
(2) Compensatory damages.
(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 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.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:I thought this remark on the "Name that Liberal Sin" thread deserved a thread of it's own

"Oh and I guess there's that whole thing where liberals are  out to demolish discrimination laws like the one just passed in Indiana to protect the LBTG community from being denied goods and services simply because of who they are. But I'll totally stand by that one, because people who support that sh*t are just awful. Is that the kind of stuff you're talking about?"

Remember the author has stated that she "tends to ask a lot of questions on these forums from the people who's opinions are so very different from mine, because I want to understand where their train of thought comes from instead of just accepting blanket generalized comments at face value." Like just parroting Liberal/LGBT talking points?

Of course it's obvious she didn't because if diligence had been observed she would have discovered that the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 so a bunch of modern day Native Americans could ingest peyote in their religious ceremonies. Since the RFRA was struck down for the States by SCOTUS, many of the States have elected to enact their own RFRAs essentially mimicking the still standing Federal statute.

Of course there's been hell to pay nationwide with threats of boycotts and vehement scolding from the Defenders of All That is Right over Indiana's new law that is essentially the same law as a 22 yo Federal law and 18 other states.

What say you?

Shortie wrote:You're comparing Native Americans being allowed to ingest peyote at religious ceremonies to businesses being allowed to deny goods and services to people simply because something about that person doesn't bode well with the business persons' religion? Really? That's so weird.

I DGAF where it originated. Clinton did a lot of sh*t I don't agree with. (Like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Remember how repealing DADT was going to destroy our armed forces and everybody was going to be raped in the showers? Still waiting for that apocalypse to occur. But I digress...) Just because a president with a (-D) behind is name put this ball into motion doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be against it when it's being twisted and used for straight up evil.

I worked as a server/bartender all through college, and right to refuse service is a good rule, when used in a non-dick way. The only good reasons I can think of to refuse service is if a patron is disruptive or violent or has a history of non payment. Or breaks the good ol': no shirt, no shoes, no service adage. Or is underage if it's a bar. Am I missing anything?

nightlight88 wrote:

Shortie wrote:You're comparing Native Americans being allowed to ingest peyote at religious ceremonies to businesses being allowed to deny goods and services to people simply because something about that person doesn't bode well with the business persons' religion? Really? That's so weird.

I DGAF where it originated. Clinton did a lot of sh*t I don't agree with. (Like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Remember how repealing DADT was going to destroy our armed forces and everybody was going to be raped in the showers? Still waiting for that apocalypse to occur. But I digress...) Just because a president with a (-D) behind is name put this ball into motion doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be against it when it's being twisted and used for straight up evil.

I worked as a server/bartender all through college, and right to refuse service is a good rule, when used in a non-dick way. The only good reasons I can think of to refuse service is if a patron is disruptive or violent or has a history of non payment. Or breaks the good ol': no shirt, no shoes, no service adage. Or is underage if it's a bar. Am I missing anything?

Aren't you pro-choice?????

Shortie wrote:

Aren't you pro-choice?????

Yes, sir.

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
And how are they different? No explanation. None whatsoever. Just blather and parroted talking points. Why am I not surprised.

For someone as well read as you claim to be I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, however as you wish.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/29/mike-pence/did-barack-obama-vote-religious-freedom-restoratio/

RFRD 1993 text
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
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.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

SB 101
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.
(2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.
(c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:
(1) State government.
(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).
(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision
(1) or
(2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:
(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.
(2) Compensatory damages.
(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 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.

A large portion of the RFRD from 1993 was struck down in 2007 because it violated civil rights according to the Supreme Court.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Damn, ask for a an explanation of the difference between Indiana's law and Federal law and you get a word cloud. You really should go on tour with your ability to speak out of your azz. You have the makings of a truly amazing ventriloquist act.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
FYI, the only portion of the Federal law that was found unconstitutional was that it didn't apply to the states as it was not deemed a part of Congress's enforcement power not because, as you erroneously stated, it violated civil rights. Hence the states enacting their own RFRAs. Constitutionality of the Federal law was upheld once again in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta ('06)

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Let's cut to the chase. What the Indiana RFRA law allows that Federal Law does not is that it allows an individual to assert the RFRA as a defense in a private cause of action . The Federal law only allows it for cases involving a governmental entity. What it does not do is it does not provide immunity in discrimination cases as the screeching LGBT mob and their self appointed surrogates are hysterically claiming.

