Protection?
"In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation ..."(see the letter here) ]
We need just a couple of definitions, and we'll take a serious look at what Pence is trying to save us from.
"In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation ..."(see the letter here) ]
We need just a couple of definitions, and we'll take a serious look at what Pence is trying to save us from.
You now live in a state where Corporations have Religious Rights. That the laws of General Application do not apply to Corporations. Corporations in Indiana can claim burden not only against the government but against the voters. You live in a State, that if the voters decide to petition against SB101 after it comes into effect on July 1, 2015 the corporations can stop the voters, and force the courts by injunction to keep you from doing so -- meaning to order you to stop petitioning -- read Sec 9 again Even if you do not accept anything else I say, think on these facts very carefully.
Before we start though I would like you to open up in another tab the law itself, and put a mental piece of tape across the title –and then write on that tape “Initiative Against_____”
Finish that sentence with whatever brought you here:
- Right to Bear Arms,
- Feminism,
- LGB Rights,
- Evolution Theory Education,
- Climate Change Support by Government,
- Porn
… whatever it is that would be the worst thing you could imagine.Christians, you can put on your piece of tape “...Christ, and Biblical Influence on Government” and that will work just fine.
Because SB101 is a SMACK down on you all.
Since “Christian” is the only religion specifically decried by the US Constitution through Article VI, Section II, of the main document, readers of other religious beliefs will have to choose some other ouch-point issue, personal to them to play along.
Confused? As well you should be, and so was I for several days, and many great legal minds still are -- because it isn't natural to believe that such a massive error could be made -- and to believe this is deliberate is harsh. The quick down and dirty is that SB101 has to be repealed, not fixed. If an amendment is made of LGBT, the general consensus will be that all of this is over and SB101 is safe now. Which is not true. Not by a long mile -- unless you consider your state being ran by corporations (which for some reason now have religious rights -- even the ones with no connection at all to religion in any fashion. For example, Playboy now has religious rights.) unless you consider that safe... so let's continue.
.
This is not a gay issue. That was a stage, a propaganda script played out by the Governor and Miller last Thursday. An ouch-point issue to distract your attention. The next step, which Pence began yesterday (Act II) is to begin to “solve” the issue, by giving LGB rights and clear exemption from SB101 – which will clearly make them the chosen people of Indiana – won’t it?
Generally Applicable
Laws : A generally applicable law is one that is not specifically stated as
being applicable to a given situation, but is generally expected to be applied.
A blatant example is Murder. Because the federal law says that murder is
illegal, it is expected that if your state doesn’t have a law against murder,
you’ll realize that murder is still illegal in your state.
A few weeks from now, the “big threat” of SB101 – manufactured by Pence – will be solved by Pence. LGB – will you now feel that he is not only ‘tolerant’ but a worthy candidate for President of the USA?
In context to Religious Rights however there are some
nuances. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court
adopted the constitutional exemption model, under which sincere religious objectors
had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption in certain areas of
performance or adherence to some laws – the best known example is the draft.
The right to the free practice of religion gave the sincerely religious the
right to refuse being drafted without penalty. Of course, a constitutional
exemption model can never simply say “religious objectors get an exemption.” A
wide range of generally applicable laws — murder law, theft law, rape law, and
so on — must be applicable even to religious objectors. Even as to more
controversial cases, such as bans on race discrimination in education, or
generally applicable tax laws, the Court has found (even under the Sherbert
regime) that religious objectors’ claims must yield.
As you fall further down the ALEC hole, you will hear the pleased laughter, Welcome to the Libertarian world of the Koch, Indiana. This isn’t a theory, the law has already been signed. You now have a government cut off from Federal oversight, and able to cut away from nearly 50 federal agencies. Since Corporations are now "Individuals" The rule of law will be driven by and dictated by Corporations.
Note:
Question: You have your hand gun with you at the
store. I inform you that my religious
beliefs are strongly against the presence of firearms and that because you are
branishing it, your actions are causing me great terror which will force me to
leave – what do you say?
Question: My
religious beliefs of my church are that the continued, unchecked burden on this
planet by the expanding population is the greatest spiritual threat known to
man. It is the cause of all misery and crime, as well as the massive
environmental problems we face today. God is so against the continued
destruction of his creation and the spread of sin this causes, his doctrine
states that marriages resulting in child birth are an abomination. As such,
same sex marriages are blessed by my church. You are a Christian and refuse to
serve me at your restaurant. The question is, how long are you going to fight
in court, and are you willing to lose your business due to lawyer fees?
