Co'tor Shas wrote: I really have to wonder, for what purpose would this law actually serve if it was introduced without anti-gay intent? There doesn't seem to really be any reason to make a law like this.
Hey. Don't be so narrow-minded. Someone might wanna refuse service to transsexuals or sex workers too.
The law doesn't mention sexual orientation at all. If business owners can meet the legal burden of proof then those businesses can refuse those specific customers for which the burden of proof has been met.
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
jasper76 wrote: The easiest solution to this Civil Rights issue is to broaden the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Then we wouldn't have to find banking laws that "could probably" be construed to protect homosexuals from landlords (seems like a stretch to me), and just use the law that already exists to protect other classes from discrimination.
Doesn't change the fact that many people think you should be allowed to discriminate when it comes to who you participate in commerce with.
Absolutely. This new Indiana law, and the other laws like it already on the books, puts that fact beyond doubt.
Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.
Good to know. Both of those links produced 404 Errors, incidentally. Are homosexuals protected by federal HUD laws? They are not protected by the Civil Rights Act.
Answer: No
From the same website:
Federal law prohibits housing discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
Once again, sexual orientation is noticeably absent.
I guess that explains why all the LGBT people in Indiana are homeless. Oh wait, they're not.
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
OK....so bring "Whites Only" back because people should have the freedom to conduct their private business as they see fit?
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
OK....so bring "Whites Only" back because people should have the freedom to conduct their private business as they see fit?
I guess if we ignore all of the glaringly obvious ways in which this law doesn't bring back Whites Only signs and instead misconstrue and hyperbolize its content then you might be considered correct by some people.
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
OK....so bring "Whites Only" back because people should have the freedom to conduct their private business as they see fit?
If you can bring back the instutionalized, accepted attitude to the country too, then sure. That would make it the same. The point is that the climate in the US isn't remotely the same as it was in the 50s and 60s and with social media, companies that did that would be very publicly shamed and boycotted, and would most likely be forced out of business, much like the woman that wouldn't bake gay wedding cakes or the couple that wouldn't perform gay marriages in their privately owned chaple.
I guess that explains why all the LGBT people in Indiana are homeless. Oh wait, they're not.
I'm sure in the state of Indiana, no homosexual couple has ever been turned down by a landlord because they are homosexual.
I did a little research, and apparently, the state of Indiana has no laws on the books protecting homosexuals from housing discrimination (though Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville to their credit did pass such laws)
(deleted comment referencing cinceydooley, I misunderstood his/her last post)
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
OK....so bring "Whites Only" back because people should have the freedom to conduct their private business as they see fit?
I guess if we ignore all of the glaringly obvious ways in which this law doesn't bring back Whites Only signs and instead misconstrue and hyperbolize its content then you might be considered correct by some people.
I wasnt trying to imply that the Indiana bill will bring back Whites Only signs. Even if businesses wanted to do that, they legally can't because of the Civil Rights Act.
Which is why I asked the question, and now put it to you directly: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
I guess that explains why all the LGBT people in Indiana are homeless. Oh wait, they're not.
I'm sure in the state of Indiana, no homosexual couple has ever been turned down by a landlord because they are homosexual.
I did a little research, and apparently, the state of Indiana has no laws on the books protecting homosexuals from housing discrimination (though Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville to their credit did pass such laws)
I'd like to ask proponents of this Indiana bill: Do you think it would be a good idea to protect homosexuals from discrimination by including sexual orientation as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act? If so or if not, why?
You need to realize that, for many people, this has nothing to do with religion or homosexuality. It has everything to do with freedom to conduct your private business as you see fit.
OK....so bring "Whites Only" back because people should have the freedom to conduct their private business as they see fit?
If you can bring back the instutionalized, accepted attitude to the country too, then sure. That would make it the same. The point is that the climate in the US isn't remotely the same as it was in the 50s and 60s and with social media, companies that did that would be very publicly shamed and boycotted, and would most likely be forced out of business, much like the woman that wouldn't bake gay wedding cakes or the couple that wouldn't perform gay marriages in their privately owned chaple.
I'm having a hard time buying that you really believe that going back to the legal climate before the Civil Rights Act is a good idea, no matter what the institutionalized, accepted attitude to the country may be or become. Do you really believe that, or is this hyperbole?'
So you admit that there's no actual evidence of LGBT housing discrimination in Indiana.
The law passed in Indiana makes it much much more difficult to ever put up a Heterosexuals Only sign in Indiana than it ever was to put a Whites Only sign up anywhere in the US ever. That's a provable fact.
So you admit that there's no actual evidence of LGBT housing discrimination in Indiana.
Not at all. I'm not privy to this information, and the state publishes no data about housing discrimination complaints made by homosexuals that I can find. Of course, they have no laws prtecting homosexuals from housing discrimination, so I'm not sure such complaints would ever be recorded as valid, since technically Indiana landlords are allowed to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality, except, so far as I can tell, in Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville .
In any case, I think misiniterpreted your reply.
This does bring up an interesting question though. Are existing local protections against discrimination on the basis of homosexuality, such as those enacted by Indanapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville, superseded by this new state-level law?
So you admit that there's no actual evidence of LGBT housing discrimination in Indiana.
Not at all. I'm not privy to this information, and the state publishes no data about housing discrimination complaints made by homosexuals that I can find. Of course, they have no laws prtecting homosexuals from housing discrimination, so I'm not sure such complaints would ever be recorded as valid, since technically Indiana landlords are allowed to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality, except, so far as I can tell, in Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville .
In any case, I think misiniterpreted your reply.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm not going to assume that there is any significant number of businesses, including landlords, that seek to discriminate against the LGBT community. Are there probably some number bigotted owners and landlords in Indiana? Probably yes. Are all or some of those with descriminatory views hold those views against the LGBT community and do so on the basis of religious convictions and are willing to incur the legal costs and public outcry involved with going to court to prove that doing business with the LGBT community meets the legal standard of a substantial burden to those beliefs? That's a subset of a subset of a subset of Indiana businesses that is highly unlikely to be numerous or significant.
While I personally don't condone bigotry I don't think its possible to change people's views via an act of congress nor do I think that congress has the moral or legal authority to determine how people should think. I think good and proper consumer protection laws cover everyone and that they shouldn't require that every possible type of individual be specified in list form that requires constant updating. Every person has equal human rights and every US citizen should have equal legal rights. Anyone who is human and a citizen is equal in the eyes of the law, no other distinctions or classifications should be necessary.
SOUTH BEND -
Indiana is making national headlines and some of our own state and local leaders say it’s embarrassing. Right now a #boycottIndiana hash tag is trending on Twitter and it’s all because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
There’s been a lot of talk about how the law pertains to the same sex marriage debate. But people who support it say it’s about so much more – especially how religion impacts our everyday lives.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled a Muslim inmate in Arkansas should be allowed to keep his beard because of federal RFRA laws already in place.
The law also has implications about the fight over providing birth control at Notre Dame.
And there’s growing concern about the potential damage created by the perception of Indiana’s newest law.
After Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law Thursday, the NCAA’s CEO said it’s looking at how Indiana’s RFRA might affect future events – such as the NCAA Final Four tournament in the coming years – and its workforce.
“Arguably any of these businesses should be saying, ‘I can’t do business in the United States’ because the same form of legislation applies to the entire country,”” said Notre Dame political science professor Patrick Deneen.
He cited the federal RFRA act signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Indiana isn’t the first state with its own law. There are similar RFRA laws on the books in 19 other states.
South Bend Democrat John Broden voted against the measure in the Senate.
“Many of these states did it quite a long time ago,” Broden said. “With Indiana it seems like it's come right on the heels of the Supreme Court saying, 'You can't ban gay marriage.'”
Indiana University constitutional law professor John Hill said part of the reason there’s so much fear about Indiana’s RFRA law now is because of the timing.
“We have this very particularized conflict between Christians and progressive gay rights interests,” Hill said.
Hill pointed out Indiana law does not allow discrimination against race or sex but there is no protection for gays or lesbians in Indiana. That’s why, he said, there’s so much uproar over the new RFRA law now when we didn’t see it while other states passed their RFRA laws 20 years ago.
“I think in this case we have an instance where we have a lot of disinformation and a lot of passion driving this without a lot of information,” Deneen explained.
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, said Friday he feels Indiana’s new law discriminates against same sex couples.
“I don’t know why suddenly we need Indianapolis politicians to do this if it isn’t about what I think it really is, which is sending a message to some Hoosiers that they're not as welcome as they really think they are," Buttigieg said.
So he’s taking to social media to fight the growing backlash – tweeting with people from other cities, including celebrities such as Montel Williams.
“What I’ve been trying to do is say, ‘Look, this doesn’t speak for all of us,” Buttigieg said.
South Bend is open for everybody.”
Plymouth Mayor Mark Senter, a Republican, said he hasn’t read the law and he doesn’t know how he feels about it. But he does have an opinion about how it’s been handled.
“I don’t think it was communicated well to the citizens of Indiana and I blame that on the legislature and I blame it on the media,” he said.
Arizona’s governor vetoed a similar law last year after business leaders there worried it would cause Phoenix to lose the Super Bowl. Many tech companies are slamming Indiana’s newly adopted RFRA laws.
Thursday the CEO of Salesforce.com reportedly said he’s cancelling all events in Indiana because of what he sees as a “discriminatory law.”
But Deneen said there is no evidence of a negative economic impact from RFRA laws in the other 19 states.
SOUTH BEND — Just a day after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed the controversial religious freedom bill, members of the South Bend business community spoke out to say they are open for business — to anyone.
Organized by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, those who chose to stand against the new law gathered Friday afternoon at Le Peep restaurant in downtown. The goal was to promote that, no matter what the state does, South Bend is a community that doesn’t discriminate.
“For the last 24 hours Indiana has been getting the wrong kind of attention,” Buttigieg said at Friday’s gathering. “We are here to say that’s not us, that’s not South Bend.”
Pence signed SB 101 Thursday morning, which extends protections to businesses to deny service to someone based on religious beliefs. While supporters of the bill say it’s needed to protect people’s right to follow their religious beliefs, opponents are worried it’s opening the state to protected discrimination and sending the wrong message to the rest of the country.
“Our greatest challenge is to continue to attract and retain the most talented, the most diverse workforce we can, and this misguided legislation sends exactly the wrong message,” Greg Downes, of Gibson Insurance Group, said.
And before Pence had even signed the bill, organizations from across the country were threatening to pull business from the state. The gamer convention Gen Con, one of the biggest conventions Indianapolis hosts, said in a statement that discussions on whether to remain in Indy or move elsewhere have begun. Gen Con’s contract with the city runs through 2020.
The NCAA also chimed in saying the bill could damage Indianapolis’ reputation as a host of major sporting events. This year’s NCAA men’s basketball tournament finals are being held in Indy.
But even with pressure from organizations across the county, Pence defended signing the bill, referencing recent litigation stemming from the Affordable Care Act in which the University of Notre Dame filed lawsuits challenging provisions that require the institution to provide coverage that went against its religious views.
And Pence said in a statement, “This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. ... In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved.”
Even though Pence’s statement isn’t giving South Bend business owners comfort, many say the new law won’t change anything. Joe Hart, president of the South Bend Cubs, said Friday that his organization has been working for the past few years to create a venue that is fan-friendly and that’s how things will continue.
“Please know the South Bend Cubs are very welcoming,” Hart said. “I hope we have proven that in the past years and that is certainly going to continue.”
And soon any area business that wants to show it is open to any customer can get a sticker from the city to display that says just that. The stickers are not ready yet, and the exact phrasing hasn’t been decided, but Buttigieg said they will soon be available through the business licensing department.
“We have worked too hard to build our economy and move our community into the 21st century to be dragged back in time by Indianapolis politicians more interested in a devisive social agenda than in the pressing issues of today,” Buttigieg said.
@ Prestor John: I sort of agree with you, at least I would if we lived in some kind of utopia. But the plain fact is that homosexuals do not have the same legal protections as non-homosexuals in many places in this country. No protections against housing discrimination, no protection against employment discrimination, to name two of the areas in which homosexuals are potentially hurt the most by discrimination.
And bigots with pulpits , be they political, economic, or religious are working hard to keep them from getting these types of protections.
This does bring up an interesting question though. Are existing local protections against discrimination on the basis of homosexuality, such as those enacted by Indanapolis, Bloomington, and Evansville, superseded by this new state-level law?
I posted the relevant section of SB101 back on pg 15 of this thread if you want to see the exact text.
To my nonlawyer mind I believe that those municipalities would be allowed to enforce their no discrimination statutes over the religious burden objection of owners if the municipality could show that such enforcement satisfies a compelling governmental interest and that the enforcement is the least burdensome method of meeting that compelling govt interest. The Indiana state courts would have to decide whose interest was most compelling so it would literally be decided on a case by case basis.
I guess if we ignore all of the glaringly obvious ways in which this law doesn't bring back Whites Only signs and instead misconstrue and hyperbolize its content then you might be considered correct by some people.
Actually, all one needs to do is substitute any qualifying word for "white" or "black":
No Gays Allowed
No Asians Served
Blacks Only
The idea that we are somehow different or better than the 1950's is, in my opinion, false.
The reason we are still no better is because we are STILL talking about issues like this one--refusing services to a defined class/group of people.
Back then, it was skin color.
That has transitioned to sexual orientation these days.
Until we as a culture move beyond defining and differentiating other humans, and making them an "other" that is separate from "us"....then we continue to be no better than our ancestors who segregated based on skin color.
We are all human beings. We may look different and think different and love different....but from our differences we can actually draw strength, if we can evolve past labeling people.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I would add: though social media can encourage boycotts, etc. it can also encourage support for said business. This is because the supporters of said business will still patronize the business--perhaps even more--to counter the boycott.
I dont want to say that there will *always* be patrons to support businesses that discriminate against certain people....but until society amd humanity evolve, I dare say that wil be the case.
jasper76 wrote: @ Prestor John: I sort of agree with you, at least I would if we lived in some kind of utopia. But the plain fact is that homosexuals do not have the same legal protections as non-homosexuals in many places in this country. No protections against housing discrimination, no protection against employment discrimination, to name two of the areas in which homosexuals are potentially hurt the most by discrimination.
And bigots with pulpits , be they political, economic, or religious are working hard to keep them from getting these types of protections.
We wouldn't have to create a Utopian society just write better laws. The big problem with the Civil Rights Act was that it was specific. It created protected classes which is an odd way to go about legislating equality. Since we've set the precedent that you can't discriminate against anyone based on those specific personal attributes it leaves everyone else uncovered by the law so you get situations wherein people want people with these attributes who aren't currently a protected class to become one which leads to realizing that that group over there needs to be covered too, and so on. Instead amending the law to include more special classes they should amend the law so that nobody needs to be in a special class to be protected from unjust discrimination.
jasper76 wrote: @ Prestor John: I sort of agree with you, at least I would if we lived in some kind of utopia. But the plain fact is that homosexuals do not have the same legal protections as non-homosexuals in many places in this country. No protections against housing discrimination, no protection against employment discrimination, to name two of the areas in which homosexuals are potentially hurt the most by discrimination.
And bigots with pulpits , be they political, economic, or religious are working hard to keep them from getting these types of protections.
We wouldn't have to create a Utopian society just write better laws. The big problem with the Civil Rights Act was that it was specific. It created protected classes which is an odd way to go about legislating equality. Since we've set the precedent that you can't discriminate against anyone based on those specific personal attributes it leaves everyone else uncovered by the law so you get situations wherein people want people with these attributes who aren't currently a protected class to become one which leads to realizing that that group over there needs to be covered too, and so on. Instead amending the law to include more special classes they should amend the law so that nobody needs to be in a special class to be protected from unjust discrimination.
You'd have a hard time having any sort of agreement as to what constitutes "unjust discrimination". There is an Eye of the Beholder thing going on here. If I were a conservative Christian landlord, I might feel that denying qualified applicants who are not married, or who are homosexual, is not unjust, but is a duty - or perhaps that participating in such cohabitation makes me complicit in it before a divine authority, and therefore is a burden on the exercise of my religion, and an impediment to my salvation.
Discriminatory Christians should be reminded of this.....
Matthew 25:35-45 NLT
35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.'
37 "Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?'
40 And the King will tell them, 'I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'
41 "Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons! 42 For I was hungry, and you didn't feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn't give me anything to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn't invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
44 "Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?'
45 And he will answer, 'I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.'
I guess if we ignore all of the glaringly obvious ways in which this law doesn't bring back Whites Only signs and instead misconstrue and hyperbolize its content then you might be considered correct by some people.
Actually, all one needs to do is substitute any qualifying word for "white" or "black":
No Gays Allowed
No Asians Served
Blacks Only
The idea that we are somehow different or better than the 1950's is, in my opinion, false.
The reason we are still no better is because we are STILL talking about issues like this one--refusing services to a defined class/group of people.
Back then, it was skin color.
That has transitioned to sexual orientation these days.
