Guy LeDouche
Banned
so I assume the good gay people of Indiana are going to troll for shitty homophobe businesses to deny service so they can establish standing for a challenge?
Mike Pence (Indiana Governor) signs Religous Freedom Bill into Law
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
- Status
Pence is missing his clown suit.
A man with skin that produces more melanin got voted as president.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Nothing
Confidence Man
Member
Businesses should refuse service to the Governor and his office.
Angelus Errare
Banned
From his twitter.
https://twitter.com/GovPenceIN/status/581099613123379200
Appently this is how he signed the bill.
"We even got a black one! See equality!"
Gentleman Jack
Member
Incoming Nellie Andreeva op-ed about too much of a good thing in our homophobic photo-ops.
nicoga3000
Saint Nic
I just caught wind of this this evening. As an Indiana resident, I am completely embarrassed for my state.
E: However, upon further research...Someone on the GenCon page posted this:
So maybe it's not as terrible as it sounds?
E: However, upon further research...Someone on the GenCon page posted this:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Explained
First off, what is it?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a bill just passed by the Indiana legislature that guarantees that the government may not place any"substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion" UNLESS the government can prove two things:
1. It is pursuing a "compelling government interest"
2. It is the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."
That seems like loose wording .Couldn’t someone use this bill to refuse service to gays? Or even blacks or Jews?
No.
But what if ---
NO.
Bear with me as I give a little history. In 1990, a Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) restricted the use of a religious exemption in conflict with a valid law. Essentially, two Native Americans claimed exemption from current drug laws after being fired for using peyote. So in response, Congress passed in 1993 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sound familiar? It’s pretty much identical to the bill just passed in Indiana.
But if Congress passed that on a federal level, why did Indiana bother passing an identical bill? In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law could not be applied to the states, as Congress had exceeded it constitutional powers by enacting the law and could not determine how the states would enforce the restrictions.
And so, states set out creating their OWN identical RFRA laws they could actually enforce in their own states. Since 1997, the following states have passed their own lawsin no particular order) Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina,Louisiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
In addition to those states, the following states have RFRA-like regulations in place via a state court decision: Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin,Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Maine.
That brings us to about 31 states that have RFRA in some way, shape, or form in effect. And that brings me back to the original question: can’t this law be used to refuse service to gays, or blacks, or anyone who I claim violates my “religion”?
Again, no. In the 22 years since this law has been put into effect anywhere, there has not been a single case where it has allowed someone to discriminate against someone based off of their sexual orientation. NOT.ONE. And that goes for race, too.
As a side note, that RFRA bill that was passed in Illinois? Supported by then-state senator Barack Obama. The federal RFRA bill passed in 1993? It was almost unanimous in support, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, supported by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Well,okay, then what’s this law for then? What was that about a “substantial burden”?
From the Washington Post:
"These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."
Sources:
The actual text of the bill: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101
The original federal law: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr1308
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...-protect-faithful-or-legalize-prejudice-video
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/what-is-rfra-and-why-do-we-care/
So maybe it's not as terrible as it sounds?
rokkerkory
Member
This is terrible
Mechanized
Member
We shall see I guess.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Skiptastic
Member
This sounds an awful lot like what Pence was saying in his press conference...
nicoga3000
Saint Nic
I didn't hear the press conference, so I don't know the context.
Here's the problem with that analysis: many of those states have public accommodation laws that explicitly protect LGBT persons in the public sphere. When doing business with a gay couple in Connecticut, for instance, you have to treat that couple the same way you would treat any other couple if you were, say, a wedding vendor, even though Connecticut already has a bill similar (though not identical) to Indiana's.
Where Indiana gets into trouble is twofold: it allows private parties to be covered under this act, even if the government isn't involved, and Indiana has no public accommodation law for LGBT persons.
The fear is not that gay persons won't be served at restaurants -- that's probably not going to happen. The fear is that gay couples looking to have their weddings will be burdened by private institutions that turn them away. And then when gay couples sue (if they choose to, many would not), these wedding vendors are protected under this bill because Indiana has no such laws that would protect LGBT persons.
That analysis also ignores the simple reality that there haven't really been any chances to turn away gay couples because the legality of gay marriage in many non-bleeding heart liberal states is extremely new. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for over a decade, yes, but marriage equality has been legal in Indiana for all of 5 months. This is similar to other red and purple states that already had RFRAs. Not really a great timeline to say that the bill will have no affect on gay couples trying to get married.
There are a lot of good things about having an RFRA. There are some potentially terrible things as well: see, what can and probably will happen in Indiana to gay couples. They way to balance this is to do something similar to what Utah did (though they didn't pass a public accommodations law): Pass a RFRA, but also pass broad LGBT rights laws from public accommodations to employment to housing. That's a fair balance that would cast no doubt on the application of the law to gay couples. That didn't happen, for a very real reason, in Indiana, and that's what's scary.
PS3GamerKyle
Member
oh fuck off with that nonsense. it's clear that this is just an excuse for white Christians the freedom to not serve homosexuals/muslims...if a muslim individual refused service, based on the freedoms this bill could provide, to a white christian...oh man, it would make NATIONAL news for "bigotry" ruining America!!
