Right after the Cry of Persecution Heard 'Round The World.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Indiana House OKs controversial religious freedom bill
- Thread starter snacknuts
- Start date
- Status
Right after the Cry of Persecution Heard 'Round The World.
Seth Enosh
Member
The bill doesn't legalize discrimination directly like this, it just tosses the decision to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the law or the person's religious beliefs should prevail.
If Indiana had a gay-rights statute (does it?) it's quite possible that courts would rule that businesses should serve them indiscriminately; at the same time they could make small exceptions for stuff like photographers who would be willing to take studio shots of a gay person, but don't want to be present at a wedding ceremony they find offensive.
Other than the photography case and anything really similar to that (where you have to be present at a wedding ceremony), it's hard to see how the courts would rule in favor of allowing discrimination. These bills are getting pushed by republican legislatures precisely because of the photography court case in New Mexico and a few other similar ones, not because of some epidemic of business owners denying gay people service at restaurants or business establishments.
Edit: also I suspect many of the state legislators here would be totally fine with a Muslim refusing to take photographs at a christian church ceremony, or to provide pork when catering the reception for the ceremony or something. it's pretty much the same ideas applied.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Old but reliable posts providing background on this subject:
Ivysaur12 earlier mentioned an important difference between the federal RFRA and the bill proposed by Indiana lawmakers: namely, the Indiana bill seems to clearly apply to private lawsuits, whereas the federal RFRA isn't so clear on that point. But, as importantly, the bill still does not dictate a winner. Instead, it simply makes clear that the Indiana RFRA could be raised as a defense in a lawsuit between private parties; but it doesn't say whether that defense would be successful. Like other RFRAs, the Indiana bill creates a regime of case-by-case religious exemption, not a categorical exception to an otherwise applicable law. (And note that this bill would have no effect on a dispute between a gay customer and wayward shopkeeper unless local law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation--neither federal nor state law does so, though.)
Finally, the final section of the bill doesn't mean that private employers can't be sued by employees. It means that the bill doesn't create any new cause of action against private employers. If some other law creates a cause of action against an employer, a person can still sue under that other law.
Ivysaur12 earlier mentioned an important difference between the federal RFRA and the bill proposed by Indiana lawmakers: namely, the Indiana bill seems to clearly apply to private lawsuits, whereas the federal RFRA isn't so clear on that point. But, as importantly, the bill still does not dictate a winner. Instead, it simply makes clear that the Indiana RFRA could be raised as a defense in a lawsuit between private parties; but it doesn't say whether that defense would be successful. Like other RFRAs, the Indiana bill creates a regime of case-by-case religious exemption, not a categorical exception to an otherwise applicable law. (And note that this bill would have no effect on a dispute between a gay customer and wayward shopkeeper unless local law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation--neither federal nor state law does so, though.)
Finally, the final section of the bill doesn't mean that private employers can't be sued by employees. It means that the bill doesn't create any new cause of action against private employers. If some other law creates a cause of action against an employer, a person can still sue under that other law.
Would you have voted for this bill if you were a member of the Indiana legislature?
Mr_Antimatter
Member
The way I figure, if it's legal to not serve one group because of your faith, then there shouldn't be any group who can't refuse to serve for the same reason.
And that's why laws like this are nonsense.
And that's why laws like this are nonsense.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I haven't read the bill closely enough to be able to answer that question. However, I am in favor of RFRA-like protections for religious folk.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Actually, the pork thing wouldn't fly. That's because you can't legally compel a business to supply a product it doesn't supply.
The question is, can you compel them to offer the same service to a gay member of the public that they provide without question to every other member of the public. IMHO, yes, public is public, don't like it, then get out of that business.
Let me know when you do.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'll spare you the suspense: I probably won't.
Seth Enosh
Member
That's a legitimate view. I think there is an obvious difference between being present at a gay wedding ceremony and serving a gay couple a hamburger at a lunch counter, but that difference doesn't necessarily mean the law should not enforce both. Of course there are also some people in this thread who think doctors should be legally required to assist in abortions, so clearly there's a wide variety of views on this.
Right now many states don't have a public accomodations law protecting gays at all, personally I'm in favor of something like what Utah has recently passed which joins new protection against discrimination with some protection for those who don't want to be forced to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate their beliefs.
Just wanted to add my original comment because some of the earlier posts and some of the reporting on these RFRA amendments has had an alarmed tone as if businesses are suddenly going to start turning away gays at the lunch counter or establishing a gays-only water cooler, like Jim Crow 2.0 or something. There's no way that will fly with or without these bills becoming law, any freedom they'd grant is much more limited.
Every time a state has tried to block gay marriage the supreme court has knocked them down. I see this as nothing different.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Um, so, did this guy just say ISIS is welcome in Indiana?
Fair.
uncredited male
Member
Imagine if the Republicans were as good at everything else as they are in naming their legislation.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is hilarious.This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Yes. A close friend of mine has had to do this. It absolutely sucks for him, but he understands it's part of his job and has to go through with it.
LegendofJoe
Member
So Muslims that practice strict adherence to Islamic law are A ok in Indiana?
These laws will be challenged in court (anything remotely contentious is these days), and a case will likely reach SCOTUS a few years from now. The fate of this type of law could very well be determined on November 8, 2016.