You're ignoring the massive demonstrable differences between what made Whites Only signs possible and what Indiana's SB101 allows. Prior to 1964 any business in a state with segregation laws could post a Whites Only sign and state and local govts could also segregate services. There was no legal burden that had to be met to allow a business or govt building to install Whites Only signs. The Jim crow laws were already on the books, no justification was required by the discriminating parties and there was no avenue to seek legal redress by the parties that were being discriminated against.
There are legal forms of discrimination. Every time you apply for a job but somebody else gets hired for it you were discriminated against. As long as the employer can support that discrimination on valid legal grounds it's OK. Indiana's SB 101 simply sets up the legal framework to determine the legality of discrimination on religious grounds. Prior to 1964 you could put up a Whites Only sign and enforce it and never have to justify it. Now in Indiana if you put up a Heterosexuals Only sign or any other such sign you could be taken to court every single time you enforced and be required to prove that you meet the legal standard that allows such discrimination. I doubt many businesses want to rack up court costs just to fight over their right to refuse business. That's a colossal waste of time and money.
This new law allows someone to discriminate on religious belief grounds.
"I won't serve you food because you are gay and I don't agree with your lifestyle choice and therefore I don't nelieve you are equal to me amd deserving of my service."
The old laws allowed discrimination on skin color.
"I won't serve you food because you are not white and therefore I don't believe you are equal to me and deserving of my service."
jasper76 wrote: @ Prestor John: I sort of agree with you, at least I would if we lived in some kind of utopia. But the plain fact is that homosexuals do not have the same legal protections as non-homosexuals in many places in this country. No protections against housing discrimination, no protection against employment discrimination, to name two of the areas in which homosexuals are potentially hurt the most by discrimination.
And bigots with pulpits , be they political, economic, or religious are working hard to keep them from getting these types of protections.
We wouldn't have to create a Utopian society just write better laws. The big problem with the Civil Rights Act was that it was specific. It created protected classes which is an odd way to go about legislating equality. Since we've set the precedent that you can't discriminate against anyone based on those specific personal attributes it leaves everyone else uncovered by the law so you get situations wherein people want people with these attributes who aren't currently a protected class to become one which leads to realizing that that group over there needs to be covered too, and so on. Instead amending the law to include more special classes they should amend the law so that nobody needs to be in a special class to be protected from unjust discrimination.
You'd have a hard time having any sort of agreement as to what constitutes "unjust discrimination". There is an Eye of the Beholder thing going on here. If I were a conservative Christian landlord, I might feel that denying qualified applicants who are not married, or who are homosexual, is not unjust, but is a duty - or perhaps that participating in such cohabitation makes me complicit in it before a divine authority, and therefore is a burden on the exercise of my religion, and an impediment to my salvation.
Every law that's ever been passed is an Eye of the Beholder issue with regards to justice and need. The entire Civil Rights Act can be considered subjective in its view of just and unjust discrimination but we've been able to enforce it just fine.
In your example, if it happened in Indiana, the landlord could be forced to rent to those types of people anyway if the govt could prove a compelling interest was served by doing so and that it was the least burdensome method of meeting that compelling need. A little truth in advertising could also go a long way in avoiding landlord and tenant personality conflicts in that scenario.
Again discrimination itself is not illegal, what the govt needs to do is establish a legal framework that separates justifiable discrimination from unjustifiable discrimination and then let people and the court system settle disputes.
@PJ: I think you are idealizing people a bit. Really, the only reason why there are no longer "Whites Only" signs and policies is because of the passage and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.
These categories had to be enumerated, because they were the categories of people who were actually discriminated against. And the people doing the discrimination obviously didn't feel it was unjust to do so, or they would not have done so.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to categorize protections, because noone would themselves be categorizing classes to discriminate against.
But I agree that if a universal law could be passed that successfully defined and criminalized "unjust discrimination" in a way that everyone could agree to and be protected by, it would be a good thing.
TheMeanDM wrote: I don't see any difference between then and now.
This new law allows someone to discriminate on religious belief grounds.
"I won't serve you food because you are gay and I don't agree with your lifestyle choice and therefore I don't nelieve you are equal to me amd deserving of my service."
The old laws allowed discrimination on skin color.
"I won't serve you food because you are not white and therefore I don't believe you are equal to me and deserving of my service."
That is as simple as it gets, in my opinion.
How can you not see the difference? SB101 says that the discriminating owner has to prove their case in court. It doesn't confer an automatic right to discriminate. A discriminating owner could easily be taken to court over their refusal to provide service and lose, thereby being forced to provide the service. There was literally no way for a black citizen to legally force a Whites Only establishment to provide service prior to 1964. Under segregation the discriminating owner was guaranteed to win every single time, under SB101 the legal standard of substantial burden must be met in court every single time with no guaranteed victory for the owner. That is a huge difference.
I would also disagree that there is discrimination (as we have been discussing it) involved with hiring practices.
Yes, employers are *discriminating* based on qualifications to meet the job requirements....amd it makes complete sense to do so.
If I own a concrete finishing business and I have two candidates to choose from for one position, I will look at who best meets the job requirements.
If Bob has 10 years of experience with finishing concrete and John has 0 years, I am most likely going to cjoose Bob because I won't have to spend as much time amd money to train Bob to perform the job. Bob has a far less chance of messing up the job and costing time and materials, as well asy company reputation.
Not saying John couldn't be taught....but if I need an experienced person for the job, then John is not my person at this time.
VERY different than not hiring or conducting business with someone who may be gay, black, female, or whatever other qualifier you come up with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that the business owner is even allowed to discriminate in the first place is what makes our day and age the same as the 50's.
"I should not be forced to service homosexuals because I would be forced to endure mental and spiritual anguish that may lead to anxiety, depression, etc. as I struggle with the belief that I will be condemned to Hell for providing service."
That is a perfectly legitimate argument that some business owner could use to avoid servicing a homosexual.
That would qualify as a substantial burden, don't you think?
TheMeanDM wrote: I would also disagree that there is discrimination (as we have been discussing it) involved with hiring practices.
Yes, employers are *discriminating* based on qualifications to meet the job requirements....amd it makes complete sense to do so.
If I own a concrete finishing business and I have two candidates to choose from for one position, I will look at who best meets the job requirements.
If Bob has 10 years of experience with finishing concrete and John has 0 years, I am most likely going to cjoose Bob because I won't have to spend as much time amd money to train Bob to perform the job. Bob has a far less chance of messing up the job and costing time and materials, as well asy company reputation.
Not saying John couldn't be taught....but if I need an experienced person for the job, then John is not my person at this time.
VERY different than not hiring or conducting business with someone who may be gay, black, female, or whatever other qualifier you come up with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that the business owner is even allowed to discriminate in the first place is what makes our day and age the same as the 50's.
"I should not be forced to service homosexuals because I would be forced to endure mental and spiritual anguish that may lead to anxiety, depression, etc. as I struggle with the belief that I will be condemned to Hell for providing service."
That is a perfectly legitimate argument that some business owner could use to avoid servicing a homosexual.
That would qualify as a substantial burden, don't you think?
I don't disagree with your concrete business example. There are different types of discrimination, legal and illegal and the govt sets the standards for both. If there was confusion about my previous post I hope that clarifies it.
Indiana's court system would be the arbiter of whether or not a substantial burden was incurred.
I think the Hobby Lobby case shows some evidence of what might be considered a substantial burden. SCOTUS ruled that the owners of a closely held corporation did not have to fund the purchase of a few specific types of birth control because they believed them to be abrtificants and they could not in good conscious be responsible for funding such action given their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby still had to provide health insurance to their employees, could not take punitive action against employees who used such birth control and employees could still purchase such birth control with their own funds. The case didn't restrict access to the drugs it just allowed HL to remove itself from being involved in their procurement.
If a substantial burden requires owner participation in the act that creates the religious conflict that's a fairly high hurdle to clear in Indiana. Disapproving of homosexuality isn't illegal but engaging in commerce with them doesn't place the business owner in a participatory role in their homosexuality. I would like to see the argument made in court that shows that allowing a LGBT person to buy widgets from your store, rent an apartment in your building, eat in your restaurant, hire your house painting service, etc somehow stains the soul of the owner by placing him/her in a position wherein they are somehow responsible for creating or engaging in behavior that violates their religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: @PJ: I think you are idealizing people a bit. Really, the only reason why there are no longer "Whites Only" signs and policies is because of the passage and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.
These categories had to be enumerated, because they were the categories of people who were actually discriminated against. And the people doing the discrimination obviously didn't feel it was unjust to do so, or they would not have done so.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to categorize protections, because noone would themselves be categorizing classes to discriminate against.
But I agree that if a universal law could be passed that successfully defined and criminalized "unjust discrimination" in a way that everyone could agree to and be protected by, it would be a good thing.
What if we had just passed a law in 1964 that said the govt must treat all citizens equally under the law and that private for profit businesses can only discriminate in a manner that can be proven to be in the best interests of the performance and profitability of the company? Would a law like that have ended institutionalized govt racism and precluded businesses from barring customers based on race alone without creating protected classes? You make valid points but I think you overestimate the difficulty in writing good legislation. Passing good legislation has been shown to be extremely difficult politically speaking for sure but I think we could find people who could write things properly easily enough.
I acknowledge that it's hard to draft near perfect legislation, and I am no lawyer.
Certainly, denying customer clases service is not generally in the interest of performance and profitability, because it is money lost. But such wording could lead to problems in that serving a homosexual couple could be agaisny the interest of a business in an area where bigotry is the norm.
Since the Civil Rights Act has been a successful vehicle in protecting vulnerable classes against discrimination, it seems easier to just add 'sexual orientation' rather than revamping the entire act.
jasper76 wrote: I acknowledge that it's hard to draft near perfect legislation, and I am no lawyer.
Certainly, denying customer clases service is not generally in the interest of performance and profitability, because it is money lost. But such wording could lead to problems in that serving a homosexual couple could be agaisny the interest of a business in an area where bigotry is the norm.
Since the Civil Rights Act has been a successful vehicle in protecting vulnerable classes against discrimination, it seems easier to just add 'sexual orientation' rather than revamping the entire act.
You wouldn't have to scrap the whole act. If we're only concerned at this point with private businesses than you only have to change the wording in Title II which is the section we'd have to amend to include LGBT as a protected class anyway. If we're going to change Title II let's change it to cover everybody rather than just add one more classification.
(CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence stirred up controversy this week when he signed a "religious freedom" bill into law.
The law has businesses and civil rights groups up in arms and threatening -- or in some cases pledging -- to boycott the state.
The reaction has gotten so hot, that on Saturday, Pence told The Indianapolis Star that he supported introduction of new legal language to "clarify" that the new law does not promote discrimination.
He told the Star that a new bill would likely be introduced in coming days but did not specify what it would say or who would introduce it.
What's so controversial about religious freedom?
It's not so much that religious freedom has suddenly become controversial, but rather critics of the bill assert the law could be used by individuals and businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion -- particularly against the LGBT community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
That's a claim Pence has thoroughly rejected: "This bill is not about discrimination. And if I thought it was about discrimination I would have vetoed it."
But civil liberties and gay rights groups assert that the law could be used by businesses to deny service to people based on their sexual orientation and justify that discrimination based on their religious belief.
The law asserts that the government can't "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" and that individuals who feel like their religious beliefs have been or could be "substantially burdened" can lean on this law to fend off lawsuits.
So what qualifies as a substantial burden?
Well, that's not entirely clear and would likely have to be litigated in the courts if cases involving this law come up.
Supporters of these laws bring up the example of a florist who refuses to sell flowers for a gay wedding or a baker who won't make that couple's wedding cake -- and it's clear this law is aimed at fending off lawsuits that florist and that baker might face.
But what about a restaurant that refuses to serve a gay couple simply wanting to sit down for a meal?
"It would foil any lawsuit against a supplier who acted on religious grounds, but the law can get squirrely," CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, adding that it's likely that a refusal to serve a gay person wouldn't stand under the law, but a refusal to provide a service for a gay wedding would.
Is Indiana the first state to implement this kind of a law?
Nope. It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993.
But that law passed with the backing of a broad-based coalition and wasn't set against the backdrop of gay rights or the wave of marriage equality laws that have swept the country in recent years.
The law in Indiana, though, as well as the slew of other states it follows, came after an outcry from social conservative circles over incidents where business owners found themselves in hot water after refusing services to gay couples planning to get married.
In addition to those 20 states, legislators in nine other states have introduced similar types of "religious freedom" laws -- bills that either failed to go through in 2014 or are still up for consideration this year.
But Adam Talbot, a spokesman with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, stressed that those 20 laws are "dramatically different in their scope and effect."
"Calling them similar in this way risks being misleading. Indiana is the broadest and most dangerous law of its kind in the country," Talbot said.
Arkansas' legislature passed an Indiana-style law on Friday, which now heads to the state's governor for approval.
Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business."
Have these "religious freedom restoration" laws already been used as legal defenses?
Yup. The Human Rights Campaign pointed CNN to several cases in which individuals have used these laws in court -- and not just in cases involving LGBT people and weddings.
A police officer in Oklahoma claimed a religious objection when he refused to police a mosque. A police officer in Salt Lake City cited his "religious liberty" when he refused to police a gay pride parade.
A photographer in New Mexico used religious freedom as a defense for not serving a lesbian couple in 2013.
Are there any protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
Yes, 21 states currently have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And another 9 have those protections, but just for public employees.
In 1894, Indiana physician and amateur mathematician Edward J. Goodwin (ca. 1825–1902[1]) believed that he had discovered a correct way of squaring the circle.[2] He proposed a bill to Indiana Representative Taylor I. Record, which Record introduced in the House under the long title "A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897".
And the person who introduced the Bill got the following response;
...the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators made bad puns about it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour. Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day, to waste its time in such frivolity. He said that in reading the leading newspapers of Chicago and the East, he found that the Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule by the action already taken on the bill. He thought consideration of such a proposition was not dignified or worthy of the Senate. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried.[6]
So if one person putting through a Bill that was mercilessly mocked, derided, and postponed indefinitely counts as trying to pass legislation then yes
Yeah, that's the one. And even one person with the power to push something like that, in spite of the resources necessary to get a second opinion, is still too many.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.
For those of you wondering how many other States have some similar protection to that just passed in Indiana (whether by law or case law) the answer is 31
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Yeah, that's the one. And even one person with the power to push something like that, in spite of the resources necessary to get a second opinion, is still too many.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.
If you want a better example of this behaviour you might want to look at the anti-sodomy legislation being proposed in California rather than an example from over 100 years ago.
I mean, I know it has no bearing on reality now, but this is me pointing and laughing.
If you want a better example of this behaviour you might want to look at the anti-sodomy legislation being proposed in California rather than an example from over 100 years ago.
That came to mind too, but we have a thread on that already. Or, at least, I think it's still going. I wanted to avoid a crossover.
We do have the actual politicians on record while in session who stated, on camera, that including the "it doesn't let you discriminate because discrimination is already against the law" excuse in the actual wording of the bill made these laws useless.
I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?
It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.
Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.
If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.
But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.
Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.
But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.
In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.
Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
d-usa wrote: We do have the actual politicians on record while in session who stated, on camera, that including the "it doesn't let you discriminate because discrimination is already against the law" excuse in the actual wording of the bill made these laws useless.
Ahtman wrote: Perhaps the person who brought them up should indeed tell us instead of just shoving them together like they are all the same legislation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For those of you wondering how many other States have some similar protection to that just passed in Indiana (whether by law or case law) the answer is 31
Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.
Ahtman wrote: Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.
Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.
Ahtman wrote: Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.
Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.
And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.
Ahtman wrote: Indeed, just as shooting at a target and shooting at a person are similar but not the same. Of course I wasn't the one that posted an image that conflated the two and put them on the same graphic.
Neither was I. Saying that 30 other States have similar laws is not conflating the words similar and same.
And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.
Indeed, it is an extremely deceitful way to manipulate people into believing that similar = same, and that the whole thing has far more popular support than it actually does. It also allows pointing to "all these other states!" and saying things like "there is no mistreatment of homosexuals because of laws like the one we have introduced/plan to introduce!" while hoping that no one notices the fact that the laws are all different, with some even specifically protecting people based on their sexuality.
Ahtman wrote: And yet someone posted a picture in which "RFRA" and "RFRA-like" laws are on the same graphic right next to each other, are a similar color, and are put together to come up with the number 30 as if they are somehow the same.
Even if I accept that the colours used in the graphic are similar they are clearly different enough to distinguish between. If there are colour blindness issues at play here then I apologize for any confusion arising from the use of a third party image.
That very minor point aside allow me to re-iterate; I did not say the laws were the same. I did not imply the laws were the same. I stated that the laws were similar. If you choose to read similar (resembling without being identical.) as same (identical; not different.) then that is your prerogative, as incorrect as it may be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Indeed, it is an extremely deceitful way to manipulate people into believing that similar = same, and that the whole thing has far more popular support than it actually does. It also allows pointing to "all these other states!" and saying things like "there is no mistreatment of homosexuals because of laws like the one we have introduced/plan to introduce!" while hoping that no one notices the fact that the laws are all different, with some even specifically protecting people based on their sexuality.
