People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis

[beautyfromashes]

I'm pointing out that the standard you seemed to suggest has some very obvious drawbacks.

Everyone should be given equal protection under the law. Personal views, including religion, should be allowed as long as they don't hinder the rights of someone else.

But this law says it's OK to let religious views hinder the rights of someone else and with no legal recourse, no?

What rights do you feel are being suppressed?

[kcjak]

To be completely honest, I'm not fully aware of everything the Indiana law does and doesn't do. But my understanding is that individuals can refuse service to anyone if it goes against their religious beliefs. So if my car breaks down in the middle of Nowhere, IN and the only mechanic for miles doesn't like me because I'm gay then I could be forced to pay for towing to go elsewhere.

It's not just as simple as choosing a different baker or go to a different place for pizza because I'm gay - can Jews refuse to serve Muslims? Can Catholics refuse divorced people or someone who had an abortion? Can I start my own church and refuse to serve ugly people or women who wear short shorts?

[shinatoo]

So are courts now going to have to rule if a persons religious text support their claims of religious beliefs?

[flyingember]

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

[flyingember]

So basically it doesn't have to be organized

Section 10 says "if the person's exercise of religion has been burdened or is likely to be" is the test

Section 7 shows who a person is

Section 4 seems to use some basic standard of showing proof that it's your belief.

So let's say that someone has a history of promoting the wearing of colanders and carrying of stock pots as an important aspect of their belief. They've written papers showing that it's against their religious belief for people around them to not do the same. They've stood on street corners speaking on the subject. So they've clearly proven they believe strongly in this belief.

Up to this point they can yell on the corner all they want and have no real action they can take to push their belief.

Section 5 is the big deal part. One's exercise of religion does not need to fall under a central belief system to be protected.

So under this law this hypothetical person appears to now has standing to refuse service if their customer does not wear a colander and carry a pot.

This is a religious proselyting law as much as anything.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

a business cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of their membership in one of the designated protected classes: race, religion, gender, age, and national origin.

Remember awhile back with Cordish not allowing a certain type of person in. The prohibition wasn't geared to race but used how members of that race looked or dressed.
The trouble with that Indiana law, and Indiana laws in general, is sexual preference is not a protected class like those listed.

[beautyfromashes]

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Such a ridiculous name for a law.

[grovester]

Sometime people can't help but get in their own way. Pre-RFR, Indiana businesses were likely safe to deny service. If someone had filed a complaint, the courts would have found in the businesses favor, much like the courts ruled in favor of the businesses in the ACA case.

Now they're stuck with a law that prohibits what they were previously free to do.