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.
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?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/03/28 13:37:29
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?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/03/28 14:17:46
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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/28 14:51:45
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/28 15:05:38
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/28 15:19:32
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/28 15:51:25
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/28 16:00:18
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/28 16:44:14
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.