Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" controversy

[kimmy]

That's not what this bill is about, and it's outright ignorance to suggest that it is.

Governor Pence keep using the phrase "that's not what this law is about" and "that's not the intent of this law".

Talking about "what this law about" and what "the intent of this law is" is irrelevant. It's the effect that matters.

-k

[TimG]

So despite what your sources are claiming, and what Mike Pence was saying on TV yesterday, this law isn't the same as the federal law or the law in any other state.

So why the uproar? Much of it is white noise generated by ignorance and misinformation about the bill. But the more knowledgable and reasonable critics of Indiana’s RFRA believe that this law is different than others that currently exist at the state and federal level. It allows companies as well as individuals to use the religious liberty defense, and it allows the religious liberty defense in private suits that don’t involve the government. In a famous case in New Mexico, for example, a customer sued a photographer for refusing to photograph her same-sex wedding. The customer won. In that case, the court ruled that the defendant couldn’t use RFRA as a defense because the suit did not involve the government. That wouldn’t happen in Indiana, where the defense is allowed in private suits.

But even here, the fear is overblown. It’s certainly true that Indiana’s RFRA would allow a business to use the religious liberty defense to protect a decision to not serve gay weddings (among many, many other things not related to sex or marriage at all). But even if the claimants can use a RFRA defense in more instances under the Indiana law, they are by no means guaranteed to win their case—and current jurisprudence seems unfriendly to to them. Far from introducing a new Jim Crow, as some of the more overwrought critics would have you believe, RFRA laws may not do as much to protect religious business owners as many supporters of the law would want. Moreover, such cases are rarely brought anyway—and gay customers aren’t turned away from businesses at any noticeable rate, despite the fact that it would be legal in that state for business to do so.

Seems like it is much ado about nothing. Well not nothing because the democrats need the 'nasty republicans beating up on gays' narrative to mobilize their disenchanted base. Edited March 31, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

So why the uproar? Much of it is white noise generated by ignorance and misinformation about the bill. But the more knowledgable and reasonable critics of Indiana’s RFRA believe that this law is different than others that currently exist at the state and federal level. It allows companies as well as individuals to use the religious liberty defense, and it allows the religious liberty defense in private suits that don’t involve the government. In a famous case in New Mexico, for example, a customer sued a photographer for refusing to photograph her same-sex wedding. The customer won. In that case, the court ruled that the defendant couldn’t use RFRA as a defense because the suit did not involve the government. That wouldn’t happen in Indiana, where the defense is allowed in private suits.

So your own source has allowed us to dispense with the utter falsehood that the Indiana law is a copy of the RFRAs used in other states and by the federal government. Good.

But even here, the fear is overblown. It’s certainly true that Indiana’s RFRA would allow a business to use the religious liberty defense to protect a decision to not serve gay weddings (among many, many other things not related to sex or marriage at all).

And we're agreed that despite what Bryan and Shady and Governor Pence and his minions are saying, the law in its current form DOES permit discrimination. Good.

But even if the claimants can use a RFRA defense in more instances under the Indiana law, they are by no means guaranteed to win their case—and current jurisprudence seems unfriendly to to them.

Current jurisprudence comes from other jurisdictions that have not set the bar near as low as Indiana has.

Far from introducing a new Jim Crow, as some of the more overwrought critics would have you believe, RFRA laws may not do as much to protect religious business owners as many supporters of the law would want. Moreover, such cases are rarely brought anyway—and gay customers aren’t turned away from businesses at any noticeable rate, despite the fact that it would be legal in that state for business to do so.

"This doesn't seem to be happening much" is hardly a sterling defense of the law.

Seems like it is much ado about nothing. Well not nothing because the democrats need the 'nasty republicans beating up on gays' narrative to mobilize their disenchanted base.

Ok, so why did the Indiana Republicans push this through, then? Why give their opponents some "red meat" to chew on? The federal FRFA was ruled to not have jurisdiction in states in 1997... how come they decided that right now-- 18 years later-- it was time to replace it?

