Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Blogs > crazyhorse1946 > My Blog


crazyhorse1946 78M
1406 posts
4/1/2015 2:10 pm
Indiana's RFRA Law expained even so Leafie can understand it

Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.

Indiana's law is effectively the same as other RFRAs, including the federal law, which have been on the books for many years. They are, in fact, virtually identical, with two relatively minor exceptions: First, the Hoosier State's law specifies that businesses are free to use RFRA claims to defend themselves from administrative sanctions and lawsuits, and second, it allows RFRA defenses to be mounted within private legal disputes that do not directly involve the government.

Indiana's legislative text reflects both the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby precedent, as well as the obvious reality that organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC can exercise First Amendment rights despite being corporations. On the second small distinction, which Schultz didn't raise, four US circuit courts and the Obama DOJ have affirmed that RFRA protections can apply in cases involving private entities.

From article by Guy Benson

bijou624

4/2/2015 6:06 am

 Hi Crazy: Yesterday a CNN reporter and cameraman interviewed five florist shop owners and asked them if they would provide the flowers for a gay marriage. Every single one of them said no they would not as gay marriage was against their religion.

Then the reporter asked them if they would sell flowers to a customer they knew was committing adultery, and they all said yes they would. The reporter said that committing adultery is clearly set out as one of the ten commandments, and the florists could not give an answer as to why they would not provide flowers for a gay wedding but would not hesitate to sell them to a know adulterer.




×
×