Amibguous Cad
Member
Gay person here. I don't mind the law. Freedom of association is a pretty important freedom. It's not unlimited, but it's pretty important. Preventing businesses from discriminating on the basis of color was really, really important, since it effectively segregated society; enough people were willing to discriminate on those lines that it really negatively impacted the lives of black people.
Meanwhile, basically all this means is that I have to go to a different florist for my wedding, which isn't any big deal for me. Meanwhile, forcing the florist to help my union might be a significant violation of her conscience.
Of course, it still remains legal in 30-some states for someone to fire someone else just because they're gay. That's a big issue, because finding another job isn't as simple as finding another florist. I think that's where we should be focusing our attention.
Meanwhile, basically all this means is that I have to go to a different florist for my wedding, which isn't any big deal for me. Meanwhile, forcing the florist to help my union might be a significant violation of her conscience.
Of course, it still remains legal in 30-some states for someone to fire someone else just because they're gay. That's a big issue, because finding another job isn't as simple as finding another florist. I think that's where we should be focusing our attention.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I was not aware of CT having a somewhat similar law. Do you have a link explaining it by chance? I am curious.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's not how public accommodations laws work. They are not creatures of common law, but of statutory law. So, were the gay couple in your hypo to sue, they would lose not because of the RFRA, but because there's no statute making the discrimination they experienced illegal. In the absence of such a law, RFRA has no role to play in that dispute.
I spent like am hour earlier reading through these various laws and I still have no idea what the practical effect will be. It's just a weird law in general.
Heh, the ACLU was in favor of the RFRA.
Velcro Fly
Member
Huge amount of backlash so far. I hope it continues.
Really glad that it seems many businesses are using this as an opportunity to show their support for the LGBT community by saying they serve everyone.
The problem is the people most responsible for this shit are almost untouchable. Most of indiana is going to vote republican almost no matter what. the senate candidate who talked about rape babies being a blessing from god still came close to winning. 30+ year senator that had everyone's respect wasn't conservative enough so they had to try and elect a rape apologist.
eagerly awaiting the moment this gets overturned in court
Really glad that it seems many businesses are using this as an opportunity to show their support for the LGBT community by saying they serve everyone.
The problem is the people most responsible for this shit are almost untouchable. Most of indiana is going to vote republican almost no matter what. the senate candidate who talked about rape babies being a blessing from god still came close to winning. 30+ year senator that had everyone's respect wasn't conservative enough so they had to try and elect a rape apologist.
eagerly awaiting the moment this gets overturned in court
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
It almost certainly won't--at least, not under the federal Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court has applied the federal counterpart to the law just enacted by Indiana in several cases already.
i'm sorry to pick on you but i fucking HATE when people spout this shit. we are not simple creatures. we have the mental capability to be worried/think about more than one thing at once. just because there are other 'bigger' issues to fight doesn't mean we can't also discuss and think about things like this. maybe finding a different florist doesn't concern you, but it might concern someone else.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Gosh, how I hope this back fires and people instead discriminate against the supporters of this nonsense. Would simply be grand.
And if there is only a single florist in your area? Being able to deny service to anyone you want is significantly more problematic when you live in smaller towns and have limited options. Especially if you're too poor or are unable to drive (various legal/health complications impact ability to travel) to actually go anywhere else.
People very easily get stuck in hostile environments they cannot leave. You can't just shrug you're shoulders at these kinds of policies because they don't hurt you specifically.
Current wedding ceremonies and how marriage in general in modern society runs contrary to what's in the Bible, so it's all bullshit anyway.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
RFRAs are designed to take such facts into consideration. The lack of alternative service providers could factor into either the existence of a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (e.g., the government could argue that it's interest is in ensuring that same-sex couples have at least some such provider reasonably available), or whether a flat prohibition is the least restrictive means of furthering such an interest (e.g., this is the only such provider within X miles, so we have no alternative to forcing him or her to provide the service).
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
What would Knope say about that, you son of a bitch
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
People who actually, tangibly benefit from bigotry love it when people who don't even benefit go out of their way to defend it. It diverts attention and helps them because more gullible people succumb to what appear to them to be intelligent arguments, even though they are arguments for excusing bigotry.
Sad shit
Sad shit
In Washington, Arlene's Flowers was successfully sued by both the state and couple for violating"RCW 49.60.030 Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights."
You're right that the judge did not use the public accommodations law in his ruling, so I amend my point to be any general non-discrimination statute that would protect LGBT persons. Indiana does not have such a statute.
And, question: Would you be in favor of a WLAD-like law protecting LGBT persons?
Here, I'll even use a fun website to link to it!
The fear is not that RFRA acts exist. It's that their not being coupled with strong protections for LGBT persons. Now that gay marriage has become a reality for couples in many red and purple states without other legal LGBT protections, it's what will happen next.
