Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:
Ya know, wasn't Indiana also the place that tried to legislate Pi to 3.2 or something?

Over a century ago;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill#Legislative_history

In 1894, Indiana physician and amateur mathematician Edward J. Goodwin (ca. 1825–1902[1]) believed that he had discovered a correct way of squaring the circle.[2] He proposed a bill to Indiana Representative Taylor I. Record, which Record introduced in the House under the long title "A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897".

And the person who introduced the Bill got the following response;

...the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators made bad puns about it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour. Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day, to waste its time in such frivolity. He said that in reading the leading newspapers of Chicago and the East, he found that the Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule by the action already taken on the bill. He thought consideration of such a proposition was not dignified or worthy of the Senate. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried.[6]

So if one person putting through a Bill that was mercilessly mocked, derided, and postponed indefinitely counts as trying to pass legislation then yes

Yeah, that's the one. And even one person with the power to push something like that, in spite of the resources necessary to get a second opinion, is still too many.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.

For those of you wondering how many other States have some similar protection to that just passed in Indiana (whether by law or case law) the answer is 31




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Yeah, that's the one. And even one person with the power to push something like that, in spite of the resources necessary to get a second opinion, is still too many.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.

If you want a better example of this behaviour you might want to look at the anti-sodomy legislation being proposed in California rather than an example from over 100 years ago.

If you want a real fun fact, look at how many states repealed anti-bestiality laws in the recent past!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.

If you want a better example of this behaviour you might want to look at the anti-sodomy legislation being proposed in California rather than an example from over 100 years ago.

 d-usa wrote:
If you want a real fun fact, look at how many states repealed anti-bestiality laws in the recent past!

I blame the slutty dog lobby.

RFRA and RFRA-like are similar in the same way shooting at a target and shooting at another human being are also alike.

In one of them, someone gets hurt?

 Ahtman wrote:
RFRA and RFRA-like are similar in the same way shooting at a target and shooting at another human being are also alike.

Rather than deal in analogies what are the substantive differences between the laws in each of the 31 States mentioned?

The distinction here is that many (including those ITT), believe that's gives you permission to be bigots.

All RFRA laws does is grant legal structures for both parties to petition their case before the judge.

We do have the actual politicians on record while in session who stated, on camera, that including the "it doesn't let you discriminate because discrimination is already against the law" excuse in the actual wording of the bill made these laws useless.

Good post...

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Don't forget... this guy signed this law:

 d-usa wrote:
We do have the actual politicians on record while in session who stated, on camera, that including the "it doesn't let you discriminate because discrimination is already against the law" excuse in the actual wording of the bill made these laws useless.

Was there ever a link to this posted?

The video was located on a Think Progress webpage, so I wouldn't be surprised if people saw the link and ignored it.

But here is the video:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
RFRA and RFRA-like are similar in the same way shooting at a target and shooting at another human being are also alike.

Rather than deal in analogies what are the substantive differences between the laws in each of the 31 States mentioned?

Perhaps the person who brought them up should indeed tell us instead of just shoving them together like they are all the same legislation.

 d-usa wrote:
If you want a real fun fact, look at how many states repealed anti-bestiality laws in the recent past!

I blame bronies

 Ahtman wrote:
Perhaps the person who brought them up should indeed tell us instead of just shoving them together like they are all the same legislation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
For those of you wondering how many other States have some similar protection to that just passed in Indiana (whether by law or case law) the answer is 31

"similar" =/= same

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"similar" =/= same

Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.

 Ahtman wrote:
Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.

Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.

Here is the RFRA Law for Illinois. If you are really looking for similarities.

 Desubot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you want a real fun fact, look at how many states repealed anti-bestiality laws in the recent past!

I blame bronies

As a reformed brony, it's all true. There is a secret cabal of bronies that lobby the govt. They are bigger the the oil lobbyists

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you want a real fun fact, look at how many states repealed anti-bestiality laws in the recent past!