Have there been a whole flurry of lawsuits against Christian businesses that I missed? There was the New Mexico photographer, and a baker in Washington ... and? Two small-claims lawsuits in other parts of the country were such an impending crisis for Indiana that they decided that they needed to rush in what is by many estimates a poorly written law that has drawn intense criticism from both social and business leaders all over the country?

-k

[jacee]

This has already been addressed. The lack of any specifics as to what constitutes a "sincerely held religious belief" means the sky is the limit as to what claims might be made. And the fact that Indiana has no anti-discrimination laws that include gay people make it impossible to argue that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting gay people from discrimination.

-k

But how do they judge/prove gay?

It's absurd.

.

[kimmy]

Possibly so, but if drove across town to a store, walked in, put some effort into a selection, then was told they don't deal with my kind I'd feel pretty put out. I think they should have to put a sign up right at the start so everyone who can't get service knows not to go there.

The possibility of someone wasting a lot of effort going to a business or hotel or other venue and being refused service is unfortunate. The possibility of an extremely upsetting face-to-face confrontation is even more unfortunate.

But I think the greater benefit of having some kind of written notification of the intent to refuse service based on sincerely-held religious beliefs is that it would reduce the possibility of it being done arbitrarily or frivolously.

"I didn't mind when the cute cheerleaders were making out in their booth... but when that dude with the nasal voice started talking about his Broadway showtunes CD collection it made me want to puke so I invoked my RFRA and kicked him out."

Or imagine some employer looking for a way to terminate an employee without facing a wrongful dismissal suit. An RFRA claim could be a golden ticket for them.

-k

[TimG]

Ok, so why did the Indiana Republicans push this through, then? Why give their opponents some "red meat" to chew on? The federal FRFA was ruled to not have jurisdiction in states in 1997... how come they decided that right now-- 18 years later-- it was time to replace it?

Of course it was. I am just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the people complaining about the law because making a big issue of it is red meat for their supporters. The fact is both parties play up this issue because it gets them votes. Not because it is important.

Is the law open ended and open to abuse? Sure? But so are a lot of laws. But given the way laws are so strongly tilted against members of non-PC cultural groups I can't see that this law will move the needle so far in the other direction that real injustices are created. It will just nudge things a bit in a few cases. More importantly, unlike Canada where we have new laws getting written in stone by an unaccountable panel of social engineers, the law in Indiana is a normal law that can be reversed at any time. So I say, let it ride and see how it plays out in practice. If it is as bad as you say it can be reversed then. I can't see it creating an industry of rent seekers that would pay to oppose its removal.

Edited March 31, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

Of course it was. I am just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the people complaining about the law because making a big issue of it is red meat for their supporters. The fact is both parties play up this issue because it gets them votes. Not because it is important.

I have to point out here that the most vocal and most effective opposition to this bill is not coming from anybody who is running for office.

Is the law open ended and open to abuse? Sure? But so are a lot of laws. But given the way laws are so strongly tilted against members of non-PC cultural groups I can't see that this law will move the needle so far in the other direction that real injustices are created. It will just nudge things a bit in a few cases.

Yeah, I'm sure the laws in Indiana are strongly tilted against Christians and in favor of gays.

More importantly, unlike Canada where we have new laws getting written in stone by an unaccountable panel of social engineers, the law in Indiana is a normal law that can be reversed at any time. So I say, let it ride and see how it plays out in practice. If it is as bad as you say it can be reversed then. I can't see it creating an industry of rent seekers that would pay to oppose its removal.

It'll create a situation where attempting to repeal it will be political suicide. Scrapping the law might be well received in Indianapolis and a couple of other urban centers, but in the rural areas that have disproportionate control over the legislature, scrapping the RFRA will be seen as "they takin' away our Jesus!" It's in place now, and the best they can do is to fix it to make it non-toxic.