That is not the case in this instance. If it were then I would not have taken the time to reply on multiple occasions to clarify that similar does not mean same. There is no deceit here.
That is not the case in this instance. If it were then I would not have taken the time to reply on multiple occasions to clarify that similar does not mean same. There is no deceit here.
Even if that were the case, tactics like this have been used in both this any many other instances and topics. The original post (from memory) conflated same and similar, regardless of later clarifying posts, and the original graphic itself, regardless of accompanying text, is misleading.
Lets look at what Indiana's Act allows for;
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#digest-heading "Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees."
If you read this you will find that it is very similar to the federal act of 1993, passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
From a site that is not friendly to RFR Acts;
Conneticut; "The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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."
http://rfraperils.com/connecticut/
Rhode Island; "(a) Except as provided for in subsection (b), a governmental authority may not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion.
(b) A governmental authority may restrict a person’s free exercise of religion only if:
(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability, and does not intentionally discriminate against religion, or among religions; and
(2) The governmental authority proves that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/rhode-island/
Illinois; "Sec. 10. Findings and purposes. (a) The General Assembly finds the following:
(1) The free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(2) Laws “neutral” toward religion, as well as laws intended to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden the exercise of religion.
(3) Government should not substantially burden the exercise of religion without compelling justification.
(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement under the First Amendment to the United States Constitutionthat government justify burdens on the exercise of religion imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) In City of Boerne v. P.F. Flores, 65 LW 4612 (1997) the Supreme Court held that an Act passed by Congress to address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972),and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
(b) The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.
(2) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government"
So, very close in scope and intent to the federal law
http://rfraperils.com/illinois/
Florida; "(1) The government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates 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.
http://rfraperils.com/florida/
Alabama; "AMENDMENT 622 RATIFIED: Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.
SECTION I. The amendment shall be known as and may be cited as the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.
SECTION II. The Legislature makes the following findings concerning religious freedom:
(1) The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the framers of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, also recognizing this right, secured the protection of religious freedom in Article I, Section 3.
(2) Federal and state laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.
(3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification.
(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in areas ranging from public education (pedagogical interests and religious rights, including recognizing regulations necessary to alleviate interference with the educational process versus rights of religious freedom) to national defense (conscription and conscientious objection, including the need to raise an army versus rights to object to individual participation), and other areas of important mutual concern.
(6) Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C., § 2000bb, to establish the compelling interest test set forth in prior federal court rulings, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional stating that the right to regulate was retained by the states.
SECTION III. The purpose of the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is to guarantee that the freedom of religion is not burdened by state and local law; and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious freedom is burdened by government.
SECTION IV. As used in this amendment, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) DEMONSTRATES. Meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(2) FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The free exercise of religion under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.
(3) GOVERNMENT. Any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under the color of law) of the State of Alabama, any political subdivision of a state, municipality, or other local government.
(4) RULE. Any government statute, regulation, ordinance, administrative provision, ruling guideline, requirement, or any statement of law whatever.
SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person’s freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Government may burden a person’s freedom of religion only if it 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.
(c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government."
http://rfraperils.com/alabama/
Arizona; "A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/arizona/
South Carolina; "§ 1-32-30. PURPOSES OF CHAPTER.
The purposes of this chapter are to:
(1) restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling state interest will be imposed on all state and local laws and ordinances in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the State.
§ 1-32-40. RESTRICTION ON STATE’S ABILITY TO BURDEN EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
The State may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the State demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
(1) in furtherance of a compelling state interest; and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest."
http://rfraperils.com/south-carolina/
Texas; "Sec. 110.003. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTED. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the 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 interest.
(c) A government agency that makes the demonstration required by Subsection (b) is not required to separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the law, ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority that imposes the substantial burden are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply."
http://rfraperils.com/texas/
Idaho; "(1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney’s fees and costs.
(5) In this section, the term “substantially burden” is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions."
http://rfraperils.com/idaho/
New Mexico; "A government agency shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless:
A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and
B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/new-mexico/
Oklahoma; "A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
B. No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
1. Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/oklahoma/
Pennsylvania; "(a) GENERAL RULE.– Except as provided in subsection (b), an agency shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, including any burden which results from a rule of general applicability.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.– An agency may substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion if the agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the burden is all of the following:
(1) In furtherance of a compelling interest of the agency.
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest."
http://rfraperils.com/pennsylvania/
Missouri; "1. A governmental authority may not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion, unless:
(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability, and does not discriminate against religion, or among religions; and
(2) The governmental authority demonstrates that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is not unduly restrictive considering the relevant circumstances.
2. As used in this section, “exercise of religion” shall be defined as an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. As used in this section “demonstrates” means meets the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion."
http://rfraperils.com/missouri/
Virginia; "A. As used in this section:
. . .
“Substantially burden” means to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practice.
B. No government entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is (i) essential to further a compelling governmental interest and (ii) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
Read the definition of "substantial burden" in this law, it goes above and beyond protecting religious rights than many other similar pieces of legislation
http://rfraperils.com/virginia/
Utah; "(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), a government entity may not impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on a person’s free exercise of religion.
(2) A government entity may impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on a person’s free exercise of religion if the government can establish that the imposition of the burden on that person:
(a) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(3) A government entity that meets the requirements of Subsection (2) need not separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the land use regulation are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply."
http://rfraperils.com/utah/
Tennessee; "(c) No government entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
(1) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/tennessee/
Louisiana; "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a facially neutral rule or a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
http://rfraperils.com/louisiana/
Kentucky; "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities."
http://rfraperils.com/kentucky/
So, in looking at these laws I believe we can all see the similarities between each them (that is not to say they are identical), and also between the 1993 federal legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Even if that were the case, tactics like this have been used in both this any many other instances and topics. The original post (from memory) conflated same and similar, regardless of later clarifying posts, and the original graphic itself, regardless of accompanying text, is misleading.
Then you are at liberty to take it up with those individuals, and not ascribe their behaviour to me when I have not only been sufficiently clear in my initial posts, but also acted in good faith to help you better understand what I was saying. My initial post with the graphic said "similar". The graphic itself showed which other states had RFRA legislation or laws, it did not claim that they were the same.
d-usa wrote: The video was located on a Think Progress webpage, so I wouldn't be surprised if people saw the link and ignored it.
But here is the video:
That clip is a state senator from Georgia talking about the religious freedom bill legislation for Georgia. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Indiana's SB101. It's a completely different state.
Again, is the Indiana law reflective of federal law? If, so whats the big deal? I saw the Texas version, that effectively just codifies the First Amendment related to religion.
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
So the Indiana law, like the many other state laws detailed above, is very similar to the 1993 federal law.
So...whats the issue? This is a law protecting against The State, which is exactly what the First Amendment was about.
At the same time federal courts have determined that the State may not mandate religious teachings or activities even if The State is a local group.
So the State can't have a cresh. The state can't mandate a directed prayer at a meeting or graduation. The religious views of religious persons cannot be violated without a high standard for doing so. In general pleading religion doesn't work for various EEOC and VRA legislation as its itself tied to US Constitutional Amendments.
If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.
If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.
Bookwrack wrote: If you take the time to actually read all of it, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t say anything like that and only South Carolina has something similar. Fun fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses the RFRA protection.
Is this not covered by the precedent set in the Hobby Lobby case? The concept of legal and natural persons are not new.
Fun fact, all the other RFRAs do not seem to define person, including the federal Bill. The argument could be made that by noit limiting the scope explicitly to natural persons that the intention was always there to allow protections to legal persons.
This past week, journalistic abuse has exploded into controversy over an innocuous religious freedom law in Indiana. This law, known as a Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA (pronounced “riff-ra”), tracks the language of the 1993 federal RFRA signed into law by President Clinton after a 97-3 vote in the Senate. But you would not necessarily know how innocuous it is from news media coverage. According to what you might hear in the news, this is an anti-gay law that is “almost universally loathed,” and which a White House official suggested would “legitimize discrimination.”
Indiana’s RFRA has none of these characteristics.
There is in works of fiction a concept called the informed attribute. An informed attribute is an abuse of storytelling that occurs when the author gets lazy and, instead of demonstrating that a character has a certain characteristic, simply informs the audience that they do. So, for example, think of the way Daniel Defoe characterized Friday in “Robinson Crusoe”: savage, cannibal—except that Friday never does anything savage or cannibal throughout the novel. Indeed, “my man Friday” is now a euphemism for an incorruptible subordinate. Or, to use a more recent example, consider that in the Twilight novels, we are told that Bella is a loner who is older than her years—except she is always surrounded by friends whom she can’t seem to get enough of, and she has a teenager-like obsession with a certain boyish vampire who she wants to bone. These are informed attributes. The indispensable TV Tropes explains the informed attribute arises through a “violation of Show, Don’t Tell when fleshing out a fictional tangible.”
Lately, there has been a depressing tendency for the informed attribute to migrate from fiction to journalism. It has popped up when journalists cover President Obama—so heroic!, despite the fact he has never done anything particularly heroic. It is inescapable in news media coverage of the Tea Party—racists! villains!, even though the Tea Party is neither. Even Gov. Chris Christie has taken licks for it—gauche nouveau riche!. Despite there being no evidence for these attributes, journalists will simply repeat them as if they were true and hope that incurious, unsuspecting readers assume it.
Fortunately for the news consumer, if not consumers of fiction, an informed attribute in journalism can be overcome with the application of a little knowledge. Here is everything you need to know to push back against the laziness or maliciousness in the news about RFRAs.
What Is a RFRA? This legislation sets the same minimum standard for burdening the exercise of religion. Under the various RFRAs, a state or the federal government—by law or other action—may not substantially burden an individual’s exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Twenty states, including Indiana, and the federal government have RFRAs.
What? Government Interest? Yeah. It’s a lot more nuanced than the news media has allowed. It’s a balancing test for litigation. It puts exercise of religion on one side of the scale and then government interest on the other. If the government’s interest is not important enough—literally compelling—it cannot outweigh an individual’s right to practice his religion as he sees fit.
So RFRAs Don’t License Discrimination? No. RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.
So How Does This Really Work? For example, back in 2006 the Supreme Court considered a case (PDF) involving a psychotropic tea that believers of a New Mexico church imbibed as part of their religious ceremonies. Customs inspectors had seized the tea as a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The high court applied the balancing test described above. First, no one disputed that depriving the believers of their tea would be a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. That’s the religion side of the scale. Second, the federal government in claimed it was just applying the Controlled Substances Act to everyone equally. But that is precisely why the government lost at the Supreme Court—unanimously. The government could not explain why it could not give an exemption to this little group of believers that wasn’t harming anyone with its tea. And so the government’s interest in uniform application of the Controlled Substance Act was outweighed by the interests of the believers in practicing their religion in peace.
If There’s a Federal RFRA, Why Do States Have to Have Them, Too? That’s a different Supreme Court case. In 1997, the high court held that the federal government lacked the authority to impose RFRA on the states (hurray, government of limited power!). If the states want to have RFRAs, they have to adopt them on their own. Since then, 20 states have enacted RFRAs.
Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS? Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.
Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.
Otherwise, it’s the same law.
You Didn’t Say Anything about the Gay Stuff. That’s because the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “sexual orientation” don’t appear in any of the RFRAs. Until now, the most controversial RFRA case was last year’s Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which was about whether the federal government has a compelling interest in forcing religious business owners to pay for abortifacents. (It doesn’t.)
This big gay freak-out is purely notional. No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.
Why Is Everyone So Mad about Indiana’s RFRA, Then? The fear is that it could be used to deny service to gay people in places of public accommodation like businesses and restaurants. But, as discussed above, no RFRA has ever been used that way before. Also, Indiana does not have a public accommodation law that protects against anti-gay discrimination, meaning there’s no state law in Indiana preventing anti-gay discrimination in businesses even before the state RFRA was enacted. Notably, despite the lack of such a law, nobody can point to any Indiana businesses that were discriminating against gays.
That’s what makes this an informed attribute. Gay marriage is on many people’s minds lately, for obvious reasons. In truth, though, Indiana is merely catching-up to states that have had RFRAs for decades—like Illinois, for example, which got its RFRA with the help of a young state senator named Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Indiana is now caught in the cultural cross-fire.
Do Religious Freedom Protections Hurt Gays? It is entirely consistent to favor broad religious freedom protections and also favor gay rights. Many gays are religious, and so themselves benefit from religious freedom protections like RFRA. But even where gay Americans and religious Americans find themselves in conflict, there is ample room in communities to peaceably coexist. That’s the point of a RFRA. No side gets an automatic-victory card. The interests of all sides gets weighed.
What Do We Do Now? If you’ve made it this far, you know more about RFRAs and the Indiana situation than the average news consumer. Share your knowledge. It’s the only way to beat the swarms of aggrieved news consumers who don’t know any better than what they’ve seen in the papers.
The only way to push back against the informed attribute in this instance is to point to the actual attributes of the law. Before Indiana, RFRAs existed for over 20 years in 19 states and the federal government. There has been no parade of horribles. They are a shield, not a sword. And their object is religious freedom, not anti-gay discrimination.
Indeed.
I think much the objection started with after that Hobby Lobby case winning the SC case by using RFRA.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So the RFRAs across the country have not once defended a person discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That is quite interesting.
I think a big reason why that's the case is because like Whembly's post explains, the law is a shield not a sword. The RFRA laws protect religious freedom from unjust impositions and it's hard to impose actual homosexuality on somebody against their objections.
In the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS ruled that since it's a closely held corporation the owners' religious beliefs matter and that the ACA forcing those owners to pay for health insurance plans that included what they considered abortificants under the threat of crippling federal fines was an unjust imposition on the owners forcing them to participate in what they viewed to be abortions and that the federal govt could find other easiersolutions to making sure that Hobby Lobby employees received health insurance coverage for those drugs without burdening Hobby Lobby ownership with paying for it against their will.
Engaging in commerce with members of the LGBT community really doesn't impose a burden on anyone because no business that provides goods/services is going to have to engage in nonheterosexual behavior. The actual act that the aggreived party is being compelled to do needs to create a substantial burden on that party's religious beliefs and that's a really tough thing to prove if the dispute is based on generic standard commercial transactions.
Thing is, it MIGHT actually be something that can be changed with drugs. I just draw the line at "and this means we should be donkey-caves to these people."
It's worth some effort putting time into looking at it. There's probably a lot more we could stand to learn about the brain. Doesn't mean I think we should force that on anyone though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Overall they really sound like class acts though, if true.
So who are the other ten people in the photo?
How many people helped write the Bill? What influence did one person have over the final draft?
What specific part of the Indiana legislation is "anti-gay"?
How is the Indiana legislation different in scope from other states with similar legislation?
Is the federal law that these other RFRAs based off anti-gay?
No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide. How would Indiana's law change this?
No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in twenty years of RFRAs nationwide.
Is it that the attempts to use these laws to legitimize antigay discrimination have failed, or is it that there have not been any attempts made at all? I'd be interested in knowing, because there is a difference between "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't dangerous" and "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't indiginous to suburban Maryland."
squidhills wrote: Is it that the attempts to use these laws to legitimize antigay discrimination have failed, or is it that there have not been any attempts made at all? I'd be interested in knowing, because there is a difference between "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't dangerous" and "I've never been attacked by a tiger while sitting in my back yard because tigers aren't indiginous to suburban Maryland."
Given that the article said "successfully defend" that would lead me to believe that an attempt, or attempts, were made to rely on the provisions. In any event I believe that it is safe to say that with a twenty year history at the state level, and a shorter time at the federal level, the fact that these laws have not enabled discrimination against people based on sexual orientation should not be overlooked or downplayed.
From the article above;
No. RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.
Indiana (like many other states, and even the federal government) does not have specific legislation to protect people based on their sexual identity. In short, if people wanted to discriminate against homosexuals then this act was not needed.
Is Indiana’s RFRA Like the Other RFRAS?
Yes and no. Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.
Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.
Having read the full text of the laws, that is the difference, and it's a big freaking difference. Federal laws and existing state laws only apply to individuals and to closely held companies(thanks to Hobby Lobby). The Indiana law applies to everyone.
The other big issue is that you can cite the law as a defense in any legal proceedings even when the government is not a party. This is the crux of all complaints against the law, and what makes it a big deal while the others are mostly harmless. This is what allows this law to be used as a law to shield discrimination while others can not. Under the Federal law, or ones like Illinois has, I can only site religious as a defense if the Government comes after me directly. The Supreme court refused to take a case from New Mexico when someone tried to use in in a private discrimination suit, leaving the prevailing ruling that it can only be used against the government intact. The Indiana law allows the religious defense in all lawsuits. So If I sue my neighbor because his tree fell in my lawn, he can site his religious belife that trees should not be trimmed as a defense.
