R.F.R.A Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Trina]

Indiana politicians are trying to pass the R.F.R.A in their state. This is an old bill enacted by Bill Clinton and many other states in the US have enacted it already with alterations in wording to prevent prejudice against homosexual people. However, in Indiana it is a timing issue they are claiming as homosexual laws have and are being passed there are businesses that have signs stating they do not serve them based on their religious beliefs. So there is a huge fight happening now on whether this is helping religious freedom or causing some to lose their constitutional rights as homosexuals are turned away from services.

This is interesting because while they are fighting for the rights of homosexuality acceptance everywhere it becomes more and more evident that this means less religious freedom.

[Allabord4Jah]

This is on IndyStar News:

 

 

Swarens: Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of ‘religious freedom’ law

 

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians. “I support religious liberty, and I support this law,” Pence said in an exclusive interview. “But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there’s a way to clarify the intent of the law.”

 

The governor, although not ready to provide details on what the new bill will say, said he expects the legislation to be introduced into the General Assembly this coming week.  Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”  Amid the deepest crisis of his political career, Pence said repeatedly that the intense blowback against the new law is the result of a “misunderstanding driven by misinformation.”

 

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he did acknowledge that Indiana’s image — and potentially its economic health — has been hurt badly by the controversy.  I spoke with Pence on the same day that thousands of people rallied at the Statehouse in opposition to the law. And the same day that Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle announced that his company will abandon a deal with the state and city to expand the company’s headquarters in Indianapolis because of RFRA’s passage.  Oesterle’s statement is a telling sign that the outrage over RFRA isn’t limited only to the political left. Oesterle directed Republican Mitch Daniels’ 2004 campaign for governor. And it’s a signal that the damage from the RFRA debacle could be extensive.

 

Behind the scenes, Pence and his team have been scrambling to mitigate that damage — both to the state and to the governor’s political career.

Pence said, for example, that he had a “cordial and productive” conversation with Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, who announced shortly after Pence signed the RFRA legislation on Thursday that the company will cancel all corporate-related travel to Indiana. That conversation, however, has not led to a reversal of the Salesforce decision.  I asked the governor if he had anticipated the strongly negative reaction set off by the bill’s passage. His response made it clear that he and his team didn’t see it coming.  “I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state,” he said. “I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill.”

 

In defense of the legislation, he noted that 19 other states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws similar to Indiana’s. And he pointed out that President Barack Obama voted for Illinois’ version of RFRA as a state senator.  The governor also criticized the news media’s coverage of the legislation. “Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination,” he said. “If it was, I would have vetoed it.”

 

Yet, those justifications, cited repeatedly by the governor’s supporters in recent days, have done little to quell the controversy.  Which is why the proposal to clarify the law’s intent with a new bill has gained traction among Pence’s advisers in the past couple of days.  Pence also plans to fight back in the state and national media. He’s scheduled, for instance, to defend the law Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. “I’m not going to take it (the criticism) lying down,” he said.  As we wrapped up the conversation, I asked Pence: What answer do you have for the many gays and lesbians — and their friends and families — who’ve asked this past week if they are still welcome in Indiana?

 

“First, this law is not about discrimination. It’s about protecting religious liberty and giving people full access to the judicial system,” he said. “But, yes, Hoosier hospitality is about making all people feel welcome in our state. We did that with the Super Bowl and with many other events, and with bringing businesses here. We will continue to do that.”  Whether Pence can get that message across — whether he still has the credibility to get people to believe it — will help determine the extent of RFRA’s damage. First, and most important, for the state. But also for Mike Pence’s political future and legacy.

 

UPDATE: Indiana Gov Seeks To 'Clarify' Contentious 'Religious Freedom' Law

[Tia]

Has anyone addressed this topic in FS yet?  I am sure this will be a hot topic in FS in our area!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/

 

[ReadYourBible]

Has anyone addressed this topic in FS yet?  I am sure this will be a hot topic in FS in our area!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/

No, but had a conversation about it on facebook.  Most feel like it will set people back to the 1950's.  I didn't have the fullest of opportunities to develop it into a witnessing opportunity.  Rather spoke about how important it was to respect the beliefs of others.  I was going to post this: 

 

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201012/explain-bibles-view-of-homosexuality/

 

Shouldn’t Christians treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation?

