Support NeoGAF

HammerOfThor · Mar 24, 2015

I don't get this. Republicans want to fight Muslims in the ME because they shouldn't have laws based on their religion, but then call for laws here based on their religion.

Metaphoreus · Mar 24, 2015

HammerOfThor said:
I don't get this. Republicans want to fight Muslims in the ME because they shouldn't have laws based on their religion, but then call for laws here based on their religion.

This isn't a law based on religion. It's a law that recognizes the central importance of religion in the private lives of citizens, and requires the government to act with caution when infringing on the free exercise of religion.

HammerOfThor · Mar 24, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
This isn't a law based on religion. It's a law that recognizes the central importance of religion in the private lives of citizens, and requires the government to act with caution when infringing on the free exercise of religion.

Ah I see, I totally didn't catch the point while reading it then. Thanks for the info.

ivysaur12 · Mar 24, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
This isn't a law based on religion. It's a law that recognizes the central importance of religion in the private lives of citizens, and requires the government to act with caution when infringing on the free exercise of religion.

I thought you weren't going to read the law? But since you have now, I guess, would you vote for this law?

BamfMeat · Mar 24, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
I thought you weren't going to read the law? But since you have now, I guess, would you vote for this law?

I love you.

Metaphoreus said:
This isn't a law based on religion. It's a law that recognizes the central importance of religion in the private lives of citizens, and requires the government to act with caution when infringing on the free exercise of religion.

Except we also have laws that define who you can and can't discriminate against. By it's very definition, this law allows people to discriminate against another set of people based on their belief.

Which one wins?

Metaphoreus · Mar 24, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
I thought you weren't going to read the law? But since you have now, I guess, would you vote for this law?

I already told you I skimmed the bill. It functions essentially as all RFRAs do (with the exception that it definitely applies to lawsuits to which the government is not a party). I don't know what would be the point of reading the law closely enough to enable me to answer your hypothetical question. I've already voiced my support for RFRA-like protections.

BamfMeat said:
Except we also have laws that define who you can and can't discriminate against. By it's very definition, this law allows people to discriminate against another set of people based on their belief.

What definition is this in reference to? This isn't a pro-discrimination bill. It's a we-won't-force-you-to-violate-your-religion-unless-we-have-really-good-reasons-to-do-so bill.

Christopher · Mar 24, 2015

How is this legal? Why is religion, which is all made up, allowed to permiate it's hate on society?

peppermints · Mar 24, 2015

So Gencon has threatened to move to a different city if Pence signs this (which he will of course). And I would hope with the Final Four here in two weeks that the NCAA would speak up about possibly not hosting future FFs here. I would also imagine any superbowl bid in the future would be in jeopardy by this as well.

I'm so embarrassed for my state right now. Pence is a disaster.

friday · Mar 24, 2015

Fuck, Georgia has a similar bill in the state congress right now. I hope the blue power of Atlanta can put a stop to it.

Skiptastic · Mar 25, 2015

peppermints said:
So Gencon has threatened to move to a different city if Pence signs this (which he will of course). And I would hope with the Final Four here in two weeks that the NCAA would speak up about possibly not hosting future FFs here. I would also imagine any superbowl bid in the future would be in jeopardy by this as well.

I'm so embarrassed for my state right now. Pence is a disaster.

Agreed. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this bill would have been killed off by Mitch Daniels's administration.

I'm quite embarrassed because I really think Indianapolis is a great place to live. This type of legislation just regresses us and will absolutely hurt our growth, both socially and economically.

BamfMeat · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
What definition is this in reference to? This isn't a pro-discrimination bill. It's a we-won't-force-you-to-violate-your-religion-unless-we-have-really-good-reasons-to-do-so bill.

Uhm, yes it is. If your religion says black people are supposed to be slaves and you can't serve them in your restaurant, this bill would allow that owner the ability to refuse service to said black patrons.

Race is a nationally protected class - therefore it's literally giving the OK to discrimination. Let's not insult either of our intelligence here by saying otherwise. And please don't be disingenuous or coy - you know damn well it's going to allow people to discriminate based on their religious views.

