I think it's a terrible law. People should learn to live together.
If you don't think that it's a good thing to be homosexual, then don't be homosexual.
Sexual orientation is not something that god empowered you to police.

What, you can't sell someone a cup of coffee because of your religion?

What they are saying is that certain citizens should be allowed to discriminate against other citizens and be protected by the law from discriminatory lawsuits under the guise that they would be victims of discrimination if they would have to defend their discriminatory acts.  -  rongone

That about sums it for me, too.
 

Just Fred wrote:

What do you think of this?

WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) quietly signed legislation Thursday that could legalize discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don't want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.

"Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith," Pence said in a statement Thursday. "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action."

The bill received national attention, but Pence signed it with little fanfare in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The Indianapolis Star reported that members of the media "were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor's office."

So how does one get freedom from religion?

Under this bill, if I refuse to serve someone because they're christians, will the government back me up?

Amazing how people will support legalized discrimination...except when they're the victims.

As far as what I think about this.  It's hate legislation plain and simple.
 

Last edited by Conspiracy Theory (3/26/2015 5:22 pm)

Blowback from Pence's decision has already started from a very unusual group. Part of the article:

"After all, the best counter to these religious freedom measures has come from an Oklahoma representative named Emily Virgin.

She introduced an amendment in her state that would require a business that will refuses service to certain individuals to "post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person's religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race."

Essentially, it tells everyone your intentions, who you are and what you are about. That way the gay couple looking for a florist knows not to go inside … and the rest of the public who think you're an idiot can go find another florist, too.

Then the religious freedom florist will cling to a dwindling customer base until it goes out of business."



Read the entire article here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-s-response-to-indiana-s--religious-freedom--law-is-perfect-203433125.html

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Federal)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Applicability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_ActThe RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

ApplicabilityThe RFRA applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."[9]

Last edited by Common Sense (3/27/2015 12:39 pm)