That doesn't mean that the argument would win, but it's another hoop you as the plaintiff need to jump through. It's going to be a hard thing to fight based on how individual peoples' religious beliefs are. No two people are going to be burdened the same way when it comes to their beliefs. You're adding the complicated matter of belief to the already complicated matter of law. And if you loose against it, the Indiana law says you have to cover the other guy's attorney fees.
CaulynDarr wrote: The other big issue is that you can cite the law as a defense in any legal proceedings even when the government is not a party. This is the crux of all complaints against the law, and what makes it a big deal while the others are mostly harmless. This is what allows this law to be used as a law to shield discrimination while others can not. Under the Federal law, or ones like Illinois has, I can only site religious as a defense if the Government comes after me directly. The Supreme court refused to take a case from New Mexico when someone tried to use in in a private discrimination suit, leaving the prevailing ruling that it can only be used against the government intact. The Indiana law allows the religious defense in all lawsuits. So If I sue my neighbor because his tree fell in my law, he can site his religious belife that trees should not be trimmed as a defense.
Re the underlined; can you please provide the text of the legislation that permits this. I have been unable to locate this provision in the legislation which would enable this legislation to be used in "all lawsuits" as you claim (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f)
CaulynDarr wrote: And if you loose against it, the Indiana law says you have to cover the other guy's attorney fees.
Are you aware that being responsible for the other party's legal fees if you lose a case is not unique to this law? Also it is not automatic, and requires that the judge rule in your favour to claim this relief.
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action that directly or indirectly:
(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by a person; or
(2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion.
I don't see how any business owner successfully argues in court that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community meets that definition of "burden."
Re the underlined; can you please provide the text of the legislation that permits this. I have been unable to locate this provision in the legislation which would enable this legislation to be used in "all lawsuits" as you claim (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f)
.
Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
33
(1) has been substantially burdened; or
34
(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
35
by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,
36
or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial
37
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political
38
subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:
33
(1) has been substantially burdened; or
34
(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;
35
by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,
36
or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial
37
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political
38
subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
You have to read Scetion 7 in light of the preceding sections;
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "state action" means:
(1) the implementation or application of a state or local law or
policy; or
(2) the taking of any other action; by the state or a political subdivision of the state
Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:
(1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.
So there must be state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action. Given this provision it seems very unlikely that the state would not be a party to any proceedings, especially as the burden is on the "state or political subdivision" to prove their claim under points (1) and (2). This law can only be used as a defense against the acts of the state or a political sub-division. It is not intended for use between two private individuals.
Sec. 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person’s exercise of religion. (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 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.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
How does that compare to Indiana? Pretty closely;https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f
There is one big difference though, "substantive burden" v "burden", as explained better here
In case you needed more proof that the recent backlash against religious freedom laws is grounded in pure ignorance, look no further than Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy. Malloy, a Democrat, just announced on Twitter that he plans to sign an executive order banning state travel to Indiana due to the midwestern state’s recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
I don’t know how many staffers, lawyers, and advisers currently work for Malloy, but it’s a real shame that not a single one of them told the governor that Connecticut has had an expansive RFRA on the books for over two decades. That’s right: Connecticut passed its own RFRA law on June 29, 1993. You can read the law for yourself here. The inanity of Malloy’s move doesn’t stop there, though. What makes his grandstanding particularly absurd is the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA provides far greater religious liberty protections than Indiana’s or even the federal government’s.
If you dislike Indiana’s RFRA, then you should loathe Connecticut’s. The difference comes down to a single phrase: “substantially burden.”
Both the Indiana law and the federal law declare that the respective governments may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” In other words, the laws require the courts to analyze cases brought under these laws using the strict scrutiny standard. Under the Indiana and federal religious liberty laws, government can burden religious exercise, but it cannot substantially burden it. That’s a key distinction.
Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.
The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.
If Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy wants to blatantly discriminate against states with religious liberty laws on the books, that’s his prerogative. But if he doesn’t want to look like a completely ignorant hypocrite who has no idea what he’s talking about, he should probably examine his own state’s laws first.
UPDATE: A number of commentators have suggested that none of this matters because Connecticut has laws banning discrimination based on sexual preference, while Indiana doesn’t. Unfortunately, these commentators do not have the mental wherewithal to grasp that that argument doesn’t undermine my point. It actually strengthens it.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the “Indiana doesn’t ban discrimination” claim is true and that this distinction is what makes Indiana’s RFRA terrible and Connecticut’s RFRA perfectly acceptable. If that’s the case, then it’s literally impossible for Indiana’s new RFRA law to legalize discrimination based on sexual preference. Why? Because it’s allegedly already legal in Indiana. Furthermore, if anti-gay discrimination is what is truly animating those voicing opposition to RFRA, why on earth are they focusing on Indiana’s RFRA and not on enacting the anti-discrimination bans that are in force in states like Connecticut?
If I didn’t know better, I’d be left to assume that the voices agitating to repeal a 20-year-old legal framework that was not even remotely controversial until last week were more interested in outlawing religious liberty than they were in preventing discrimination.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Connecticut Governor Malloy has signed an executive order Monday blocking state-funded travel to Indiana and other states that permit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Connecticut was the first state to enact their own RFRA
One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.
Ahtman wrote: One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.
You seem somewhat fixated on this point in spite of my continued efforts to point out that I have said the laws are similar, not the same. What part of this is still unclear to you, and in what way could I make this clearer for you so we may progress this discussion?
Ahtman wrote: One might think their RFRA is not quite the same as the Indiana one.
You seem somewhat fixated on this point
If you stop giving the appearance of conflating things then perhaps people will stop seeing you as doing such, until then I don't imagine crying wolf whenever you do that will make a big difference.
Ahtman wrote: If you stop giving the appearance of conflating things then perhaps people will stop seeing you as doing such, until then I don't imagine crying wolf whenever you do that will make a big difference.
I have pointed out numerous times that I have said the laws are similar. I have at no point said that the laws were the same. In fact I even posted details of the laws for those states that have RFRA on the statute books so people may see the differences. In the post you quoted above, albeit with the relevant portion edited out, I even pointed out a key difference between the Indiana and Connecticut laws. There is no attempt to conflate them on my part. I would like to consider this point resolved. If you wish to keep repeating your claim of conflating against all evidence to the contrary that is your prerogative to do so, I will not be responding to it any further as at best retreading the same ground is a distraction from the actual discussion.
Ahtman wrote: If you stop giving the appearance of conflating things then perhaps people will stop seeing you as doing such, until then I don't imagine crying wolf whenever you do that will make a big difference.
I have pointed out numerous times that I have said the laws are similar. I have at no point said that the laws were the same.
Oh the dog-whistle, do you hear it? Of course you didn't literally say they were the same, you just imply it left and right. The evidence actually shows you pretending they are the same then complaining about people noticing, not that you never have done it.
True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?
No.
The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
The whole religious freedom thing is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who aren't Christian (As defined by the religious right, not by actual Christians). Same as State Rights was used as a dog whistle for segregation/slavery. .
True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?
No.
The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
The whole religious freedom thing is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who aren't Christian (As defined by the religious right, not by actual Christians). Same as State Rights was used as a dog whistle for segregation/slavery. .
Uh... no.
You do realize that the Federal Law in '93 was passed in large part because of a Native Indian was fired because he tested postive for peoyte.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't see how any business owner successfully argues in court that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community meets that definition of "burden."
"My religion says that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community is sin and god will punish it". The only way to say that this isn't a burden is to limit "burden" to mean "burden on mainstream Christianity" so that minority religious beliefs are excluded. Otherwise what right do you have to say that someone's religious belief is not burdened, if they say it is?
I'd like to challenge those that say that. I want proof that a claim like "My religion says that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community is sin and god will punish it" has anything to back it up.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd like to challenge those that say that. I want proof that a claim like "My religion says that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community is sin and god will punish it" has anything to back it up.
What proof do you expect to find? A notarized transcript of the conversation the person had with god?
Any sort of specific scripture. An example of Jesus maybe interviewing for a 13th special friend and going "No homo!".
Any of those will suffice.
Oh, I see, so we're interpreting "religion" to mean "mainstream Christianity". What about the religions that don't have formal scripture or consider personal contact with god to be more important than scripture?
Peregrine wrote: What proof do you expect to find? A notarized transcript of the conversation the person had with god?
That'll do.
Any sort of specific scripture. An example of Jesus maybe interviewing for a 13th special friend and going "No homo!".
Any of those will suffice.
You'll find some fairly rank gak in Leviticus, particularly one nasty one about killing gay people, but you won't find anything like that from Christ's teachings. Dude really only had one rule, which was, pretty simply, 'don't be a dick'.
My point exactly Mr. Bread. These so-called followers of Jesus sully his name every day with their intolerance. The man accepted everyone, and made a point of accepting society's worst (not that I'm calling gay people today's society's worst, but you get what I mean). Their continued efforts to further segregate and discriminate people, all whilst hiding behind the paper shield of "Muh religious freedomz!" is just laughable.
The phrase "Jesus wept" is rather apt, IMO.
Peregrine wrote: Oh, I see, so we're interpreting "religion" to mean "mainstream Christianity". What about the religions that don't have formal scripture or consider personal contact with god to be more important than scripture?
You're a special guy Perry. I haven't known anyone at this site since perhaps Drew Riggo to the be the type to pick fights with people who agree with him.
Peregrine wrote: What proof do you expect to find? A notarized transcript of the conversation the person had with god?
That'll do.
Any sort of specific scripture. An example of Jesus maybe interviewing for a 13th special friend and going "No homo!".
Any of those will suffice.
You'll find some fairly rank gak in Leviticus, particularly one nasty one about killing gay people, but you won't find anything like that from Christ's teachings. Dude really only had one rule, which was, pretty simply, 'don't be a dick'.
Leviticus is where it gets entertaining. Proof that god has a sense of humour.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're a special guy Perry. I haven't known anyone at this site since perhaps Drew Riggo to the be the type to pick fights with people who agree with him.
Now I'm just confused. In your original post about asking for proof of the "my religion says to put up a 'straight only' sign" claim it seemed like you were repeating a claim made elsewhere in discussions about this kind of law, that anyone claiming that {thing mainstream Christianity has no problem with} is against their religion won't be able to prove it in court because obviously their religion isn't a "real" religion. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what your position is and how it relates to my original post that you quoted from?
True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?
No.
The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
The whole religious freedom thing is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who aren't Christian (As defined by the religious right, not by actual Christians). Same as State Rights was used as a dog whistle for segregation/slavery. .
Your claim overlooks the fact that Indiana, like many other states (and the federal government) does not currently recognize sexual orientation as a protected class. So if someone actually wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation then they could have done so before this legislation.
It also ignores the point that to date there has been no successful use of any RFRA to permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't fathom why these sorts of laws exist. Do they exist in Canadia? The UK? Australia?
There's actually a good reason behind the 1993 era RFRAs. There was a series of supreme court case where Native American religious rights where coming up against generally applicable laws. The supreme court decided that under the current laws it was an all or nothing affair. Either you had the follow all the laws or you could claim your religion could get you out of paying taxes. The government was having none of that. One of the rulings basically told Congress they needed to do something about this.
Even as a non-religious person I see the benefit in not allowing the government to compel people to violate their beliefs for no good reason.
These new RFRAs are being pushed in an entirely different context. First Hobby Lobby broadened who can use a RFRA based defense. Second, a New Mexico case ruled that RFRA based defenses could not be used in suits where the government was not a party. The subtle differences in the newer laws like Indiana's are all about opening up who can claim a religious defense further(specifically public-for-profit cooperations) and allowing the law to be used in circumstances where the government is not involved in the litigation.
It's telling that language to ensure that the bill cannot be used for discrimination is usually rejected, and when it doe get added, kills the bill's Republican support. They also misjudged what for-profit companies want. Most have see the PR benefits of being inclusive.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't see how any business owner successfully argues in court that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community meets that definition of "burden."
"My religion says that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community is sin and god will punish it". The only way to say that this isn't a burden is to limit "burden" to mean "burden on mainstream Christianity" so that minority religious beliefs are excluded. Otherwise what right do you have to say that someone's religious belief is not burdened, if they say it is?
The right to evaluate the degree of burden is given to the Indiana court system as specified by the law. The business owner would have to prove in court that being compelled to engage in commerce with a member of the LGBT community either inhibited/prevented that business owner from adhering to their religious practices or that engaging in commerce with a member of the LGBT community was a violation of their religiouis practices. In the past 20 years, none of the successful claims made in regards to RFRA laws both federal and state have happened on such specious grounds. Not one case sets a precedent with the bar being set so low as to allow anyone to claim any religious belief they want and win in court.
IF somebody in Indiana manages to set that precedent in court then you'd have an argument but there is literally no instance of your hypothetical example ever happening to date.
In all of the successful defenses claiming RFRA protection have occurred when the state is compelling somebody to act against their conscious. Native Americans who want to be able to take peyote during religious ceremonies and not get fired for failing a drug test, a Muslim prisoner who doesn't want to have to shave his beard, owners of a closely held corporation who don't want to have to pay for "abortificants" as part of their health insurance plan, etc. The business owner in your hypothetical example would have to prove that he/she is somehow being compelled to engage in commerce with a member of the LGBT community. Since there is no federal law or Indiana state law that classifies LGBT people as a protected class how can a business owner be compelled to sell them goods/services in the first place?
As has been said before RFRA laws are a shield, they are meant to protect citizens from being compelled by the state to violate their religious beliefs. If there is no law compelling business owners to interact with LGBT people then there is no attack on the religious beliefs of the owners that would require them to use RFRA law as a shield.
The hypothetical Indiana business owner has to prove in court that 1) he/she has a closely held religious belief and 2) that he/she is being compelled to violate that belief or that belief is being unjustly inhibited/prohibited. The next time that is successfully done in a courtroom in Indiana will be the first time that's been done in a courtroom in US history.
To be fair, it's all down to how "substantial burden" is defined anyway. I find it rather sloppy to create a law with nebulously defined concepts that could have profound implications depending on how they're interpreted (looking at you, Second Amendment).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair, it's all down to how "substantial burden" is defined anyway. I find it rather sloppy to create a law with nebulously defined concepts that could have profound implications depending on how they're interpreted (looking at you, Second Amendment).
In Sherbert, the Court set out a three-prong test for courts to use in determining whether the government has violated an individual's constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion.
The first prong investigates whether government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion. If government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forego a religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the government has burdened the individual's free exercise of religion.
However, under this test not all burdens placed on religious exercise are unconstitutional. If the first prong is passed, the government may still constitutionally impose the burden on the individual's free exercise if the government can show
it possesses some compelling state interest that justifies the infringement; and
no alternative form of regulation can avoid the infringement and still achieve the state's end.
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.
I understand his predicament. But, this "hill" is actually a good one for him to take his stand.
...
Saw something funny on my twittah feed:
"Critics of RFRA wants to take the gay-killing regime's (Iran) sanction and apply it to the state of Indiana... because reasons."
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.
Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.
What? It's just a private enterprise doing business with whomever they want. Are you saying that's not moral, you pinko commie?
A law is passed giving people an avenue to not do business with people based on religious objections, then supporters of the law complain when the free market decides not to business with people based on moral objections.
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.
What? It's just a private enterprise doing business with whomever they want. Are you saying that's not moral, you pinko commie?
No.
Take the whole Baker scenario that's popular in this thread.
It's the idea that bakers should be forced to *make a wedding cake* against their will, regardless of their reasons.
That's scary man.
I support the right of that Baker to refuse service for whatever reason, even though in this case, I'd be absolutely disgusted with the Baker's decision.
Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.
There's some many facets to this... lemme ask you some questions.
Do you have issues with RFRA like laws? If so, why?
Be very specific.
I have some reservations. The idea that people can use religion to ignore laws is an odd one for me, and I can see the reasoning, but I think it is written to loosely. I also think that the law it'self is unneeded and will just further complicate the legal system and confuse people. The 1st amendment works just fine for actual attacks on religious freedom IMO
Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.
There's some many facets to this... lemme ask you some questions.
Do you have issues with RFRA like laws? If so, why?
Be very specific.
I have some reservations. The idea that people can use religion to ignore laws is an odd one for me, and I can see the reasoning, but I think it is written to loosely.
Keep in mind, that it isn't a blank check to refuse service or refuse an edict from the government. It still needs to be weighed by the courts on a case by case basis.
I also think that the law it'self is unneeded and will just further complicate the legal system and confuse people. The 1st amendment works just fine for actual attacks on religious freedom IMO
The distinction here is that you have two entities who want different outcomes. RFRA laws provides legal framework to adjudicate that.
Also keep in mind that since it's a case by case adjudication, the results have been all over the map. Just google up Amish communities trying to deal with building codes. (ie, smoke detectors).
One of the scarier things about these types of laws IMO, and I thought and stated such with the whole birth control thing, is it places a judge in a position to determine which religions are valid or invalid (the judge will just refer to IRS exemption status here), and whether the person's religious convictions are sincere.
Let that sink in for a moment....a judge is placed in a position to determine if your religious convictions are sincere, insincere, or not sincere enough.
