Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" controversy

[Smallc]

Your reasoning is very abnormal.

I don't see why this is such a difficult concept. Nature produced homosexuals, but it wasn't the naturally destined outcome. Scientifically, being gay is not normal, even though it's completely natural and is (and should be) societally acceptable.

[jacee]

I don't see why this is such a difficult concept. Nature produced homosexuals, but it wasn't the naturally destined outcome. Scientifically, being gay is not normal, even though it's completely natural and is (and should be) societally acceptable.

So a minority can never be considered normal because they're a minority?

I think you're a minority in that opinion ... just not normal.

.

[Smallc]

So a minority can never be considered normal because they're a minority?

I think you're a minority in that opinion ... just not normal.

I'm definitely not normal. The fact that I'm on this website makes me abnormal. I'm not offended by that idea.

[kimmy]

The courts disagree...for membership and employment law....nice try.

I admit my mistake. I had always assumed that the same rules that permit male-only golf-clubs and "gentlemen's clubs" also protect male-only fraternal organizations and women-only health clubs. And it turns out I was in error.

Exclusive mens' clubs can operate as private clubs due to the exclusivity of their membership. But with membership easily obtainable, women's healthclubs and fraternal organizations can't make any pretense of exclusivity.

In regard to women-only gyms then: some have been sued, and some successfully. If you feel like taking a run at it, lawyer up and dig out your yoga pants because you may have a case. In other cases, however, the clubs have won.

The legal discussion on this is based around 3 questions:

Generally, in order to justify gender discrimination in membership, gyms have to demonstrate that:

• Not excluding members of one sex would harm business operations,
• The customers’ privacy interests are entitled to protection under law, and
• No reasonable alternative exists to protect customers’ privacy rights.

It is clearly a very fact-specific argument, and the decisions do not provide a lot of helpful guidance to health club owners.

A thorough discussion of these criteria is available in the PDF linked above.

-k

[Bryan]

So a minority can never be considered normal because they're a minority?

.

Sure they can, if their numbers increase to the point that they are no longer a minority.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure they can, if their numbers increase to the point that they are no longer a minority.

Now that little statement must surely be worthy of some sort of prize. At least a little cone shaped hat.

[kimmy]

Yep. The hysteria over this law is the biggest, most ridiculous sensationalism I've ever seen. It doesn't allow anyone to deny somebody their civil rights. But if one is brought to court, somebody can use their religious beliefs as a defence. But that doesn't mean at all that they'd win.

Now that the bill has been "fixed", that is true. The law specifically lays out that it may not be used to authorize discrimination, or used as a defense against discrimination claims, including claims against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But until yesterday, that was not the case.

I direct you to Senate Amendments #4 and #5 of the bill: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#

Amendment #4 would have clarified that the bill does not constitute a legal defense against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Amendment #4 was defeated.

Instead, they passed Amendment #5 clarified that the bill does not constitute a legal defense against discrimination against someone who is in a "protected class". In Indiana, sexual orientation is expressly *not* protected from discrimination, and Governor Pence could not have been more blunt on Sunday in stating that they had no interest in adding protection for sexual orientation to Indiana's anti-discrimination law. And that's why Gov Pence kept refusing to answer that question in his interview on Sunday. He knew full well that the law *did* allow discrimination, and was afraid to say so.

Gov. Pence's friends from Advance America were with him at the private ceremony when he signed the bill into law, and immediately went around claiming that the law allowed exactly what Indiana's senate majority said it wouldn't: allow businesses to deny services to gay people. They were right. It did. And that's why Advance America are so pissed about the new amendment.

Gov Pence and his allies were also flat-out lying when they said that the law they made was the same as the federal RFRA law and the RFRA laws in 20 other states. Only South Carolina's RFRA considers businesses to be individuals. Only Texas's RFRA extends to legal disputes in which the government is not a party. And only Indiana's does both of those things.

They were the ones spreading misinformation. Not the critics of the law.

-k

[kimmy]

It looks like Shady and Bryan have no further interest in advancing the false claims they've made in support of the original law. So moving on to a couple of other things:

First off, the crushing defeat of Pence and his team in their attempt to defend the original bill has been a serious wake-up call for others. First there was Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who pre-emptively halted the controversy in his own state by warning that he would not sign the bill unless it was changed. And then there was Jeb Bush, who on Monday came out in defense of Mike Pence and the Indiana law, but by Wednesday had changed his tune, saying that Indiana should have had a "consensus-oriented" approach from the outset, and that he believed that the new revisions to the law would strike the right balance between freedom of religion and preventing discrimination. Not lost on anyone is that Jeb made this clarification speaking to a small audience of businessmen in San Francisco, not a Republican town hall in the bible belt.

And obviously this raises the question of whether Jeb will find himself in a Mitt Romney type situation, where he must say one thing to appeal to the Tea Party and evangelical segment in the party, then say other things when he's talking to moderates and independents.

-k

[kimmy]

I think that most of us feel some sympathy for the position of the Christian photographer who was sued for denying services to a same-sex wedding.

And I don't think any of us would feel much sympathy for a restauranteur or hotelier who wanted to bar people from his establishment.

Through the examples that are chosen in this discussion, I think the key issue for most people in this debate is actually expression. I think that perhaps if these laws were crafted specifically around the issue of expression, it would address the sincere concerns that the supporters feel, while avoiding the potentially negative consequences that opponents fear.

Something along the lines of "an individual in a creative capacity may not be compelled to express views that are contrary to their conscience". I think that would provide the photographer with an exemption. A baker could refuse to provide a cake with two dudes on top, and they could say "ok, just bake a cake and we'll decorate it ourselves."

