Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ooops looked real to me. Kinda hard to tell these days though I would have loved to see it be true.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Hopefully it's a true article and the people who say the law isn't just there to discriminate against the gay community enjoy a slice of humble pie and/or a tasty foot.

Actually we expected as much, and posted as such.

The law has not given a green light to homophobia.
But the press has told the people it has.
So bigots are coming out of the woodwiork based on believing the hysteria posted in the press.
It is the fault of media hysteria not Indiana legislation that people have this assumption. they alone are to blame.
Read the law, read what it actually says it would not protect this incident even if the person was gay.

 Freya wrote:
Ooops looked real to me. Kinda hard to tell these days though I would have loved to see it be true.

A simple google search would have revealed that it wasn't.

You wanted to believe it, so you did.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Freya wrote:
Ooops looked real to me. Kinda hard to tell these days though I would have loved to see it be true.

A simple google search would have revealed that it wasn't.

You wanted to believe it, so you did.

I did because I thought it was funny. I admit to thinking it was real. At least I'm humble enough to admit when I made a mistake instead of being a disrespectful jerk.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think "tabled" in the US is different from the rest of the English speaking world. Here tabling a bill basically essentially means killing the bill.

Thank you. I usually associate tabled with tabling a motion, or putting something forward for a vote.

Most of us do (it's the term we use on my rugby club's board to say "here's issue X, we've talked about it, now let's vote" or "Person A has brought forth this issue, is there a second? Then this issue has been tabled, and will be addressed"

 Freya wrote:


I did because I thought it was funny. I admit to thinking it was real. At least I'm humble enough to admit when I made a mistake instead of being a disrespectful jerk.

Name calling? Tsk tsk.

Just fact check stuff before you post it as truth. Not super hard in this, the age of instant information. It'll help you out in the OT in the long run.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Lol, I had a football coach in HS tell me a story from his college days where he and a couple buddies couldnt

Its considerably more obvious these days because homophobia is less of an issue, so bars outright advertise that they're primarily catering to the LGBT community.

 Torga_DW wrote:

Sure, lets go with that while you're going with the idea that you can spot sexual preferences by clothing.

You can't tell with 100% certainty, but there are some pretty clear indicators.

 Orlanth wrote:

I did so by looking at the law, what it meant what was read etc.

You read the law and applied inappropriate judgments due to placing it into the context of how things work in the UK, while also ignoring specific legal factors unique to homosexual rights in Indiana.

 Orlanth wrote:

Next time try and be honest for a change and quote fully.

I honestly quote the elements of posts I believe are worth criticizing. I don't want to create longs walls of text.

As I see it, it's not so much an issue with being allowed to refuse service for whatever, but awareness of it.

Say, for example, a ginger couple travelled to the convention interstate or from abroad, with a hotel booked months in advance, they turn up and are refused because the hotel doesn't cater to ginger couples. That's awful, because they are likely going to be completely stuck. Same if they went out for dinner and got kicked it.

However, if the hotel booking made it clear that they had a no ginger couple policy, then they could have booked a ginger friendly place, given their money to someone less bigoted and had a better service.

Everyone is happy (apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want).

Herzlos wrote:
(apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want)

I can tell from this that you aren't really familiar with US history. This is the country where open "whites only" policies had to be ended at gunpoint (literally, in some cases) by the federal government and a lot of places would gladly go back to those days if they had the opportunity. Yeah, posting a "no gays" sign in San Francisco is probably not going to be very good for business, but there are plenty of places where they'd have the full support of the community. Even within the past five years there have been areas that voted 90% or more in favor of making gay marriage extra illegal with constitutional bans on top of existing laws banning it. Do you really think a business in that kind of area is going to lose many customers over their discrimination? Or care if they do?

You're right, I'm not familiar with most of the US (I've only visited PA/MA). I thought those days were long gone :(

Apparently the NCAA is also concerned, as are several BIG 10 ADs.

Herzlos wrote:
You're right, I'm not familiar with most of the US (I've only visited PA/MA). I thought those days were long gone :(

It depends heavily on where you go. Some areas have moved on and anyone openly admitting discrimination (whether racial/anti-gay/whatever) would be shunned, some areas still think the KKK is a good idea and merely disowning your gay children is probably too tolerant of sin. Thankfully the second category is on the wrong end of demographic changes and the US as a whole is getting better, but it's a slow and uneven process.

Herzlos wrote:
You're right, I'm not familiar with most of the US (I've only visited PA/MA). I thought those days were long gone :(

Pennsylvania's in the North technically (above the Mason-Dixon line), and while Maryland is just right below the Mason-Dixon line, it is one of the most progressive, educated, and wealthy states in the Union. It's true that racism has become less prevalent in the South in terms of open discrimination, but its still alive and well, and Peregrine is correct, there is a subset of the population who would gladly undo the protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act.

The following article includes a map of which States have enacted similar 'freedom of religion' laws. As you can see, this is largely a Southern phenomenon, although, interestingly, PA and a couple more Northeastern states have done the same thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

 Peregrine wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
(apart from the people who have to declare their bigotry in public, because they'll no doubt lose more customers than just the ones they don't want)

I can tell from this that you aren't really familiar with US history. This is the country where open "whites only" policies had to be ended at gunpoint (literally, in some cases) by the federal government and a lot of places would gladly go back to those days if they had the opportunity. Yeah, posting a "no gays" sign in San Francisco is probably not going to be very good for business, but there are plenty of places where they'd have the full support of the community. Even within the past five years there have been areas that voted 90% or more in favor of making gay marriage extra illegal with constitutional bans on top of existing laws banning it. Do you really think a business in that kind of area is going to lose many customers over their discrimination? Or care if they do?

You keep trying to paint this law as segregation and it isn't. Whites Only signs on business were able to exist because their were already state and municipal laws on the books that made blacks second class citizens. There was no legal standard to meet to refuse them service or entry a business could bar nonwhites and never have to justify it and those affected had no legal recourse against it.

We have freedom of religion and businesses have always had the right to refuse services for a host of reasons. What are the legal limitations when those two rights coincide? Previously that specific situation wasn't covered under Indiana state law, now it is. Now everyone in Indiana know that there is a legal standard for denying business to a customer based on religious beliefs. If/when the situation arises in Indiana now the business owner knows that a substantial burden on his/her religious beliefs must be proved in a court of law and customers have legal standing to seek redress in a court if they think they were unfairly descriminated against. No business in Indiana can put up a Heterosexuals Only sign on their business and enforce it with impunity under this law. Every time a business denied a LGBT customer or any other customer for religious reasons that business can be taken to court and forced to show proof that the legal standard is met. That is a lot to go through to avoid conducting basic commerce with gay people. I don't know of any evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that there were in fact many businesses in Indiana inclined to go through that legal process just to avoid doing business with any LGBT people.

It would be shocking to see Indiana state courts rule that selling homosexuals widgets for money created a substantial burden on religious beliefs. That kind of ruling would be radically different and far beyond the narrow limitations of the Hobby Lobby precedent.

I keep asking this, and noone will answer me.

WIdgets and wedding cakes are one thing. What about housing?

Can a landlord in Indiana now refuse to house a qualified homosexual couple on the basis that they are homosexual, and successfully argue in court that contributing to homosexual cohabitation violates his religious beliefs? Have they always been able to do so?

This is not a 'stretch'. Providing housing to homosexual couples can easily be interpreted as a burden on someone's religion, particularly any religion that lends credence to the Book of Leviticus, and I'd guess this is likely to happen in those localities in Indiana that do not already have protections for homosexuals on the books.

no they cant.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

And could landlords refuse to let people who are not married live together? Living in sin and all that.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And could landlords refuse to let people who are not married live together? Living in sin and all that.

Yes, at least so far as the federal government is concerned. I don't know too much about individual state laws but generally "Is Single" is not protected status. They don't say you can't refuse to rent to people who are "Living in Sin" or "Wear colors of shirt other than green" or "I'm aware they've drank at least one Dr.Pepper in their life", so you can. I dunno maybe a clever lawyer could argue it was some kind of sex discrimination, which is illegal in housing but I probably wouldn't buy it.

The law does call out "Familial Status" but really just means you can't refuse to rent to someone because they're married, or have kids, or have 20 kids (so long as the house can hold 20 kids).

 jasper76 wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/states/indiana/working/localpo/fheo
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/states/indiana/working/localpo/fheo
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Next time try and be honest for a change and quote fully.

I honestly quote the elements of posts I believe are worth criticizing. I don't want to create longs walls of text.

No you don't, or you wouldn't have condenced down a comment I made that in context could clearly be reasonably truthful in order to put forward the highly offensive motion that I lied, because I was a conservative Christian. While that would be offensive of itself, as you are labeling conservative Christians as all thinking the same way, but you were also redirecting my comment to make it seem about something else.
That was low even for you.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/states/indiana/working/localpo/fheo
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.

Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/states/indiana/working/localpo/fheo
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.

Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.

Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:

The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.

 jasper76 wrote:


Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:

The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Generally speaking full citizenship for homosexuals is still a state-by-state matter. It's hard to generalize to the entire US on any particular issue.

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.

 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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
no they cant.

Reference, please? Or by what logic have you reached this conclusion.

Seems to me its up to the whims of a judge, unless there are Indiana state laws protecting homosexuals that I'm not aware of.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/states/indiana/working/localpo/fheo
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUDsrc=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

Indiana still has to follow fair housing laws like every other state.

Do fair housing laws cover sexual orientation on a federal level? iirc it doesn't. I know they do here in MA, and NY and a few other places I've been but I can't imagine they're universal. Unless Indiana also has a state law along those lines.

Homosexuals are not protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act, per the HUD website:

The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.

While not covered there specifically, it could probably be covered by UDAAP, which, while was originally specifically for banking, is starting to be applied to other consumer business as well.

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.


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?

 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. If I have a hair salon and I refuse to serve blondes, I should be allowed to refuse to serve blondes. I mean gak, we already have "women only" gyms. And no one seems to have a problem with that.

And those blondes in return, can patronize a company that wants their money.