Is this the kind of business we want a judiciary involved in?
jasper76 wrote: One of the scarier things about these types of laws IMO, and I thought and stated such with the whole birth control thing, is it places a judge in a position to determine which religions are valid or invalid (the judge will just refer to IRS exemption status here), and whether the person's religious convictions are sincere.
Let that sink in for a moment....a judge is placed in a position to determine if your religious convictions are sincere, insincere, or not sincere enough.
Is this the kind of business we want a judiciary involved in?
Honestly... not really.
But this conversation really needs a reboot.
Here's the real question: What does tolerance really mean and how does it apply to this Baker hypothetical?
I'm not inclined to use the baker example...wedding cakes in my mind trivialize the gravity of these kind of laws. A lack of a wedding cake does not impact your survival.
Landlords, then.
A landlord turns down a qualified homosexual couple because his religion says he can't contribute to homosexuality.
But people need places to live. Shelter is a basic human necessity. So the rights of the homosexual couple IMO should trump the religious freedoms of the landlord, because if one landlord can do this, all landlords can do this, leaving homosexuals potentially homeless.
Probably not a problem in Indianapolis or Bloomington, but I assume Indiana has some backwater counties and towns where religious and social attitudes are more homogenous.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not inclined to use the baker example...wedding cakes in my mind trivialize the gravity of these kind of laws.
Landlords, then.
A landlord turns down a qualified homosexual couple because his religion says he can't contribute to homosexuality.
But people need places to live. Shelter is a basic human necessity. So the rights of the homosexual couple trump the religious freedoms of the landlord, because if one landlord can do this, all landlords can do this.
Probably not a problem in Indianapolis or Bloomington, but I assume Indiana has some backwater counties and towns where religious attitudes are homogenous.
Landords is somewhat a tricky thing jasper... in the sense that they DO actively discriminate potential tenants based on whatever criteria the use, except for the protect class (via Fair Housing Acts and other local laws).
And homosexuals are not a protected class by the Fair Hosuing Act, and only considered a protected class in certain localities within Indiana, to the best of my knowledge (and I actually did look this stuff up a couple days ago)
LITTLE ROCK, Ark., — Despite intensifying criticism from business leaders both within and outside of Arkansas, the state legislature on Tuesday passed its version of a measure billed as a religious freedom law, joining Indiana in a swirl of controversy that shows little sign of calming.
The Arkansas bill, passed when the General Assembly concurred on three amendments from the State Senate, now goes to the state’s Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier bill but more recently said he would sign the measure if it “reaches my desk in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states.” The Arkansas Senate passed the measure last week.
While there were several attempts up until the last minute to add a clause to the bill that would explicitly bar discrimination of gays and lesbians, a measure that Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana pledged to push through his Legislature, the sponsors of the bill in the Arkansas General Assembly rejected such moves.
”If you start shaving out exemptions in laws, next thing you know, you’ll gut the law because everyone will want an exemption,” said State Senator Bart Hester, an Arkansas Republican and one of the bill’s lead supporters.
The attention turns to Governor Hutchinson, a moderate Republican who ran on a jobs platform and managed to extend a tailored form of Medicaid expansion in this Republican-controlled state.
Earlier in Indiana, Mr. Pence said that he wanted the state’s measure changed by week’s end, even as he stepped up a vigorous defense of the law, rejecting the argument that it would allow business to deny services to gays and lesbians.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to discriminate against anyone,” Mr. Pence, a Republican, said at a news conference in Indianapolis.
He acknowledged that the law, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, had become a threat to Indiana’s reputation and economy, with companies and organizations signaling that they would avoid the state in response to it. Mr. Pence said he had been on the phone with business leaders from around the country, adding, “We want to make it clear that Indiana’s open for business.”
But the governor, clearly exasperated and sighing audibly in response to questions, seemed concerned mostly with defending the law and the intent behind it, saying, “We’ve got a perception problem,” not one of substance. He referred to “gross mischaracterizations,” “reckless reporting by some in the media,” “completely false and baseless” accounts of the law, and “the smear that’s been leveled against this law and against the people of Indiana.”
Like the Republican legislative leaders who said on Monday that they intended to clarify the law, the governor said he could not say what form that clarification might take. “The language is still being worked out,” he said.
The law has set off a firestorm, with both critics and some supporters saying it would allow businesses to deny service to lesbian and gay customers if doing so would offend their religious beliefs.
Days before the N.C.A.A. is to hold the men’s basketball Final Four in Indianapolis, the group’s president, Mark Emmert, said Tuesday that the new law “strikes at the core values of what higher education in America is all about.” The city’s mayor, Greg Ballard, a Republican, and the state Chamber of Commerce have called on lawmakers to change the statute.
Business resistance in both states continued to grow, with Gap and Levi Strauss joining Walmart, Apple, Yelp and other major corporations in expressing disapproval. On Monday, the chief executive of Acxiom, a marketing technology company based in Little Rock that employs nearly 1,600 statewide, urged the Arkansas governor to veto a bill that was “a deliberate vehicle for enabling discrimination.”
Angie’s List cited the Indiana law in canceling plans to expand its facilities in Indianapolis. Celebrities have ridiculed the law, entertainers have canceled tour dates in the state because of it, a gaming convention is considering going elsewhere, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York on Tuesday became the latest governor to impose a ban on state-funded travel to Indiana, joining his counterparts in Connecticut and Washington.
Several Republican presidential contenders have spoken out in favor of Indiana’s law, which could affect the presidential hopes of Mr. Pence, himself. The law risks alienating centrists who favor gay rights, but backing away from it could anger Christians conservatives.
The uproar in Arkansas and Indiana has drawn attention — and the same kind of fire — to similar bills working their way through other legislatures. The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, a Republican, said he would veto a bill there.
Mr. Pence said Tuesday: “If this law had been about discrimination, I would have vetoed it. I don’t believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to create a license to discriminate, or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians or anyone else in this state, and that was not my intent, but I appreciate that that’s become the perception.”
But some of Indiana’s and the nation’s most prominent anti-gay rights groups have been among the most prominent supporters of the bill, including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Indiana Family Institute and Advance America. And some advocates of the law have disagreed with Mr. Pence, saying that it could be used to defend a business’s right to deny service to gay people.
Fellow Republicans have said the governor added fuel to the fire on Sunday, when he did not directly answer some questions about the law in an interview on the ABC program “This Week,” in particular a question about whether a florist could deny service to a gay couple on religious grounds.
“I could have handled that better,” he said Tuesday. “But going into that interview this weekend, I was just determined to set the record straight.”
Asked again about the hypothetical florist, Mr. Pence said, “This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.”
Defenders of the measure say they have been bewildered by the controversy, since it is patterned on a 1993 federal law of the same name, passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton, as well as on similar state laws.
“Was I expecting this kind of backlash?” Mr. Pence said. “Heavens, no.”
But the Indiana law has some differences from the federal law, and most of the state laws, that critics say are significant, including a provision explicitly stating that it applies to the exercise of religious beliefs by businesses as well as individuals and religious groups. The idea that a for-profit business has religious rights, and can cite them in contesting government action, was not widely considered until recently. But last year the Supreme Court upheld that principle in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.
Another difference between Indiana’s law and most similar ones is that it says businesses can use religious freedom as a defense against lawsuits brought by individuals, not just those filed by the government.
In Washington, a White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, took issue with Mr. Pence’s claim that Indiana’s law was rooted in a 1993 federal law. The Indiana measure, Mr. Earnest said, was a “significant expansion” over the 1993 law because it applied to private transactions beyond those involving the federal government.
In some states, concerns like those raised in Indiana have been addressed with laws that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Mr. Pence was asked on Tuesday if he would consider taking that step.
“I’ve never supported that, and I want to be clear, it’s not on my agenda,” he said. “I think it’s a completely separate question.”
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.
What? It's just a private enterprise doing business with whomever they want. Are you saying that's not moral, you pinko commie?
No.
Take the whole Baker scenario that's popular in this thread.
It's the idea that bakers should be forced to *make a wedding cake* against their will, regardless of their reasons.
No, it's not. Telling the baker that you won't do business with the baker unless he does something else is more like it. Why does GenCon have to stay in Indiana if they don't want to? They're doing exactly the thing that the law argues people should be allowed to do, only for ideological reasons as opposed to religious ones (and even that's assuming that religion isn't a form of ideology, but that's off-topic).
I think a big part of this is there's a massive gulf between what ones religion has to say vs what their pastor tells them.
At the same time, if I were religious and I honestly thought I was going to hell for making a cake for a gay couple, it's a valid concern because I believe that hell is a very real place that god actively sends people to for defying him.
Thankfully I'm not religious and overall fairly agnostic. Part of tolerating religions is trying to remember how scary the monster under your bed truly was when your were four. Looking back it's a joke but in the moment the fear was very real, unlike the monster.
Sadly, even though the bible does denounce homosexuality, The Christian religion does have a reason to provide services to homosexuals. It IS in the Bible, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Matthew 7:12 I believe.
If a Christian wants to be treated fairly from people of different beliefs and values, then they should treat those people the same as they themselves want to be treated.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a very religious person. I follow what I believe, and feel is right. My experiences have been very poor when it comes to Christianity. And that is all I will say about that.
I think a big part of this is there's a massive gulf between what ones religion has to say vs what their pastor tells them.
At the same time, if I were religious and I honestly thought I was going to hell for making a cake for a gay couple, it's a valid concern because I believe that hell is a very real place that god actively sends people to for defying him.
I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).
But do we want to be a society, let alone an economy, that distributes "denial of service" warrants on the basis of expressions of the human genome?
I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).
My thought:
Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.
This goes double if a person or group of persons made the decision to file the official paperwork with the state declaring "I am not this business, and this business isn't me".
Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.
<EDIT: Derp...sorry, I misunderstood you initially>
I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).
My thought:
Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.
This goes double if a person or group of persons made the decision to file the official paperwork with the state declaring "I am not this business, and this business isn't me".
Literally all businesses are required to be licensed and abide by various state laws.
I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).
But do we want to be a society, let alone an economy, that distributes "denial of service" warrants on the basis of expressions of the human genome?
Personally, I think that any business open to the public should not be able to discriminate any paying customer up to the point that they are operating within their shop. What I mean is this; Using as an example a case going through the courts in Oregon where a longtime customer was denied a particular service from a florist for his wedding (he is homosexual). As I said, customer, a homosexual man had regularly bought flowers from a florist for many years. He bought flowers for his and his partner's wedding, which he asked the florist to arrange at the site of their wedding. The florist said that they could not do this for religious reasons (as well as probably a "fear" that their being seen at a gay wedding would have a negative impact from other religious customers). The sad thing with this case is that the customer himself actually didn't want to go to court, but one of the State's attorney's offices talked to him 3 separate times to finally convince him that he was wronged.
I personally think that, in this case, the florist was in the right: they sold the flowers, as it was within the 4 walls of the business establishment. They did not agree to on site arrangement for religious reasons, which I think they are entitled to because it is outside of their shop. IMO, this should be basically the way things should be done. If you're a photographer, baker, florist, etc. you should be obliged to serve most everyone who comes through the doors of your establishment (there are obvious exceptions that are covered under other applicable laws, such as drunk in public, indecent exposure, etc), but you should not be obliged to serve customers with additional services outside of your establishment.
I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).
My thought:
Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.
This goes double if a person or group of persons made the decision to file the official paperwork with the state declaring "I am not this business, and this business isn't me".
Literally all businesses are required to be licensed and abide by various state laws.
Exactly. The state already "forces" the baker of our example to abide by health and safety rules. How would this be any different?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Exactly. The state already "forces" the baker of our example to abide by health and safety rules. How would this be any different?
1.) Serving customers is not a matter of health and safety
2.) Do people here think actually believe that baking a cake or providing flowers is a "substantial burden" on a religiously constituted business?
KiloFiX wrote: Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.
Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.
There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.
It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.
21 now. Arkansas just approved one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
megatrons2nd wrote: Sadly, even though the bible does denounce homosexuality, The Christian religion does have a reason to provide services to homosexuals. It IS in the Bible, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Matthew 7:12 I believe.
Lots of folks keep getting stuck on the premise of 'choice' for a business owner. The business owner does, of course, retain choice, it's the choice whether to be in a business where they may find themselves exposed to people and beliefs, presented as customers, that they might find offensive and if so, can they swallow their prejudice or make the choice to get out of that business.
You are free to serve customers equally and attend to your own morals in your own house and church, or leave the business if you simply cannot separate the two. You have that choice.
And I do, given the 'wedding cake' scenario, wonder how many wedding cakes had already been made for shellfish eaters, the divorced remarrying, nonvirgins, pig eaters, people who cut the hair at the temples of their heads, the partially sighted and everyone else that part of the book lists as 'off the party list'... ?
But let's not let the Bible get in the way of vocal 'Christians' telling the rest of us all about how persecuted they are and how they need a law to protect them and enable them to safely exclude people from equal service.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Lots of folks keep getting stuck on the premise of 'choice' for a business owner. The business owner does, of course, retain choice, it's the choice whether to be in a business where they may find themselves exposed to people and beliefs, presented as customers, that they might find offensive and if so, can they swallow their prejudice or make the choice to get out of that business.
You are free to serve customers equally and attend to your own morals in your own house and church, or leave the business if you simply cannot separate the two. You have that choice.
And I do, given the 'wedding cake' scenario, wonder how many wedding cakes had already been made for shellfish eaters, the divorced remarrying, nonvirgins, pig eaters, people who cut the hair at the temples of their heads, the partially sighted and everyone else that part of the book lists as 'off the party list'... ?
But let's not let the Bible get in the way of vocal 'Christians' telling the rest of us all about how persecuted they are and how they need a law to protect them and enable them to safely exclude people from equal service.
Thats not choice. Further, in some states this has led to criminal punishment.
Thats literally unconstitutional under the post ACW Amendments.
Personally I'm meh on this aspect. Its not a big deal and frankly activists on both sides are the ones pushing this fight. I can understand both sides' arguments-like I can understand yours above (and have made it on other forums.... ). In the real world its a nonexistent issue.
The other aspects noted however are important. Just as I want a French system that keeps religious out of government, I want government out of religion. Where's a heavily mined korean DMZ when you need one!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Lots of folks keep getting stuck on the premise of 'choice' for a business owner. The business owner does, of course, retain choice, it's the choice whether to be in a business where they may find themselves exposed to people and beliefs, presented as customers, that they might find offensive and if so, can they swallow their prejudice or make the choice to get out of that business.
You are free to serve customers equally and attend to your own morals in your own house and church, or leave the business if you simply cannot separate the two. You have that choice.
And what about entities (for profit, and not for profit) that were created with a religious character?
jasper76 wrote: I'm not inclined to use the baker example...wedding cakes in my mind trivialize the gravity of these kind of laws. A lack of a wedding cake does not impact your survival.
Landlords, then.
A landlord turns down a qualified homosexual couple because his religion says he can't contribute to homosexuality.
But people need places to live. Shelter is a basic human necessity. So the rights of the homosexual couple IMO should trump the religious freedoms of the landlord, because if one landlord can do this, all landlords can do this, leaving homosexuals potentially homeless.
Probably not a problem in Indianapolis or Bloomington, but I assume Indiana has some backwater counties and towns where religious and social attitudes are more homogenous.
There are two main flaws with your landlord example. The first being that members of the LGBT community aren't recognized under federal law or Indiana state law as a protected class.
Secondly, even if they were a protected class I don't know of a single federal or Indiana state law that compels a landlord to sign a lease with a prospective renter. Even for members of a protected class landlords can still refuse to rent to them based upon other grounds. There's no law that says under criteria X landlords must always agree to rent to people.
RFRA laws only come into play if the aggrieved party is being inhibited or barred from practicing their religion or being compelled to act against their religion. Look at actual example of RFRA cases, Native Americans that want to participate in religious ceremonies that require them to take peyote but can't because of the strict drug testing done by their employer, Amish people that don't want to be forced to have smoke detectors in their homes because their religion is against electronic devices, etc. These are examples of people who see their relgious practices, that harm no one, being infringed upon unjustly. How does renting to LGBT people prevent somebody from being a Christian or whatever?
The Hobby Lobby case was about the ability of the state to force somebody to fund the usage of drugs whose use violates their religious convictions. The ACA was forcing participation in something that they would rather not be involved with based on relgious convictions. There's neither a law that forces somebody to rent to LGBT people nor is there a religious practice that consists of specifying whom the relgious person may or may not rent to.
If nobody is being forced to do something or prohibited from doing something then the RFRA law cannot come into play.
Over the past few decades the United States has engaged in a great struggle to balance civil rights and religious liberty.
On the one hand, there is a growing consensus that straight, gay and lesbian people deserve full equality with each other. We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love. If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so.
On the other hand, this was a nation founded on religious tolerance. The ways of the Lord are mysterious and are understood differently by different traditions. At their best, Americans have always believed that people should have the widest possible latitude to exercise their faith as they see fit or not exercise any faith. While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion.