I blame bronies

As a reformed brony, it's all true. There is a secret cabal of bronies that lobby the govt. They are bigger the the oil lobbyists

By bigger you mean there are more of them, right?

I hope so.....

No........

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.

Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.

And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.

Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.

And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.

Indeed, it is an extremely deceitful way to manipulate people into believing that similar = same, and that the whole thing has far more popular support than it actually does. It also allows pointing to "all these other states!" and saying things like "there is no mistreatment of homosexuals because of laws like the one we have introduced/plan to introduce!" while hoping that no one notices the fact that the laws are all different, with some even specifically protecting people based on their sexuality.

 Ahtman wrote:
And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.

Even if I accept that the colours used in the graphic are similar they are clearly different enough to distinguish between. If there are colour blindness issues at play here then I apologize for any confusion arising from the use of a third party image.
That very minor point aside allow me to re-iterate; I did not say the laws were the same. I did not imply the laws were the same. I stated that the laws were similar. If you choose to read similar (resembling without being identical.) as same (identical; not different.) then that is your prerogative, as incorrect as it may be.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Indeed, it is an extremely deceitful way to manipulate people into believing that similar = same, and that the whole thing has far more popular support than it actually does. It also allows pointing to "all these other states!" and saying things like "there is no mistreatment of homosexuals because of laws like the one we have introduced/plan to introduce!" while hoping that no one notices the fact that the laws are all different, with some even specifically protecting people based on their sexuality.

That is not the case in this instance. If it were then I would not have taken the time to reply on multiple occasions to clarify that similar does not mean same. There is no deceit here.

If the law is the same as the current Federal Law what is the issue?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

That is not the case in this instance. If it were then I would not have taken the time to reply on multiple occasions to clarify that similar does not mean same. There is no deceit here.

Even if that were the case, tactics like this have been used in both this any many other instances and topics. The original post (from memory) conflated same and similar, regardless of later clarifying posts, and the original graphic itself, regardless of accompanying text, is misleading.

Lets look at what Indiana's Act allows for;
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#digest-heading
"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."
If you read this you will find that it is very similar to the federal act of 1993, passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.


From a site that is not friendly to RFR Acts;
Conneticut; "The state or any political subdivision of the state may 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."
http://rfraperils.com/connecticut/


Rhode Island; "(a) Except as provided for in subsection (b), a governmental authority may not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion.
(b) A governmental authority may restrict a person’s free exercise of religion only if:

(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability, and does not intentionally discriminate against religion, or among religions; and
(2) The governmental authority proves that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/rhode-island/


Illinois; "Sec. 10. Findings and purposes. (a) The General Assembly finds the following:
(1) The free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(2) Laws “neutral” toward religion, as well as laws intended to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden the exercise of religion.
(3) Government should not substantially burden the exercise of religion without compelling justification.
(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement under the First Amendment to the United States Constitutionthat government justify burdens on the exercise of religion imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) In City of Boerne v. P.F. Flores, 65 LW 4612 (1997) the Supreme Court held that an Act passed by Congress to address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972),and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
(b) The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.
(2) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government"
So, very close in scope and intent to the federal law
http://rfraperils.com/illinois/


Florida; "(1) The government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates 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.
http://rfraperils.com/florida/


Alabama; "AMENDMENT 622 RATIFIED: Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.
SECTION I. The amendment shall be known as and may be cited as the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.

SECTION II. The Legislature makes the following findings concerning religious freedom:

(1) The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, also recognizing this right, secured the protection of religious freedom in Article I, Section 3.

(2) Federal and state laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.

(3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification.

(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.

(5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in areas ranging from public education (pedagogical interests and religious rights, including recognizing regulations necessary to alleviate interference with the educational process versus rights of religious freedom) to national defense (conscription and conscientious objection, including the need to raise an army versus rights to object to individual participation), and other areas of important mutual concern.

(6) Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C., § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states.

SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government.