Absolutely. The Bible says: “Honor men of all sorts” or, as Today’s English Version renders it, “Respect everyone.” (1 Peter 2:17) Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They show kindness to all people, including those who are gay.—Matthew 7:12.

If someone asks: “Doesn’t your view of homosexuality encourage prejudice against gays?”

You might reply: “Not at all. I reject homosexual conduct, not people.”

✔ You could add: “To illustrate it, I also choose not to smoke. In fact, I find the very idea of it repugnant. But suppose you’re a smoker and you feel differently. I wouldn’t be prejudiced against you for your view, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t be prejudiced against me for my view—am I right? The same principle applies to our differing views of homosexuality.”

Didn’t Jesus preach tolerance? If so, shouldn’t Christians take a permissive view of homosexuality?

Jesus didn’t encourage his followers to accept any and all lifestyles. Rather, he taught that the way to salvation is open to “everyoneexercising faith in him.” (John 3:16) Exercising faith in Jesus includes conforming to God’s moral code, which forbids certain types of conduct—including homosexuality.—Romans 1:26, 27.

[BlueBunni]

A lot of states already have the same law, so it's really nothing new.

[Stavro]

If business should be free to discriminate based on religious beliefs, how long until for-profit and church-run hospitals find a way to turn away Witnesses?

 

This is why we need to carefully guard our political neutrality, because anything we might initially support can, and in many cases will, be used against Jehovah's servants in one way or another.

[Trina]

Yes there are other states with this law, however, this is the only state that is protesting it stating they would rather keep rights for gay and lesbian rights above religious freedom...that is the big difference. But we should expect this to happen as the world turns against all religion these situations will come up one right after the other. It is prophesied in the bible that we will be turned against and it doesn't say in what order that will be.

[Stavro]

It is prophesied in the bible that we will be turned against and it doesn't say in what order that will be.

 

The prophesied persecution by Gog comes after false religion is already destroyed, during the GT. But I was referring more to the run-of-the-mill persecution that we've experienced in decades past.

 

If hospitals or businesses turn us away during the great tribulation, it's no big deal, since most of those places would already be shut down or under attack anyway. But if legislation is enacted allowing persecution for the next decade without letup (unrelated to prophecy), that would cause a somewhat more severe hardship, and out of desperation a few may even feel that their only choice is to publicly denounce the truth to get much-needed food or medical help.

[Dustparticle]

 

The prophesied persecution by Gog comes after false religion is already destroyed, during the GT. But I was referring more to the run-of-the-mill persecution that we've experienced in decades past.

 

If hospitals or businesses turn us away during the great tribulation, it's no big deal, since most of those places would already be shut down or under attack anyway. But if legislation is enacted allowing persecution for the next decade without letup (unrelated to prophecy), that would cause a somewhat more severe hardship, and out of desperation a few may even feel that their only choice is to publicly denounce the truth to get much-needed food or medical help.

That is something we all to think about my brother it will get crazy

[sunshine]

I'm not of facebbook - it's not very clear from the article, what exactly is the new law proposing?  You cannot put a sign outside your stores saying "no homosexuals"? You cannot refuse business or services based on sexual orientation?  

 

???

[trottigy]

There is a lot said about what is in the law or what it means, but it is hard find the ACTUAL law. IT can be found here - https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101

 

That is the Indiana state legislature site.

 

This seems to be the part that has one's upset:

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection ( b , a governmentalentity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion

 

Basically, if a person for religious reasons says, "I can't do that for religious reasons." Then there can't be a law to compel him to.

 

Exactly how it will be applied - many have already guessed. Will it be used to discriminate - only the future will tell. And if it is -then it goes to the courts. That is just how this country works.

 

What would I say about it in the ministry,

 

"I am aware of the law and have no specific comment on it, but I would be happy to show you what the Bible says is the solution to all of this - Matt 24:14 - YEP! God's Kingdom!"