At its best, the gay rights movement has promoted its cause while carefully respecting religious liberty and the traditional pillars of American society. The cause has focused on marriage and military service. It has not staged a frontal assault on the exercise of faith.
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was supported by Senator Ted Kennedy and a wide posse of progressives, sidestepped the abstract and polarizing theological argument. It focused on the concrete facts of specific cases. The act basically holds that government sometimes has to infringe on religious freedom in order to pursue equality and other goods, but, when it does, it should have a compelling reason and should infringe in the least intrusive way possible.
This moderate, grounded, incremental strategy has produced amazing results. Fewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice.
Yet I wonder if this phenomenal achievement is going off the rails. Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act, and sparked an incredible firestorm.
If the opponents of that law were arguing that the Indiana statute tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. But that’s not the argument the opponents are making.
Instead, the argument seems to be that the federal act’s concrete case-by-case approach is wrong. The opponents seem to be saying there is no valid tension between religious pluralism and equality. Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry.
This deviation seems unwise both as a matter of pragmatics and as a matter of principle. In the first place, if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation. Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage. There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a same-sex wedding that he would rather avoid.
Furthermore, the evangelical movement is evolving. Many young evangelicals understand that their faith should not be defined by this issue. If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all.
As a matter of principle, it is simply the case that religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect, even in cases where it leads to disagreements as fundamental as the definition of marriage.
Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.
In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best.
The movement to champion gay rights is now in a position where it can afford to offer this respect, at a point where steady pressure works better than compulsion.
It’s always easier to take an absolutist position. But, in a clash of values like the one between religious pluralism and equality, that absolutism is neither pragmatic, virtuous nor true.
@Prestor John: the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing -related discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national, origin, and parenthood status, IIRC, but does not protesct sexual orientation. In my hypothetical, the landlord doesn't want to rent on the sole basis of the applicants being homosexual. It is precisely because they are not protected that makes this scenario important IMO.
Why renting an apartment by a conservative Christian to a homosexual couple could be construed as a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion shouldn't take too much imagination.
cincydooley wrote: I have to admit that the notion of someone having access to Dakka at work, but not the NYT, made me chuckle.
I was thinking more of people on their phones who don't want to click on links
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Why renting an apartment by a conservative Christian to a homosexual couple could be construed as a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion shouldn't take too much imagination.
(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
How is allowing a homosexual couple interfering with the exercise of religion?
If there is interference is this a "substantial burden"?
Is providing housing a "compelling government interest"?
If so is there a "least restrictive means" of providing housing?
1. How is allowing a homosexual couple interfering with the exercise of religion?
2. If there is interference is this a "substantial burden"?
3. Is providing housing a "compelling government interest"?
4. If so is there a "least restrictive means" of providing housing?
1. There are religions that espouse that allowing a "sin" (here defined as an action that offends a divine authority) to occur, or looking the other way, or enabling the sin constitutes complicity in the sin itself. Sin = damnation, etc. Part of the problem here is, religion is basically an ever-evolving game of "make up your own rules", so the easiest way for me (and probably a judge) to determine this is to ask the question "Does the religious person say that an activity interferes with the exercise of religion, and are they telling the truth?"
2. I don't understand this question.
3. I don't know. I'd have to have "compelling government interest" defined for me.
4. Tents? I don;'t know. I suppose the least restrictive means in this scenario would be the government permit the landlord to discriminate according to his religious beliefs, and then the government takes full responsibility for housing our hypothetical couple, and if they cannot find an alternative willing landlord, then directly provide housing to the couple.
jasper76 wrote: 1. There are religions that espouse that allowing a "sin" (here defined as an action that offends a divine authority) to occur, or looking the other way, or enabling the sin constitutes complicity in the sin itself. Sin = damnation, etc. Part of the problem here is, religion is basically an ever-evolving game of "make up your own rules", so the easiest way for me (and probably a judge) to determine this is to ask the question "Does the religious person say that an activity interferes with the exercise of religion, and are they telling the truth?"
2. I don't understand this question.
3. I don't know. I'd have to have "compelling government interest" defined for me.
4. Tents? I don;'t know. I suppose the least restrictive means in this scenario would be the government permit the landlord to discriminate according to his religious beliefs, and then the government takes full responsibility for housing our hypothetical couple, and if they cannot find an alternative willing landlord, then directly provide housing to the couple.
Those questions are all a part of the legislation to determine whether the legislation may be used as a shield. Another "least restrictive" means may be for the government to rent, and then sub-lease to the couple in question.
skyth wrote: Yep...according to the Supreme Court, the government could just provide the housing. That was the argument with the Hobby Lobby case.
Incorrect.
The SC ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because the government couldn't prove that the burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. The government must also prove that its pursuit of that compelling interest is being undertaken by using the “least restrictive means.”
Hobby Lobby's objection were over four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the HHS' Obamacare contraception mandate.
You're trying to compare to four relatively cheap medications to housing.
jasper76 wrote: 1. There are religions that espouse that allowing a "sin" (here defined as an action that offends a divine authority) to occur, or looking the other way, or enabling the sin constitutes complicity in the sin itself. Sin = damnation, etc. Part of the problem here is, religion is basically an ever-evolving game of "make up your own rules", so the easiest way for me (and probably a judge) to determine this is to ask the question "Does the religious person say that an activity interferes with the exercise of religion, and are they telling the truth?"
2. I don't understand this question.
3. I don't know. I'd have to have "compelling government interest" defined for me.
4. Tents? I don;'t know. I suppose the least restrictive means in this scenario would be the government permit the landlord to discriminate according to his religious beliefs, and then the government takes full responsibility for housing our hypothetical couple, and if they cannot find an alternative willing landlord, then directly provide housing to the couple.
Those questions are all a part of the legislation to determine whether the legislation may be used as a shield. Another "least restrictive" means may be for the government to rent, and then sub-lease to the couple in question.
Understood. To my non-lawyer mind, these phrases seem like intentional vagueries. I don't know whether "compelling government interest" and "least restrictive means" have more precise legal definitions than what these combinations of words suggest at face-value.
Without that information, it seems like we are putting a whole lot of room for interpretation for judges, which does not sit well with me.
This strikes me as less fear of going to hell and more pridefully being an donkey-cave.
Yes, well, there's being true to your religion (or at least whatever horse gak your pastor/priest/reverend/whatever is feeding you), and then there's being a witch. That being said, they shouldn't have to participate in rituals that are against their religious beliefs. Forcing them to do so would be equally witch-ly. That also being said, who the feth orders pizza for a wedding?
Sincere belief - LOL...It's real great now that we are determining which beliefs are valid based on sincerity. All I can do is laugh. Guess they got tired of people saying..."Well in my religion I can snort cocaine officer!"
jasper76 wrote: Understood. To my non-lawyer mind, these phrases seem like intentional vagueries. I don't know whether "compelling government interest" and "least restrictive means" have more precise legal definitions than what these combinations of words suggest at face-value.
Without that information, it seems like we are putting a whole lot of room for interpretation for judges, which does not sit well with me.
Strict Scrutiny
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
The case of roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited Abortion, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling State Interest in protecting unborn human life. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Therefore, the state did not meet its Burden of Proof and the law was held unconstitutional.
This strikes me as less fear of going to hell and more pridefully being a donkey-cave.
Congratulations. You found the first idiots who will likely fall foul of the new law. I can't wait to see how they attempt to justify not providing pizza as a "substantial burden"
skyth wrote: Yep...according to the Supreme Court, the government could just provide the housing. That was the argument with the Hobby Lobby case.
Incorrect.
The SC ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because the government couldn't prove that the burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. The government must also prove that its pursuit of that compelling interest is being undertaken by using the “least restrictive means.”
Hobby Lobby's objection were over four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the HHS' Obamacare contraception mandate.
You're trying to compare to four relatively cheap medications to housing.
The price of the object isn't meantioned, only that it must be the least restrictive. The arguments are the same.
And the judgment of the hobby lobby case did indeed mention that the government could provide the drugs, thus it was not the least restrictive.
Personally, I do not see how my religious rights can be burdened at all by someone else not following the principles of my religion. Especially if I provide public accomodation. What the people do with what I sell is really none of my business.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor John: the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing -related discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national, origin, and parenthood status, IIRC, but does not protesct sexual orientation. In my hypothetical, the landlord doesn't want to rent on the sole basis of the applicants being homosexual. It is precisely because they are not protected that makes this scenario important IMO.
Why renting an apartment by a conservative Christian to a homosexual couple could be construed as a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion shouldn't take too much imagination.
Correct, members of the LGBT community aren't part of a protected class so a landlord wouldn't be able to be compelled to rent to them anyway therefore no RFRA law would be applicable. If there was a state or federal law that was forcing a landlord to rent to a person or people with whom the landlord would prefer not to contract with based on the landlord's religious practices then you'd have an issue for an RFRA law to settle. Without a law that forces the landlord to do something against his/her religious convictions or forces the landlord to do something that inhibits or prohibits his/her ability to practice his/her religion there's no RFRA dispute. That's why it's a bad example.
Since there is no law compelling landlords to rent to LGBT people in Indiana then there is no RFRA dispute.
To go to court for an RFRA dispute the aggrieved party would have to answer yes to one of two questions:
Is your ability to practice your religion being inhibited or prohibited?
Are you being forced to take action that contradicts your religious beliefs?
In your hypothetical the landlord can't answer yes to either because the landlord doesn't have to rent to LGBT people.
skyth wrote: Yep...according to the Supreme Court, the government could just provide the housing. That was the argument with the Hobby Lobby case.
Incorrect.
The SC ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because the government couldn't prove that the burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. The government must also prove that its pursuit of that compelling interest is being undertaken by using the “least restrictive means.”
Hobby Lobby's objection were over four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the HHS' Obamacare contraception mandate.
You're trying to compare to four relatively cheap medications to housing.
The price of the object isn't meantioned, only that it must be the least restrictive. The arguments are the same.
And the judgment of the hobby lobby case did indeed mention that the government could provide the drugs, thus it was not the least restrictive.
Personally, I do not see how my religious rights can be burdened at all by someone else not following the principles of my religion. Especially if I provide public accomodation. What the people do with what I sell is really none of my business.
In the Hobby Lobby case the burden was being heavily fined by the govt if they chose not to participate in the usage of the drugs via the funding of the purchase of them. SCOTUS ruled that the govt levying potentially ruinous fines on Hobby Lobby to force them to comply with the ACA over their religious objection wasn't the least restrictive way for the govt to ensure the the employees of Hobby Lobby had insurance coverage for those 4 drugs in question because the govt had access to easier options for granting coverage of the drugs to the employees without forcing Hobby Lobby to do it against their religious objection.
To equate the Hobby Lobby case to housing you would first need Congress to pass a housing law that was similar to the ACA and compelled landlords to supply housing of a certain type, at a certain cost, to a specific subset of people (like employees) under penaly law. If a landlord isn't being compelled to rent to people against his/her will by a federal law then there is no comparison to be made.
Manchu wrote: I imagine they would use a "cooperation with evil" argument, which is the basis of a lot of religious objections of this kind.
They are entitled to put forward whatever defense they so choose. The cooperation with evil argument would be most interesting because I do not believe the court would find favour in claims that making a pizza to be either formal, or material cooperation with evil (http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=139). Baking a pizza does not encourage acts of homosexuality in an explicit or implicit manner. Even the principal of theological scandal is a very thin premise.
Accordingly there would be no "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.
All it takes for a substantial burden to exist is someone saying "this goes against my religion". There is no magical test, there is no legal proof, the burden is whatever someone decided it is.
"Homosexuality is a sin and being forced to make pizza forces me to act like I condone that lifestyle and God will look down and judge me for my same-sex stuffed crust pie".
Honest question: was Hobby Lobby ever required to actually prove that their religion prohibits them from providing anything?
See...I still don't see how that was a burden on their religion as no one was forcing thwm to use the drugs...The argument was that someone else was able to use them. That is where I draw the line. That is why I have no respect for these kind of religious freedom arguments...The argumemt id that someone else is not following the tenets of their religion.
d-usa wrote: All it takes for a substantial burden to exist is someone saying "this goes against my religion". There is no magical test, there is no legal proof, the burden is whatever someone decided it is.
"Homosexuality is a sin and being forced to make pizza forces me to act like I condone that lifestyle and God will look down and judge me for my same-sex stuffed crust pie".
"And for the record please state precisely what religious teaching prohibits your restaurant from baking pizza for a homosexual? Please state for the record exactly how baking said pizza will prevent you from exercising your religion"
As outlined above the cooperation with evil argument you are advancing is highly unlikely to find favour in a court
d-usa wrote: Honest question: was Hobby Lobby ever required to actually prove that their religion prohibits them from providing anything?
You mean other than proving that abortion causing medications as incompatible with Christian beliefs on the basis that their faith teaches that life begins at birth, all life is precious, and that killing is not condoned in the Christian faith? All those reasons are provided for in the Bible. Denying pizza for same sex couples is not.
I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?
d-usa wrote: Honest question: was Hobby Lobby ever required to actually prove that their religion prohibits them from providing anything?
You mean other than proving that abortion causing medications as incompatible with Christian beliefs on the basis that their faith teaches that life begins at birth, all life is precious, and that killing is not condoned in the Christian faith? All those reasons are provided for in the Bible. Denying pizza for same sex couples is not.
So are you able to point me to the court record in the Hobby Lobby case where the Greens were instructed to state precisely what religious teaching prohibits Hobby Lobby from providing certain birth control to a woman. And to state for the record exactly how providing said birth control will prevent them from exercising their religion?
I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?
I think thats essentially the legal argument Manchu. The signs would be an interesting touch.
Even assuming everyone who does not want their business associated with pro-homosexual politics is a terrible homophobe ...
... how does forcing social and legal confrontations with such people foster a more open and tolerant society at this point?
I'm not saying such tactics have no place anywhere ever. Rather, at this time and place on this issue, the biggest impact of continuing down this path will be exchanging hatred against homosexuals for hatred against certain religious groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @d-usa
One is not required to show that one's religious beliefs accurately reflect a wider tradition, denomination, etc.
In the HobbyLobby case, the law in question required the businesses to provide the means of infanticide to its employees or face a fine. I used the word infanticide to highlight that its definition, for the purposes of the case, is religious rather than legal. Taking Plan B and the like does not constitute murder in any state, so far as I am aware.
Dreadclaw69's question (as I understand it) is what is the analog of "infanticide" in this pizza catering situation?
... how does forcing social and legal confrontations with such people foster a more open and tolerant society at this point?
Especially in the case of a certain pizzeria http://memoriespizza.com/ . I'm torn, if I'm honest I'll say I think the hack is funny but at the same time it does nothing to fix donkey-caves, it's just fething with donkey-caves.
I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?
Given that I do not share their feelings towards homosexual couples I could but speculate on their motivations, but comments like;
“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?”
and
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” she added. “I do not think it’s targeting gays. I don’t think it’s discrimination. It’s supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”
don't make me think that this is purely religiously motivated. This may be a very technical distinction but are the pizzas being used to celebrate the wedding, or are they merely food at the wedding?
As to the question about the signs I personally believe that it would be in incredibly bad taste. Perhaps an accommodation could be reached where the pizza parlour provides the pizza without being associated with the wedding, that way their food is not associated with the celebration.
There is something ironic about intolerance of intolerance. As humorous as the yelp reviews and site hack are, it doesn't exactly make the "progressive" side of things look any better. What I mean by that is, even if the government had no legal recourse to fine these people for discrimination, citizens and consumers could still legally throw a wrench in things with yelp reviews (as they've been doing) and other forms of protest. I put forward that it's indeed possible for a racist or homophobe to make a decent pizza. Their pizza could also totally suck. But we all know people aren't reviewing the pizza.
Manchu wrote: Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway? That attitude is kinda sorta the main problem here ...
I would agree with you on this. There needs to be a balance between competing rights; the right to religion and the right to sexual orientation (even if this right is not currently recognized at a Federal, or in many cases state level). This pizza shop could be the first test case that clarifies SB101, unless Pence clarifies the law.
The law is silly, it doesnt need to be said that a business may refuse service to anyone. They just should be able to, with exception. The gas company cant say your gay so no gas for your house, etc.
The law does not condone or promote bigotry.
If someone doesnt want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, SO WHAT. That bakery lost money and they go elsewhere. Its rediclous that this needs to be stated.
Now on to gencon, that is obnoxious to threaten to leave the state over a law PROTECTING peoples rights rather then taking them away. If gencon didnt like the law then guess what, they dont have to participate in it. "good for gencon"??? Why? This law has nothing to do with the con so why must they interject themselves into the discussion?
Now on to gencon, that is obnoxious to threaten to leave the state over a law PROTECTING peoples rights rather then taking them away. If gencon didnt like the law then guess what, they dont have to participate in it. "good for gencon"??? Why? This law has nothing to do with the con so why must they interject themselves into the discussion?
Because taking an internet stand is the new hotness.