Literally, it's the VERY textbook definition of discrimination.

Kenai · Mar 25, 2015

peppermints said:
So Gencon has threatened to move to a different city if Pence signs this (which he will of course). And I would hope with the Final Four here in two weeks that the NCAA would speak up about possibly not hosting future FFs here. I would also imagine any superbowl bid in the future would be in jeopardy by this as well.

I'm so embarrassed for my state right now. Pence is a disaster.

Yup. This is f*cking awful. Besides the obvious ethical concerns and blatant prejudice, Gencon is literally the only major local event I look forward to every year. And as much as I'd miss it I'd totally understand the decision to move, cause this needs to not be tolerated in any capacity.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

BamfMeat said:
Uhm, yes it is. If your religion says black people are supposed to be slaves and you can't serve them in your restaurant, this bill would allow that owner the ability to refuse service to said black patrons.

Race is a nationally protected class - therefore it's literally giving the OK to discrimination. Let's not insult either of our intelligence here by saying otherwise. And please don't be disingenuous or coy - you know damn well it's going to allow people to discriminate based on their religious views.

Literally, it's the VERY textbook definition of discrimination.

A few thoughts:

(1) Which religion is that, again?

(2) You misunderstand what this bill does. Here's the relevant text:

SB 101 said:
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:

(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and
(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;
the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.

A "violation of this chapter" refers to a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion without sufficient justification, as explained below:

SB 101 said:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Some of the terms used in section 8 are defined in other sections:

SB 101 said:
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:

(1) State government.
(2) A political subdivision (as defined in 1C 36-1-2-13).
(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:

(1) An individual.
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:

(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:

(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

To summarize, when a person believes that a governmental entity has imposed a substantial burden on his or her exercise of religion, he or she may assert that imposition as a claim or defense. At that point, the court will consider whether (1) a substantial burden has been imposed on the person's exercise of religion and (2) if so, whether the imposition of that burden is both (a) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (b) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. If the court answers (1) in the affirmative, but either of part of (2) in the negative, then the person will have a defense against any party, and may recover against a party that is a governmental entity.

Here's how this would work in the context of a lawsuit for discrimination on the basis of race in a public accommodation: in the first place, if a claim is brought under federal law, there will be no defense in Indiana. This is so because (1) the Indiana RFRA would only create exemptions from Indiana law, not federal law; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Indiana, has held that the federal RFRA does not apply in suits between private parties.

But let's assume a claim is only brought under Indiana law. Then, the alleged racist would be able to raise the Indiana RFRA as a defense. At this point, the state (or, perhaps, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission) would be entitled to intervene in the lawsuit to "respond to the [alleged racist's] invocation of" the RFRA. The governmental entity would argue that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodations regardless of a person's race--and they'd probably win on this argument. Then, the entity would argue that prohibiting private discrimination based on race by those providing public accommodations is the least restrictive means of ensuring such access--and, again, they'd probably win. (I say "probably," but I can't imagine they'd lose on those arguments.) Consequently, the alleged racist would not have a defense under the Indiana RFRA, even assuming he or she held a sincere religious belief that was substantially burdened by the public accommodations law.

In short, the most that can be said about this bill is that it might permit discrimination that is otherwise banned by the state or another governmental entity, but only when the government doesn't have a good enough reason for prohibiting such discrimination.

ivysaur12 said:
I thought you weren't going to read the law? But since you have now, I guess, would you vote for this law?

Now that I've more closely read the bill, I'll respond to this question. I would not vote for the bill in its current form, because it includes a significant flaw. Section 9 gives a "governmental entity" the "unconditional right to intervene" in a lawsuit between private parties when the RFRA is raised as a potential claim or defense. However, it does not obligate the governmental entity to do so. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that section 10 provides that a defense is established if a court or other tribunal finds that "the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated" the relevant facts to justify that burden. If the governmental entity declines to intervene, then the court would necessarily find that the governmental entity has not demonstrated those facts, and the defendant would necessarily win on his or her RFRA defense. This flaw should be fixed by requiring the "relevant governmental entity" to intervene and defend the law when the RFRA is raised.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
A few thoughts:

(1) Which religion is that, again?

