The gist of AJ's situation::
What it boils down to in regards to this issue is "special privilege" they (the Reich) want the ability to discriminate because of their religion - closely held religious belief - i.e. the true ramifications of the Hobby Lobby ruling.And I am fighting back, believe me. I am in danger of losing my job, I may end up having to sign a statement to agree to abide by the precepts of the Catholic Church in order to keep my job, and I have become subject to a hostile work environment over the last week after having been with this company for over 10 years now, because "religious freedom" and my team lead deciding that since she is an apostolic pentecostal, she now has the freedom to tell me I am going to hell, and I have no recourse. It will be ruled unconstitutional eventually, but as of right now, it is the law here in Indiana. I can't sue, because part of the law requires that if I file suit, then I am responsible for their court costs and attorney's fees up front.
There are multiple layers here, so it won't be a simple "X happened thus Y" because things like "at will employment" are also part of the equation, which complicates things, and our version of RFRA has nuances in there that make it worse than what other states currently have, set the bar lower to "prove" an action is due to a "sincerely held religious belief" and all sorts of wackiness.
I got a chance to read over the amendment to RFRA and I'm ok with it as it stand now. I'm still far from ok with the other nuttiness that it looks like Pence will sign when it gets to him, and it seems to be "pretty popular." That's the one dealing with employers being able to require employees follow their religious dictates or moral codes even if they are not directly employed by the institution (as in the case of government contractors).
This is the biggie that I'm livid about and that cost my hubby his job a few years ago and could cost me mine because of where I work, where my supervisor worships, and what I do in my spare time. I think the ability has been there for awhile if you work for a church, but the new twist is that entities who are receiving state and federal funding and have government contracted employees are also now allowed to dictate this stuff. It is clearly a violation of the separation of church and state but that seems to not matter to these people.
The law as originally written::
Synopsis: Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.The Amendment
I am currently waiting for verification on a few points. When my information is current I will update ASAP, so stay tuned!!
Senate Bill 127
Religious exemption in state and local contracts. Provides that a contract entered into, modified, or renewed by the state or any of its political or civil subdivisions after June 30, 2015, with a religious corporation, an association, an educational institution, or a society must include language stating that, to the extent permitted under executive order 13279 or Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society is not prohibited from giving a preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion or requiring that all employees and applicants conform to the religious tenets of the organization.
As AJ explained to me privately,
A list of articles discussing the debacle that is Indiana,,,That is the one that would allow religious institutions or religiously owned institutions to require that employees, contractors, and subcontractors either be of the same faith as the institution, or follow the same moral dictates as the institution. For example, Indiana Wesleyan University got the attention of the state attorney general because they were forcing government contractors and their subcontractors in a state work program to sign Indiana Wesleyan's eight-paragraph "community lifestyle statement" including an expected commitment to evangelical Christianity and prohibitions including gambling, drinking, profanity, adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, tobacco, occult practices and, in most cases, dancing. Since my company is owned by Catholic hospitals, they could require me to convert to Catholicism to keep my job, or at least follow the teachings of the church and not stray from them even if I don't go to mass.
Under Title 7, religious institutions can give preference in hiring and can require employees who are a substantial part of the mission of the institution under EEOC religious exemptions, but this has been extended to any religiously-owned or affiliated entities and not just schools and churches, was amended to include state government employees who are not directly employees of the institutions having to conform to religious dictates, and extends to any foreign corporations they do business with. If they have a recurring contract to purchase goods from, say, a company in UK, theoretically they can require that the employees at that company in the UK also follow their religious dictates, which is really whacked.
Then again, taxpayer money here is used to give kids school vouchers exclusively to religious schools, which is also against federal law, but it's still law until it gets overturned. We have some pretty serious separation of church and state issues here.
In general,,,
How Many Times Were Indiana Republicans Warned Their 'Religious Freedom' Bill Was Discriminatory?So, how did a law that brought diverse religious groups and divided political parties together in 1993 become a polarizing issue 22 years later?
“They chose to reject those changes in the committee and again on the House floor that suggests ... the legislative intent here is to allow religious freedom to impact anti-discrimination laws,” Tyler Deaton, senior advisor at American Unity Fund, a pro-gay conservative group, told The Daily Beast.
And, as Kucinich points out, Pence even signed the bill with the men who lead the anti-gay marriage movement in Indiana: Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana Micah Clark, president of the Indiana Family Institute Curt Smith, and Executive Director of Advance America Eric Miller. That sends a clear message.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act: how a legislative 'miracle' got discriminatoryOn SB 568 now known as Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA), Ind. Code § 34-13-9,,,
Barry Lynn, executive director of the nonprofit Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, worked for the American Civil Liberties Union when the federal law was signed in 1993.
The idea that it could be used to discriminate was barely considered, if at all. “It was never intended to become a sword to be used to hurt other people,” Lynn said.
Then, the 1997 case Boerne v Flores determined that RFRA exceeded Congress’s authority and that the government could not determine how states enforced its contents.
That was when the first wave of state RFRAs began. At that time, same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the US, and RFRA cases were rare and typically favored the non-religious. In that first wave, these laws were enacted with little fanfare or backlash.
But in June 2013, the supreme court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for the unexpectedly rapid legalization of same-sex marriage across the US, including Indiana.
Indiana ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Permits Legal Entities to Sue for DamagesOn SB 127,,,
The bill is worded so broadly that a “person” not only includes an individual but also “an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity.”The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – An Analysis of Its Controversy and Indiana’s RFRA – A Second Look
What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
Lawmakers Pass Bill Allowing Some Employers To Dictate Religious Beliefs And BehaviorSo this meme is not so far fetched as many seem to think:
In short, your boss could also be the boss of your religious behaviors. To keep your job, you could say you believe whatever your boss does. But to keep your job, you literally would have to follow the behaviors he or she mandates. That could mean no abortion, no birth control, no masturbation, no infidelity. Or no pork. No alcohol. Or no medical attention. Perhaps no dancing. It could also mean forced tithing.
The "sticker" initiative::
Local businesses use storefront sticker to target controversial religious freedom legislationHelp is out there,,,
Central Indiana businesses are using the power of a tiny sticker to tell potential customers that they are welcome–regardless of their sexual orientation, religion or political views. Josh Driver, a local entrepreneur, founded Open for Service, a grassroots awareness movement that works to promote acceptance.Open For Service
“I think it’s important to have some type of designation that says I’m going to be able to come in here and not be judged for who I am or what I believe in,” said Driver.
We don't have any agenda. We're not interested in talking about businesses practicing discrimination; we're promoting businesses that practice acceptance and tolerance of everyone!
More will be added as verification becomes available!!
No comments:
Post a Comment