Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Spartacus]

It makes perfect sense if we understand that the RFRA has become (thanks to AZ and HL, in part) extremely polarized. It's not that Indiana's RFRA is totally new ... it's that the use of the RFRA in recent years is totally new. It's being utilized (or arguments very close to the RFRA are being utilized) as defense for discriminatory practices in businesses.

Folks paying attention to these events aren't crazy for looking at passage of a RFRA in a conservative state in 2015 and getting alarmed. The passage of a RFRA in 2000 or even 2010 just wasn't the same thing.

Personally, I don't think there's much doubt that Pence signed this RFRA as a way to boost his Conservative credentials. In that respect, we can't argue that it makes political sense from the Right but makes no political sense from the Left.

I wish I could see this the way you do. I really do. I don't like being this angry.

Have there been any instances in these other states of people invoking RFRA in the way they say Indiana's RFRA will allow?

[lilpixieofterror]

The proper response to the news story is: Wow, some people really hate the 1st Amendment!

I see nothing in the text of the law that references gay people or being nasty to them. It seems to only reaffirm (weakly) the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. What error do you see in it?

You're dealing with somebody that seriously aruged that anybody that disagrees with gay marriage should be silenced and have their 1st amendment rights stripped from them. Yeah, he hates freedom of speech or religion. His own words and arguments have exposed that much.

[Yttrium]

As long as the bill operates within the context of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Hobby Lobby, I don't have a problem with it. A private company with religious owners should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs.

Personally, I tend to avoid doing business with companies that have religious discriminatory policies.

[Bill the Cat]

As long as the bill operates within the context of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Hobby Lobby, I don't have a problem with it. A private company with religious owners should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs.

Personally, I tend to avoid doing business with companies that have religious discriminatory policies.

Would you consider Christmas Day holiday a religiously discriminatory policy? Just curious.

[Yttrium]

Would you consider Christmas Day holiday a religiously discriminatory policy? Just curious.

Nope. Holidays are cool.

[Sam]

I wish I could see this the way you do. I really do. I don't like being this angry.

Have there been any instances in these other states of people invoking RFRA in the way they say Indiana's RFRA will allow?

Arizona's SB1062, a bill to enact a state RFRA, was directly in response to the Elaine Photography v. Willock case. The Colorado baker who refused to serve a same-sex couple argued that doing so was against his religious beliefs. CO doesn't have a RFRA but that would absolutely have been used by any competent lawyer were it in the state code.

I wouldn't be angry over this: Indiana's RFRA is almost certainly an offshoot of the same-sex marriage debate and fears of religious Conservatives that they'll be implicated in something foreign and icky. Give it ten years and all this will look downright provincial.

[Psychic Missile]

It is literally impossible for a local school to violate the constitutional provision on establishment since the establishment clause only applies properly to Congress, and I'm not aware of any prominent cases involving schools in which the free exercise clause was more at issue than establishment.

There are plenty of well-respected professionals in the legal field who would disagree with you about incorporation, and I have seen no reason to believe you are correct over them. The free exercise clause can be violated when participation in religious acts is mandatory. The establishment clause comes into issue when the acts are voluntary or represent endorsement.

[Spartacus]

There are plenty of well-respected professionals in the legal field who would disagree with you about incorporation, and I have seen no reason to believe you are correct over them. The free exercise clause can be violated when participation in religious acts is mandatory. The establishment clause comes into issue when the acts are voluntary or represent endorsement.

They're wrong, and if you have the patience to listen, I can prove it.

[Spartacus]

Arizona's SB1062, a bill to enact a state RFRA, was directly in response to the Elaine Photography v. Willock case. The Colorado baker who refused to serve a same-sex couple argued that doing so was against his religious beliefs. CO doesn't have a RFRA but that would absolutely have been used by any competent lawyer were it in the state code.

Those are not refusals to serve a person on account of sexual orientation, but on account of the proprietor's belief about the nature of marriage.

I wouldn't be angry over this: Indiana's RFRA is almost certainly an offshoot of the same-sex marriage debate and fears of religious Conservatives that they'll be implicated in something foreign and icky. Give it ten years and all this will look downright provincial.

In ten years, I'll probably not be looking back fondly on the mob mentality, or the vicious and disproportionate response it produced. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

[Sam]

Those are not refusals to serve a person on account of sexual orientation, but on account of the proprietor's belief about the nature of marriage.

Tomato/Tomato, if you're asking for reasons why same-sex marriage proponents would see Indiana's RFRA as a vehicle for discrimination. If you're asking for examples of how the RFRA could be used in the way being portrayed by those opposed to it, those are pretty clear examples.

In ten years, I'll probably not be looking back fondly on the mob mentality, or the vicious and disproportionate response it produced. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

We disagree on the viciousness and proportionality of the response. What I've been telling equality proponents is to frame the issue this way: in 2004, the Bush administration successfully tied its GOTV effort in key states to same-sex marriage bans. Ten years later and such efforts are not only destined to fail but even lesser efforts to codify the ability to discriminate against same-sex couples is kickin' up a right storm ... and not just from "the Left" but from big businesses. The arc is definitely bending toward equality.

A big part of this mess is Pence et al's effort to pretend that this isn't about same-sex marriage and homosexuality. I had a discussion yesterday with a fellow who expressed frustration that critics of the law "didn't understand it" and that it wouldn't allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation, using an IU law professor's article in IndyStar as evidence. I went through the history, the recent use of RFRA (or similar arguments) and how Indiana's RFRA does strengthen, rather than weaken, existing discriminatory practices. In the end, my friend said that the "heart of the issue" was the right to discriminate based on religious belief!

To recap, he started out arguing that folks who thought this law could be used to discriminate against gay folks were misunderstanding the law and ended up agreeing that the law could be used to discriminate against gay folks and the heart of the issue was that such discrimination is the right policy. It's that kinda of cognitive dissonance that allowed the law to pass in the first place and people employing it (e.g., Pence) deserve every bit of public outrage they're getting.

[Psychic Missile]

They're wrong, and if you have the patience to listen, I can prove it.

Sure.

[KingsGambit]

Shame on Governor Pence for refusing to answer six point blank questions about what the bill meant. After the sixth time of being asked if it would allow florists to refuse to service gay weddings, he just said "We don't believe in discrimination".

It sounds like he's trying to convince the public that the bill doesn't mean what it clearly says, and rightly, nobody is having it. Have a spine and stand up for what you believe.

http://www.wthr.com/story/28641811/i...discrimination

[Bill the Cat]

Shame on Governor Pence for refusing to answer six point blank questions about what the bill meant. After the sixth time of being asked if it would allow florists to refuse to service gay weddings, he just said "We don't believe in discrimination".

It sounds like he's trying to convince the public that the bill doesn't mean what it clearly says, and rightly, nobody is having it. Have a spine and stand up for what you believe.

http://www.wthr.com/story/28641811/i...discrimination

He should just say "Yes, it allows florists to deny homosexuals trying to force them to provide services for a wedding, but not to individuals who come in to the business to buy flowers"

[Sam]

He should just say "Yes, it allows florists to deny homosexuals trying to force them to provide services for a wedding, but not to individuals who come in to the business to buy flowers"

It potentially allows that, too, given a sincere religious belief.

[Bill the Cat]

It potentially allows that, too, given a sincere religious belief.

Unless someone comes in and announces they are homosexual, how can the business owner really know? I just don't see that happening, or the shop owner being able to justify it.