(2) You misunderstand what this bill does. Here's the relevant text:

A "violation of this chapter" refers to a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion without sufficient justification, as explained below:

Some of the terms used in section 8 are defined in other sections:

To summarize, when a person believes that a governmental entity has imposed a substantial burden on his or her exercise of religion, he or she may assert that imposition as a claim or defense. At that point, the court will consider whether (1) a substantial burden has been imposed on the person's exercise of religion and (2) if so, whether the imposition of that burden is both (a) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (b) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. If the court answers (1) in the affirmative, but either of part of (2) in the negative, then the person will have a defense against any party, and may recover against a party that is a governmental entity.

Here's how this would work in the context of a lawsuit for discrimination on the basis of race in a public accommodation: in the first place, if a claim is brought under federal law, there will be no defense in Indiana. This is so because (1) the Indiana RFRA would only create exemptions from Indiana law, not federal law; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Indiana, has held that the federal RFRA does not apply in suits between private parties.

But let's assume a claim is only brought under Indiana law. Then, the alleged racist would be able to raise the Indiana RFRA as a defense. At this point, the state (or, perhaps, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission) would be entitled to intervene in the lawsuit to "respond to the [alleged racist's] invocation of" the RFRA. The governmental entity would argue that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodations regardless of a person's race--and they'd probably win on this argument. Then, the entity would argue that prohibiting private discrimination based on race by those providing public accommodations is the least restrictive means of ensuring such access--and, again, they'd probably win. (I say "probably," but I can't imagine they'd lose on those arguments.) Consequently, the alleged racist would not have a defense under the Indiana RFRA, even assuming he or she held a sincere religious belief that was substantially burdened by the public accommodations law.

In short, the most that can be said about this bill is that it might permit discrimination that is otherwise banned by the state or another governmental entity, but only when the government doesn't have a good enough reason for prohibiting such discrimination.

Now that I've more closely read the bill, I'll respond to this question. I would not vote for the bill in its current form, because it includes a significant flaw. Section 9 gives a "governmental entity" the "unconditional right to intervene" in a lawsuit between private parties when the RFRA is raised as a potential claim or defense. However, it does not obligate the governmental entity to do so. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that section 10 provides that a defense is established if a court or other tribunal finds that "the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated" the relevant facts to justify that burden. If the governmental entity declines to intervene, then the court would necessarily find that the governmental entity has not demonstrated those facts, and the defendant would necessarily win on his or her RFRA defense. This flaw should be fixed by requiring the "relevant governmental entity" to intervene and defend the law when the RFRA is raised.

Great. Nice to have you on the record again for something odious!

metalslimer · Mar 25, 2015

I'm sorry Metaphoreous, all I keep reading from you is how these bills aren't necessarily that bad, but I've yet to see the real benefit to them.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

metalslimer said:
I'm sorry Metaphoreous, all I keep reading from you is how these bills aren't necessarily that bad, but I've yet to see the real benefit to them.

The benefit is that people are not forced to choose between obeying the dictates of their consciences and obeying the dictates of the government unless the government has a really good reason for requiring them to violate their beliefs. That's really all there is to it.

ivysaur12 said:
Great. Nice to have you on the record again for something odious!

What pettiness.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
What pettiness.

Not particularly. I view these bills enacted after gay marriage bans are struck down as doing nothing more than to give more legal cover to businesses that refuse to do service for gay couples that they would do to other couples. It's odious and not even particularly transparent.

I've read your posts on the subject, so please, you don't need to quote yourself into oblivion. It's not pettiness. It's anger.

metalslimer · Mar 25, 2015

The benefit is that people are not forced to choose between obeying the dictates of their consciences and obeying the dictates of the government unless the government has a really good reason for requiring them to violate their beliefs. That's really all there is to it.

In other words a way to allow bigotry as long as possible.

I do like how these people's "consciousness" are so disturbed by such acts as baking a cake.

