Again, I congratulate you on your victory.
So you think it’s something they considered and discussed and had activity on, that they could reach this belief?
Why would they have had to discuss it?
The problem is that, barring a declaration from a court case, the law is not something that has fixed truths. It has interpretations. Heck, even in court cases, the result is called an opinion.
It’s perfectly legitimate for you to argue your interpretation of the law, citing court cases and all that. But to move from there to an established truth while people are still disagreeing with you is a step too far.
You have made legal arguments on this board in the past that you indicated you were very sure of, and then they turned out to be wrong.
Now, I’m not saying you’re wrong this time. But we’re not remotely at the level of truth of evolution or global warming. We’re not dealing with science here. It is perfectly possible for people to look at your arguments and your evidence, and conclude that you are mistaken.
Now, if you were to find that 95% of all lawyers agreed with your interpretation, like with evolution and climate change, then we’d have another story.
Please stop gloating about this. It only makes it look like you actually are pro-homophobia, and puts your legal analysis into question.
That’s the message being communicated when people say “Congratulations” to you.
I will take issue with this characterization. If you’re going to point out that left-wingers supported their case with false claims, you cannot leave out the fact that right-wingers (including the author of the bill) supported their case with equally false claims. Or that supporters that Pence chose to stand behind him as he signed the bill into law believe that if SB 50 - the new law being discussed to “clarify” SB 101 - is enacted, then “Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government”.
And it’s odd that you limit the outcry to just left-wingers. Both the Indianapolis and Indiana Chambers of Commerce have come out in vocal opposition of the law, and both are considerably conservative. Ditto Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard.
Now, now. Don’t take away his one salve. A state just got hammered with the threat of billions in lost commerce for their conservative religious bigotry, and capitulated as a result. The one thing he has to sooth the pain is that a bunch of conservative bigots could give one other bigot a million bucks. So that’s a victory, I guess.
I’m sure the next bigot will get a million bucks, too! There’s no way this can fail!
Indeed, and this is key: whatever false claims left-wingers have made about the effects of the law have been based on trusting the writers of the law that it would do what they said it would do. Blaming liberals for believing the law’s designers and holding liberals primarily accountable for false narratives of the law’s effect is extraordinarily unfair.
But pizza people are making bank, therefore his side is winning. Ours is not to reason why. Ours is just to point and laugh.
That’s an interesting view. My analysis is correct because I’m not pro-homophobia, and if it turns out I am pro-homophobia, then my analysis becomes wrong?
How about this whacky idea: my analysis is correct based on the fact that it accurately states the law, and would be correct even if offered up by Nelson Mandela, Learned Hand, or JoJo the Dog Boy.
No, I think it was such a far-fetched idea that no one even discussed it.
Well, one pizza person. And it wasn’t pizza that got him a million bucks. It was the bigotry. Pizza was incidental.
Sorry, I should have capitalized. The Pizza People are making bank…
So, Bricker- it the Indiana law is essentially the same as Federal law, then what was the purpose of passing it? 
IF the Indiana law is essentially the same as the Federal law, the purpose of passing it would be because SCOTUS ruled that the federal RFRA does NOT apply to the state governments.
Note that my posting this does not indicate that I share Bricker’s naivete (or disingenuity) about the motives of the Republican legislators who passed it…
I see that you haven’t read this thread, because I have answered this question at least twice previously.
The federal RFRA’s text makes it applicable to both the states and the federal government, but the Supreme Court decided, in a case called City of Bourne v. Flores, that Congress had no authority to bind states with this requirement. So the federal RFRA does not apply to state laws. If a state wants the same effect for its laws as the federal RFRA provides for federal laws, then it must pass its own, state version, which 20-some states have done.
I don’t dispute the motives of many of the legislators who voted for it. But. Don’t care about the motives. Care about the actual effect of the law.
Yes, but I am a old dude and it’s like a zillion posts and I forgot.
But thanks!