The sound bytes from these pizza evangelicals don't play well as national news. It's weird that anyone would expect Crystal O'Connor to be articulate or even compelling. I don't mean to put her or "people like her" down; rather my point is, no one at Memories Pizza is a marketing exec, PR specialist, or professional lobbyist. Nor do any of them research or write about theology, law, or human sexuality. These are just people doing a completely unsurprisingly bad job of explaining their religious values to a skeptical and in many cases outright hostile audience.
A lot of hateful people were looking for someone to hate and Memories Pizza bumbled forward.
Manchu wrote: Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway? That attitude is kinda sorta the main problem here ...
I would agree with you on this. There needs to be a balance between competing rights; the right to religion and the right to sexual orientation (even if this right is not currently recognized at a Federal, or in many cases state level). This pizza shop could be the first test case that clarifies SB101, unless Pence clarifies the law.
I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden. Obviously the SCOTUS somewhat disagrees with me, but that doesn't really change my opinion. A bakery won't go to hell for making a gay wedding cake, and a bakery won't go to heaven for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. The religious belief of an employee or an owner should be irrelevant to the dealings of the actual business. I would be willing to concede some ground in the case of sole proprietorships, but not for incorporated businesses.
If you make the decision to walk up to the state and file the paperwork declaring "Smith Bakery, LLC is a separate legal entity from Mr. Smith who is a baker. Suing Smith Bakery is not the same as suing Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith is not responsible for any debts or other legal judgements against Smith Bakery" then you shouldn't be able to turn around and claim "Mr Smith is Smith Bakery and making Smith Bakery baking a gay cake goes against Mr. Smith's religion". If you want to enjoy the legal protection of having your business be a separate legal entity than yourself then you should accept the responsibilities of that.
Now if they want to pass a law saying "Baker Smith cannot be compelled by his employer to bake a cake that violates his religion" then I would be okay with that as long as the same law requires "Smith Bakery" to have the responsibility to make sure that other employees are available to step in and provide the service".
d-usa wrote: I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.
You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability. The abstract concept of the "business" is not the one who has to turn up to the gay wedding with the pizza.
The sound bytes from these pizza evangelicals don't play well as national news. It's weird that anyone would expect Crystal O'Connor to be articulate or even compelling. I don't mean to put her or "people like her" down; rather my point is, no one at Memories Pizza is a marketing exec, PR specialist, or professional lobbyist. Nor do any of them research or write about theology, law, or human sexuality. These are just people doing a completely unsurprisingly bad job of explaining their religious values to a skeptical and in many cases outright hostile audience.
They may not be a marketing executive or the like, but given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum. They did after all make their comments to an Indiana news station.
That being said I do not condone the threats of violence or having their online presence compromised.
RaptorusRex wrote: This isn't discrimination, we just don't serve your kind here.
Indeed. The law is so anti-gay that religious gays can use it to prevent their religious practices being substantially burdened
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden. Obviously the SCOTUS somewhat disagrees with me, but that doesn't really change my opinion.
Without wanting to sound too harsh you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The law as it stands recognizes that businesses may be constituted on a religious basis. Whether that should or should not be the case is a separate discussion
MrDwhitey wrote: That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.
You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?
While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?
It's pretty much universally agreed upon that it isn't conscious choice. I can't just go "I'm gay now!" and have that be true. The exact cause may be unknown, but it has been proven to not be by choice.
d-usa wrote: If you make the decision to walk up to the state and file the paperwork declaring "Smith Bakery, LLC is a separate legal entity from Mr. Smith who is a baker. Suing Smith Bakery is not the same as suing Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith is not responsible for any debts or other legal judgements against Smith Bakery" then you shouldn't be able to turn around and claim "Mr Smith is Smith Bakery and making Smith Bakery baking a gay cake goes against Mr. Smith's religion". If you want to enjoy the legal protection of having your business be a separate legal entity than yourself then you should accept the responsibilities of that.
Does this LLC exercise practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual who has control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes? If it does not then it cannot use this legislation as a shield.
d-usa wrote: I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.
You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability.
However narrow the distinction may be, it was significant enough for the owner to run to the state and to take advantage of all applicable laws to declare "I am not this business". Obviously my feelings are different for sole proprietorships, but it stands for incorporated businesses.
If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: ... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.
Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?
That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...
TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.
First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality. Second, I have heard this argument before -- but I don't understand it; or rather I suspect those who make it do not understand how/why businesses can be considered distinct from their owners. The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability. Back in reality, Mr. Smith is the guy who has to bake the cake.
MrDwhitey wrote: That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.
You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?
While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?
More likely it's an epigenetic feth-up. Genetic screw up that lead to those sorts of phenotypes tend to work themselves out of populations right damn quick.
Edit: Didn't word that right. Meant that it's fairly certain that it isn't genetic, meaning there isn't any gay gene, but that its reasonably well accepted that something fethered up somewhere, and whatever that particular thing is (probably a variety of things)it leads to the anomalous phenotype. So while it isn't likely 'genetic', as most people understand that term, that doesn't imply anyone has any more of a choice.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: ... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.
Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?
That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...
TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.
First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality. Second, I have heard this argument before -- but I don't understand it; or rather I suspect those who make it do not understand how/why businesses can be considered distinct from their owners. The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability. Back in reality, Mr. Smith is the guy who has to bake the cake.
Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
d-usa wrote: I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.
You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability.
However narrow the distinction may be, it was significant enough for the owner to run to the state and to take advantage of all applicable laws to declare "I am not this business". Obviously my feelings are different for sole proprietorships, but it stands for incorporated businesses.
If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.
Well the other problem with mr. smith not liking gays is that it doesn't tend to go hand in hand with being psychic, short of him asking everyone's sexual preference before ordering.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: ... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.
Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?
That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...
I apologize if I was unclear, when I said that their comments would not exist in a vacuum I meant that given the controversy it was almost inevitable that it the comments would reach a wide audience. It would be nice to think that those demanding tolerance of others would be more inclined to lead by example. Sadly that was not the case.
Manchu wrote: TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.
I agree with that. The desire to boo seems to have been evident since before this law's inception. These were just the first people to stick their heads out of the trench
Manchu wrote: First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality.
And how exactly does that work?
The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability.
And for taxes, and for selling the business, etc. The problem here is that certain business owners want to claim all of the benefits of their business being a separate entity but none of the obligations. Either your business is separate or it isn't, you shouldn't be allowed to change its status depending on whether it benefits you.
d-usa wrote: Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
Manchu wrote: So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
Manchu wrote: So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
d-usa wrote: Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
Is Smith baking a cake, or is he completing a work for hire for Smith Bakery?
That might not matter much, but what suppose that Ms. Doe also works for Smith Bakery, and that her religion prohibits her making a "gay cake", but "Smith Bakery's religion" doesn't. Now suppose she is coerced into making said cake.
Since when is religious freedom a "special privilege" in the USA?
daedalus wrote: That might not matter much, but what suppose that Ms. Doe also works for Smith Bakery, and that her religion prohibits her making a "gay cake", but "Smith Bakery's religion" doesn't. Now suppose she is coerced into making said cake.
Ms. Doe may very well have a case, depending on the fact pattern.
Peregrine wrote: He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
Peregrine wrote: The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Manchu wrote: So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Illegally, probably, or in the privacy of Mr. Smith's urine soaked Jackass Cave.
EDIT: Though, I suppose, that depends on the angle. Mr. Smith would be up gak creek without a paddle if he wanted discriminate against an individual solely in the basis of said individuals sexual orientation, but he would be able to refuse to provide goods specifically for events which his religion prohibits him from participating or assisting in.
Crablezworth wrote: Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Someone comes into Smith Bakery and orders a cake for a gay wedding and Smith says he won't do it because gay weddings are contrary to his religious values. That's the discrimination we're talking about.
skyth wrote: See...I still don't see how that was a burden on their religion as no one was forcing thwm to use the drugs...The argument was that someone else was able to use them. That is where I draw the line. That is why I have no respect for these kind of religious freedom arguments...The argumemt id that someone else is not following the tenets of their religion.
The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
Peregrine wrote: He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
Peregrine wrote: The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written that overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
Crablezworth wrote: Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Someone comes into Smith Bakery and orders a cake for a gay wedding and Smith says he won't do it because gay weddings are contrary to his religious values. That's the discrimination we're talking about.
What law does the refusal to bake the cake violate? If there is no compelling force that mandates that the cake be made then there is no dispute to be resolved under a RFRA law.
d-usa wrote: Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
No.
If Mr. Smith the sole proprietor doesn't want to bake a cake then he shouldn't have to bake a cake.
If Mr. Smith the employee doesn't want to bake a cake then he shouldn't have to bake a cake.
If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.
If Smith Bakery fails to successfully defend itself under this law, who is responsible for the verdict: Mr. Smith or Smith Bakery?
Peregrine wrote: He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
Peregrine wrote: The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written that overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
If you take the dispute to court the Supreme Court's precedent counts for a lot more than your opinions. If court rulings carry no more weight than any individual's personal opinion then the courts have no authority and we do not live under the rule of law.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written to overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
I am discussing the legality of the situation, not the morality. Decisions can get overturned, but the fact of the matter is that we rely on what the law currently is, not what it may become. So factually it is everything to do with it, especially as their ruling is law. Even if the case law is overturned the Indiana legislation is clear on what constitutes a person (Section 7).
d-usa wrote: If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.
The public does not have a constitutional right to hold liabilities against Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, however, does have a constitutional right to religious freedom.
Manchu wrote: Since when is religious freedom a "special privilege" in the USA?
It isn't, but that's not the privilege Smith wants. Smith is free to believe whatever he likes, attend (or not attend) whatever church he wants, etc, in his private life. The special privilege is the ability to ignore laws that apply to businesses because he doesn't want to follow them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
How do those practices violate the law?
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written to overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
I am discussing the legality of the situation, not the morality. Decisions can get overturned, but the fact of the matter is that we rely on what the law currently is, not what it may become. So factually it is everything to do with it, especially as their ruling is law. Even if the case law is overturned the Indiana legislation is clear on what constitutes a person (Section 7).
I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.
skyth wrote: See...I still don't see how that was a burden on their religion as no one was forcing thwm to use the drugs...The argument was that someone else was able to use them. That is where I draw the line. That is why I have no respect for these kind of religious freedom arguments...The argumemt id that someone else is not following the tenets of their religion.
The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
They weren't being forced to provide them. They didn't have to go hand them out. There was no financial difference between the insurance covering them or trying to stop other people from getging them as far as the insurance goes. The entire thrust was to make access more difficult for other people.
The Governor of Arkansas rejected his legislature's similar bill, want a revision, and is apparently considering an executive order to prevent discrimination in the state workplace.
MrDwhitey wrote: That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.
You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?
While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?
And likely there will never be any 'concrete' evidence of it for the same reason there isn't any 'concrete' evidence of evolution...It doesn't fit certain groups' narritives if it isn't a choice.
I never claimed that their practices violated the law. They have special accommodations built into the law to accommodate their religious practices, something you protested against ("he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so")
Peregrine wrote: Smith is free to believe whatever he likes, attend (or not attend) whatever church he wants, etc, in his private life.
Religion is not a hobby to be pursued in one's free time. It does not distinguish between "public" and "private" life. It is not merely a personal opinion that can be silently held. If those things were true, there would be no need for freedom of religion in the first place.
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?
Prestor Jon wrote: The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
And it was a terrible ruling for multiple reasons:
1) Hobby Lobby wasn't providing the drugs, they were providing an insurance policy that an employee, without any involvement by Hobby Lobby, could use in their private life to buy certain drugs.
2) Acting like Hobby Lobby, a major retail chain, is the equivalent of a small family shop was just absurd.
3) The whole "it's abortion" argument was just plain stupid and had nothing to do with the facts of the situation.
And let's not pretend that this was a clear and objective ruling with no political or religious influence. It was a 5-4 decision along predictable liberal/conservative lines that just happened to line up with mainstream Christian doctrine. Does anyone really think that if it had been an obscure minority religion making a claim that didn't fit neatly into conservative Christian ideology and politics that the outcome would have been the same?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.
I apologize if I gave that impression. What I was attempting to do was show that the opinion that businesses cannot have a religious character is a point unsupported by current laws.
Manchu wrote: Religion is not a hobby to be pursued in one's free time. It does not distinguish between "public" and "private" life. It is not merely a personal opinion that can be silently held. If those things were true, there would be no need for freedom of religion in the first place.
By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.
d-usa wrote: If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.
The public does not have a constitutional right to hold liabilities against Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, however, does have a constitutional right to religious freedom.
Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith
Prestor Jon wrote: If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
No, because there's no discrimination involved. The restaurant doesn't have any pork dishes on their menu, and there is no general principle that allows a customer to demand a custom meal from a restaurant. All customers, no matter what their religious beliefs (or any other attributes), get to order from the same menu.
Prestor Jon wrote: If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?
I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.
Prospectively, an amended version of the CRA or existing and prospective state anti-discrimination laws.
But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?
If there is no such law then there is no burden placed on the baker and no legal grounds to invoke a RFRA law.
Peregrine wrote: By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.
The CRA already protects Mr. Smith's right to religious freedom as an employee. These state RFRAs are meant to do the same for Mr. Smith as a a business owner. Because, you know, it's the same guy.
Prestor Jon wrote: But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?
Sure there are such laws. I'm sure you must have read about that infamous Arizona ruling regarding the wedding photographer.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.
I apologize if I gave that impression. What I was attempting to do was show that the opinion that businesses cannot have a religious character is a point unsupported by current laws.
d-usa wrote: Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith
Again, for the purposes of liability. The rest of it, you (and many others) are reading into the law.
Prestor Jon wrote: If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?
I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.
Its a more analogous example to the gay wedding cake example.
The Amish example is tricky because now you're involving municipal and state building codes/fire codes. I would think it would difficult for any court to rule in favor of the Amish without creating a lot of issues for existing building code laws. Fires and threats to public safety would have to be considered a compelling govt interest. Otherwise there's no point to having codes at all.
Good thing that Mr Smith filed the required paperwork declaring that actions by Smith Bakery are not actions by Mr smith and actions against Smith Bakery are not actions against Mr Smith
Perhaps business laws are so ineffable that not even a god can understand them.
Peregrine wrote: By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.
The CRA already protects Mr. Smith's right to religious freedom as an employee. These state RFRAs are meant to do the same for Mr. Smith as a a business owner. Because, you know, it's the same guy.
Prestor Jon wrote: But their is no existing law that requires that the baker bake whatever cake that any prospective customer wants for whatever reason/occasion the customer wants?
Sure there are such laws. I'm sure you must have read about that infamous Arizona ruling regarding the wedding photographer.
The Arizona case involved state law. Does Indiana have a similar law? I was under the impression they did not. As long as LGBT people aren't part of a protected class how can anyone be compelled to contract with them over objections to their sexuality?
Prestor Jon wrote: If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?
I do not think that is a great example because the restaurant is not offering pig to any customer, therefore you are not being discriminated against. A better example would be health and safety inspectors demanding that the Amish install smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and exit signs in all their buildings.
Its a more analogous example to the gay wedding cake example.
The Amish example is tricky because now you're involving municipal and state building codes/fire codes. I would think it would difficult for any court to rule in favor of the Amish without creating a lot of issues for existing building code laws. Fires and threats to public safety would have to be considered a compelling govt interest. Otherwise there's no point to having codes at all.
The Amish example is not analogous. The Amish example doesn't have them trying to insist English don't have to follow building codes either.
Please don't worry, this is one thread that given some of the technicalities being discussed it could be easy to get the wrong end of the stick. There are probably some instances where I could be clearer, but I don't want people to feel that I am patronizing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: As long as LGBT people aren't part of a protected class how can anyone be compelled to contract with them over objections to their sexuality?
This brings up an interesting point; if there is no legislation in Indiana (or at a federal level) granting protected class status to homosexuals then why, as it is alleged, was this law needed to permit discrimination against homosexuals?
Because the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional, gay marriage is an inevitability union-wide, and religious lobbies are pressuring legislatures to pass the kind of laws. In my honest opinion, these laws are being pushed to make sure religious people can maintain homosexuals as an unprotected class.
jasper76 wrote: Because the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning hay marriage are unconstitutional, gay marriage ia an inevitability union-wide, and religious lobbies are pressuring legislatures to pass the kind of laws.
In what way(s) does the Indiana law prevent gay marriage? Please be specific.
jasper76 wrote: This Indiana law does not prevent gay marriage. I never said it did.
Perhaps I mis-understood you. We were discussing the Indiana law and you made the comment " these laws are being pushed to make sure religious people can maintain homosexuals as an unprotected class.", which lead me to believe that this comment pertained to the Indiana law. If that was not the case then which law were you discussing was being pushed to keep homosexuals as an unprotected class?