It's nice how the economic conservatives even realize how full of shit these bills are. The sooner the social conservatism movement dies in a dumpster fire, the better.

Black Mamba · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
The benefit is that people are not forced to choose between obeying the dictates of their consciences and obeying the dictates of the government unless the government has a really good reason for requiring them to violate their beliefs. That's really all there is to it.

This sounds like the 1st amendment.

BladeoftheImmortal · Mar 25, 2015

Loofy said:
On one hand this sounds terrible. On the other an anesthesiologist being forced to help with an abortion sounds terrible too(example in OP).

If he wants to work in a public society, he shouldn't have a say on who he helps or not. If you want a job helping the public, then don't bitch about who you have to help. Otherwise get a different job that doesn't make you do that.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
I've read your posts on the subject, so please, you don't need to quote yourself into oblivion. It's not pettiness. It's anger.

I don't quote my old posts simply for your benefit. There's so much misinformation being spread about bills of this sort that I suspect most people have never been exposed to a factual description of their contents or effects.

metalslimer said:
In other words a way to allow bigotry as long as possible.

Not even a little bit. Neither religion nor these laws are as narrow as you seem to believe. Consider the cases out of Texas that I've referred to before. Or those cited in Eugene Volokh's excellent treatment of the federal RFRA. Religious beliefs are fundamental to the identities of many people, and they should not be forced by the government to violate those beliefs over some trifle. RFRAs help ensure that when government compels a person to violate his or her religious beliefs, it has a good reason for doing so.

Black Mamba said:
This sounds like the 1st amendment.

This is how the federal courts used to interpret the First Amendment. But then, along came Justice Scalia in 1990, overturning half a century of liberal precedent to announce a new standard for interpreting the Free Exercise Clause that made it merely vestigial in this age of the Equal Protection Clause. So, with the First Amendment no longer interpreted as providing such protections, a Congress controlled by Democrats almost unanimously passed the federal RFRA, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Black Mamba · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
This is how the federal courts used to interpret the First Amendment. But then, along came Justice Scalia in 1990, overturning half a century of liberal precedent to announce a new standard for interpreting the Free Exercise Clause that made it merely vestigial in this age of the Equal Protection Clause. So, with the First Amendment no longer interpreted as providing such protections, a Congress controlled by Democrats almost unanimously passed the federal RFRA, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Good 'Ol textualist Scalia. Willing to throw out his own beliefs to make sure his hard stance against drug use never wavers. Too bad Rehnquist took 13 more years to change his mind on drugs. At least then it would have been a plurality opinion.

kess · Mar 25, 2015

How neat and painless a last concerted effort against gay rights sounds like when it is framed as a first amendment issue. Small wonder the only states pushing this kind of stuff resort to chickenshit covers to obscure the spirit of their laws.

Haloid1177 · Mar 25, 2015

Cool let places stop serving Christians then.

Massive Duck. C.M. · Mar 25, 2015

Defend discrimination that wouldn't even benefit you for reasons

chris121580 · Mar 25, 2015

peppermints said:
So Gencon has threatened to move to a different city if Pence signs this (which he will of course). And I would hope with the Final Four here in two weeks that the NCAA would speak up about possibly not hosting future FFs here. I would also imagine any superbowl bid in the future would be in jeopardy by this as well.

I'm so embarrassed for my state right now. Pence is a disaster.

This is exactly how I feel. Can't get him out of office soon enough. Can't believe he's "looking forward to signing it." What a piece of shit

DS-61-5 · Mar 25, 2015

Black Mamba said:
Good 'Ol textualist Scalia. Willing to throw out his own beliefs to make sure his hard stance against drug use never wavers. Too bad Rehnquist took 13 more years to change his mind on drugs. At least then it would have been a plurality opinion.