-k

[Mighty AC]

The Mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, denounced the state RFRA enacted by governor Pence. Ballard issued an executive order that nullifies the ability of the new law to be used to discriminate against the LGBT community. He also appealed to the state to repeal the law and add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes within state law. Good for Greg, as his city will feel the brunt of the backlash.

“Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and the City-County Council on Monday called on the Indiana General Assembly to either repeal the divisive Religious Freedom Restoration Act or add explicit protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in state law.

Ballard also issued an executive order that anyone who receives money from the city government must abide by its human rights ordinance, which has had such protections in place for a decade.

Flanked by business leaders, Ballard denounced the law not only as a threat to the city’s economic interests, but as a serious concern for residents and visitors who fear that they could be subjected to discrimination for religious reasons.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/31/indianapolis-mayor/

[Mighty AC]

Check out the dramatic front page of the front page of the Indianapolis Star. Govern Pence has really done a serious amount of damage to the state's biggest city. Kudos to Mayor Ballard for aggressively countering the backwoods BS heaped upon him.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Mighty AC

[kimmy]

I think we all know that if we were talking about a Muslim restauranteur who refused to serve unaccompanied women rather than a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, the discussion about the importance of respecting his religious views would have a dramatically different tone.

-k

[Big Guy]

There is still an undefined thin line between discrimination and the right of an individual to freedom of choice.

For example - I am having a garage sale and a known previously convicted paedophile drops by wanting to purchase children's toys. I say no and get lost. A Jewish YMCA (YM-YWHA) advertises for a receptionist. A fully qualified person appears dressed in a Palestinian head scarf. She has to be hired?

I own a grocery store. I customer comes in who I do not like and with whom I have had arguments in the past. I refuse to serve him and tell him to get lost. Why should I have to deal with someone who I do not like?

When the freedom of choice clashes with freedom from discrimination, which should win out?

[guyser]

I think we all know that if we were talking about a Muslim restauranteur who refused to serve unaccompanied women rather than a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, the discussion about the importance of respecting his religious views would have a dramatically different tone.

-k

Man, what a wonderful scenario. Imagine if the first happened to hit the news at 9AM . The words expressed would be delightful.

Then the second drops at 2PM, all those words would be eaten shortly thereafter.

[The_Squid]

There is still an undefined thin line between discrimination and the right of an individual to freedom of choice.

For example - I am having a garage sale and a known previously convicted paedophile drops by wanting to purchase children's toys. I say no and get lost. A Jewish YMCA (YM-YWHA) advertises for a receptionist. A fully qualified person appears dressed in a Palestinian head scarf. She has to be hired?

I own a grocery store. I customer comes in who I do not like and with whom I have had arguments in the past. I refuse to serve him and tell him to get lost. Why should I have to deal with someone who I do not like?

When the freedom of choice clashes with freedom from discrimination, which should win out?

There is no such thing as pedophile discrimination.... good lord man... can you create a more ridiculous straw man?

And your grocery store analogy is equally as idiotic... a business can remove people for legitimate reasons... if they're disruptive, steal things, are abusive to the employees... all good reasons to ban someone from a place of business.

Edited March 31, 2015 by The_Squid

[guyser]

And your grocery store analogy is equally as idiotic

It is? Why?

... a business can remove people for legitimate reasons... if they're disruptive, steal things, are abusive to the employees... all good reasons to ban someone from a place of business.

Where does the bold come into play? Did you just put that in there?

I am pretty sure he said...."I customer comes in who I do not like and with whom I have had arguments in the past. I refuse to serve him and tell him to get lost. Why should I have to deal with someone who I do not like?"

I am sorry, dont see stealing ,abusive in there.

[Mighty AC]

There is still an undefined thin line between discrimination and the right of an individual to freedom of choice.

For example - I am having a garage sale and a known previously convicted paedophile drops by wanting to purchase children's toys. I say no and get lost. A Jewish YMCA (YM-YWHA) advertises for a receptionist. A fully qualified person appears dressed in a Palestinian head scarf. She has to be hired?