Mike Pence said:
Did Mike Pence not read his own bill?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/indiana-passes-religious-freedom-bill#.nnpRLAKKn
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
It doesn't matter whether it's a public accommodations law or any other sort of anti-discrimination law (and WLAD includes a public accommodations provision). Such laws are not created by courts, but enacted by legislatures. In the absence of such a law, the RFRA has no effect on one's right to discriminate, since the RFRA simply creates a case-specific exemption from some other legal requirement.
And it's interesting that you refer to that Washington case. Though Washington has not enacted an RFRA, their state Constitution has been interpreted as providing similar protections. The judge in the case you cite, quoting a Washington Supreme Court case, explained: "[The Washington Constitution] provides 'broader protection than the first amendment to the federal constitution.' A party challenging government action under [the Washington Constitution] must show both a sincere belief and a substantial burden upon free exercise as a result of the government action. Where a substantial burden exists, the government must show that its action is 'a narrow means for achieving a compelling goal.'" (Citations omitted.) If you're OK with that analysis, then your problem isn't with RFRAs, but with a lack of anti-discrimination provisions.
And if that's the case, then you and I have much more common ground than you've been letting on.
His little "unless government action is involved" clause makes his statement technically true; he just neglects to mention that such "government action" could include a law making discrimination illegal and providing a private cause of action.
I didn't see your post in the last thread, where you stated this:
First of all, you've admitted that they may allow discrimination:
So to say that this is false, even by your assessment would be incorrect! (You didn't mean this, that way, or in the same manner, I realize. I'm poking fun).
I have no issue with the good things that RFRA do, especially for religious minorities (I think I've already said this in another thread?). My fear -- and my fear from when these bills started popping up again after federal court decisions on marriage equality -- was that without the proper exemptions, the interpretation of these laws would lead to stronger shields against refusing services like florists or cake vendors. I was fairly angry in the last thread, so I'm going to walk back my assertion of inevitability. I don't know what will happen. But the unknown is frustrating, especially in redder states. Without clear cut exemptions in these laws, I'm worried about their interpretation in court towards sexual minorities.
Give War A Chance
Member
Is there really any defense for this type of law?
I don't understand something about this issue.
I'm a self employed webdeveloper (in Europe), and I sometimes get potential clients who I really don't want to work with for a variety of reasons: obnoxious people, shitty communicators, too small budget, don't trust them, etc. All valid reasons in my opinion. So I politely decline the job, and that's that.
If I was located in the USA, could these clients sue me for not wanting to work with them? That sounds rediculous.
I'm a self employed webdeveloper (in Europe), and I sometimes get potential clients who I really don't want to work with for a variety of reasons: obnoxious people, shitty communicators, too small budget, don't trust them, etc. All valid reasons in my opinion. So I politely decline the job, and that's that.
If I was located in the USA, could these clients sue me for not wanting to work with them? That sounds rediculous.
UncleSporky
Member
Yeah actually I was browsing imgur this morning and saw a post about this, and in the comments there was some discussion about the actual text and meaning of the law:
And that makes sense to me.
Somebody says "I refuse service to you because you're gay and that's against my religion." Person gets sued. As per this bill, the case is reviewed and it is determined that this discrimination is a compelling enough reason to block this particular religious expression.
And that makes sense to me.
Somebody says "I refuse service to you because you're gay and that's against my religion." Person gets sued. As per this bill, the case is reviewed and it is determined that this discrimination is a compelling enough reason to block this particular religious expression.
In Europe, too, you can't decline service to anyone because they're gay, or black, or they're a woman, or because they have a lazy eye or any other reason than sound professional reasons.
Discrimination is illegal in Europe too.
So how does this effect people are not religious? Are my sincerely held beliefs null and void in a courtroom because I am of no religion?
If the sincerely held belief comes from religion, are the people with the belief going to have to prove through their religions documentation that their religion was intended to to be applied that way? An example, people make the case all the time that homosexuality is a sin, but where does say (for sake of familiarity) in the Bible that if one is homosexual, it is a sin to render business services to them?
If the sincerely held belief comes from religion, are the people with the belief going to have to prove through their religions documentation that their religion was intended to to be applied that way? An example, people make the case all the time that homosexuality is a sin, but where does say (for sake of familiarity) in the Bible that if one is homosexual, it is a sin to render business services to them?
UncleSporky
Member
The clients could probably sue you, but there's no guarantee they'd win.
To my knowledge businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Businesses have signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and they can uphold that. Unruly guests can be told to leave. Commission work can be turned down because you're too busy. Obviously businesses try to minimize instances of refusing service because they are a business and like to make money, but they totally can.
And they can discriminate as long as they can sufficiently hide the fact that they are discriminating with a reasonable explanation, which sucks, but what are you going to do.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
You leave out the best part of why the bill was blocked for now.
A member of the subcommittee managed to pass an amendment that added text stating that the purpose of the bill was not to intentionally allow discrimination. This has been a claim of the side who favored the bill, but as soon as that became part of the actual text, the bill's supporters jumped ship.
It's almost as if adding that amendment ruined the intended effect of the bill in the first place.
Sickboy007
Member
AND a Rabbi!
- Status