Metaphoreus said:
This is how the federal courts used to interpret the First Amendment. But then, along came Justice Scalia in 1990, overturning half a century of liberal precedent to announce a new standard for interpreting the Free Exercise Clause that made it merely vestigial in this age of the Equal Protection Clause. So, with the First Amendment no longer interpreted as providing such protections, a Congress controlled by Democrats almost unanimously passed the federal RFRA, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

To be fair, Scalia was going back to the earlier standard (as in Reynolds) used until those 1960s cases--it's not like he invented it out of thin air, and I think he was right on originalist/textualist grounds. I have some reservations about RFRAs but on balance probably support them as a policy matter, though obviously agree with you that it is disappointing to see the left so uniformly turn against their once aggressive defense of religion. Decrying the Court's conservatives for the Hobby Lobby case always makes me chuckle, though, since it was decided based on a law that was passed as an extended criticism of the hateful, anti-religion Antonin Scalia. It's one of the reasons this is one of my favourite days in my constitutional law and civil liberties class.

EDIT: I should say, I do agree Scalia has let his anti-drug politics get the best of him, but it's in Gonzales v Raich (upholding federal interdiction of locally grown marijuana), which is flatly inconsistent with his rulings before and after. I asked him about this once, and he was clearly uncomfortable with the question before dodging it--realizes, I think, that he botched this one.

BamfMeat · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
A "violation of this chapter" refers to a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion without sufficient justification, as explained below:

So if someone were to say "I can't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. It's against my religious principles", per your reading, where would you see that fall in line?

You're saying it won't allow discrimination, ok. So if that's the case, then would these people be reprimanded based on their refusal to serve "the public"? Or would they side with the religious person(s) that, hey, this is against their religious principles, so they can refuse service to them.

You sound like the legal expert - you tell me where this falls.

UncleSporky · Mar 25, 2015

Isn't it already legal for businesses to refuse service to anyone, or ask anyone to leave? "No shirt, no shoes, no service," that sort of thing. Or telling an unruly customer to leave before you call the cops. Or politely asking a smelly, loud, disruptive guest at a high class restaurant to take their business elsewhere.

To my knowledge, businesses can already discriminate as long as they don't specify the reason for the discrimination. Like the unfortunate situation of job applicants with black-sounding names being denied an interview. "You're not what we're looking for at this time, sorry." If they really wanted to, a bigoted cake shop could refuse to bake a gay cake by saying they're too swamped with other orders until after the date of the event.

I guess all this really does is makes businesses breathe more easily about letting their true colors show, and therefore outing themselves as bigots or whatever?

What business in their right mind would utilize the protections offered by this? Yeah, it may now be legal, but you've just committed business suicide and have picketers and boycotts to deal with.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
I don't quote my old posts simply for your benefit. There's so much misinformation being spread about bills of this sort that I suspect most people have never been exposed to a factual description of their contents or effects.

Cool. I also think your interpretation of these bills potential effects is overly conservative and ignores the political reality of where these bills are being enacted. But if you want to keep linking to Eugene Volokh's single interpretation of these bill's applicability over again, so be it.

DS-61-5 said:
I have some reservations about RFRAs but on balance probably support them as a policy matter, though obviously agree with you that it is disappointing to see the left so uniformly turn against their once aggressive defense of religion.

You don't think we already have an aggressive cultural and legal reverence for religious exercise in America, especially compared to most Western nations?

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

BamfMeat said:
So if someone were to say "I can't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. It's against my religious principles", per your reading, where would you see that fall in line?

You're saying it won't allow discrimination, ok. So if that's the case, then would these people be reprimanded based on their refusal to serve "the public"? Or would they side with the religious person(s) that, hey, this is against their religious principles, so they can refuse service to them.

You sound like the legal expert - you tell me where this falls.

I'm not saying it won't allow discrimination. I'm saying it may, but only if the government doesn't have a good enough reason for prohibiting it in a particular case.

As for whether discrimination against gays in public accommodation could be permissible under this bill (assuming it is made illegal in the first place), I'm not sure. But, to the extent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can be analogized to racial discrimination (and there are at least a few bases on which it can be), the government will have a good case that it has a compelling interest in prohibiting it.

ivysaur12 said:
Cool. I also think your interpretation of these bills potential effects is overly conservative and ignores the political reality of where these bills are being enacted. But if you want to keep linking to Eugene Volokh's single interpretation of these bill's applicability over again, so be it.

