Governor Pence Signs Religious Freedom Restoration Act Clarification Bill

    67

    Pence1-400x266
    Pence: “Resolving this controversy, making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana”

    “The freedom of religion for every Hoosier is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Indiana Constitution, which reads, ‘No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.’ For generations, these protections have served as a bulwark of religious liberty for Hoosiers and remain a foundation of religious liberty in the State of Indiana, and that will not change.

    “Last week the Indiana General Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act raising the judicial standard that would be used when government action intrudes upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers, and I was pleased to sign it.

    “Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.

    “Last weekend I called upon the Indiana General Assembly to clarify that this new judicial standard would not create a license to discriminate or to deny services to any individual as its critics have alleged. I am grateful for the efforts of legislators, business and other community leaders who came together to forge this clarifying language in the law.

    “Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing.

    “In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful.

    “There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, ‘What is best for Indiana?’ I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.

    “Our state is rightly celebrated for our pro-business environment, and we enjoy an international reputation for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance and kindness of our people. Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan; it is our way of life. Now that this is behind us, let’s move forward together with a renewed commitment to the civility and respect that make this state great.”

    RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

    67 COMMENTS

    1. Pence is doing some SELLING here….can you tell?

      1. The right wing Christian community pushed HARD to get the original RFRA passed knowing full well…and it was
      “fine with them, thank you very much”….that it provided all kinds of legal State protections for people, businesses and institutions to exclude and/or discriminate against gay citizens. The old law provided legal cover IF you sought to hang a “No Gays Allowed” sign in your business window.

      2. YES! “Payback for passing losing the same-sex marriage ban!!! Take that!! Your gay party isn’t so bright after all is it! The right wing Christian Community showed out State lawmakers we are STILL A FORCE IN THIS STATE AND IN THIS COUNTRY!!! You better not take US for granted Republican Party.!!”

      3. Well, that was short-lived. Reasonable people, legal people, pro-business Republicans, but more importantly the Indiana Business Community and the State’s significant institutions (NCAA, Hospitals, Foundations, etc) DEMANDED the law be ADAPTED to make sure this wiggle room that provided legal protection for discrimination against gay citizens?…….CHANGE IT NOW. Or else.

      4. The right wing Christian community says “NO. NO CHANGE! THE LAW IS FINE! NO CHANGES….!!!!”

      5. And the State lawmakers said, “Sorry. We like you right wing Christian community. We want your money and your votes. And you USED to be more important to us….BUT because every time we do what you want – no matter how ridiculous…you know, war on women, the school prayer thing, same-sex marriage thing…..WE LOSE. So, “NOPE, WE ARE CHANGING THE LAW TO SAY YOU CAN’T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON A CITIZENS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”

      6. And the right wing Christians are like….”What? What just happened We had this. We were celebrating. We were rubbing that crap in their faces. Things were good. What do you think you’re doing”

      7. And TODAY……(before all of the NCAA and it’s college-educated, money-making, voting, supporters start tuning into the Final Four)…….PENCE comes out and says, “I prayed on this. I am a Christian. I am so happy to give all of my support to the right wing Christian community and keep the RFRA intact. I love the right wing Christian community. I pray with them everyday. And I AM PROUD TO ADD that you can’t discriminate in the RFRA based on sexual orientation in the adapted RFRA law. I am proud to support religious rights in Indiana. We are one, me, you the right wing Christians. We are one!!”

      8. Yeah. Right.

    2. The controversy isn’t ‘resolved’. Pence and his fellow knuckledraggers have been made for all the world to see. They had a chance to repeal this abomination and blew it.

      ‘… but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, ‘What is best for Indiana?’ — Scowlin’ Mad Pence.
      An amazing statement by an unrepentant far right extremist who has brought more heat down on Indiana than all his predecessors combined. His presidential ambitions have warped an already twisted politician into something that is the focus of worldwide opprobrium.

      The repugnant RFRA should be repealed and Scowlin’ Mad should resign. He’s done enough for Indiana, the state can’t take anymore of his goodness. Make no mistake, inserting the ‘fix’ language into the law was not by choice. They were forced to do it. Their hearts are not in the right place. The Jesus they claim to worship would not know them. They will be back, they must be watched.

      “We are not going to let any of these people off the hot seat. We struck a compromise. They will be hearing from us again,” said Kathy Sarris, Indiana Equality.

      Nobody’s religious freedom is the least bit at risk in Indiana. That doesn’t mean people get to do whatever they want in the name of religous rights. Gay folk’s civil liberties are just as important and need to be enshrined in the law. A new law, a separate untainted law.