Religious lobbies see since the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that it is an inevitability, and are trying to maintain their constituents apparent interest in denying business services on the basis of sexual orientation. At least, that seems like the most likely answer to your last question regarding motives for this type of legislation. Especially since the focus of services, not in the legislation bit in terms of the types of businesses that are complaining, seems to be on wedding cakes, floral arrangements, and other services common to weddings.
jasper76 wrote: Religious lobbies see since the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage that it is an inevitability, and are trying to maintain their constituents apparent interest in denying business services on the basis of sexual orientation. At least, that seems like the most likely answer to your last question regarding motives for this type of legislation. Especially since the focus of services, not in the legislation bit in terms of the types of businesses that are complaining, seems to be on wedding cakes, floral arrangements, and other services common to weddings.
And this is what you feel the Indiana law was designed to achieve?
jasper76 wrote: I can't peer into the inner thoughts of the lobbyists, legislators, or the Governor, but yesh, this is an Occams Razor conclusion.
As discussed above, sexual orientation is not a protected class in Indiana (or 32 other states) or at the Federal level. If people were so inclined then they were at liberty to discriminate against homosexuals long before SB101 was passed. In fact the commotion about this bill seems more likely to advance having sexual orientation recognized as a protected class. The evidence sadly does not support your conclusion.
Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?
jasper76 wrote: Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?
So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.
Yes, because the trend is moving more and more to homosexuals becoming a protected class, locally now, and ultimateley federally. The writing is indeed on the wall, but religious interests want to maintain their existing ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
In effect, they want special treatments in place to exempt them from existing and future laws.
That's my take anyways, perhaps it is strange.
In any event , the tide has turned. Pence and now Hutchinson have recognized this is a pandoras box, and are rushing to put the lid back on. Hutchinson has even proposed he might pursue a n executive order to prevent discrimination in the workplace in Arkansas.
jasper76 wrote: Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?
So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.
Ehh.... I think it's more the Christian Lobby is trying to protect "traditional marriage" as well as some Christians belief that "The Gay" can spread like the common cold, and if they make a gay-cake or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, etc. they will "catch The Gay" themselves. So they push for legislation that allows them to continue their discrimination even after any potential rulings in favor of same-sex marriages.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Yes, because the trend is moving more and more to homosexuals becoming a protected class, locally now, and ultimateley federally.
I believe they already are in the state of Washington.... I just saw a poster for employment discrimination, and sexual ID/orientation was on the list alongside the "usual" discrimination things. Though that is only on the employment side, I haven't seen if this is the same or similar in other facets of life here in WA (such as housing).
jasper76 wrote: Right. The difference being that now, gay marriage is an inevitability. There was a big Supreme Court decision about it. I see a direct line from one to the other. Otherwise, why are proponents of this bill so focused on business services that cater to weddings?
So because gay weddings were an inevitability the Christian lobby needed new legislation to permit discrimination against a class of people they could already discriminate against? That is a very strange proposition.
I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
jasper76 wrote: In effect, they want special treatments in place to exempt them from existing and future laws.
That's my take anyways, perhaps it is strange.
Given that Indiana, and many other states besides, homosexuals are not a protected class and therefore these is no need to be exempted from existing laws it is a strange proposition. As is the claim that there will be an exemption from future, as yet undrafted, laws.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ehh.... I think it's more the Christian Lobby is trying to protect "traditional marriage" as well as some Christians belief that "The Gay" can spread like the common cold, and if they make a gay-cake or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, etc. they will "catch The Gay" themselves. So they push for legislation that allows them to continue their discrimination even after any potential rulings in favor of same-sex marriages.
Except that is not the intention of the legislation. Any Christian business looking to seek relief through the RFRA has a significant struggle to establish "substantial burden", as we have discussed in detail above.
I believe they already are in the state of Washington.... I just saw a poster for employment discrimination, and sexual ID/orientation was on the list alongside the "usual" discrimination things. Though that is only on the employment side, I haven't seen if this is the same or similar in other facets of life here in WA (such as housing).
Sexual orientation is already a protected category anti-employment-discrimination-wise among the federal workforce, as well, IIRC by executive order.
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.
d-usa wrote: If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.
What one legislator, in a completely separate jurisdiction, opined has no bearing on the Indiana law unless he was somehow in a position to draft or vote for it. It is a completely separate legislative process. If you have some evidence he influenced this matter then I may re-visit my position. Until then all you are asking me to do is speculate.
Indiana Pizzeria Faces Backlash After Saying It Won’t Cater Gay Weddings
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork.com) — There’s no such thing as bad publicity right?
One Indiana pizzeria is going to find out.
The O’Connor family owns Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana.
According to CBS Cleveland, family members say they agree with Gov. Mike Pence that the bill does not encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” O’Connor told WBND.
The family has owned the pizzeria for nine years andsupports the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Kevin O’Connor said the negative backlash against Indiana is not fair.
“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” O’Connor told the station.
The family did say that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came into Memories, they wouldn’t be turned away, according to CBS Cleveland.
That wasn’t enough for Yelp users who trolled the pizzeria, as well as one gay dating website .
Many Yelp users from around the globe gave the pizzeria 1 star and one even called it “The best gay bar in town.”
“Wally G” said, “Five stars for the proprietors imagining that a gay wedding would ever require the catering services of a local pizza joint. Ha-ha. ”
“Dave B” said, “I’ll order my Double Stuffed crust pizza without the hate, elsewhere!”
“Bruce L” added, Terrible place, owners chose to be heterosexual. The biggest bigots are the most closeted. No gay man or woman is going to order pizza for a wedding. These people should be put out of business .
Others uploaded pictures of scantily clad men.
Also, if you do a Google search for Memories Pizza, the first result may surprise you: It’s for Gaybearfinder.com, a site where men can search for and find other “bears,” — slang for hairy, muscular men.
The Yelp backlash comes a day after Gov. Andrew Cuomo has banned all nonessential, state-funded travel to Indiana after the state adopted a religious freedom law that critics say opens the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Conn. Gov. Dannel Malloy issued a similar ban on Monday.
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
If you want to pretend that all these laws exist in complete and utter isolation from one another despite being extremely similar and being proposed by a very similar demographic and backed by the same groups from state to state then please feel free to continue to do so.
SCOTUS ruled that the penalty fines in the ACA legislation imposed a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby's business and exerted pressure on the Greens to violate their religious beliefs. There is a vast amount of media coverage on the case and publicly disclosed court documents you are free to google and peruse at your leisure that show this. I can't track it all down on my phone for you at the moment but it certainly isn't hard to find.
If all of the RFRA legislation passed in half the states already is specifically targeted at legalizing anti LGBT discrimination then why hasn't there been a single instance of it being done under the auspices of a RFRA law yet? The laws have been on the books for decades already.
If all of the RFRA legislation passed in half the states already is specifically targeted at legalizing anti LGBT discrimination then why hasn't there been a single instance of it being done under the auspices of a RFRA law yet? The laws have been on the books for decades already.
Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party. As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense. The authors of these new RFRAs have been very opposed to any amendment to them that would prevent their discriminatory use, and if such language was added. the bills lost any momentum to get them passed.
Stop conflating the existing laws and their jurisprudence with the newer ones. They were designed for different purposes with key differences in language and in a different climate in terms of gay civil rights. In fact, in an open letter from some IU law professors to the governor, they pointed out how this new law would trash all the existing legal precedent on religious freedom in the state of Indiana. It creates an entire new playing field in the state, so you can't look at what has been done in Indiana, and say "not a problem." You don't stir things up that much without some type of end goal.
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
CaulynDarr wrote: Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
Asking you to show how the law is discriminatory is not a trick question. It's a direct challenge to your argument. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show some examples of " text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown", especially given the fact that no such case has ever succeeded under a RFRA
CaulynDarr wrote: It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
The owners still have to demonstrate that a corporation
"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"
(Section 7)
So in the case of a publicly traded company there still must be "control and substantial ownership". That significantly reduces the number of public corporations and the like who can use legislation, so your claim of "large end effects" is not looking credible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Not like us. We had our reception in a barbeque joint. It was awesome.
CaulynDarr wrote: Because the existing RFRAs weren't designed for discrimination. They were meant to protect Native Americans peyote use from the government. The use of RFRA as a discriminatory tactic is a recent development. It was tried and failed in New Mexico. The new style RFRAs are a direct result of that failure. The language was specifically changed in order to counter the New Mexico ruling that the RFRA can't be used when the government is not a party.
How was the Indiana law "designed for discrimination"? Please be specific and cite relevant portions of SB 101.
Are you aware that SB 101, even if invoked between two private parties, invites the government or a political subdivision of the government to respond?
CaulynDarr wrote: As well as adding to the types of legal entities that can claim a RFRA based defense.
This "adding new types of legal entities" is a misnomer. What the Indiana law did was to reiterate that after the Hobby Lobby case private corporations could, under certain circumstances, hold religious beliefs. The Indiana law is merely reflecting what the Supreme Court has set into law prior.
Stop with the trick questions. We all know that it isn't literally written in the law. You haven't won that point, you're just being a sea loin. The text of the law that has the effect of being a discriminatory shield has been shown. In 2015, even in Indiana and Arkansas, you can't get away with writing overtly discriminatory laws. You have to wrap it up in a nice little bow of plausible deniability and hope no one notices until it's too late.
It's expanding on the the Hobby Lobby ruling. That was still only closely held private companies. This gives public cooperation that same right. These seemingly little small differences have that effect. They are Trojan horses designed to look innocuous, but have large end effects.
If it's not literally in the law then the law doesn't allow for LGBT descrimination. That's how laws work, there is no figurative legal standing, the law only exists as it is written.
RFRA laws only come into play when a party feels aggreived that they are being compelled to act against their relgious convictions or their ability to practice their religion is being impeded or prevented.
Is there a single state or federal law that would compel a private citizen or private business in Indiana to interact with a member of the LGBT communinty? Without an outside force requiring an individual or business in act in a way contrary to their relgious beliefs there is no legal grounds to invoke a RFRA law.
It is in fact, literally impossible to use a RFRA law as legal justification to refuse to engage in a voluntary association with somebody. Since there is no law that requires businesses to participate in weddings there are no grounds to use a RFRA law to allow a business to refuse to participate in a wedding. Voluntary associations are voluntary so there is no need to pass a law that would never come into play to prevent people from engaging in voluntary associations.
RFRA laws are reactive, they only come into play after an external force has been applied to the party seeking protection under the RFRA law. It's impossible to use a RFRA law to do whatever you want because RFRA are specifically written to prevent outside forces from burdening you with violating your religion or inhibiting/prohibiting the practicing of your religion. Two completely different scenarios.
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
Yes...States Rights was used as a dog whustle for racism just like religious freedom is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who don't follow a specific brand of Christianity...Or needing admitting privledges to 'protect women' is really an attempt to restrict abortions...It's all the same song and dance...
d-usa wrote: I redirect you to the complaint by the esteemed state legislator who complained that not letting you discriminate renders his proposed copy of these laws useless.
I redirect you to this same esteemed state legislator, who hails from Georgia, and ask again what his opinions have to do with the Indiana legislation
And States Rights wasn't a dog whistle for Racism...</sarcasm>
States Rights aren't a dog whistle for anything. There's nothing racist about the 10th Amendment and the fact that states rights are an integral part of federalism. Since the ratification of the constitution states have had a right to a certain level of autonomy.
Yes...States Rights was used as a dog whustle for racism just like religious freedom is a dog whistle for wanting to discriminate against people who don't follow a specific brand of Christianity...Or needing admitting privledges to 'protect women' is really an attempt to restrict abortions...It's all the same song and dance...
Demonstrably false but that's ok since we live in an awesome country that allows citizens to hold whatever beliefs they choose.
Can you actually prove that wrong then? Because, from my understanding, states rights was often used as a argument to protect slavery and segregation. Not a good or factualy correct argument, mind you, but an argument never the less.
It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
skyth wrote: It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
Its already backfired if you ask me. It's shining a big huge spotlight on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class in terms of major civil rights bills. Governor Hutchinson has stated he is considering an executive order barring discrimination in the workplace, and the Indiana legislation will soon likely be revised to explicitly state that it cannot be used to justify discrimination.
By seeking sanction to discriminate against homosexuals, the religious right may very well be responsible for the creation of legislation explicitly stating that they cannot do so.
In that respect, this whole fiasco may well end up being a net positive for the Civil rights movement and the codification of sexual orientation as a protected category, which, quite frankly, should have happen long ago.
Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Can you actually prove that wrong then? Because, from my understanding, states rights was often used as a argument to protect slavery and segregation. Not a good or factualy correct argument, mind you, but an argument never the less.
Most of the declarations of secession and the constitution of the Confederate States of America all specifically call out the practice of slavery as being an integral right within the Confederacy and a key reason for their desire to secede. In later years, (1920s-1940s) southern academics and scholars put forth the argument that while slavery was immoral the wider argument for states rights and their incorporation into the culture of agrarian country life were valid and noble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Agrarians The effort to revise history to portray the Confederacy as a noble stand against industrialization and an over reaching central govt may hold some truth but the leaders of the Confederacy made no effort to hide the fact that maintaining the practice of slavery was the driving force behind the formation of the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't make any attempt to hide their racsim it was overt and public.
The same can be said of segregation. There was no hiding the racism of segregation behind states rights. Segregation was always blatantly racist and everyone knew it. Everyone knew that the word segregation meant segregating people along racial lines. Everyone knew that segregation was state sponsored institutionalized racism but since racist views were so widely held nationally, nobody cared enough to try to change it for a hundred years.
It's been my, admittingly anecdotal, experience that people often use the states rights = racism dog whistle argument to counter the proponents of constitutional governance, libertarianism and greater degrees of liberty for both individuals and states. Of course, that's a topic that's not really germane to this particular thread.
skyth wrote: It takes willfull ignorance to say that this isn't about trying to discriminate against gays. It may backfire like the one school choosing to cancel a relugious freedom fair because Satanists wanted to participate. But the intention is there.
Its already backfired if you ask me. It's shining a big huge spotlight on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class in terms of major civil rights bills. Governor Hutchinson has stated he is considering an executive order barring discrimination in the workplace, and the Indiana legislation will soon likely be revised to explicitly state that it cannot be used to justify discrimination.
By seeking sanction to discriminate against homosexuals, the religious right may very well be responsible for the creation of legislation explicitly stating that they cannot do so.
In that respect, this whole fiasco may well end up being a net positive for the Civil rights movement and the codification of sexual orientation as a protected category, which, quite frankly, should have happen long ago.
If there are no laws compelling people in Indiana to interact with members of the LGBT community in a manner that conflicts with their religious beliefs then there are no grounds for people in Indiana to use the RFRA law to give them legal grounds to refuse to interact with members of the LGBT community.
Is there any evidence of widespread anti LGBT sentiment in Indiana? Are LGBT people currently living in Indiana being descriminated against? What part of Indiana's RFRA law would make more people in Indiana behave in an anti LGBT manner?
Why the outrage over hypothetical situations that have yet to show any evidence of being possible or probable?
Manchu wrote: Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations. People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.
whitedragon wrote: Is this similar to how Creationism has morphed into Intelligent Design to more easily slip into the curriculum?
That's a much more complicated issue as different schools are public or private and different municipalities and states have different methods of determining the approved curriculum for public schools and private school accreditation. Neither creationism nor intelligent design was taught in any of my K-12 schools or in any other public schools that my friends attended. For people who grew up in a different state that might no be true.
Manchu wrote: Religious freedom can be tough precisely because looking at an issue from someone else's POV can be tough. For some people, there is a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful on the one hand and associating themselves and their livelihood with public celebrations of homosexual relationships on the other. For these people, non-discrimination laws amount to the government forcing them to violate their consciences. You may not find their POV compelling or even coherent but that is beside the point. If we only cared about protecting the religious beliefs that make sense in our commercialized and oversentimental media, we would not need freedom of religion at all.
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations. People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.
Even if you added sexual orientation you wouldn't necessarily avoid RFRA laws shielding "descrimination" against them. Is a wedding a religious ceremony? Is being involved in staging a wedding as a caterer or florist or photographer etc constitute participation in that relgious ceremony? Can a private citizen or private business be compelled to participate in a religious ceremony against their conscience?
Chik fil A is a private corporation whose owners are devout Christians who have made personal donations to churches that fund foundations that are against gay marriage. Chik fil A restaurants have no problem serving LGBT people who come to their restaurants even though LGBT people aren't part of a protected class. Even if LGBT people become a protected class do they have a legal right to compel Chik fil A to cater their homosexual wedding? Catering a wedding a different from providing service within the restaurant. Where is the line drawn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: That's why I used the past tense that states-rights WAS used for racism, not that it currently is.
The biggest dog whistle for racism right now is complaining about lazy welfare receipients.
Most of the lazy welfare receipients I know personally are white. The system is still seriously flawed, the demographics of the receipients just change depending on the location in question.
@PJ: Don't have answers to all to all of your questions, but if the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act are amended to include sexual orientation, then at least homosexuals would have the same baseline protections available to the rest of us.
After that, the courts can figure out the details of whether a baker is taking part in a Religious ceremony by virtue of baking a cake, and other similar questions.
). In the real world its a nonexistent issue.