This is the first time I remember seeing you acknowledge that your sky-is-falling perspective on these bills relates to merely potential effects. That's progress.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
This is the first time I remember seeing you acknowledge that your sky-is-falling perspective on these bills relates to merely potential effects. That's progress.

If a bill hasn't been enacted yet, what effects could there be besides potential ones?

Opiate · Mar 25, 2015

EdibleKnife said:
I'm actually wondering how deep this will go. Can atheists refuse to serve Christians? Or will the people touting religious freedom make a stink once it's them being discriminated against?

I think they're smart enough to know not to make a legal stink about it. They have an advantage; they can boycott stores that discriminate against them and have a noticeable impact.

Especially in non-urban centers, getting boycotted by gay people is a fairly marginal loss to business that could even be compensated for if others spend more there as a signal of approval.

But getting boycotted by straight white Christian people ain't no joke.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
If a bill hasn't been enacted yet, what effects could there be besides potential ones?

I spoke too soon.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
I spoke too soon.

Looking forward to the thread where an Indiana state judge says that this law protects a wedding vendor/cake salesperson/florist/etc from refusing to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, then. See you there.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
Looking forward to the thread where an Indiana state judge says that this law protects a wedding vendor/cake salesperson/florist/etc from refusing to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, then. See you there.

Looking forward to the thread where a Native American public school student is permitted to wear his hair as his religion requires rather than following school policy because of this law. Or the one where this law permits a halfway house for recently released inmates to keep operating despite a local ordinance that prohibits it. Or the one where a member of a minority religion is able to collect unemployment benefits because of this law, despite being fired for cause when that cause was a refusal to do work he considered sinful.

Just kidding. Nobody will make a thread about such implementations.

Fenderputty · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
Looking forward to the thread where a Native American public school student is permitted to wear his hair as his religion requires rather than following school policy because of this law. Or the one where this law permits a halfway house for recently released inmates to keep operating despite a local ordinance that prohibits it. Or the one where a member of a minority religion is able to collect unemployment benefits because of this law, despite being fired for cause when that cause was a refusal to do work he considered sinful.

Just kidding. Nobody will make a thread about such implementations.

That naitive American one sounds like a 10 pager.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
Looking forward to the thread where a Native American public school student is permitted to wear his hair as his religion requires rather than following school policy because of this law. Or the one where this law permits a halfway house for recently released inmates to keep operating despite a local ordinance that prohibits it. Or the one where a member of a minority religion is able to collect unemployment benefits because of this law, despite being fired for cause when that cause was a refusal to do work he considered sinful.

Just kidding. Nobody will make a thread about such implementations.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=3

Wouldn't it have been nice if there was some sort of public accommodations law for LGBT people coupled with this bill?

BamfMeat · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
I'm not saying it won't allow discrimination. I'm saying it may, but only if the government doesn't have a good enough reason for prohibiting it in a particular case.

As for whether discrimination against gays in public accommodation could be permissible under this bill (assuming it is made illegal in the first place), I'm not sure. But, to the extent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can be analogized to racial discrimination (and there are at least a few bases on which it can be), the government will have a good case that it has a compelling interest in prohibiting it.

So until then, we should wait and see? I don't think that's really the best approach. It's going to be tested, I can guar-an-fucking-tee it. Esp when it comes to gay people. You're saying right here, that it has the potential for use of discrimination.

If it "may" allow discrimination, then the bill has no basis, period. It should be rejected.

And we're back to square one here.

Metaphoreus · Mar 25, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
Wouldn't it have been nice if there was some sort of public accommodations law for LGBT people coupled with this bill?

It certainly would have been for the sake of your argument. If it's not illegal in the first place, then RFRA has no role to play.

BamfMeat said:
If it "may" allow discrimination, then the bill has no basis, period. It should be rejected.

And we're back to square one here.