Edited April 1, 2015 by trottigy

[Trina]

It is really something to keep a watch on because no matter what a person's feelings on the issue, it is changing religious rights. If it is defined within the law that it cannot be used to discriminate then it is not religious freedom. There are many scenarios this could involve for people to be forced into supporting wrongdoing. How far could the law be used in the future one way or the other is the question.

For instance, we do not join the military, but will we be able to legally use conscientious objection for religious purposes with this defined? It seems to be a close call to me, maybe not...

[trottigy]

It is really something to keep a watch on because no matter what a person's feelings on the issue, it is changing religious rights. If it is defined within the law that it cannot be used to discriminate then it is not religious freedom. There are many scenarios this could involve for people to be forced into supporting wrongdoing. How far could the law be used in the future one way or the other is the question.

For instance, we do not join the military, but will we be able to legally use conscientious objection for religious purposes with this defined? It seems to be a close call to me, maybe not...

 

As this is state law and not a federal one - it has nothing to do with the military or military objections.

 

The federal laws about military objections have been around for decades and have not been changed.

[Trina]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[Trina]

It is actually a federal law that was inacted in 1993 by Bill Clinton. The article above shows the history of this law.

[Stavro]

It is actually a federal law that was inacted in 1993 by Bill Clinton. The article above shows the history of this law.

 

The state law has the same name, but it intentionally has altered wording to go beyond the intent of the federal law.

 

In practice, the Indiana law as proposed would affect business owners, not individuals, and the primary 'hardship' would be that a Witness business owner wouldn't be allowed to chase a same-sex couple out of their store.

 

While we may disagree with someone's personal beliefs, there is no Scriptural responsibility to refuse service to someone committing a sin any more than we are Scripturally obligated to refuse to do work for a church. (w99 4/15 p. 28)

 

A Witness who runs a cashier at a gas station would not be Scripturally required to tell two men holding hands to get gas somewhere else, just as they wouldn't refuse service to an unmarried straight couple, a smoker, a drunkard, someone who recently took blood, or anyone else following unscriptural practices.

 

Sins are sins, all are unscriptural. If we're going to support discrimination against one sort of sinner, we should support discrimination against all sinners, otherwise we risk falling into Satan's trap of vilifying homosexuals and subconsciously categorizing all other sins as 'acceptable'.

[Musky]

I know a sister who does wedding photography as a profession. She poses the couples for their "first kiss" as a married couple, etc. She has refused to shoot same-sex weddings. Which I feel is her right. So far, she hasn't been legally challenged, but she feels it will come soon, especially here in California. 

[Trina]

Well, it clearly states here that you would not want to take or perform a job that supports an activity that goes against the bible...this is from the same article you quoted in the above. I think taking a job for a church would not be appropriate because it would supporting a false religion and its practices...

16 Would doing this work clearly make us an accomplice in or a promoter of a wrong practice? Consider an example. Working as a receptionist is not wrong in itself. What, though, if a Christian were offered such a job at an abortion clinic? Granted, his job assignment would not require him to help with the abortion procedures directly. Nevertheless, would not his regular work there support the operation of a clinic that exists to perform abortions—a practice that is contrary to God’s Word? (Exodus 21:22-24) As lovers of Jehovah, we do not want to be closely linked with unscriptural practices.

[Stavro]

I think taking a job for a church would not be appropriate because it would supporting a false religion and its practices...

 

*** w99 4/15 p. 28 Questions From Readers ***

1. Is the work simply a human service that of itself is not Scripturally objectionable? Take the example of a postman. His delivering mail would hardly mean that he was promoting a condemned practice if one building in the area he served was a church or an abortion clinic. God provides the sunlight that shines through the windows of all buildings, including a church or such a clinic. (Acts 14:16, 17) A Christian who is a postman might conclude that he is performing a human service to all, day after day. It could be similar with a Christian who responds to an emergency—a plumber called to stop flooding in a church or an ambulance attendant called upon to treat someone who collapsed during church services. He might consider this simply an incidental rendering of human aid.

