Showing posts with label Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration act. Show all posts
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Bill de Blasio To Ban NYC Travel To Indiana
Cuomo, de Blasio ban official travel to Indiana following state's adoption of religious freedom act
By IVAN PEREIRA March 31, 2015
Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo sent a message to Indiana Tuesday by banning non-essential government travel to the state following its adoption of a controversial religious freedom law.
The two leaders followed suit of elected officials of other states and cities, like Seattle, Connecticut and San Francisco, who say that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act discriminates against the LGBT community.
Critics argue that the law, which was signed Thursday, gives businesses and governments a loophole to legally deny services to anyone on the basis that it interferes with their religious beliefs.
"With this action, we stand by our LGBT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected," Cuomo said in a statement.
Cuomo's ban applied to "publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety." His office didn't return messages to give more detailed information on the ban.
De Blasio said he would get more information on how much travel the city conducts to Indiana.
"I think the typical type of travel would be, for example, working with companies based there that we do business with, maybe professional conferences. You know, there are specific types of things you find in almost every state," he told reporters Tuesday.
The New York State Republican Party, however, questioned Cuomo's motives, charging that the ban is a stunt to bolster his national image. NYGOP Chair Ed Cox called on the governor to cancel his upcoming trip to Cuba where "gay "marriage" is illegal, political dissidents are imprisoned and tortured, and the Castro regime is on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list."
City Councilman Danny Dromm, who is openly gay, applauded Cuomo and de Blasio's decision, saying it was necessary for one of the most powerful cities in the world to make a bold statement for equality.
"In this day and age, people know better," he said. "People are tired of using others using the excuse of religious tolerance for discrimination."
Twenty other states have passed such laws, known as RFRAs, since the early 1990s but Indiana's is the first enacted since gay "marriage" became legal in many states last year, and it has been seen by critics as a backlash against same-sex "marriage". Arkansas passed its own version Tuesday.
Major companies including Wal-Mart Stores, Apple Angie's List and Salesforce Marketing Cloud called on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to clarify or repeal the law.
Pence, a Republican and presidential candidate, told reporters the act had been widely mischaracterized and "smeared" but he called on the state's Republican-controlled General Assembly to send a new law to his desk this week to fix it.
"I believe it would be appropriate to make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone," he said.forcing your local wedding hall to cater to a same sex "Wedding"
Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo sent a message to Indiana Tuesday by banning non-essential government travel to the state following its adoption of a controversial religious freedom law.
The two leaders followed suit of elected officials of other states and cities, like Seattle, Connecticut and San Francisco, who say that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act discriminates against the LGBT community.
Critics argue that the law, which was signed Thursday, gives businesses and governments a loophole to legally deny services to anyone on the basis that it interferes with their religious beliefs.
"With this action, we stand by our LGBT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected," Cuomo said in a statement.
Cuomo's ban applied to "publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety." His office didn't return messages to give more detailed information on the ban.
De Blasio said he would get more information on how much travel the city conducts to Indiana.
"I think the typical type of travel would be, for example, working with companies based there that we do business with, maybe professional conferences. You know, there are specific types of things you find in almost every state," he told reporters Tuesday.
The New York State Republican Party, however, questioned Cuomo's motives, charging that the ban is a stunt to bolster his national image. NYGOP Chair Ed Cox called on the governor to cancel his upcoming trip to Cuba where "gay "marriage" is illegal, political dissidents are imprisoned and tortured, and the Castro regime is on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list."
City Councilman Danny Dromm, who is openly gay, applauded Cuomo and de Blasio's decision, saying it was necessary for one of the most powerful cities in the world to make a bold statement for equality.
"In this day and age, people know better," he said. "People are tired of using others using the excuse of religious tolerance for discrimination."
Twenty other states have passed such laws, known as RFRAs, since the early 1990s but Indiana's is the first enacted since gay "marriage" became legal in many states last year, and it has been seen by critics as a backlash against same-sex "marriage". Arkansas passed its own version Tuesday.
Major companies including Wal-Mart Stores, Apple Angie's List and Salesforce Marketing Cloud called on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to clarify or repeal the law.
Pence, a Republican and presidential candidate, told reporters the act had been widely mischaracterized and "smeared" but he called on the state's Republican-controlled General Assembly to send a new law to his desk this week to fix it.
"I believe it would be appropriate to make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone," he said.forcing your local wedding hall to cater to a same sex "Wedding"
(amny) highlights our additions
Where are our Orthodox Legislators publicly supporting Indiana's law?
Former "Orthodox" Assemblyman Ryan Karben, Defends Cuomo's Attack On Jewish Religious Liberty
Former "Orthodox" Assemblyman Ryan Karben Defends Cuomo's Attack On Jewish Religious Liberty
I think Ryan's just upset that the bill wouldn't allow him to molest his male interns
Text of bill that Karben loathes that only protects freedom of religion, and not molesting his male interns
![]() |
| Ryan Karben's attack on religon |
I think Ryan's just upset that the bill wouldn't allow him to molest his male interns
Text of bill that Karben loathes that only protects freedom of religion, and not molesting his male interns
SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
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.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
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, 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.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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.
Sec. 9. 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. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Because Indiana Protects Religious Rights, Governor Cuomo Bans State Travel There
"New York State has been, and will continue to be, a leader in ensuring that all LGBT persons enjoy full and equal civil rights. With this action, we stand by our LBGT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected."
Andrew Cuomo
How can David Lobl rationalize working as a Jewish Liaison For Andrew Cuomo, who has policies such as this?
Text of bill that Cuomo loathes that only protects freedom of religion
How can David Lobl rationalize working as a Jewish Liaison For Andrew Cuomo, who has policies such as this?
Text of bill that Cuomo loathes that only protects freedom of religion
SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
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.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
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, 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.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity 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.
Sec. 9. 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. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