Question: My religious beliefs state that women
must be clothed properly and their faces and head covered at all times. That the
display of flesh is not merely distasteful, that the defilement it causes in my
mind, completely unbidden and impossible to restrain is a threat to the
judgment of my eternal soul. Is it really such a burden to you to wear for a
few hours a day the proper clothing, when you are threatening me on an eternal
level? What say you Christian woman?
Governmental Entity Statutes: I have searched deeply and have not been able to find this phrase used in any other law, in any other state or federal law -- or executive order for that matter -- what it means however is the State Constitution, including all of the Amendments.
Personal note: As this is not a phrase ever used, I can only interpret the intention behind the usage as a deliberate attempt to hide the value and breathe from a reader unfamiliar with legal writing... the common citizen. So I want to make it clear for all readers -- Sec 1 says that Chapter 9, (SB-101) overrules every other law, all rights, every amendment and the totality of the Indiana State Constitution itself, and if there is a conflict between Chapter 9 and any other government text, law, or right given to the citizenship of Indiana, Chapter 9 wins the argument. Now you understand my belief about the intention of the words used here.
Construed to Be Exempt: Believed to be exempt—in other words if you are thinking “It can’t possibly mean ___” yes, it does.
Burden of Going Forward: The burden of going forward, also called the burden of producing evidence, burden of production, or the burden of proceeding, is an instruction of court procedure – meaning how litigation will be done in the courtroom. This is not often stipulated, but it can be and SB-101 has chosen to do so. Suppose a person is charged with the possession of stolen goods. If the court is using Burden of Going Forward -- After the prosecution has introduced evidence of the defendant's possession of such goods, the defense bears the burden of refuting or explaining the evidence. If the evidence appears unfavorable for the prosecution, it has the burden of going forward to produce more evidence to bolster its claim that the defendant committed the crime. The failure to produce more evidence may result in the judge's dismissing the charges against the defendant (meaning that the jury will never be asked to decide). If the prosecution produces such evidence, it shifts the burden of production back to the defendant, who then must refute the additional evidence.
Since SB-101 is a Civil code the question of who the burden is on does come into question. As a general rule, where a hearing involves the denial of an application for a license or the denial of a benefit that is sought, the burden is on the person who applied for the license or benefit. Where the proceeding involves disciplinary action against a license, the burden is on the agency seeking such action. Obviously the one who has the burden is typically at a disadvantage.
At this point, with those points in mind, and your title on the tape – read SB-101.
This is not a gay issue. That was a stage, a propaganda script played out by the Governor and Miller last Thursday. An ouch-point issue to distract your attention. The next step, which Pence began yesterday (Act II) is to begin to “solve” the issue, by giving LGB rights and clear exemption from SB101 – which will clearly make them the chosen people of Indiana – won’t it? They will be the only group of people exempt and if you read SB101 you’ll see that the only ones and the only laws that SB101 doesn’t rule over are those with clear exemptions.(Sec 1)
A few weeks from now, the “big threat” of SB101 – manufactured by Pence –
will be solved by Pence. LGB – will you now feel that he is not only ‘tolerant’
but a worthy candidate for President of the USA? My first thought was that the clash of religions was going to bring some serious problems. My last post illustrated that point.
Then I was sure that SB101 was the gutting of the Blaine Amendment, which it is, but that’s not the true goal either.
The true goal of this measure is to make Indiana the first fully Libertarian state in the Union.
SB101 goes live July 1, 2015. By August 1, 2015 new Laws such as these are going to look like a great idea
Yes, those are going to be just the thing – if you don’t mind going further down the ALEC hole, losing more and more rights as you go.
So, Welcome to the Libertarian world of the Koch, Indiana. This isn’t a theory, the law has already been signed. You now have a government cut off from Federal oversight, and able to cut away from nearly 50 federal agencies. Since Corporations are now "Individuals" The rule of law will be driven by and dictated by Corporations.
I welcome any argument against the possibility of total Corporate Rule in Indiana that shows SB101 can not be used in that manner -- or a place where it says that the government of Indiana can stop it from happening. Because every legal scholar I've brought this up to has agreed with this evaluation.
You are next Arkansas -- I'll do what I can, but it would be better if it was never signed.
