Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Skeptical wrote:
Well, I'll be darned .. there it is, plain as day, Item (C) !!!  How could everyone but us two in the whole dang country not see this law allows for such discrimination???

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

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Well, I'll be darned .. there it is, plain as day, Item (C) !!!  How could everyone but us two in the whole dang country not see this law allows for such discrimination???

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

While I understand your attempt at semantics, this seems to reinforce the idea that English isn't your first language. If you don't realize that section 7 (3) is referring to companies which qualifies housing (rental) as a company, same for utilities and employment then I really don't know how to make it more clear for you.

Thankfully the backlash over this bill has resulted in anti-discrimination amendment specifically covering LGBT people as Indiana was set to lose a lot of money from tourism.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Well, I'll be darned .. there it is, plain as day, Item (C) !!!  How could everyone but us two in the whole dang country not see this law allows for such discrimination???

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

While I understand your attempt at semantics, this seems to reinforce the idea that English isn't your first language. If you don't realize that section 7 (3) is referring to companies which qualifies housing (rental) as a company, same for utilities and employment then I really don't know how to make it more clear for you.

Thankfully the backlash over this bill has resulted in anti-discrimination amendment specifically covering LGBT people as Indiana was set to lose a lot of money from tourism.

Jammer wrote:
And just what are these HUGE tourism draws to the state of Indiana.  Since I will be driving thru the state this summer, I certainly don't want to miss any of them.  I suspect your list will be quite short, just like your IQ.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
And the amendment did little to assuage the foaming at the mouth exhibited by companies like Angie's List and the NCAA that rejected the "fix" and continue using their economic power through the threat of boycott of Indiana to bully the little folks, the florists, photographers and bakers who are just trying to live their own lives and practice their faith.

The original RFRA was never about discrimination making this amendment totally unneeded. And, predictably, it did little to sooth the fever swamp of mobocracy and the Ya Gays! crowd. God help us all when the specter of a bunch of dumb fcuking jock strapped ignoramuses at the NCAA becomes a major influence in determining public policy.