Talk:Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana)

Background section

The "Background" section doesn't strike me as terribly relevant. SCOTUS decisions re/ marriage are tangentially related, but I don't see how they constitute background for a bill that isn't about a right to marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28DB:F000:0:0:640 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Section has re-writes - Politifact article and other articles from today tied the issues together.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

good source on the law

This Indianapolis Star article is a good source on what the law actually does and what the implications could be. [1] GabrielF (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed?

Why is this called a "proposed" law? It was signed by the Governor. - J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.192.105 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 31 March 2015

Bias

The population dominating Wiki edits comes through very loud and clear with the state of this article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this is not. I don't know if there is a good mathematical model for bias detection (like concept density and occlusion or some such), but even the first sentence (the most important for clearly defining the subject) the writers are unable to hide bias. Instead of clearly and unambiguously stating what the bill is, the author conflates it with a prognostication of utility of the bill to taint the initial attribution of the subject. "Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,[1] is a law in the American state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert that their exercise of religion is likely to be substantially burdened as a defence in legal proceedings." The rest of the article is a thin excuse for criticism. This is one of the reasons Wiki will very likely always be an information source biased by the dominating editing population (duh). Reflecting on the subject itself, though, it seems that tyranny of the majority is kind of the point of SB 101. Either way. Nanonid (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What specific changes are you recommending to make the article more neutral? You mentioned the first sentence. What wording do you think would be better?- MrX 13:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias

this page is obviously biased in its statements about the bill, hostile representation and extreme emphisis on protests/boycotts a few edits would be suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:4000:CA6:B50E:A137:E108:A7CC (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am forced to agree. I made a minor edit to correct an instance of outright misquoting, but this does not change the fact 40% of the article is sheer, unconstructive rage against the bill. Is this somehow necessary? It's just virtue signaling. What is so controversial about allowing people/corporations to object to being forced into a situation that conflicts with their religious orientation? If a bakery doesn't want to participate in and cater to a gay wedding on religious grounds what's the big deal? There are other bakeries that will. It's a matter of freedom of conscience and religion. Forcing people by disallowing them to reject such business conflicting with their morals is completely ridiculous. "Any bakery must accept all catering contracts" or what? Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Effectively it would be like forcing muslims to sell alcohol, participate in a drinking binge, or hire muslim butchers to process pig meat. According to the critics logic muslims shouldn't have the right to say no? It's outrageous. Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoantiquasi, see, what you just did in your above two posts is express your opinion, or point of view, if you will. Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view, rather than your supportive point of view. That said, anything in the article, including criticism, should be written neutrally, so if you can identify any specific examples of bias, we can discuss them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Random bill #?

   (This msg does not invite an edit, but does suggest further research that might do so.)
   I wondered whether the bill got the particularly memorable bill # by sheer chance, or by design (which some may regard as evidence hinting an intention to make its concept a watchword, for an advantage in recognizability: IIRC there have been bills that were intentionally numbers like, say, oh, 1, 1000, or 1776. It was easy to rule out the possibility that 1 thru 100 are systematically skipped, so that a bill put first in line would automatically get 101. Uniform Acts are sparser than i thot they might be, but the blocks of bills described only as "Vehicle Bill." do suggest it might take substantial effort to control what specific low number your bill gets.
--Jerzy•t 21:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, per WP:COMMONNAME. bd2412 T 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Indiana SB 101 → Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana) – WP:NCGAL says, "Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources." Unlike, say, Arizona SB 1070, the bill number of this law hasn't been used much; it's often just referred to as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Thus, the proposed title fits WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, presuming common use and in appreciation of an intelligible content. GregKaye 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support makes it easier for readers to find the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason the law is deeply controversial is not for the similarity to federal RFRA, but the differences from it. Arkansas HB 1228 and Arizona SB 1062 use the bill number. The parenthesis in the proposal wrongly and falsely insinuate that Indiana is a component, or a version of a larger entity, rather than a unique proposal, that was uniquely opposed for the content of the bill. If you have to use RFRA in the title, it should be "Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to differentiate it from other RFRAs. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, the Islamic Society of North America and the Sikh Coalition and Jewish groups have expressed concern about discrimination by companies. ISNA state

"If a corporation refused to hire a person because they were a Muslim and their religious beliefs did not permit them to hire Muslims," the statement reads, "then the prospective employee could not succeed in a lawsuit alleging discrimination against the corporation, because the law is a defense to liability. Similarly, the state government could not levy fines or other punishments against a corporation for discrimination."

The differences from federal RFRA and RLUIPA, which protect Muslims and Sikhs, to post-Hobby Lobby laws that are claimed to potentially allow business to discriminate against religious minorities is what is at issue. Politifact rated Pence's statement that his law is the same as one in Illinois as half true - my opinion is that it's a deceptive half truth to say that SB 101 is the same as Federal RFRA - and the similarities to federal RFRA are not under scrutiny in the news media - only the differences that are under intense debate.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is the name of the bill, and (Indiana) is necessary to disambiguate since this bill isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. This really doesn't have anything to do with the content of the bill. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Censored

Nice to see this happening.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would you refer to my revert as 'Censored'. I don't oppose the content at all. It just needs to be reliably sourced. If the threats actually happened, the mainstream press should pick it up shortly, if they haven't already.- MrX 18:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm. It's definitely a POV source, but we can quote such sources while remaining neutral ourselves. I wouldn't've made that removal, but I wouldn't've added it in the first place either. Very dog-bites-man. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if there weren't threats involved. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

NBC, other sources are less POV. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem following a link to the article

Searching for "Indiana RFRA" or coming from Religious Freedom Restoration Act links me to Indiana SB 101 which, when selected, shows the following:

The revision #0 of the page named "Indiana SB 101" does not exist.

This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

This works fine, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_SB_101&action=view&oldid=655053868

Refreshing the page does not help. Thanks! 108.59.48.1 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Same for me. A bit bizarre. Rhydic (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)