Do of course a defense is allowed without the state being a defendant, these
rights we are discussing are individual rights, personal rights. Why would
individuals not have that for merely exercising their First Amendment rights to
the free practice of religion, an individual's free conscience and the
right not to be forced to labor against their will or support things they
If you walk into a bakery and want to buy one of the cakes on the display rack
or as is in a catalogue, then this should be available to all. But you cannot
require the baker to make a special cake for you unless they want to -even if
they offer customization. Requiring specific labor of the vendor to be provided
involuntarily is not OK. This applies equally to First Amendment rights
especially in the area of forced speech. No citizen can be forced to articulate
words which violate their religious beliefs even if gay couples want to get
married, someone will do it, but individuals must have the right to decline.
This isn't about going to a doctor or hospital or ordering food in a
restaurant or going to a movie or staying in a hotel, those are public
accommodations and standard products which should be available to all.
Ranch is exactly right with his comments. The other thing that posters here are
missing is that the Indiana bill varies drastically from the Federal bill, and
the other 16 states "religious rights" bills. It allows for an
individuals religious rights, (and that includes a Corporation, business and
government) to discriminate. That is NOT allowed in the Federal bill nor the
other States bills. Indiana's bill is not the "same" as
the others. It in fact allows individuals to discriminate randomly. That is the
extremism that this bill showed. And they got caught with dirty hands. And
people on both sides politically think it is dirty. Even the GOP
dominated large businesses including NASCAR, Walmart, E.Lilley, and any others
have called it terrible. It was a sneaky, dishonest bill written
by religious extremists. That is not inclusion, that is open
discrimination and it is truly evil and dishonest. The Governor should be
ashamed. If he doesn't feel the shame, his state sure will!
The Deseret news need to publish valid points and counterpoints that we all have
on this issue. The following I have posted several times and will
continue to voice my opinion on this terrible issue:As Indiana is
now seeing supporters of this type of hateful discrimination deserve to be
brought into the light of day. This isn't about religious
freedom. It is legal hatred codified into law. This will have
consequences on the State of Indiana. The outrage is already been happening. The Constitution not only guarantees "freedom of religion",
it's intent also clearly means "freedom from religion"
The Deuce,"If you want to include everyone at the table, you
need to make room for all."I am pretty sure heterosexual
Christians have been included at the table for quite some time now.
To: Ranch - Here, UT: You have completely missed the point of my comments. I do
not wish to refuse service or any other right to anyone. I am merely making the
statement that one has to recognize the needs of both sides of this debate. If
you want to include everyone at the table, you need to make room for all.
Inclusion is the first step to understanding. You really do need to get out of
Utah and see the rest of the country. Not everyone thinks "us vs them"
mentality out here.
Many people want to claim the Indiana law is the same as the RFRA laws in other
states and the Federal RFRA law. But there is one major difference
(along with several not so major ones) - the Indiana law allows a claim or
defense even when the state is not a party to the case. In other words, the
Indiana law - unlike every other RFRA law - applies not only to lawsuits between
individuals or entities and the government but also to lawsuits between
individuals or between entities or between individuals and entities. Additionally, the Indiana law makes no exception for claims of discrimination
or violation of civil rights laws - which most other RFRAs do. Even if it did,
Indiana does not have non-discrimation laws covering gender identity or sexual
orientation. This law gives causes of action and defenses in
situations not covered by RFRAs in other states while offering less protection
to those on the other side of the claims. This is why people are more upset
about this one than they are about the others. It is all in the wording.
@The Deuce;If you believe in refusing service to LGBT citizens, you
have no "conscience" at all, much less a "right to conscience".
To: Ranch, Here, UT - You have lived in Utah too long to understand my comment
that both sides of the argument are merely asking that their rights be
recognized. No one is speaking of discrimination. Nor did I make any mention of
a specific God or religion. This fight is long over and in the rear view mirror.
The issue now is that all people simply want to have their rights of consciences
and thought be recognized and not pushed over by the other side. Both sides want
this. Your state of Utah has passed the same type of bill and I have not heard
of anyone boycotting Utah. Next, if you start using quotes from the Bible and
other books of scripture, make sure you include all of Christ's comments.
Just to keep things in context.
@jsfThey did in fact protest the other 16 states. As to why the
Indiana situation has gained more national attention (which of course will
increase the size of protests) that's anyone's guess.
Why did they not protest the other 16 states with such laws. Maybe everyone
should boycott those states also. The fed law covers the nation, which group is
boycotting the whole USA based on the federal law.
@greatbam22;I've read the article; maybe you're the one
who needs to open your eyes and take a good, long look at the reality of this
bill and those like it.
@ RanchNice job completely ignoring the quote. Maybe you should
actually read the article.
If anyone thinks these bills are anything other than carefully worded anti-gay
laws, watch the interview of the Indiana governor with George Stephanopoulos.
The governor would not even answer the question if he thought it was ok to
discriminate against gay people. To those that support these laws
based on religion, please tell me where in the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C,
etc. it says that you should not serve those you perceive as sinners? These laws are nothing more than state-sanctioned discrimination. I
think even Jim Crow would be proud.
@The Deuce;The group that has continually been discriminated against
is NOT the religious. The group that WANTS to discriminate against others IS
the religious.You say "The pendulum has swung from one side back
to the other and now we see that both sides are asking for their rights to be
recognized.... You are now seeing the other side push back and say we have
rights too.--- You do NOT have the right to discriminate against
others in public places or businesses. If your religion/god requires that of
you, then you're following the wrong god/religion.@greatbam22;"Sure seems like the LGBT activists don't
like that fact that many religious people are standing up for their own
beliefs."--- What it "sure seems like" is that relgious
people are having a conniption fit that LGBT people are finally being recognized
in this country as FULL CITIZENS with the rights that you''ve taken
for granted your entire life. Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you; if you don't live that commandment then you aren't a "good
Christian" and your "religious" protestations are completely
If we won't let people discriminate based on race because of "deeply
held religious beliefs" then why should we let people discriminate based on
sexual orientation under the same claim? There are multiple cases from the
60's and 70's where several different groups and businesses claimed
they should have the right to refuse service to African Americans because their
religion told them so. A few of these cases made it to the U.S. Supreme Court
and every time the court ruled that someones religious beliefs do not trump
another individuals civil rights. So again, if we won't allow it over race
why are we going to allow it over sexual orientation?
Am I the only one to read the articles before commenting?I find this
quote pertinent and others within the article that suggest similar
sentiments."Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law
professor who specializes in religious liberty issues and was involved in the
drafting of the 1993 federal statute also disputed the "license to
discriminate" claim against the bills. He said, "No one has ever won an
exemption for discrimination under a state RFRA law.""The
Sky is falling down! The Sky is falling down! Sure seems like it from the
previous comments!Sure seems like the LGBT activists don't like
that fact that many religious people are standing up for their own beliefs.Sounds like many of the comments others are presenting as fact are
really false in nature or else the quoted VA law professor just doesn't
know what he is talking about when he says "No one has EVER won an exemption
for discrimination under a state RFRA law."
@The Deuce" It states that individual rights of opinion and conscience
be protected and recognized. "Exactly. And rights of conscience
include those people who want to deny gay people wedding cakes and floral
arrangements thus this gives the right to discriminate for religious reasons. If
there were non-discrimination law for gay people in public accomodations then
this wouldn't negate that and you'd be right that this doesn't
allow discrimination against gay people. However, there is no such protection in
Indiana so this does allow it. What separates Indiana's RFRA
from the others is that this one also applies to businesses whereas at least
most of the others don't. You could say that since Indiana has no
anti-discrimination protection for gay people anyway that businesses would
already be able to discriminate even without this, which would be true, but it
being encoded into the law would require more from a lawsuit than it being
To: atl134, Salt Lake City, UT - This law in Indiana is based upon federal law
by Pres. Clinton. What one side calls discrimination, the other side calls equal
rights. The pendulum has swung from one side back to the other and now we see
that both sides are asking for their rights to be recognized. This law does not
authorize any discrimination. It states that individual rights of opinion and
conscience be protected and recognized. It seems to me, this is what both sides
of this argument have in common. It is a knee-jerk response for all of these
companies and groups to start commenting about boycotts. You see that the one
side uses all of their power to force others of a different opinion to recognize
their rights. You are now seeing the other side push back and say we have rights
too. We as a society are way past this type of reaction. We all live in a world
where opinions differ as well as how we all approach a situation differently. If
you want everyone to live the same way, I have a great piece of property for you
next to ISIS in a warm climate.
@The Deuce" This is not authorizing anyone to discriminate against any
other group"Yes it is. Indiana has no public accommodations law
protections regarding sexual orientation.
Before we all get upset, remember that the pendulum swings both ways. This is
now the group that feels they have been discriminated against and they are now
asking for the same respect. This is not authorizing anyone to discriminate
against any other group. It is asking that all points of view, beliefs and
opinions be respected in our society. We have come too far and fought too hard
to get where we are. Simply make room at the table for all.
@ Hutterite: Don't forget the Christian groups that are opposed to this
and boycotting Indiana - the repercussions are coming from all sides.
What's happening to Indiana is what would've happened to Utah if we
went the route Christensen proposed (HR 322).
Hutterite said, "And it could easily get worse because, given the
opportunity, religion will attempt to curtail the rights of more than just gay
people."I don't disagree, but it occurs to me that the
changing cultural climate may keep this in check. Religions have to compete in
the marketplace, too, and as the story on the survey of Millennials indicates,
religions will likely repel young people even more if their actions come across
as discriminatory or judgmental. And large business interests are typically
uncomfortable with such laws, further eroding support.So while I
think the fight against these laws should continue because of the potential for
abuse, I wonder if this is the calculus that Gov. Pence made. "Yes, the
loopholes are there, but how likely is it that they'll be acted upon
knowing the blowback that will come? In the meantime I've just appeased
the worries of a voting block that actually shows up on Election Day."The problem, of course, is that it can be difficult to get rid of bad
law already on the books.
The article didn't mention that it isn't just the despised ACLU who
oppose the Indiana bill. It's also the business community, including
associations and large businesses. Letting religion stand as an excuse for
discrimination is deplorable. And it could easily get worse because, given the
opportunity, religion will attempt to curtail the rights of more than just gay
Discrimination is discrimination, these bills open the door to that, and they
open the door to any and all discrimination, you just have to throw in that it
is your religious belief. A public entity of any kind, store, housing or
employment, can now use religious belief as an excuse. Want to separate from
offering services, become a private membership only business, but if you are
serving the public, you serve all the public.
Supporters of RFRAs always claim it is not about discrimination - but the
Georgia bill is dead in the water (it has been "tabled") because an
amendment was added stating it is not an applicable to non-discrimation laws.
And, if it not about discrimation, why are he supporting examples
always examples of discrimination?