Just because a law "may" allow discrimination is no reason to gut it, if it otherwise serves an important function. This bill does serve an important function. If you want to be absolutely certain that it can't be used to get around public accommodations laws, then support a law that exempts such laws from this bill. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Kenai · Mar 25, 2015

ivysaur12 said:
Looking forward to the thread where an Indiana state judge says that this law protects a wedding vendor/cake salesperson/florist/etc from refusing to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, then. See you there.

Yea, and I bet those same people won't think twice about serving at a wedding for someone who is getting remarried. Jesus condemns remarriage after divorce. Or people serving at expensive weddings, cause every single one of those celebs is greedy for having that much money to blow on something so wasteful, because greed is a sin and they don't need but a fraction of it. Or turning away obese people from that wedding cake line, because of their "clearly gluttonous lifestyles".

People don't actually ever do this obviously, because they are f*cking hypocritical, hateful bastards who don't deserve to have laws enacted to protect their shitty discriminatory behaviour. And Metaphoreus, I feel you are more than intelligent enough to put two and two together to figure that out. We still get KKK rallies in downtown Indy every year, ffs. We don't need a bill like this. We've as a community worked really hard to promote diversity in all its forms in Indy and stuff like this is ruining a lot of what we worked for

Oh well, if stuff like Gencon and NCAA and the Superbowl and God knows what else start skipping town cause of this (and they will), then this will get fixed. They might not care as much about minorities as they should, but they'll perk their ears up at the massive revenue loss from the empty convention center, state fairgrounds, null contracts and business moving elsewhere.

We will have to deal with a lot of sh*t here in the meantime, though, and probably for several years after.

Bagels · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
Looking forward to the thread where a Native American public school student is permitted to wear his hair as his religion requires rather than following school policy because of this law. Or the one where this law permits a halfway house for recently released inmates to keep operating despite a local ordinance that prohibits it. Or the one where a member of a minority religion is able to collect unemployment benefits because of this law, despite being fired for cause when that cause was a refusal to do work he considered sinful.

Just kidding. Nobody will make a thread about such implementations.

You have way more faith in the good intentions of the Indiana Republican party than basically anyone on earth has or ever should have.

ivysaur12 · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
It certainly would have been for the sake of your argument. If it's not illegal in the first place, then RFRA has no role to play.

Just because a law "may" allow discrimination is no reason to gut it, if it otherwise serves an important function. This bill does serve an important function. If you want to be absolutely certain that it can't be used to get around public accommodations laws, then support a law that exempts such laws from this bill. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For the sake of argument, would you not extend public accommodation laws to LGBT people?

And of course you do -- there are no exemptions for LGBT persons within this bill that that could open those people up to discrimination. There's no reason to support the religious community while simultaneously burdening another.

drspeedy · Mar 25, 2015

Metaphoreus said:
Looking forward to the thread where a Native American public school student is permitted to wear his hair as his religion requires rather than following school policy because of this law. Or the one where this law permits a halfway house for recently released inmates to keep operating despite a local ordinance that prohibits it. Or the one where a member of a minority religion is able to collect unemployment benefits because of this law, despite being fired for cause when that cause was a refusal to do work he considered sinful.

Just kidding. Nobody will make a thread about such implementations.

Because those scenarios won't happen... This is IN. Please don't post improbable "facts" ala Fox News as a strawman. Native American hair styles being controversial in Indiana schools is statistically improbable at best. What about a kid who just wanted to smoke his peace pipe at school? Is that the next excuse, geez...

Unless it's about the Amish, who are quite present in sections of the state and deserve some religious respect, little of what you posted has a snowball's chance of being prescient.

Fenderputty · Mar 25, 2015

drspeedy said:
Because those scenarios won't happen... This is IN. Please don't post improbable "facts" ala Fox News as a strawman. Native American hair styles being controversial in Indiana schools is statistically improbable at best. What about a kid who just wanted to smoke his peace pipe at school? Is that the next excuse, geez...

Unless it's about the Amish, who are quite present in sections of the state and deserve some religious respect, little of what you posted has a snowball's chance of being prescient.

Unlikely or not, those are good reasons to have some sort of laws I place. I just think these laws should be less vague and not allow individual bias of a judge to cloud a result. Such as a clairifcation ivysaur12 mentioned.