SECTION IV. As used in this amendment, the following words shall have the following meanings:

(1) DEMONSTRATES. Meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

(2) FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The free exercise of religion under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.

(3) GOVERNMENT. Any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under the color of law) of the State of Alabama, any political subdivision of a state, municipality, or other local government.

(4) RULE. Any government statute, regulation, ordinance, administrative provision, ruling guideline, requirement, or any statement of law whatever.

SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person’s freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Government may burden a person’s freedom 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.

(c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government."
http://rfraperils.com/alabama/


Arizona; "A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/arizona/


South Carolina; "§ 1-32-30. PURPOSES OF CHAPTER.
The purposes of this chapter are to:
(1) restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling state interest will be imposed on all state and local laws and ordinances in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the State.
§ 1-32-40. RESTRICTION ON STATE’S ABILITY TO BURDEN EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
The State may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the State demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
(1) in furtherance of a compelling state interest; and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest."
http://rfraperils.com/south-carolina/


Texas; "Sec. 110.003. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTED. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the 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 interest.
(c) A government agency that makes the demonstration required by Subsection (b) is not required to separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the law, ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority that imposes the substantial burden are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply."
http://rfraperils.com/texas/


Idaho; "(1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney’s fees and costs.
(5) In this section, the term “substantially burden” is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions."
http://rfraperils.com/idaho/


New Mexico; "A government agency shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless:
A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and
B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/new-mexico/


Oklahoma; "A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
B. No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
1. Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/oklahoma/


Pennsylvania; "(a) GENERAL RULE.– Except as provided in subsection (b), an agency shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, including any burden which results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.– An agency may substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion if the agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the burden is all of the following:

(1) In furtherance of a compelling interest of the agency.
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest."
http://rfraperils.com/pennsylvania/


Missouri; "1. A governmental authority may not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion, unless:
(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability, and does not discriminate against religion, or among religions; and
(2) The governmental authority demonstrates that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is not unduly restrictive considering the relevant circumstances.
2. As used in this section, “exercise of religion” shall be defined as an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. As used in this section “demonstrates” means meets the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion."
http://rfraperils.com/missouri/


Virginia; "A. As used in this section:

. . .
“Substantially burden” means to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practice.

B. No government entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is (i) essential to further a compelling governmental interest and (ii) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Read the definition of "substantial burden" in this law, it goes above and beyond protecting religious rights than many other similar pieces of legislation
http://rfraperils.com/virginia/


Utah; "(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), a government entity may not impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on a person’s free exercise of religion.
(2) A government entity may impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on a person’s free exercise of religion if the government can establish that the imposition of the burden on that person:

(a) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(3) A government entity that meets the requirements of Subsection (2) need not separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the land use regulation are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply."
http://rfraperils.com/utah/


Tennessee; "(c) No government entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
(1) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/tennessee/


Louisiana; "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a facially neutral rule or a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/louisiana/


Kentucky; "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."
http://rfraperils.com/kentucky/


So, in looking at these laws I believe we can all see the similarities between each them (that is not to say they are identical), and also between the 1993 federal legislation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Even if that were the case, tactics like this have been used in both this any many other instances and topics. The original post (from memory) conflated same and similar, regardless of later clarifying posts, and the original graphic itself, regardless of accompanying text, is misleading.

Then you are at liberty to take it up with those individuals, and not ascribe their behaviour to me when I have not only been sufficiently clear in my initial posts, but also acted in good faith to help you better understand what I was saying. My initial post with the graphic said "similar". The graphic itself showed which other states had RFRA legislation or laws, it did not claim that they were the same.

 d-usa wrote:
The video was located on a Think Progress webpage, so I wouldn't be surprised if people saw the link and ignored it.

But here is the video:

That clip is a state senator from Georgia talking about the religious freedom bill legislation for Georgia. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Indiana's SB101. It's a completely different state.