    3. Yeah, right. Wrong! Not even close. But par for the course. Left wing radical anti-religious bigots became hysterical over imagined contents of the bill that would discriminate against people with imagined special protection. Their remedy to the imagined discrimination? A demand for all to (for real) DISCRIMINATE against Indiana!
      The result? Republicans, as usual, caved. Anti- religious bigots got all they asked for and more. AND ALL DEMS STILL VOTED AGAINST IT.

      • …There is an inconsistency in your argument COMMONSENSE.

        If people were hysterical over “imagined contents of the bill”…then why would you be against adding the sexual orientation protection language?

        • Because the bill I read said nothing about “discrimination” against anyone other than government discrimination against those following their religious beliefs. Did I miss something?
          Had the original bill contained special protection for sexual preference I would no have defended it.

          • COMMONSENSE…..At least you are on record you wish to empower people with the ability to discriminate, not hire, etc, against people based on their sexual preference.

            • Quark. Typical dem response. I am on record as saying a baker should not be forced by government to provide a cake to anyone demanding the cake depict a groom and a groom, or a bride and a bride. With the “fix it bill” they could be forced and, if they refuse, jailed. Happy?

            • That trivializes the other significant things the law also allowed. And those who objected to the changes by bringing up “Bride and Bride Wedding Cake Characters” to justify it…..pretty despicable people.

              Not saying you’re despicable tho Commonsense. I like you. You’re a word weapon!!

          • Here’s the thing, quark. I was hoping to see some specifics from the bill from you to back up your claims. Maybe I missed something. Nada.
            The cake issue is genuine and what this is really all about.

            • COMMONSENSE……We just disagree. The old law language was quite open to creating a law that…..for example, say……a Christian company that bought an Indiana company that said “We’re the new Owners. We will not hire gays. All gays who do work here, they are now fired. That’s our policy because that is our religion.”

              Of course, you can expect lawsuits when such a thing would happen. The old RFRA was a law, like the “Stand Your Ground” law, the provided a court defensible opportunity for the Owner to point and say…….”Not only is that our right because of our religion, this case isn’t even going to Court…because of RFRA.” And indeed, with the old RFRA, there wouldn’t even be charges. Because it was legal then.

              That was the case with the old language. Some dispute that, but the Indiana business community CLEARLY said they thought it could be used that way. EVEN IF there is some disagreement on whether it did, or did not, the ambiguity HAD to be repaired.

              Now C-S, you can say, “But that’s never happened has it?” And such a response isn’t saying I am wrong, you’re just saying “It hasn’t happened yet.” And you can demand I give you some legal language analysis, and I won’t do that because I”m not a lawyer.

              But Indiana business was CLEAR, it was vulnerable that such a scenario COULD play out.

              So stop the pretense this is about a wedding cake. It’s about much more serious things…..and maybe you agree that the gay lady should be fired……but I don’t.

            • quark. Your first paragraph is nonsense. Your second paragraph is nonsense. And it’s laughable for a dem to endorse businesses as a role model for anything.
              But, hey. I’ve got to hand it to you. The existence of Quarks was discovered just a few short years ago. And in that short time you have acquired a last name and learned to type. Keep trying. Someday soon the words you type may actually make some sense.

            • Wait a minute.

              COMMONSENSE…..I mean, c’mon. What kind of disagreement with me is “Your first paragraph is nonsense.” And then you repeat that. ??????????????

              And then you say some stuff about quarks….and decide that calling me a Dem, which is not true, but seriously, you resort to calling me a name as a response!!!!

              Why converse with you COMMONSENSE? (Nonsense and name calling?….SERIOUSLY?)

              Do you dispute I’m wrong? How?

              What an f’n crock. You’re chicken to answer.

            • Actually, quark, your argument is nonsense so I tried a bit of light-hearted banter to be sociable. Evidently, you didn’t get it. Quote the actual words in the bill you object to.
              I’m genuinely surprised at your taking offense at being called a Democrat. How many Republicans did you vote for last Nov.?

            • Commonsense……no biggie. I know if you thought I was wrong….
              …..you’d say how.

    4. How about that Lew Alcindor, aka Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who is demanding discrimination against Indiana because of his perception Indiana discriminates against homosexuals. Jabbar is a muslim. Islamic nations don’t just discriminate against homosexuals, they kill them. They also deem women to be no more than chattel. Another anti-religion voice of reason.