Kenai · Mar 25, 2015

Fenderputty said:
Unlikely or not, those are good reasons to have some sort of laws I place. I just think these laws should be less vague and not allow individual bias of a judge to cloud a result. Such as a clairifcation ivysaur12 mentioned.

They aren't going to clarify much of anything (if they clarify it at all), because that would ruin the intended point of this law by those passing it (to protect discriminatory practices "disguised" as religious rights).

Bagels · Mar 25, 2015

Kenai said:
Yea, and I bet those same people won't think twice about serving at a wedding for someone who is getting remarried. Jesus condemns remarriage after divorce. Or people serving at expensive weddings, cause every single one of those celebs is greedy for having that much money to blow on something so wasteful, because greed is a sin and they don't need but a fraction of it. Or turning away obese people from that wedding cake line, because of their "clearly gluttonous lifestyles".

Oh wait, people don't actually ever do this, because they are f*cking hypocritical, hateful bastards who don't deserve to have laws enacted to protect their shitty discriminatory behaviour. And Metaphoreus, I feel you are more than intelligent enough to put two and two together to figure that out. We still get KKK rallies in downtown Indy every year, ffs. We don't need a bill like this. We've as a community worked really hard to promote diversity in all its forms in Indy and stuff like this is ruining a lot of what we worked for

I don't doubt that you are arguing in good faith, Metaphoreus. But taking the bill at face value and arguing the theoretical legal framework ignores the reality of the situation here in Indiana. It's been less than 100 years since the Indiana Republican Party was literally an arm of the KKK, and they controlled the legislature and the governor's office. Which is not to say that this describes the current political situation here. But I grew up here and have lived most of my life in Indiana. Even living in more progressive communities in Bloomington and Indianapolis, this is one backwards-ass state. Indiana has a well-deserved reputation for being behind the curve on issues of race, gender, sexuality, religion.

I think the intent of this law matters. And it's blindingly obvious to people who live here that this is not meant to protect Native American kids or minority religious groups.

Armaros · Mar 25, 2015

Bagels said:
I don't doubt that you are arguing in good faith, Metaphoreus. But taking the bill at face value and arguing the theoretical legal framework ignores the reality of the situation here in Indiana. It's been less than 100 years since the Indiana Republican Party was literally an arm of the KKK, and they controlled the legislature and the governor's office. Which is not to say that this describes the current political situation here. But I grew up here and have lived most of my life in Indiana. Even living in more progressive communities in Bloomington and Indianapolis, this is one backwards-ass state. Indiana has a well-deserved reputation for being behind the curve on issues of race, gender, sexuality, religion.

I think the intent of this law matters. And it's blindingly obvious to people who live here that this is not meant to protect Native American kids or minority religious groups.

Also the timing of all of these laws hitting across state legislatures, just as federal courts are lining up in favor of gay marriage.

kewlmyc · Mar 25, 2015

Oh for fuck sake Indiana. Maybe I should have moved when I had the chance.

Mazdaspeed · Mar 25, 2015

Kenai said:
We still get KKK rallies in downtown Indy every year, ffs.

Is that true? I couldn't find anything online confirming it and I've never seen it on the news. The only thing I could find was an article in the Indianapolis Star saying

"The last major activity by the Klan in East Central Indiana was a rally in New Castle in the summer of 1996. Hundreds of police wearing riot gear used pepper gas to subdue more than 600 Klan members and supporters. An imperial wizard was arrested on charges including rioting, unlawful assembly and obstruction of traffic."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/10/ku-klux-klan-winchester-indiana-recruiting/17028771/

I know Indy is central and not east central but I would think I would be able to find some story on it.

Support NeoGAF

Indiana House OKs controversial religious freedom bill

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Member

Banned

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Banned

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Banned

Member

Member

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

This is semantics, and nothing more

Banned

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Banned

This is semantics, and nothing more

Banned

Banned

Member

This is semantics, and nothing more

Member

You got Moxie, kid!

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

You got Moxie, kid!

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads