General Discussion

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)

28. The laws are similar but not identical with important differences

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:43 PM

Mar 2015

The other states basically copied the federal law. Indiana's goes farther, including making it clear that businesses can claim religious objections. This is a point the governor and friends are being dishonest about when they say other states have "essentially" the same law.

More telling, they rejected proposed amendments along the way that would have said the law can NOT be used to discriminate over sexual orientation. Had they bundled that in with the package Indiana might not be the pariah it has become.

For example in IL, the law also stipulates that discrimination for any purpose is illegal. Indiana's has no such language.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting [View all] B2G Mar 2015 OP

20 wrongs do not make a right, good to see the mass media is waking up, even if unintentionally. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #1

What's your point? 99Forever Mar 2015 #2

This was to inform people B2G Mar 2015 #3

Some of the states listed ban discrimination against LGBT persons. NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #35

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Chuck Schumer... PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #4

Was there this much aversion B2G Mar 2015 #5

It was extremely 'bi-partisan'... PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #7

Still scratching my head... nt B2G Mar 2015 #9

The issue is coming to a head now primarily because of same-sex marriage PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #11

you really have to have a lot of hate... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #20

It's especially silly for cake makers since all they have to do is change out a bride or groom. PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #23

Exactly.... sendero Mar 2015 #32

the problem with the law awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #33

Well... sendero Mar 2015 #34

No, it implies... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #57

Seriously? stone space Mar 2015 #40

The reasons for the Federal law (which does not permit discrimination) were legal disputes involving Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #24

The scope of that bill was not intended for that purpose. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #42

The main purpose of RFRA was to protect Native American religious practices The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2015 #27

K&R! marym625 Mar 2015 #6

For me, I loathe religion. I think it's the greatest pestilence even unleashed on mankind! One has RKP5637 Mar 2015 #8

+1000 marym625 Mar 2015 #19

I've heard of folks who loathe atheism, also. stone space Mar 2015 #29

It is, and hence a divided nation. n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #30

Should atheism be abolished? You talk about abolishing religion. (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #31

In my perfect world there would be neither. n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #36

Agnostics Rule! (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #37

Yes, agree, they should! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #38

. stone space Mar 2015 #39

How is atheism a religion? haikugal Mar 2015 #43

Who said that atheism is a religion? (nt) stone space Mar 2015 #46

Your question implied it haikugal Mar 2015 #49

I don't see much of a difference between abolishing religion and abolishing atheism. stone space Mar 2015 #52

Clarity, Thx. haikugal Mar 2015 #53

No, not even slightly. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2015 #62

I'm not sure what your point here is. stone space Mar 2015 #63

Magic-thinking is fatal. nt valerief Mar 2015 #56

IMO this is an excellent informative post! Thanks! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #10

I am okay with boycotting all of them Kalidurga Mar 2015 #12

Oklahoma laws were killed OKNancy Mar 2015 #13

Out of all those states, Arizona, Idaho and Virginia are the only ones I've visited. nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #14

ACLU: "The timing of this legislation is important to understanding its INTENT: Zorra Mar 2015 #15

But that doesn't change the fact that the text of the bill B2G Mar 2015 #17

I didn't say it did. But it is the reason that Indiana is at the forefront of Zorra Mar 2015 #18

Probably because of ALEC awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #21

It is not almost identical. Neither are the states. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #45

Actually, there are big differences. The federal act's intent was to protect specific religious Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #60

thanks for posting and highlighting the differences. salin Mar 2015 #61

I believe Kansas was the first state to start this MuseRider Mar 2015 #16

I call Bullshit for Connecticut NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #22

The (b) part is the same as in the Indiana law: PoliticAverse Mar 2015 #25

The difference is Connecticut has strong GLBT protections written into law. NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #26

The laws are similar but not identical with important differences riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #28

This section allows any current Indiana law to be challenged for religious reasons. LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #47

Thank you for the specific details. riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #51

Supremely dishonest article and OP alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #41

Thank you LiberalFighter Mar 2015 #50

Give us time - nt LiberalElite Mar 2015 #44

Its even worse...31 according to this workinclasszero Mar 2015 #48

Michican has one going through the Lansing cesspool right now project_bluebook Mar 2015 #54

You know that bastard will workinclasszero Mar 2015 #55

I don't think Dickie will sign it. roamer65 Mar 2015 #58

You may be right project_bluebook Mar 2015 #59