These theocrats are going to keep on pushing until the courts smack them down for good. It'll take more than just this year's rulings to see to that.
LiquidSword
Member
Is this the same bill that would make domestic abuse legal if you cited religious grounds?
Edit: I guess it's Michigan, but this article says that 19 states have adopted laws similar to the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. Also the politicians behind these bills in Indiana, Michigan, and Georgia have all cited the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act as a model.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-measure-moves-forward-michigan
Edit: I guess it's Michigan, but this article says that 19 states have adopted laws similar to the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. Also the politicians behind these bills in Indiana, Michigan, and Georgia have all cited the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act as a model.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-measure-moves-forward-michigan
Despite this law being a terrible, bigoted piece of legislation, there is a silver lining.
I originally thought that if, like the winds seem to be pointing, the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage nationally, the issue would be taken off of the table in 2016, much to the benefit of the Republicans (they would have one less social issue to be against popular opinion and the Democrats would have one less issue to highlight the GOP's backwardness). With this sudden rise of "religious freedom" laws however, the issue which has rarely helped the GOP in national elections will be forced back into the debate! Just like the slew of stupid state Reps. and Sen. candidates that ran their mouths concerning rape and abortion in 2012 (much to the GOP's national detriment), we should see state and local GOP crazies pull their national image far to the right again.
Bad policy, but great politics for the Dems.
I originally thought that if, like the winds seem to be pointing, the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage nationally, the issue would be taken off of the table in 2016, much to the benefit of the Republicans (they would have one less social issue to be against popular opinion and the Democrats would have one less issue to highlight the GOP's backwardness). With this sudden rise of "religious freedom" laws however, the issue which has rarely helped the GOP in national elections will be forced back into the debate! Just like the slew of stupid state Reps. and Sen. candidates that ran their mouths concerning rape and abortion in 2012 (much to the GOP's national detriment), we should see state and local GOP crazies pull their national image far to the right again.
Bad policy, but great politics for the Dems.
This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.
Wow, that's even better than the "Welcome to Gary" sign on I-80 located on the premises of a sewage treatment plant.
Seth Enosh
Member
RFRA already exists on a federal level and in many states, it hasn't been successfully used to challenge the Violence against Women Act or state laws against domestic violence.
It's extremely unlikely that state courts in Indiana will use the Indiana RFRA to overturn domestic violence laws.
Velcro Fly
Member
my state rep passed away today 
he hasn't been down there to vote against these things (they would have passed anyway)
he hasn't been down there to vote against these things (they would have passed anyway)
Indiana truly is fucking backwards.
Been living in Lafayette for two years now and I've never shaken my head so much in my life.
I see this sign every time I head back from Chicago. The other side says "Jesus is Real".
Been living in Lafayette for two years now and I've never shaken my head so much in my life.
This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.
I see this sign every time I head back from Chicago. The other side says "Jesus is Real".
LostCaress
Member
speculawyer
Member
They are playing with fire here. Don't want to serve gays? Oh. So can hardcore fundamentalist Mormons not serve black people? Can Muslims not serve jews?
speculawyer
Member
This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.
Kinda redundant at that point.
I defer to myself.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Fucking religion, man.
HighResTomato
Member
Where is this bullshit of Muslims not serving Christians or Jews coming from in this thread. This reverse is been happening for a while with or without this law.
They're pointing out the fact that IF a Muslim store owner tried to refuse service to a Christian or Jewish patron on the basis of this bill, the people trying to pass this nonsense would be outraged.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Indiana House staunch defenders of what they imagine Constitution to be.
A doctor not doing a certain SERVICE?
Ok.
A doctor not serving certain PEOPLE?
No. that's discrimination.
It's not that hard to understand, and way off topic here.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Let's see what happens when someone puts a "No Christians or Dogs" sign in their door.
I like the dogs part. Gives it a little extra.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Helpful map that reinforces that laws like RFRAs are the status quo in American law:
This law was named by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It's only recently that liberals have started rejecting their historically strong support of religious liberty and other First Amendment concepts.
It's not exactly a mystery what would happen in those scenarios. Discriminating on the basis of race or religion in public accommodations would violate both state and federal law. The public accommodator could raise either the state or federal RFRA in an attempt to avoid the effect of those laws, but he or she would probably lose, since the state probably has a compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination in public accommodations (either of you are free to take up the contrary position, if you'd like), and prohibiting that discrimination is almost certainly the least restrictive way of prohibiting it.
As I have said again and again: RFRAs do not dictate winners; it describes an analysis in which courts must engage in determining who wins.
This law was named by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It's only recently that liberals have started rejecting their historically strong support of religious liberty and other First Amendment concepts.
It's not exactly a mystery what would happen in those scenarios. Discriminating on the basis of race or religion in public accommodations would violate both state and federal law. The public accommodator could raise either the state or federal RFRA in an attempt to avoid the effect of those laws, but he or she would probably lose, since the state probably has a compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination in public accommodations (either of you are free to take up the contrary position, if you'd like), and prohibiting that discrimination is almost certainly the least restrictive way of prohibiting it.
As I have said again and again: RFRAs do not dictate winners; it describes an analysis in which courts must engage in determining who wins.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked