NBA, Pacers issue statement in response to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act law

Pro Basketball Talk ^ | Mar 28, 2015, 6:30 PM EDT | Brett Pollakoff

[Liberty1st]

The NBA and the Indiana Pacers released a joint statement on Saturday in regard to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was recently signed into law in Indiana.

The official release:

[9YearLurker]

Going for the ad hominem-messenger attack because you can’t refute the facts, eh?

[don-o]

Going for the ad hominem-messenger attack because you can’t refute the facts, eh

Says the man parroting the homo agenda talking points. Sniff?

[don-o]

[sam_whiskey]

And he’s not changing the substance of anything to do with the law btw. He’s (foolishly in my view) believing that if it’s just clarified people like you will see the light and be persuaded. Fat chance of that...

[DoodleDawg]

People aren’t going to win the argument, exempt if they want to try, that their religious liberty is substantially burdened if they have to sell a lesbian a hamburger.

And who gets to judge if religious liberty is burdened, especially in this day of wacko cults and people like Westboro Baptist abusing religion to their own ends? Do you want the state to do that? And in the instance I mentioned, a member of a white supremacist Christian Identity church, how can the state come out and say that serving black people isn't an undue burden on their devoutly held, if hate-filled, religious beliefs?

My argument isn't against the intent of the law, but the way it is crafted. It's too vague and allows for any kind of abuse.

[DoodleDawg]

Hearts have changed on the racial issues.

Not all. And those who want to hide behind this law to deny services based on a person's race or religion can do so.

[don-o]

Interesting to note that this bill passed with a substantial majority of both houses of the Indiana legislature and that 19 other states have the same law on their books already. And that the state laws are modeled on the same language as a federal law that our glorious courts declared unconstitutional (yet left the door open for the states to act, which they have).

[Jane Austen]

Jan Brewer might have had a personal reason. Maybe she used the threat as an excuse to promote her own agenda.

[WKUHilltopper]

At least the ELECTED LEGISLATURE passed the law—unlike the whims coming out of the blue from the Blight House without legislative authority.

I stand with Indiana...screw the rest of those anti-liberty totalitarians.

[sam_whiskey]

Well, gee...what would you prefer? Do you want some kind if alternative system of government where judges aren’t tasked with interpreting and applying the laws?

[don-o]

The law is very vaguely written. If the baker can claim their religious rights have been burdened or might be burdened by providing services to an interracial couple then the law must protect them.

I can take you to 20 establishments withing ten miles where an interracial couple can buy themselves a cake any day of the week. I can find those with absolutely no trouble. Finding one that would refuse to make them a cake, while possible, is highly unlikely.

If I could find one, its existence and business practice places no undue burden on the interracial couple, who can be well served by the 20.

[rollo tomasi]

"...you can’t refute the facts..."

What facts? Was it your Jim Crow straw-man?

Perhaps people should study the difference between onesided State mandated segregation of innate beings from laws protecting freedom of association/religion found in the First Amendment that violate a person's conscience (Law is also in line with Section 1 of the 14th because the law applies equally). Also I don't mind the backlash because that is exercising freedoms as well (Although opponents are very disingenuous about true Constitutional protections).

[9YearLurker]

Come on, don’t you be an idiot. I stated that the OP presumably didn’t go so far as to support Jim Crow. I was making the distinction, not conflating the two.

Maybe you shouldn’t go accusing others here falsely.

[Vermont Lt]

I guess my point is, as well, why isn’t any one from Indiana saying this is what many other states, and the Feds have done?

The absolute “ball-less” approach to talk frankly about such things is stunning.

[mac_truck]

Have you read some of the angry comments that were made?

Prima fascie evidence for why the RFRA was needed.

[rollo tomasi]

I said “what facts” in the first question. Second question was about your “Jim Crow talking points”/a onesided discriminatory staw-man you put out there in post #45 that are pervasive with supporters of the homosexual movement.

Your conclusion about what don was thinking/going back to was irrelevant to what I was stating, so don't be an idiot too.

[9YearLurker]

This was my statement with the reference to Jim Crow:

“So you wouldn’t go so far back as to Jim Crow laws, I take it, but you would allow businesses to discriminate by race whenever they so choose?”

I stated the assumption in the form of a question asking for clarification that Don-o would not go back to Jim Crow, but would allow businesses to discriminate by race.

As it turns out, I was correct, but above and beyond that I was asking in the form of a question whether that was so. That is not a “onesided discriminatory straw-man” in any sense at all.

[DoodleDawg]

Do you want some kind if alternative system of government where judges aren’t tasked with interpreting and applying the laws?

And how can a judge interpret this law to prevent the kind of abuse I mentioned? Only allow religions the judge agrees with? Under the First Amendment how can he say one religion is real and another is bogus?

[DoodleDawg]

I can take you to 20 establishments withing ten miles where an interracial couple can buy themselves a cake any day of the week. I can find those with absolutely no trouble. Finding one that would refuse to make them a cake, while possible, is highly unlikely.

And if one did decide that then how could you prevent it under this law?

If I could find one, its existence and business practice places no undue burden on the interracial couple, who can be well served by the 20.

And that was true with the gay couples. Yet the courts decided that one instance was enough and that let to laws to try and correct that. Hence the Indiana law, and the chance for abuse under a law that was passed to try and prevent it.

[rollo tomasi]

Read your post #45 again about a "one sided discriminatory straw-man" and your "facts". What you just responded to me again was irrelevant as explained earlier.

If you read the law its strictly about religious protections and not one sided at all. I guess you are just upset that homosexuals can't sue a business that refuses to bend to their every demand, but fail to see the other-side of the coin that Christians can't sue a business that refuses to bend to their every demand as well.