Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:59 PM Mar 2015

Text of Indiana's Legalization of Discrimination Against LGBT Law

snip---

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.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

Anyone who claims this bill is not designed to make it legal for christofascists to discriminate against LGBT with impunity is a liar.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Text of Indiana's Legalization of Discrimination Against LGBT Law (Original Post) Zorra Mar 2015 OP
so you bring a case saying a government treestar Mar 2015 #1
"Freedom of Bigotry Law" is much more succinct. nt eppur_se_muova Mar 2015 #2

treestar

(82,383 posts)
1. so you bring a case saying a government
Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:11 PM
Mar 2015

Entity violated your religious freedom by its regulations. How confusing.

The aclu would normally set up a test case. And they'd need cooperation of a government. I suppose the federa government would. Then we'd have to get a cooperative business. It could discriminate on purpose so the Feds could "persecute" then the business sues the fed.

How indirect. This is an age of useless posturing. At least on the part of right wingers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Text of Indiana's Legaliz...