Pizzaria in my town raises $842k over gays rights debacle, reopens to full house

[Amade]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Acts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

i dunno. the other 20 seem to be doing fine

Only a matter of time. These family values-as-religious-freedom laws have been dropping like flies recently.

Have you given up on trying to justify the pizzeria's behavior?

[Ad Bot]

[Kearn]

Only a matter of time. These family values-as-religious-freedom laws have been dropping like flies recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

apparently the federal supreme court is just fine with the law as of less than a year ago

[SeventhSandwich]

any judge with an IQ above 4 is going to know whether you're actually dealing with a violation of your conscience or just making up a legal defence. i think it's fairly obvious the first amendment wasn't created to allow people to make up a religion in half a second and use that as a legal defence for everything

Last time I checked, rulings are made based on laws and not the judge's intuition. Show me the part of this law that prevents this from happening.

yeah look at all that text about how discrimination is permissible now.

O jeez, it doesn' say nothin about discrimination being legal. Guess that means I'm wrong!

Yeah, no. You're going to have to apply a little bit of something known as reading comprehension in order to get past the legal jargon here. I'll go bit by bit here:

Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability

What this is saying is that a governmental entity cannot charge a person with discrimination over their exercise of religion even if it results from them refusing a 'rule of general applicability'. Laws based on 'general applicability' are ones that do not target a specific activity (generally) related to speech or religion, like marches, protests, etc. An example I found in an online document about these rules is that a rule of general applicability is something like a law requiring you to get a license before giving speeches in a public park, which applies to anyone regardless of what speech they're giving.

The reason why this caveat is given is because most state governments have discrimination laws that do not protect 'gays' or 'jews' specifically, but this law allows businesses to be exempt from those laws if it happens to protect a group their religion allegedly prevents them from serving. What this is essentially saying is that, discrimination laws aside, if your religion says you don't like a protected group, then the government can't do stuff to stop you from discriminating against them.

If you need any more convincing that this law is patently discriminatory, please compare these two texts:

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 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

(a)        In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b)        Exception        

 Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 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.

Notice anything? That's right, they're essentially the same damn thing. The first one is SB101, and the second one is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was rendered unconstitutional by City of Boerne v. Flores.

there is a list of tax exempt religions. any others are not "religions" in this nation.

I'm totally with you on that. The tax-exempt status of churches is in violation of the 1st amendment.

[Headcrab Zombie]

The tax-exempt status of churches is in violation of the 1st amendment.

How, exactly?

[SeventhSandwich]

How, exactly?

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.

Unless you can convince me that paying the same taxes as everyone else is 'prohibiting their free expression', I'm not sure how you aren't seeing it as a violation.

[Kearn]

which was rendered unconstitutional by City of Boerne v. Flores.

actually it was only considered an overreach under the 14th, the law still applies to the federal government itself and was the basis of the hobby lobby decision last year

Unless you can convince me that paying the same taxes as everyone else is 'prohibiting their free expression', I'm not sure how you aren't seeing it as a violation.

churches are run on donations. unless we're going to start taxing charities then it's a pointless argument

[Ipquarx]

I'm choosing other on the poll because they have the right to deny anyone service but that doesn't mean they're not an starfish if they do, and people have the right to protest starfishs.

[SeventhSandwich]

actually it was only considered an overreach under the 14th, the law still applies to the federal government itself and was the basis of the hobby lobby decision last year

Correction, you're right. Unfortunately, that still doesn't say much about the fact that this law patently endorses discrimination.

churches are run on donations. unless we're going to start taxing charities then it's a pointless argument

What about all the churches with membership dues? How does that not qualify as a business where you are exchanging money for some emphatic story telling + song & dance?

[Nal]

how come if a topic is about race, religion or loveuality it goes 50 pages
forget, i'll make one about all 3 and it will have over 200

[Headcrab Zombie]

Unless you can convince me that paying the same taxes as everyone else is 'prohibiting their free expression', I'm not sure how you aren't seeing it as a violation.

Yeah I'm all for church and state seperation but I don't see how that's applying.
Tax exemption is a broad range of requirements, and anything that fits those requirements qualifies for tax examption. It would be different if tax exemption was only given to organizations of one religion.
Tax exemption also comes with some restrictions, such as (I think) some restriction on political involvement. Which I'm all for.

What about all the churches with membership dues? How does that not qualify as a business where you are exchanging money for some emphatic story telling + song & dance?

There's plenty of other non profits that charge. It would be different if it was an exception made specifically for churches, but it's not

[Ipquarx]

how come if a topic is about race, religion or loveuality it goes 50 pages
forget, i'll make one about all 3 and it will have over 200

"What do you want me to do, LEAVE?  Then they'll keep being wrong!"

[SeventhSandwich]

Yeah I'm all for church and state seperation but I don't see how that's applying.
Tax exemption is a broad range of requirements, and anything that fits those requirements qualifies for tax examption. It would be different if tax exemption was only given to organizations of one religion.
Tax exemption also comes with some restrictions, such as (I think) some restriction on political involvement. Which I'm all for.

There's plenty of other non profits that charge. It would be different if it was an exception made specifically for churches, but it's not

Other charities also have to do things for the public good, but literally just declaring yourself as a religious organization is enough to gain tax-exempt status.

Case in point: Peter Popoff
http://www.businessinsider.com/scam-everlasting-after-25-years-debunked-faith-healer-still-preaching-debt-relief-scam-2011-9

The guy has been operating what is known to (most) people as an elaborate scam for dozens of years, and in 2006 he was still able to successfully register his for-profit enterprise as a religious organization and become tax exempt. Yes, it's run on donations, but this stuff would never fly if he wasn't operating a 'religious' organization.

[Nal]

[im g]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/imv g]
"What do you want me to do, LEAVE?  Then they'll keep being wrong!"

yes but its about those in general

[GhostOfBetaTapes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

The case was on the provision of contraceptives, though. Whether or not the ruling could lead to more homophobic rulings later is irrelevant to individual states' laws.

At the very least, distance is being made to counter the parts of Indiana's religious freedom laws that are exploitable like this.

[General]

>say "the only consequence should be people getting mad at you"
>get mad when that happens
I can't even tell what your stance is

Can you stop brown townysing everything I say to a tee just to try and catch me out for things that don't even exist? I don't even know what you're trying to say here