We need to keep framing the IN law as anti civil rights and not pro religious freedom...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

So far we control the narrative. It is imperative that we continue to do so...

[RKP5637]

1. Yes, exactly what it is, "anti civil rights." Religion is just a tool they are using. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Opposing religious freedom is a loser...

However I don't have to like someone to bake them a cake if they pay me.

[Downwinder]

3. I want some freedom from religion.

I can't go into a store without someone jumping out from behind the clothes racks to hand me a religious tract.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. As long as they sell me their cake they can give me whatever tract they want...

In L A there are lots of Jehovah's Witnesses and Korean Christians giving out religious tracts... I wish we had activists like that.

[alc]

5. depends on the audience you are talking to

As a DU pep-rally discussion that works great.

If you want to change minds of people on the other side it doesn't always work so well. I'd say that changing minds is more important than changing law. A lot of people dig in when the argument is framed that way rather than acknowledging that their is a conflict between the 14th and 1st amendments and it needs to be discussed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I would argue that most Americans are comfortable...

I would argue that most Americans are comfortable with the formulation that your freedom to associate ends at your right to discriminate, hence the control of the narrative.

[world wide wally]

7. First they came for the gays, and I did not say anything...

You know the rest

[Ms. Toad]

8. Do you believe that Native American Churches

should be allowed to use peyote in their sacred ceremonies? Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

That is the background from which the RFRA arises. In general, there have been laws passed which "incidentally" burden the free exercise of religion - typically Native American or outside of the norm religions (Quakers, Amish, Wiccans, etc.) The Supreme Court, after declining to punish people for engaging in the free exercise of their religion for decades, came down on (not surprisingly) a common sacred practice in Native American culture - the use of peyote or mescaline in their sacred ceremonies. Specifically, in Smith, a Native American individual was denied unemployment benefits because of sacramental use of peyote.

While I agree that the purpose for which the current crop of laws are being introduced is vile, their original purpose was a good one - to undo some of the damage done by Smith v Employment Division.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That's the point in my seminal post...

Your right to practice your religion ends at refusing to serve a black, Jewish, Latino, Asian, , gay guy, et cetera a piece of pizza...

[Ms. Toad]

10. My point is that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The purpose of the original RFRAs was to correct the interference with free exercise which was created by Smith.

It is like giving up on the word marriage because the religious right decided to pervert its use by conflating ceremonial marriage in the church with the legal institution (which typically permits recognition of ceremonial weddings).

I am not challenging your understanding of the motivation behind Indiana's law - just advancing that understanding by trashing a collection of laws which were intended to fix real interference with the free exercise of religion in ways that most people on DU would want to support. (Conscientious objection to war, war tax resistance, respect for native sacramental practices, etc.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Supporting religious freedom and opposing discrimination are not mutually exclusive...

Laws should protect folks from government intrusion on their practice of religion while prohibiting folks from discriminating on the basis of their religion.

If a Baptist minister refused to marry a same sex couple based on his or her understanding of Biblical law I would defend his or her right. However if a Baptist refused to bake a same sex couple a cake based on his or her understanding of Biblical law I would vigorously oppose him or her.

[Ms. Toad]

15. I know they are not.

Pretty much my point. But it is (since Smith) the RFRAs which have supported the free exercise of religion by religious organizations which are the strongest opponents discrimination.

My point is don't be blinded to the good RFRA has done by the fact that laws by the same name are now being used for offensive purposes.

[el_bryanto]

12. I think you need to look at the difference between Indian's current law

And the laws passed back in the 90s. The current law has been given some key differences in order to protect those who want to discriminate based on religious privilege. Specifically it extends those protections to businesses, and makes it difficult if not impossible for individuals to sue.

In other words, those original Religious Freedom law's were designed to protect religious individuals from the Government interfering in their practices. These current laws are designed to protect businesses from individuals demanding equal treatment.

Bryant

[Ms. Toad]

16. I never said they were the same.

I was reacting to the framing by the OP which did not distinguish between the RFRAs from 20 years ago and now.

[HereSince1628]

13. IMO there's a problem with conflation...practicing religious rituals in private isn't

the same as selling products and services to the general public.

I don't have a problem with Catholics preaching that homosexuality is wrong in their sanctuaries or in their publications.

But I draw the line on their operation of SECULAR Emergency Rooms that profit by serving the public to deny homosexuals treatment based on the selective application of contentious religious interpretations inside the Church of Peter.

The only thing that matters in a secular business established under secular law and serving the public should be that money is accepted as legal tender for the trade.

[Ms. Toad]

18. There is also some well recognized overlap

for which the RFRAs have/may provide some protection.

I, and/or organizations I have been involved with have engaged in conscientious objection with regard to:
I-9 compliance
Payment of war taxes
Registration for selective service
Conscientious objection to war
School of the Americas
Underground railroad activities (both historically, and more recently with political refugees traveling across the US to Canada

Granted - the above are relatively extreme positions our faith leads some of our members (or us, corporately) to take, and RFRA offers little protection - but at the Federal level, since Smith, it is the strongest protection there is.

The difference is also that none of the above, except perhaps I-9 and war taxes have to do with businesses. In those two instances, a religious organization I am a member of objected on religious grounds to enforcing immigration practices by complying with the I-9 requirements, and being forced to withhold war taxes from the paycheck of individuals who were - on grounds of conscience - refusing to pay war taxes.

As a private business owner, if asked by an employee, I might make similar decisions to the last two.

That is still not the same thing as discriminating against someone - in at least the former it is an objection to being forced to discriminate (against undocumented immigrants).

But for me it is not such a clear line to draw as private v. public - because of my personal experience where my religious beliefs do occasionally require me to break the law, and I do appreciate having some basis for a defense.

[HereSince1628]

19. Mostly non sequiturs with respect to the Indiana law I do believe

[Ms. Toad]

20. That's kind of the point I've been making all along.

I am concerned that reaction to RFRA because of the way it is being used in Indiana is being turned into RFRA isn't about its original purpuse, but is instead solely about discrimination.

[Bettie]

14. It has nothing to do with religious freedom

and everything to do with entitled bigots wanting to practice their bigotry.

I can't see how we won't continue to control the narrative.

[NightWatcher]

17. I like the frame that it's people using religion to justify their hate

[Avalux]

21. I'm calling it the "Christian Domination" Law. n/t