    5. THis clarification was only necessary because of ignorance of the original aw which was seized upon by a wolf pack of activist. Please don’t lecture us about tolerance when A pizza shop is sucker punched into becoming prey for this wolf pack with a high school coach attempting to instigate a mob to go burn down a pizza shop who has never discriminated against anyone but didn’t want to be part and parcial to an event that violates their religious convictions.

      So Indiana is ruled by economic terrorist and ignorant mobs who value sexual liberty but deny religious liberty. So much or liberty.

      So we have a new law that clarifies what was never unclear to reasonable minds. I guess in the end we all win.

      • Indiana Enoch……some thugs drove past my house last night at 120mph. Clearly, they broke the law doing that….but I don’t think the RFRA should have been kept intact because some thugs were speeding, or somebody threatened a pizza shop with a bomb. These are clearly two cases that broke the law….and they need to be pursued, because they broke the law.

        The law changed to protect sexual orientation.

        Good. It was a badly written law.

        That lasted about a week……..

      • Did they threaten to burn your house down because of your views on same sex marriage.? Has Wal-Mart threatened to move out of the neighborhood because of your views? Did you IP cut of your internet access because they feel you are an anti-christian bigot and might post a secularist only sign in your front yard.

        • Indiana Enoch…….You are distracting from the issue. You do that a lot. Burning, or threatening to, is illegal. Moving out of the neighborhood is ANYONE’s right, for any reason. Free speech is legal too. But some things are illegal…and I think most of what you are writing here is not how anyone is actually legally wrong…….you’re whining cause you lost on this again.

        • A high school coach opined burning down this family’s business. That is hate speech not free speech.

          • I-E, You’ve given up, your answers come down to complaining on this issue……no worries.

            You have my best wishes for a Happy Blessed Easter, Indiana Enoch.

      • enoch. I hope you can prove me wrong but from the reported changes in the law (actual wording) you and seekers of religious freedom lose. Which means we all lose. Unless, of course, you are prepared to preside over homosexual weddings.

        • Honestly, I’m not sure. To me it says you can’t decline services, but ministers and churches are exempt. So it appears to me that a minister teaching his congregation that same sex marriage is not God’s design for marriage or God honoring is exempt, but the government will force a pizza shop owner to violate the pastor’s teaching. I hope it means you can’t decline services because a person is gay, but you can decline serving an event because of your religious convictions.

          Of course we have already heard from Kathy Sarris of Indiana gays are more equal that it is not enough. Sexual liberty and spiritual liberty can not be equal to this wolf pack.

          • Enoch. I’ll check again. Story in today’s C&P says Republicans say the new language bars the state’s RFRA from being used as a defense to refuse services to any member of the public including on the basis of sexual (orientation) preference and “gender identity”. Haven’t seen the part about churches and ministers exemption.
            Either way, all dems voted against it. Wonder what they really want? (rhetorical)

            • COMMONSENSE….it’s not what they WANT.

              It’s what they’re gonna GET: sexual orientation added as a formal civil rights protection.

              The right wing Christian lobby has lost it’s clout w/ the Republican Party. And since the American Business community wants the additional protection for sexual orientation…..the GOP will follow.

              You guys need to start another political party…..

            • QD, are you a Republican? If so, I hope you’re getting a good price for it from Democrats.

            • I-E, You bet. A big time pro-business libertarian style Republican. I’m disappointed over the loss of Lugar though. Still mad about it, but you know that. And the silly stuff, I got not patience for it….

      • I don’t know about all of us but that poor put upon pizza shop sure won. It has cleared over a half million dollars in online donations related to this so far. That’s a lot of anchovies. Maybe that was their plan all along. If that’s economic terrorism, send some of it my way.
        Memories Pizza ー bad pepperoni, bad decor, bad people.

    6. INDIANA ENOCH:

      Your problem is with Gov Pence and the Republicans who changed the RFRA law.

      You didn’t want the change. Well, it got changed.

      If you feel you got kicked to the curb, you are right.

      • It will be nice when this little dust-up settles. Whoever is paying Quark to post will send him to another city to ply his trade.

        • COWBOY, If you dispute what I wrote, I would be interested to hear how. Still, what you wrote is funny I guess.

          Some wound-licking going on in here today……..

          • Quark, My mother would have a good description of the gnashing of teeth, whirling in circles and shouting to the moon about the law. “Much to do about nothing”.