[Trina]

That is the opposite of the quoted paragraph stated in the same magazine. And so I will just say this...obviously it is a conscience matter some might think it's fine to help in those situations while others, and specifically a plumber I know will not service churches because his conscience will not permit him to. It is the same with entertainment some feel movies are ok while others feel the same movie is not. Jehovah will be the final judge and he will see the lengths some have taken to stay separate from this world even when it means loss of money or business opportunities.

I can think of one good example of going above and beyond in keeping separate is brother Wolff the professional football player who wasn't doing anything wrong scripturally however he chose to do everything in his power to put Jehovah's wishes first...fine example.

Some brothers who were farming tobacco decided they should change their crops so they were not supporting the tobacco industry...

I think it does matter who and what you are helping to support.

Ps 97:10 O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad. He is guarding the lives of his loyal ones; He rescues them from the hand of the wicked.

[trottigy]

Well, it clearly states here that you would not want to take or perform a job that supports an activity that goes against the bible...this is from the same article you quoted in the above. I think taking a job for a church would not be appropriate because it would supporting a false religion and its practices...

16 Would doing this work clearly make us an accomplice in or a promoter of a wrong practice? Consider an example. Working as a receptionist is not wrong in itself. What, though, if a Christian were offered such a job at an abortion clinic? Granted, his job assignment would not require him to help with the abortion procedures directly. Nevertheless, would not his regular work there support the operation of a clinic that exists to perform abortions—a practice that is contrary to God’s Word? (Exodus 21:22-24) As lovers of Jehovah, we do not want to be closely linked with unscriptural practices.

 

Yes, taking the job AT the abortion clinic would be wrong, whereas working for a hospital that also does this wouldn't be.

 

But this law has nothing to do with that. It is more - I I own a flower shop - can I refuse to sell flowers to homosexual couples? Or for that matter fornicators? Can I refuse to take pictures of gay couples, how about Birthday parties?

 

As with most laws - that will be decided in the courts.

 

As to the decades old law from 1993 that this is "derived" from - they are different. Either way - prosecuted or not, a Christian has to do what he feels is right. Some are even rethinking their line of work - knowing the way the world is leaning.

Edited April 1, 2015 by trottigy

[Stavro]

I think it does matter who and what you are helping to support.

 

All of this is a conscience matter, no more or less.

 

Would it be proper for a Witness gas station owner to discriminate against smokers? Drunkards? Catholics? All are sinners, so why is there so much support among Witnesses for discriminating exclusively against homosexuals?

 

The Bible does not differentiate between "good" and "bad" sins, so it is not our place to support a ban against homosexuals while condemning a ban against those who practice "good sins".

[Trina]

So if the law states that you cannot discriminate, would you work for a birthday party? That is the question each of us have to think about if this is the case. I would not...that is just me, if I help in the birthday party then I might as well celebrate myself and I will never...

Many public businesses may have to become private or specialize in certain types of celebrations instead. Jehovah will find the way out for those who want to do what's right we have to pray on it and brainstorm together with help from the brothers and doors will open.

[Stavro]

So if the law states that you cannot discriminate, would you work for a birthday party?

 

I assume you mean as a photographer or similar on-site profession?

 

An elder in my hall works as a full-time photographer. While he is not legally allowed to discriminate, his primary field is real-estate photography, which precludes attendance at weddings, parties, or other Scripturally unacceptable events.

 

But in Indiana, the issue is not about service-oriented professions, the discriminating business owners run restaurants, grocery stores,  gas stations, and similar businesses that in no possible way have any involvement with the unscriptural acts.

 

Which brings us back to the original question, would a Witness gas station owner be Scripturally required to chase out a homosexual person buying gas? And if so, what about straight fornicators? Those who recently took blood? Those who worship idols as part of their church services?

[Trina]

Ahh! I see now that is different for sure! I agree completely. I would not tell someone to leave my facility like that as I am not participating in helping them sin. A gas station owner could make certain strategic decisions such as not selling cigarettes and not allow smoking on premises. I don't differentiate one sin from the other and no one on this earth is without sin including myself. I would never treat a person harshly because of their sins either, hopefully Jehovah could win their hearts over because I have been kind.