Slashdot Mirror

The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?).

Context matters. This is what I was responding to and clearly he seems to suggest that because the vote was not bi-partisan, then it is not like the Federal law. The margin by which it passes does not affect the actual text of the law itself.

Wrong. That's not what I meant.

The actual text of the law differs in some significant ways.

I agree that a good portion of the law is the same as the Federal version; however, the bit about using the IRFRA as an "Affirmative Defense", and the fact that the STATE can actually INTERVENE to act as a Co-Defendant/Amicus PARTY in a CIVIL case are pretty substantial differences. True, they don't take much words; but the EFFECT could be HUGE.

These laws don't give you the right to say "We don't serve your kind here." at a public accommodation. That would be a violation of the law. You are not exempt from complying with laws where the government has a compelling interest.

Actually, this one does. And it keeps you from suing (successfully) against it. And it allows the State Government to step in (Intervene) (at Taxpayer Expense!) to enforce your "right" to Discriminate.

Even when there is an express local ordinance forbidding it.

Read.

Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.

Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.

No. The Pro-RFRA people, including Gov. Pence, are the ones who are being dishonest.

The IRFRA differs from the Federal RFRA on several key points. This is where the "there" is.

The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?). But the pro-RFRA crowd never mentions THAT, do they? they just keep talking about a Law that isn't THIS law.

Just like Mike Pence going on This Week yesterday and lying his ASS off REPEATEDLY by stating that this was ONLY restricting actions by the GOVERNMENT. That is only true if you count COURT ORDERS as an "Action by the Government". If you read the analysis of the Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA linked above, you'll see that I am correct.

You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?

Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.

The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details. Here's a couple of differences:

1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.

2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.

Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.

And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.

BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.

I favor the solution of everyone on Earth living in one mega-city the size of Texas: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2...

PACER charges far more than the cost of operating the service; their goal (as instructed by Congress) seems to be to fund the entire court system's electronic infrastructure out of PACER fees, not only PACER itself. As a result, the service itself generates more than $100m annual surplus.

It is akin to creating a CGI representation of an athlete or celebrity and using it in a TV commercial.

Even then, I think that the courts can take it too far sometimes. About twenty years ago, Samsung ran a series of ads for their line of VCRs, playing up how reliable they were, and how we would all still be using them in the future. (As I'm sure we all do)

One of the ads can be seen here: http://joshblackman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Vanna-White.jpg

Vanna White sued Samsung, claiming that the use of a prop robot wearing a wig and dress, and turning letters infringed on her publicity right. And she won. But I find the dissent in the case to be more compelling:

The majority contends that "the individual aspects of the advertisement ... [v]iewed together leave little doubt about the celebrity the ad is meant to depict." Majority Opinion at p. 1399. It derives this conclusion from the fact that Vanna White is "the only one" who "dresses like this, turns letters, and does this on the Wheel of Fortune game show." Id. In reaching this conclusion, the majority confuses Vanna White, the person, with the role she has assumed as the current hostess on the "Wheel of Fortune" television game show. A recognition of the distinction between a performer and the part he or she plays is essential for a proper analysis of the facts of this case. As is discussed below, those things which Vanna White claims identify her are not unique to her. They are, instead, attributes of the role she plays. The representation of those attributes, therefore, does not constitute a representation of Vanna White. See Nurmi v. Peterson, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1775 (C.D.Cal.1989) (distinguishing between performer and role).

Vanna White is a one-role celebrity. She is famous solely for appearing as the hostess on the "Wheel of Fortune" television show. There is nothing unique about Vanna White or the attributes which she claims identify her. Although she appears to be an attractive woman, her face and figure are no more distinctive than that of other equally comely women. She performs her *1405 role as hostess on "Wheel of Fortune" in a simple and straight-forward manner. Her work does not require her to display whatever artistic talent she may possess.

The majority appears to argue that because Samsung created a robot with the physical proportions of an attractive woman, posed it gracefully, dressed it in a blond wig, an evening gown, and jewelry, and placed it on a set that resembles the Wheel of Fortune layout, it thereby appropriated Vanna White's identity. But an attractive appearance, a graceful pose, blond hair, an evening gown, and jewelry are attributes shared by many women, especially in Southern California. These common attributes are particularly evident among game-show hostesses, models, actresses, singers, and other women in the entertainment field. They are not unique attributes of Vanna White's identity. Accordingly, I cannot join in the majority's conclusion that, even if viewed together, these attributes identify Vanna White and, therefore, raise a triable issue as to the appropriation of her identity.

The only characteristic in the commercial advertisement that is not common to many female performers or celebrities is the imitation of the "Wheel of Fortune" set. This set is the only thing which might possibly lead a viewer to think of Vanna White. The Wheel of Fortune set, however, is not an attribute of Vanna White's identity. It is an identifying characteristic of a television game show, a prop with which Vanna White interacts in her role as the current hostess. To say that Vanna White may bring an action when another blond female performer or robot appears on such a set as a hostess will, I am sure, be a surprise to the owners of the show. Cf. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir.1986) (right