            • In fact, I agree with you COWBOY. This whole RFRA was a sideshow that meant nothing to things going forward. The right wing Christian community is desperate to do ANYTHING to prove their worthiness with the Republican Party. This is over, but it was never about anything else.

      • Sexual liberty gets a protected, and spiritual liberty gets kicked to the curb, and you think you just said something pithy. Are you that blind to your own hate?

        Actually, I’m fine with the change if it means you can’t be forced to participate in an event that violates you religion. I have said all along that the law would not allow Jim Crow laws, so why would I be against clarifying it for the wolf pack of ignoramuses that keep howling that was the purpose of it?

        • I-E,

          Good for you….

          Look……This was over before they passed the ignorant RFRA w/ out the additional protection.

          In fact…..It was over when the Windsor case was won in the Supreme Court. This whole RFRA business was a bunch of wasted money as right wing Christians TRIED to gain status w/ the GOP. It’s not working.

        • “I’m fine with the change if it means you can’t be forced to participate in an event that violates you religion”

          I’m a bit sketchy on the ‘event that violates you [sic] religion” thing. Are there lists of such events available for review depending upon the religion practiced? I ask because it seems like there are LOTS of things that violate a person’s religion which may be committed every single day. Depending how you read any particular tome, you may be in violation of your religion every time you pass by a poor person and don’t give them money. Or a sick person who you don’t attempt to minister to. Or a person of a different faith who you don’t attempt to convert. Etc.

          Why is the gay marriage thing such a huge, HUGE deal? Do pastry chefs routinely ask people getting married if the person they are marrying is a person they had an affair with and got divorced because of? Does a person buying a birthday cake get asked if they have had an abortion before? Or if they have ever taken the Lord’s name in vain? All of the above are violations of a religion, but I swear I’ve never been asked by anybody at Chik-fil-A what particular sins I’ve committted, had those sins checked against a list, and then been denied my sandwich based on said sins.

          So, why such a brew-ha-ha over gay marriage? Is it somehow considered such an extraordinary violation that it warrants special treatment? I’m agnostic on my most faith-filled days, so enlighten me. What’s so singularly bad about the behavior of gay folks that it cannot be ignored, while other ‘violations’ are routinely ignored?

          • You have hit the magic question, DB. I am an atheist. Yet was raised attending Sunday School and church by very compassionate parents who would have no problem with gay marriage but would have a serious issue with those who show hate to others. Like you, I do not get this whole waste of time. Indiana has other government business to attend to.

            By the way, there is that stupid amendment to the IN constitution up for vote next week in the House about “right to hunt”. Now there is another big can of worms that should not go into the constitution. A solution to a non-issue. Are there Nut-cakes out there that take sport in seeing how stupid they can make IN look? If so they are really succeeding.

            • My understanding is that placing ‘right to hunt’ and ‘right to fish’ language in a state constitution is meant to prevent de facto elimination of these passtimes due to regulatory overreach.

              Meh. Seems kind of like another way to gin up ‘outrage’ among conservative and rural voters (who are more likely to hunt and fish recreationally). A fairly easy way for a legislator to say “See! I told those liberal hippy environmental wacko’s that you can’t take away our riiiiiiiights!!” and get a rousing red-state cheer, even when there is no evidence those passtimes are under any particular pressure from regulators.

              Libs do the same sort of thing. It’s just politics and pandering.

            • Martha, I would have a slight problem with your parents holding a different definition of marriage than the Jesus they claim to follow, but I have a huge problem with calling someone a hater who is attempting to follow what Jesus taught. In fact, I think. Jesus or common decently would have a serious problem with calling people haters who hold to the same definition of marriage as Him. And that’s to say nothing about how low minded resorting to calling people haters because they do not think as you think.

              Speaking of hate, intolerance, accepting others, and being open minded, didn’t you recently block me on FB? It amazes me how many open minded tolerant people can’t tolerate my views.

          • Fair enough, DB. Now turn that around. Why is everyone in hysterics over a person , maybe one in 10,000, following their religion and not providing a service when they believe it violates their faith? What’s so special about homosexuals that government should force unwilling businesses to do business with them?
            Should a Muslim restaurant owner be forced to cook me a pork chop? Especially since I can go down the street and get pork chops at another restaurant.

            • Also fair enough. I think it isn’t so much the idea of refusing service to a gay person as much as it is the idea that this law could become a slippery slope leading to extremes.

              Your example of the Muslim restaurant owner is a bit of a false analogy. A cafe owned by a devout Muslim probably doesn’t have pork chops on the menu. So, asking for an item which isn’t on the menu is pretty easily refused – – “Sorry, we don’t have pork chops. The lamb chops are very good, though, want to try them?”