Skeptical wrote:
Perhaps the left wants a law labeling homosexuals as an endangered species and make them a protected class.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
On top of that it also allows a person to be discriminated against for housing, employment, utilities etc if they are not part of a federally mandated protected class.

I'd think this was pretty obvious but it is a lot of text to read through even though for a bill its pretty small.

Jammer wrote:I say that on a trip we have planned this summer, we are going to drive a couple of hundred miles out of our way to travel the length of Indiana purchasing all of the gas our tank will hold, staying overnight and supporting them in any manner that we can.  Screw the deadbeat liberal boycott.  If conservatives would stand for principle they wouldn't be accepting their EBT cards for the payment of anything.  

Skeptical wrote:
Perhaps the left wants a law labeling homosexuals as an endangered species and make them a protected class.

Skeptical wrote:
Hot damn, I completely missed that part of the text in the law that also allows a person to be discriminated against for housing, employment, utilities etc if they are not part of a federally mandated protected class.

Perhaps Caitlyn will be so kind to link to that portion in the Indiana Senate Bill 568 or SB 101, whatever floats your boat,  that specific wording stating the discrimination she claims will be allowed.

Alleycat wrote:The Progressive/Liberal loons have finally lost their sanity. We need to begin fighting them sensibily. Keep our religionj in our churches, preach against them. If some ding bat Liberal group damands that the 10 Commandments need to be taken out of a gov't office then put up a big sign on Church property with the 10 Commandments on it. If a couple of suckass gays want a wedding cake make it and contribute the profit to the Republican Party or your Church. Do not do business with known gay business p-eople. Preach against Abortion from the pulpit. Do not use any medical facilitys that perform abortions if possible. VOTE VOTE VOTE against the Democrat Party. Contribute to friendly candidates and Republicans even just a small amount. Ignore the dipshits as much as possible. Put your Liberal friends and relatives on notice that you object to thier political philosophy then drop it. There are a lot of ways to counter act these dip shits.

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:I say that on a trip we have planned this summer, we are going to drive a couple of hundred miles out of our way to travel the length of Indiana purchasing all of the gas our tank will hold, staying overnight and supporting them in any manner that we can.  Screw the deadbeat liberal boycott.  If conservatives would stand for principle they wouldn't be accepting their EBT cards for the payment of anything.  

Here's hoping you don't see any hitch hikers because they may be a member of the LGBT crowd and haul your ass into court claiming you didn't give them a ride because of their sexual orientation!  

Jammer wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:I say that on a trip we have planned this summer, we are going to drive a couple of hundred miles out of our way to travel the length of Indiana purchasing all of the gas our tank will hold, staying overnight and supporting them in any manner that we can.  Screw the deadbeat liberal boycott.  If conservatives would stand for principle they wouldn't be accepting their EBT cards for the payment of anything.  

Here's hoping you don't see any hitch hikers because they may be a member of the LGBT crowd and haul your ass into court claiming you didn't give them a ride because of their sexual orientation!  

This LGBT thing is entirely a progressive liberal creation and strategy to divide this country against itself and to eventually destroy it.  Progressive liberals are evil.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Hot damn, I completely missed that part of the text in the law that also for housing, employment, utilities etc if they are not part of a federally mandated protecteallows a person to be discriminated against d class.

Perhaps Caitlyn will be so kind to link to that portion in the Indiana Senate Bill 568 or SB 101, whatever floats your boat,  that specific wording stating the discrimination she claims will be allowed.

Section 7 of SB101 is what I was referring to.

Sec. 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
(C) allows a person to be discriminated against for housing, employment, utilities etc  if they are not part of a federally mandated protected class.
(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.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental
entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,
SEA 101

Shortie wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:I say that on a trip we have planned this summer, we are going to drive a couple of hundred miles out of our way to travel the length of Indiana purchasing all of the gas our tank will hold, staying overnight and supporting them in any manner that we can.  Screw the deadbeat liberal boycott.  If conservatives would stand for principle they wouldn't be accepting their EBT cards for the payment of anything.  

Here's hoping you don't see any hitch hikers because they may be a member of the LGBT crowd and haul your ass into court claiming you didn't give them a ride because of their sexual orientation!  

This LGBT thing is entirely a progressive liberal creation and strategy to divide this country against itself and to eventually destroy it.  Progressive liberals are evil.