Search results

Protection Bill? Really? I don't think it means what you think it means

The signing of this bill doesn't seem like it's a step in the direction of equality and justice and liberty for all Americans,” said Press Secretary Josh Earnest, noting that the administration’s view was shared by the Republican mayor of Indianapolis and a “whole host of nonprofit and private-sector companies who have legitimate concerns about the impact of this legislation.

The impact of this legislation? Impact -- is the perfect word. And the answer is 'Tectonic'

Only about a fifth of you are going to be able to understand and accept this -- that's how propaganda works. It is nearly impossible to remove false information completely. We aren't spreadsheets. We don't delete and replace information. I wish I was skilled enough to help further.

Pence signed the bill into law on Thursday -- which was reported to be a law that entitled private company owners to refuse service based on their religious beliefs.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That was the story that hit the media and Twitter. It even hit the Whitehouse.

There was an uproar and it seemed legit. Apparently the ability to displace gays from citizenship was the intention.

But then you read the law... and find... not so much... and so much more.

 In their lust to push aside civil-rights and promote their power, like a recycled late-night movie -- the experiment has escaped and is heading for the city.

This law strives so hard to be perverse and twisted without being perverse and twisted that the metaphor of escape is not far off track.

Here is the nutshell

The intention was obviously to overpower any resistance, past, present or future, to not be entangled by any other previous legislation, and to encompass every aspect of government in Indiana. To utilize the outreach of legislation, and fully disentangle it, the writers chose to use a new chapter... Chapter 9.

Reading  Sec. 1 -  Sec 6 you will find that this was done with prejudice -- like in the movie where they say to deal with the enemy with extreme prejudice. Worded as it is, even the part time relief janitor on the weekend shift is called to battle.

There are a few terms being used, which are strict, well defined, legal terms. I'll talk about most later, but one we need to know is General Applicability
As their name suggests, rules of general applicability have a broad scope considerably more comprehensive than laws specifically directed at a particular activity. In the context of constitutional adjudication, the concept of general applicability is commonly used to distinguish general laws being applied to regulate speech or religious activities from laws aimed specifically at those very activities. For example, a law requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events in a public park is a general law that does not target speech, whereas a law requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting a march or demonstration in a public park specifically targets speech. A law prohibiting animal cruelty is a general law that is not aimed at a religious practice, whereas a law prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice is specifically aimed at a religious practice.  ~10 First Amendment Law Review 419 (2012) 
We need to know that term because of a sentence that is coming up in Sec 8 describing how far the State and all of it's tentacles -- even lowly half connected off shoots -- are to go in protecting the religious actions of a person. The line says --
a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
Substantially Burden is another of those 'clearly defined legal terms' and there is even a test for this one -- but we don't need it right now. For this moment we can go with "stop them". So, you can, for the next few minutes accurately replace may not substantially burden a person -- with -- may not stop a person -- and hit the nail right on the head.

So, no one, from Gov to janitor, from State Trooper to grounds keeper at the school, national guard, police, fire department (as they are connected to the city -- connected to the state) may stop a person(which we will clarify in a minute) from the exercise of religion(and religion we will get to shortly).

Now if you are an extremist GAWD THAT SOUNDS GOOD... but that is epic fail number one.

Even in the moments that are normally considered out of bounds by the law are in safe harbor -- all the way into the placid normally safe waters of general applicability. But lets move on and cover religion. What is it that is guarded into these waters? Sunday Mass? Baptism? Marriage? Morning Prayer toward Mecca?
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.
So, if you say it is covered, it is covered, because no one is familiar with every aspect of every system of religious belief, and it doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't need to be central to a system of religious belief. The authors were obviously attempting to cover things like morning meditation at work or perhaps the Outcry of Abomination shouted at a gay couple on the street. "Get Behind Me Satan!" and that sort of stuff. Again, for the extremist GAWD THAT SOUNDS GOOD! ... but that is epic fail number two.

Who gets to do this? Ministers? Deacons? Adults? Humans?
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,
Note here that our(3) option does not designate that the company or corporation needs to be religiously focused or aligned in any form. So to sum up, any and all in the State, because our (1) individual doesn't have that requirement either
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.
So, in the first line we are told that this is an inclusive list -- normally this is accepted to mean "any one of the following, whether or not other parts conflict" So if you are an individual you can stop reading -- the part of able to be sued or not doesn't need to be addressed. Thus, any child, teen, non-citizen, student, teacher -- radio show, TV show, broadcast -- automated recording, robotic display -- automobile, billboard, window display, flower garden -- epic fail number three.

Let's sum up here: Any person, exercising their religious beliefs -- whether you accept them as religious beliefs or not is not a concern -- can not be hindered/stopped by any agency of the State of Indiana or sued or even addressed with a request during that exercise.

I hope at this point that even the extremists are beginning to wonder about this -- but that is the trouble with extremists -- they don't do much wondering.

Sec 9 is where the real fun begins, but I'm going to gloss over it -- no one can stop the exercise. If a State entity -- any State entity -- observes people attempting to stop it they are called to defend the exercise -- police by janitor and librarian -- if they fail and the exercise is stopped, the person can sue both those who stopped them and the state for failing to protect.

Total Party Wipe-out

Damien has always wanted to spread the word of his religion, like it suggests in their Bible. However, his religion is not looked on kindly by many people. Some people even find it offensive. Where they use to live, Damien's father was harassed day and night by several groups, and so they have moved to Indiana where religious freedom is protected by law. So Damien, knowing he has nothing to fear has made a sacred pledge to witness and share his religion to all of the other kids at his high-school. He chooses Twitter, makes a search for all Tweets coming from the zip-code of his school during the day and captures all of the addresses that go across the stream (using the "near" search). Then at night, he sets his computer to fire off messages to those addresses between 8pm and Midnight. He can only send 1000 tweets a day but that seems like enough.

He loads up his program with messages and scripture, attaching images and photos and web links.

At service this week, they made their ritual sacrifice and Damien took pictures of the whole process, and made notes about the ritual, and how Satan was to be addressed at each point.

Last week you could have forced Damien's parents to stop him by injunction, law suit or restraining order.

Now, you can't even make a phone call without being sued.

can I get a DAMN THAT SOUNDS GOOD! ~ anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Well stand by for more action because members of the Friends of ISIS have things to share with you over the loud speakers strapped to the hoods of their cars.

Think this is Far Fetched> Maybe I'm being Inciting? Read this>>>
Fact is there are dozens of stories like that every year... every time a Christian group feels the need to "Improve their Rights" this kind of thing occurs.

Devil Worship Group Unveils Design for Statue inside  Oklahoma Capital
According to its Indiegogo page, the Satanists have raised more than $16,000 toward their goal of $20,000 for the monument, which Greaves said would "be a historical marker commemorating the scapegoats, the marginalized, the demonized minority and the unjustly outcast.”

OH.. one more detail This has no added rights to any Private company -- such as the right to refuse service to anyone. You could try to use this to "protect your denial of action" but that's not going to fly in any court. So, When the Gov said "This has nothing to do with Gays..." he wasn't lying, even if he believed it did.

Official Summary of this Law From Gov Website
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.

Here they all are. The minds behind the Indiana 101 Religious Protection Act. May they all live long enough to get a firm grip on what they have passed.

If your name is not on that list, and you are currently holding office as an Indiana legislator, you should find a gay man, or lesbian woman, kiss them deeply, buy them dinner and swear your allegiance to the rainbow for the rest of your days -- because it really could have been you.

Memories Are DNA: How Memory Works (the basics)

The relationship between memory and DNA is a complex and fascinating area of active scientific research.  Here's a breakdown of what w...