The hypothetical restauranteur who would not seat unaccompanied women, or the hotelier who would not allow an inter-racial couple to stay... those guys would still be out of luck.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The hypothetical restauranteur who would not seat unaccompanied women, or the hotelier who would not allow an inter-racial couple to stay... those guys would still be out of luck.

OK...what about the health club manager who will not permit male members or employees at a "females only" establishment ?

Or doctors who refuse to perform abortions before/after fetal viability ?

Out of luck too ?

[kimmy]

OK...what about the health club manager who will not permit male members or employees at a "females only" establishment ?

Or doctors who refuse to perform abortions before/after fetal viability ?

Out of luck too ?

The health-club manager has different legal means to make the case that discrimination is necessary, as discussed above. It's not ALWAYS about religion.

I strongly suspect that doctors with conscientious objection to providing abortion are also well-protected in most states, with or without an RFRA.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The health-club manager has different legal means to make the case that discrimination is necessary, as discussed above. It's not ALWAYS about religion.

OK, but that is just a dodge. Equality in public accommodation is still on point, religion based or not.

I strongly suspect that doctors with conscientious objection to providing abortion are also well-protected in most states, with or without an RFRA.

Why...why would "religious preferences" prevail in this instance ? Are we to adjudicate each and every example based on how the wind blows ?

[kimmy]

OK, but that is just a dodge. Equality in public accommodation is still on point, religion based or not.

Men have gone to court against women's only health clubs, and sometimes they win. There are situations where discrimination butts up against other rights, and against practical concerns. There's a limit to how far we can go in protecting people from discrimination, and the debate is trying to figure out what that limit is.

Why...why would "religious preferences" prevail in this instance ? Are we to adjudicate each and every example based on how the wind blows ?

In the case of abortion, that seems to be how it works. A lot of state and federal laws are crafted specifically to deal with abortion.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Men have gone to court against women's only health clubs, and sometimes they win. There are situations where discrimination butts up against other rights, and against practical concerns. There's a limit to how far we can go in protecting people from discrimination, and the debate is trying to figure out what that limit is.

True, but this is still a dodge. States have countered male lawsuits against female only clubs by passing legislation every bit as discriminatory as RFRA bills/laws.

In the case of abortion, that seems to be how it works. A lot of state and federal laws are crafted specifically to deal with abortion.

Right, a second example. So are we to have each and every circumstance parsed and legislated based on the popular view ?

[Argus]

I think that most of us feel some sympathy for the position of the Christian photographer who was sued for denying services to a same-sex wedding.

And I don't think any of us would feel much sympathy for a restauranteur or hotelier who wanted to bar people from his establishment.

How about a B&B which also happens to be the home of the people who operate it?

[Mighty AC]

How about a B&B which also happens to be the home of the people who operate it?

I don't see how living at the business makes a difference. I don't think we would have sympathy for people who would turn away other races they believe to be abominations, so why is this different?

[GostHacked]

I don't see how living at the business makes a difference. I don't think we would have sympathy for people who would turn away other races they believe to be abominations, so why is this different?

It should not be treated any different. If they want to discriminate, then they are not people I would do business with. Not really a hard choice to make.

[Argus]

I don't see how living at the business makes a difference.

It makes a difference because it's their home. People generally do feel differently about their homes.

[Argus]

It should not be treated any different. If they want to discriminate, then they are not people I would do business with. Not really a hard choice to make.

I would tend to agree. But others feel they should be forced to do business with them.

[Mighty AC]

I would tend to agree. But others feel they should be forced to do business with them.

We wouldn't tolerate white only B&Bs so I don't see why we should tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Guest]

Maybe there's a case for "grandfathering" here. As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose religion forbids them from providing service to a certain group can avoid doing so by not providing service to anyone. It's easy, and religious types have suffered worse than having to find another job for the sake of their religion. St Catherine of Alexandria, for instance.

But that said, is it fair for someone who goes through many years of training and/or building a business to have to lose out because the rules change?

So I say, if you were discriminating while it was legal, then, until you change your business/trade, etc, you are grandfathered.

Anyone starting a business had better be prepared to serve everyone the law says they should.

Edited April 8, 2015 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

We wouldn't tolerate white only B&Bs so I don't see why we should tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Public ridicule is what will change the minds of the intolerant. Or the result is that they will be ostracized. Which is good.

So the answer is boycotting those establishments and the people who patron those businesses.

You have a choice, exercise it.

[Bob Macadoo]

Public ridicule is what will change the minds of the intolerant. Or the result is that they will be ostracized. Which is good.

So the answer is boycotting those establishments and the people who patron those businesses.

You have a choice, exercise it.

Why wasn't that used in the 60's South? Have we evolved an extra lobe since then that makes us higher minded than then?

[GostHacked]

Why wasn't that used in the 60's South? Have we evolved an extra lobe since then that makes us higher minded than then?

Well, we still have not seen black discrimination go away. But I think that there was a large portion of the population rising up and taking stand for themselves. The Million Man March as an example. Forcing society on the whole to accept them. It worked. And now we have all sorts of acceptance with the LGBT group. This is a step backward. And well if they want to step back, others will gladly step forward to be inclusive. Their businesses depend on it.

But wanna go to the country club?

[Bob Macadoo]

Well, we still have not seen black discrimination go away. But I think that there was a large portion of the population rising up and taking stand for themselves. The Million Man March as an example. Forcing society on the whole to accept them. It worked. And now we have all sorts of acceptance with the LGBT group. This is a step backward. And well if they want to step back, others will gladly step forward to be inclusive. Their businesses depend on it.

But wanna go to the country club?

Large portions of the population didn't stand up until there was legislation backing them up. They would've sat silent with their opinion b/c people singularly are cowards.....and it wouldn't affect them.....so history tells us in the 30's, 60's, & 90's (gay marriage).