              Not so much in the bakery. “Oh, sorry. We do make wedding cakes, but not for gay couples.” There is a rather clear difference, at least in my thinking.

              As far as extremes, should a Muslim police officer be able to refuse to arrest a fellow Muslim who just knocked the hell out of their wife in accordance with some facet of Sharia law? Too far of a logical leap?

            • You are right about the slippery slope analogy- with all laws. We also have laws completely ignored. (immigration) But we must have laws that set forth basic constitutional principles.
              I think the Muslim restaurant is a relevant comparison. “we do make wedding cakes but not with the bride and groom depicted as the same sex. Jones Bakery down the street will be happy to accommodate you.”
              A Muslim police officer in the U.S. is charged with enforcing U.S. laws, not Sharia. If that’s your slippery slope, you have a point.

            • DB, You could make what ifs all day. How about if i take my cartoon of the Muslim God (maybe objectionable to some) to the office supply copy center owned by Muslims. I can assure you they wouldn’t make copies for me. They would probably try to harm me. It would be illegal to do that an i would go to the Fed. Pros. and or the ACLU to make my case for me. They would bury my case so deep 3 generations later wouldn’t be able to find it. Our current leaders wouldn’t think of taking the Muslims to court. Christians, now that would be a different matter.

          • Delta, what difference doest the event make? If there is a take God’s name event should a Christian be forced to cater it?

            How is baking a birthday cake for some who had an abortion participating in the event of having an abortion? In what way is it right to force another person to be involved in events which the person finds offensive or for the government to determine which religious convictions one must violate?

            The only reason this is a religious issue at all is because we have religious liberty. It seems that some think equality means that sexual liberty trumps spiritual liberty. But to answer your question, God’s created order for marriage was one man and one woman. The only two God honoring sexual relationships is manogamy in marriage or celibacy. Homosexuality violates God’s order, but so does adultery. Should a Christian be forced to bake a “congratulations on your affair” cake?

    7. commonsense, in response to your 5:52 pm post – –

      If the bakery owner is Muslim (or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Wiccan, or whatever), I would again ask them what’s so horrific about gay marriage that they would choose to single out that ‘sin’ over any of the literally hundreds of other sins that people who frequent their establishment are guilty of committing. At what point does the baker say “You know what, I’m surrounded by sinners and infidels! I give up! No cake for any of you!!”

      Perhaps a pharmaceutical company decides to stop making a patented antibiotic which is effective against a particularly virulent strain of STD, because anybody who gets an STD must be a fornicator. Again, a stretch, but in the name of religious freedom it must almost certainly be allowed. The recent multi-casualty fire in NYC was caused by a hot plate, necessarily used because that particular flavor of Judaism does not allow fires to be started on holy days (or something like that). Maybe an atheist CEO decides not to cover that insurance loss because he/she thinks Judaism is stupid and it’s their own fault all their kids died and their property burned up. Call it reverse religious objection.

      I guess I am ultimately asking proponents of RFLA two questions:

      1) Why is gay marriage such a horror, when other sins are readily overlooked or ignored?
      2) How do we insure that ‘religious objection’ isn’t taken to ludicrous levels?

      • Delta, it not that the sin is so horrible, it’s that the person is being forced to be involved in it. One is not preventing them from getting married by declining to participate in it.

        • IE, whether I agree with you on the particular issue or not, I think your answer is about as reasonable as it gets. The event itself is sinful (in your opinion), so you should not be forced to participate in it. I get that. I still think it is a slippery slope, but I am sympathetic to your very clearly stated sentiment.

          All that said, I personally think that RFRA is in reality a conservative backlash against being forced to accept legalized gay marriage, thinly cloaked under the veil of ‘religious freedom’. Sort of a “Well, we might have to live with it but we don’t have to LIKE it!!” fit throwing, codified. Just my opinion, though.

    8. Cowboy, I think you’re making a case AGAINST RFLA, aren’t you? Based on the wording of your post, you would feel discriminated against because of your Christianity and would attempt to sue the owners of the copy store? Because you think they should not be able to take your religion into account when offering services, I presume?

      What about if you asked your mom to make some copies and they wouldn’t because she’s a woman? Is that cool with you? This type of law necessarily opens up a lot of ‘what if’s’, whether you like it or not. Seems like the entire law is in response to a giant ‘what if’, at least in my opinion.

    Comments are closed.