House of Eratosthenes

A slew of liberal government leaders have rushed to be in with the all the cool kids on social media who are beating up on Indiana for reinforcing a law that Bill Clinton created in 1993 (see what happens when you put it that way?) Never mind the fact that the law has been grossly mischaracterized pretty much everywhere it’s being discussed. Never mind that 19 other states have laws just like or similar to Indiana’s new law and nobody’s saying a word about any of them. Not even the government leaders of those states, as it turns out.

Jumping on the #BoycottIndiana bandwagon, Connecticut’s Governor Dannell Malloy tweeted this out –

But when you get past the rush to judgement in 140 characters or less, you find out that – SURPRISE! – Connecticut signed a law similar to Indiana’s in 1993. And, according to The Daily Caller, the Connecticut law has even more strict language than Indiana’s does.

While Indiana’s law includes language prohibiting the state from creating a “substantial” burden against an individuals’ exercise of their religion, Connecticut’s does not use the “substantial” qualifier. It reads that “The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

Regarding the law allowing discrimination, or enabling discrimination, or making it possible, whatever…it’s the same lapse in logic I see on the part of the Ricardians who insist Henry Tudor must have been responsible for murdering the Princes in the Tower. Pressed to make their case, well, they don’t require any pressing at all, they have the monologues all ready to go. The monologues put together a brilliant case, I might even go so far as to say an undeniable case, that it is possible. And they go no further.

Ricardians fail to keep the difference straight, between a plausible scenario and “Yeah I just proved it really happened that way.” RFRA protesters, to my way of thinking, are committing exactly the same logical sin. They’re in a high state of dudgeon over the entirely innocent tailored-suit customers, auto-body customers, bakery-shop customers and parking ticket payers being thrown out of Indiana retail establishments on their ears. It doesn’t seem to be within the perimeter of their way of thought, to realize this is something they’re entirely fabricated.

In fact, they’re worse than Ricardians. More like the puppy dog chasing its own tail.

We’ve officially crossed the Rubicon. This is all just embarrassing, I mean I’m embarrassed for the Dem’s/Lib’s who I don’t agree on much of anything and definitely wouldn’t vote for. But to see these people, who represent and hold the highest office of the respective States just embarrass themselves…we’re so freakin’ done.

To see people get their panties…sorry…their non-specific gender undergarments in a bunch over this!?! As you point out Morgan, IT’S ON THE FREAKIN’ BOOKS ALREADY PEOPLE! But here we are, we no longer care about what laws we have, or if the cop was justified in shooting someone or just declare someone a racist
for simply disagreeing with a Black president. No, we’ve decided base our opinions on feelings not on anything tangible but rather our widdle feelings, Wahhhh!!!!! And forget governing based on…I dunn’o, the oath of office and the laws of such state. “No I don’t like that because…well, I don’t like that”.

We’ve gone over the edge, and I’m afraid we cannot get it back.
- tim | 03/31/2015 @ 13:31
Tim – more than just that, I daresay, because that sort of “it hurts my fee-fees” mentality has been with us for many years. But that used to be a reason to change a law or pass a law, not ignore one. And worse still is this idea that the governor can be so ignorant as to the laws of his own state… or that the mildest headwind can blow such a thing from his mind so easily.

A mature person says something to the effect of, “I know that this is somewhat controversial now, but we’ve had a similar law for 22 years, while still respecting equal rights and equal protection. Indiana’s law ensures those protections to all its citizens in the same manner.” Let the kids shriek until they get over it.
- nightfly | 03/31/2015 @ 13:53
Once we’ve reached the point where we’re routinely ignoring laws, does it matter why? We’ve already conceded the principle that laws don’t really mean what they say, that their enforcement can be trumped by “changing community standards” or whatever, and that the whole amendment/repeal process is just too bothersome to worry about. And then it’s fun times, Weimar-style — guys running for office in a democratic system who openly detest democracy.

[This has been my one and only argument for pot legalization for years. It’s all-but-legal now, everywhere, and everyone knows it. Both the citizenry and the justice system are openly colluding to ignore widespread lawbreaking, simply because nobody wants to use the public mechanism to change it. So we cede massive discretionary powers to the police, with no oversight whatsoever, because nobody wants to brand himself and his party “pro-weed.” Oswald Spengler had a word for this kind of thing…..]
- Severian | 03/31/2015 @ 14:15
mkfreeberg: But when you get past the rush to judgement in 140 characters or less, you find out that – SURPRISE! – Connecticut signed a law similar to Indiana’s in 1993.

Well, no. They are substantially different in effect.

Connecticut has an anti-discrimination law protecting sexual orientation. Indiana does not. Furthermore, the Indiana RFRA covers interactions between individuals and businesses, while Connecticut, like most states, only covers government action. So if someone claims discrimination in a private action, the defending party can invoke a religious justification.
- Zachriel | 03/31/2015 @ 16:04
So if someone claims discrimination in a private action, the defending party can invoke a religious justification.

Can invoke! And in a defensive move, while being sued. How scary!

I’m not sure y’all summarized that accurately. After all, y’all can’t even keep it straight who said what.
- mkfreeberg | 03/31/2015 @ 16:36
mkfreeberg: Can invoke!

That’s right. A business open to the public could discriminate, then claim a religious exemption.

mkfreeberg: I’m not sure y’all summarized that accurately.

You are welcome to read the original laws.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
Connecticut: §§ 52-571B
Indiana: §§ 1.IC 34-13-9

Sexual orientation discrimination
Connecticut: §§ 46a-81a
- Zachriel | 04/01/2015 @ 05:50
The reason that all of the usual suspects are up in arms about this law in Indiana is that it fires a shot at the heart of the Liberal’s newest game; Gender Based Blackmail.
And they are pissed off about that.
- bammit | 04/01/2015 @ 10:38
In OTHER news, Conn. is poised to reconsider States laws that are contraconstitutionally “discrimitory” to homosexual firearms customers.

Wait…WHAT…?
Oooops, apparently I missed the April 1 deadline.
- CaptDMO | 04/02/2015 @ 08:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

But Connecticut Did LikewiseTuesday, March 31st, 2015

But Connecticut Did Likewise
Tuesday, March 31st, 2015