I own a grocery store. I customer comes in who I do not like and with whom I have had arguments in the past. I refuse to serve him and tell him to get lost. Why should I have to deal with someone who I do not like?

When the freedom of choice clashes with freedom from discrimination, which should win out?

In our ever more litigious society, it would be a difficult situation if someone that is disliked for legitimate reasons was refused service, especially if that individual is part of some identifiable minority. However, I suspect that it would only become an issue if you developed a pattern of not liking a specific group.

[Michael Hardner]

I think we all know that if we were talking about a Muslim restauranteur who refused to serve unaccompanied women rather than a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, the discussion about the importance of respecting his religious views would have a dramatically different tone.

-k

Great example there. Unfortunately 'reasonable' accommodation does vary from person to person, and situation to situation. We're humans so only so much consistency can be expected from case to case.

[Big Guy]

To Mighty AC - I suspect that you are correct. It is not the act itself but the intent or reason for the act. I can refuse to serve an individual in my restaurant because I do not like him - for example - if he used to be married to my daughter and cheated on her.

I assume that it is like a "hate" crime - one sentence if you killed him because he was a jerk - another because he was gay.

It would be interesting; would I have to prove that the guy I refused to serve was a former in-law and a jerk or the guy having to prove that I refused him because he was an Muslim?

[kimmy]

Some years ago there was a thread here about Muslim cabbies refusing to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol.

It's an interesting read, if you're interested in seeing how some of the forum's conservatives felt at that time about people refusing to provide service due to religious beliefs.

-k

[cybercoma]

The Muslim cabbie thing is refusing someone service based on what they're carrying, not who they are as a person. It's still pretty stupid, but it's not "no gays allowed," it's "no liquor containers allowed."

[Michael Hardner]

There was also a case about a Muslim barber shop refusing service to women

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21878-well-someone-finally-did-it-someone-took-muslims-to-a-hrc/

[Michael Hardner]

And the transgendered person at the bridal shop:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24365-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-controversy/page-8#entry1042909

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it was. I am just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the people complaining about the law because making a big issue of it is red meat for their supporters. The fact is both parties play up this issue because it gets them votes. Not because it is important.

Sure, but that's the hypocrisy inherent in politics. Or maybe just the self-interest that is inherent in appearing to act in the public interest.

In this case, the Republicans have played it badly, as evidenced by the governor indicating that he had no inkling that the backlash would be so large.

Also, the Republican presidential candidates have unfortunately stood behind the law, so you should be seeing that come up again in 2016.

[kimmy]

I kind of assumed that the Indiana chapter of the Church of Satan would be the first to take up the invitation to use the new law to clown the people who passed it, because that's just what they do. They've become more or less the nuclear option when it comes to illustrating the down-side of enshrining religious privilege in law.

But this time the Wiccans have taken the lead instead.

Wiccans are excited to use Indiana's new law to assert their right to polyamorous marriage, spiritual use of psychotropic drugs, and naked worship. I recall that our own BC_2004 is a proud pagan; perhaps he'll be planning a road trip to Indiana soon!

-k

[jacee]

That stupid law's going to bite them in the butt!

.

[Mighty AC]

Wow! Senator Tom Cotton actually said we should 'get some perspective' on discrimination against homosexuals, because in Iran they execute people for the crime of being gay. Religious belief is not some personal, harmless joke like Feng Shui. If people can be made to believe absurdities, they can be made to commit atrocities. Thankfully, younger people don't have issues with equal rights and Republican actions like this will simply increase the rate at which youth leave religion behind.

Appearing yesterday on CNN, Senator Tom Cotton ® urged critics of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law to get “perspective,” suggesting the treatment of LGBT people in Indiana compared favorably to countries where gay people are executed.

“I think it’s important we have a sense of perspective,” Cotton said. “In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay.”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/02/3642060/senator-says-critics-indiana-get-perspective-thankful-state-doesnt-execute-gays/