Indiana, the new lone state.

Diana Hignutt · Mar 31, 2015

milkweed said:
My question is if the business doesn't support your lifestyle choices why would you want to darken their doorstep? I once drove three hours to buy a brand new sewing machine because the local sewing machine stores manager is a complete and total asshat, hubs told me there was no way I was going to buy a machine from them. I'm glad I didn't, he managed to run the business into the ground he was so rude, and lewd, towards women and I mean ALLwomen!

Not everyone can afford to drive across or out of state to frequent businesses. Also, until you go and find out they don't serve "your kind" you don't know. What if no one wants do serve "your kind"? Move?

Gilroy Cullen · Mar 31, 2015

ULTRAGOTHA said:
whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Click to expand...

Here, this article explains it better than I can:

Maybe that anti-LGBT lawyer from California should move to Indiana. Then he could enact his plan with a law already in place to defend himself. "They substantiantly burdened my exercise of religion, so I shot em." :sarcasm

backslashbaby · Mar 31, 2015

Ketzel said:
Be careful what you wish for.

What you have quoted is a statutory re-statement of a federal constitutional standard for assessing whether a law violates the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion clause, that the US Supreme Court first promulgated in the landmark decision Sherbert v. Verner in 1963. The Sherbert standard was significantly narrowed by the Court in the 1990 decision, Employment Div. v. Smith, much to the dismay of the religious community.

Sherbert involved a Seventh Day Adventist denied unemployment compensation by her state when she lost her job for refusing to work on Saturdays (a change from her original conditions of employment;the business had previously been closed on weekends.) The court found that: "to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties [,]" and held that a state can impose such a burden on a person's free exercise of religion only if the burden furthered a "compelling interest" of the state and was designed to have as minimum an impact as possible on the person's free exercise of religion.

In Divison of Employment v. Smith, decided in 1990, the Court effectively abandoned this test for determining if a state law violated the free exercise clause. In this case, two Native Americans were fired for using peyote in a religious ritual, and the state denied them unemployment insurance on the grounds that they had been fired for misconduct. (Oregon law prohibited possession or use of peyote with no exception for religious purposes.)

Smith was a complicated case with multiple appeals and different free exercise arguments made at different times. The ruling that led to the Federal statute, however, came from the Court’s deciding that the state law prohibiting possession or use of peyote without an exemption for sacramental use did not violate the free exercise clause. The decision largely rejected the Sherbert standard. The Court drew a distinction between a law that had as its purpose prohibiting a form of religious exercise, and a law that did not have that purpose, although it might have that effect.

Said the Smith court, "It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Congress promptly passed a law reinstating the "compelling state interest” test. This law doesn't apply to the states and a number of states followed by promulgating their own versions.

So why the controversy over Indiana's law? Well, you only quoted a very small part of the text. It varies considerably from the federal act, and from the similar state acts in a number of ways. It has a very broad standard for the exercise of religious beliefs, and it grants protection to juridical "persons," i.e. corporations, partnerships and other business entities. There is also some procedural language that is extremely controversial, but I will spare you the treatise-length explanation as to why.

But personally, I think the biggest reason for the controversy is that Indiana passed the law on the heels of having its attempt to ban gay marriage rejected, the law was written and pushed by the anti-marriage equality politicians, and Indiana tried to hide behind a claim of protecting religion in general, when the real motive was blatantly obvious. As one Indiana lawyer commented, " The exasperation could probably summed up as: 'Look, if you hate the LGBT community, so be it . . . but don’t act like this law has nothing to do with it."

That link also has a whole analysis of the law and the text of both the federal and the Indiana bill, if you can bear to read more.

Bravo!

I was going to say that before I read other people's follow-ups, so I'm not just being contrary to them

I actually don't think the standard was applied often enough, but I'd do it based on how small an entity we're talking. A lone uber-religious photographer who owns her own artsy business? Meh, that kind of discrimination shouldn't be a huge, huge deal, imho, and the market can take her out. It's when the big boys do it that it becomes a compelling interest for the government to step in. IMHO only, of course.

And it goes without saying that Indiana is trying to send a signal and 'correct' recent LGBT legislature they were forced to follow, so screw them.

It was the Hobby Lobby decision that was the worst thing to happen on this whole subject, though, imho. It opened the door for ideas like Indiana's.

AncientEagle · Mar 31, 2015

Were it up to me, I wouldn't cut any slack even to the "lone uber-religious photographer." To me, religious freedom means I'm free to pursue whatever practice I choose, in the name of my faith. Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't believe in eating meat? Don't eat meat. My choice. But I can't impose my beliefs on others, and if I choose to do business with the public, then I must serve all the public. If doing business with some elements of the public offends me, go out of business and do something else. The government cannot interfere with my practice of my faith, but it can certainly regulate my practice of public business.

I know this is wishful thinking on my part, and such a simple and direct application of the law, even in a country where the government is supposed to respect no establishment of religion, is not going to happen. But I can dream.

backslashbaby · Mar 31, 2015

AncientEagle said:
Were it up to me, I wouldn't cut any slack even to the "lone uber-religious photographer." To me, religious freedom means I'm free to pursue whatever practice I choose, in the name of my faith. Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't believe in eating meat? Don't eat meat. My choice. But I can't impose my beliefs on others, and if I choose to do business with the public, then I must serve all the public. If doing business with some elements of the public offends me, go out of business and do something else. The government cannot interfere with my practice of my faith, but it can certainly regulate my practice of public business.

I know this is wishful thinking on my part, and such a simple and direct application of the law, even in a country where the government is supposed to respect no establishment of religion, is not going to happen. But I can dream.

I can see it that way, and it would make sense, imho. But what gets weird is that businesses can refuse to do business with so many folks who aren't in a protected class. So you can definitely turn away folks at your leisure. OK, that's because protected classes need protecting - makes sense. But then you get two protected classes bumping up against each other in a small situation (so not a large company, I mean). How do you create that hierarchy?

I think if it's a really personal service rather than just some good that leaves your store, it could be different. A black photographer would easily get to turn down spending his day photographing a KKK rally, and we see why. Could an uber-religious photographer turn down working at a Mardi Gras parade? Yes. But make it a gay parade and she's now broken the law. I don't know. I'd cut a bit of slack for the few and far between lone folks, and I don't think that should matter en masse (by influencing larger cases, etc).

Liosse de Velishaf · Mar 31, 2015

backslashbaby said:
I can see it that way, and it would make sense, imho. But what gets weird is that businesses can refuse to do business with so many folks who aren't in a protected class. So you can definitely turn away folks at your leisure. OK, that's because protected classes need protecting - makes sense. But then you get two protected classes bumping up against each other in a small situation (so not a large company, I mean). How do you create that hierarchy?

I think if it's a really personal service rather than just some good that leaves your store, it could be different. A black photographer would easily get to turn down spending his day photographing a KKK rally, and we see why. Could an uber-religious photographer turn down working at a Mardi Gras parade? Yes. But make it a gay parade and she's now broken the law. I don't know. I'd cut a bit of slack for the few and far between lone folks, and I don't think that should matter en masse (by influencing larger cases, etc).

I think a photographer or a web-designer, say, is slightly different than a department store, or restaurant, or baker, for example. Like, you already can't require them to do a job, can you?

Also, did someone link to this already:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1963159/au...r-to-admit-i-already-turn-away-gay-customers/

Relevant? Accurate?

Gilroy Cullen · Mar 31, 2015

backslashbaby said:
I think if it's a really personal service rather than just some good that leaves your store, it could be different. A black photographer would easily get to turn down spending his day photographing a KKK rally, and we see why. Could an uber-religious photographer turn down working at a Mardi Gras parade? Yes. But make it a gay parade and she's now broken the law. I don't know. I'd cut a bit of slack for the few and far between lone folks, and I don't think that should matter en masse (by influencing larger cases, etc).

Well, based on the lone photographer example, you'd have a problem with the example anyway. Someone who's an artsy lone photog is going to be picky about what contract they sign to begin with, so if a black photog is approached to cover a KKK rally, they have that detail up front and can say no, regardless of protected class. It's their choice. Same with the religious and the pride parade.

I see this causing more havoc within the brick and mortar establishments - restaurants, stores, et al. They don't have a way to filter as the lone self employed workers do. So now, they have other employees to content with as well. If the store welcomes all, how do they handle the one employee who won't serve any of the protected classes? (Because I can see someone using this law to discriminate against all the government protections. Just cynical I guess.)

Can't repremand them or fire them, they'd claim religious persecution. And you'd have a lawsuit.

Can't allow them to cherry pick their customers. Bad customer service, bad publicity, bad internal politics.

Suddenly, the employer is stuck in a very tough spot.

Too many details weren't considered when this law was written.

juniper · Mar 31, 2015

backslashbaby said:
I think if it's a really personal service rather than just some good that leaves your store, it could be different. A black photographer would easily get to turn down spending his day photographing a KKK rally, and we see why. Could an uber-religious photographer turn down working at a Mardi Gras parade? Yes. But make it a gay parade and she's now broken the law. I don't know. I'd cut a bit of slack for the few and far between lone folks, and I don't think that should matter en masse (by influencing larger cases, etc).

There's a case here in Oregon regarding a bakery that used to have a shop, a store in a retail shopping center. They turned away a "gay wedding" cake and the women sued. It's been decided against the bakery, and now just the damages are pending.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_case_wh.html

The bakery closed its retail shop and now the owner works out of her own home. And now she can pick and choose. At least that's the way it's been discussed here in the media.

So a photographer who doesn't have an open studio - where people would walk in and ask to be photographed - could turn down the Mardi Gras parade or the Gay Pride parade. But if a gay couple walked into a photography studio, where they offer photo shoots onsite, the photographer could not refuse.

Or that's the way I'm understanding the law here.

benbradley · Mar 31, 2015

benbradley said:
Georgia just passed such a "RFRA" law ...

Georgia just passed such a "RFRA" law (this smells like a coordinated effort in many states, anyone know who/what might be behind it?), but with all the hoopla over the Indiana law, the Georgia legislature is looking at coming up with some "clarification" bill.

I was mistaken in my last post - the one in Georgia is still a bill floating around in the current session of the legislature, and offhand I don't know the chances of it passing or coming up for a vote, but it's probably something Governor Deal would sign into law.

milkweed · Mar 31, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
Not everyone can afford to drive across or out of state to frequent businesses. Also, until you go and find out they don't serve "your kind" you don't know. What if no one wants do serve "your kind"? Move?

Well actually I'm one of those folks who cannot afford to drive across or out of state but there comes a point when a store manager is so abusive towards their female customers, and female employees that one finds a way!

As for my kind not being served:

there are plenty of muslim businesses here locally (my county) that won't serve women of any stripe, of course you will never hear about this in the news.

Locally there are also some Dutch orthodox, Mennonite, and Amish businesses that won't serve women if they wearing shorts or a short skirt.

To be honest I wouldn't be trusting of someone who was forced into providing me with service, especially if it was food or drink related but then that comes from personal experience and how some people feel about native americans in certain parts of the US and Canada.

TerzaRima · Mar 31, 2015

The important thing is that people position themselves properly to be seen as good people by their peers.

I think there's a lot of truth in this, although I wouldn't state it quite so cynically.

I would, but you all know me, Blackhearted Barbie. You know when that bastion of inclusiveness NASCAR starts making public noises about diversity and tolerance that people are getting nervous about things like the end of year bonus.

Shadow Dragon · Mar 31, 2015

In other Indiana news, they sentenced a woman for neglect and feticide, two conflicting charges. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...ged-two-asian-american-women-feticide-n332761

Patel is the first woman in the U.S. to be charged, convicted and sentenced on a feticide charge. Reproductive rights activists are outraged.

So, there's more than one reason for others to boycott them.

benbradley · Mar 31, 2015

When God tweets it, you know it's true.

"NASCAR Decries Indiana Anti-Gay Law". And when NASCAR calls you homophobic, you are homo-friggin'-phobic.

https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/582963107405905921

BenPanced · Mar 31, 2015

The first bookstore back home to sell D&D and the like is celebrating its fortieth anniversary with a small relaxicon in October.

At the rate things are going, I probably won't be visiting.

blacbird · Mar 31, 2015

A lot of news available on the Indiana debacle tonight. Gov. Mike Pence clearly has found his . . . in a wringer on this one.

Oh, but all the major Republican Presidential candidates have announced support for the Indiana legislation. Despite a major Republican advisor noting that 60% of under-30s who say they are Republicans are in favor of legalization of same-sex marriage.

Stay tuned. This could become a major issue going forward int he Pres race.

caw

benbradley · Mar 31, 2015

blacbird said:
...
Oh, but all the major Republican Presidential candidates have announced support for the Indiana legislation. Despite a major Republican advisor noting that 60% of under-30s who say they are Republicans are in favor of legalization of same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, those under-30s are too young to be President.

blacbird · Mar 31, 2015

benbradley said:
Unfortunately, those under-30s are too young to be President.

But they're not too young to vote.

caw

tjwriter · Apr 1, 2015

So what happens when one is falsely accused of being gay, female, etc. and turned away from a business for having the appearance of something he/she is not?

Indiana = the land of idiocracy

RedRajah · Apr 1, 2015

Here's a business willing to publicly admit they're homophobic bigots...

This Pizza Parlor Is Indiana's First Business to Deny Service to LGBT Customers

Gilroy Cullen · Apr 1, 2015

From the linked article:

Co-owner Crystal O'Connor told a local news station that if a gay couple wanted to order pizzas for their wedding, "we would have to say no."

Sadly, if we go back 60 years, change the word "GAY" to "BLACK," are we not RIGHT back where we were 60 years ago?

Discriminating and hating because of something that someone looks like/acts like/sounds like/purports to be -- though now we've tried to say it's because our "religious beliefs" prevent us from doing so.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how one couches the phrase.

juniper · Apr 1, 2015

But you don't understand - it's not who they are, it's just something they choose ... :sarcasm

Do I even need to add this?

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” says Kevin O'Connor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374824/-Indiana-pizza-shop-won-t-serve-gays-owner-says-we-re-not-discriminating-against-anyone?detail=facebook_sf

Alessandra Kelley · Apr 1, 2015

Indiana Governor Mike Pence swears up and down that the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" has nothing to do with discriminating against gay people and that he was never expecting a negative reaction.

The normally staid, reserved BBC News stopped JUST short of calling Governor Pence a "Liar liar pants on fire."

Actually, what they said is

All of which leaves broadly only two conclusions. Mike Pence is a knave or naive. And that is not a good place for a politician to be.

Alessandra Kelley · Apr 1, 2015

The BBC also points out the rogue's gallery of anti-homosexual crusaders who stood proudly next to Governor Pence as he signed the law.

And in today's "New York Times" (behind a paywall, so no link, sorry), Micah Clark, executive director of the conservative anti-gay group the American Family Association of Indiana rails against any softening of the law as "a capitulation that enshrines homosexual behavior as a special right," Tony Perkins, president of the conservative anti-gay group the Family Research Council, says "The government shouldn't force religious businesses ... to participate in wedding ceremonies contrary to their owners' beliefs," and Jerry Cox, president of the Arkansas-based conservative lobbying group the Family Council says "The whole gay issue really was not a big discussion four years ago."

So yeah, Governor Pence, how is this not enshrining anti-gay discrimination in Indiana state law exactly?

Oh, and the NYT also points out that this same Indiana legislature has also passed a law forbidding all Indiana towns and municipalities from passing any anti-discrimination ordinances.

That'll show those towns who might wish to be non-discriminatory, I guess.

No civil rights here, thank you, we're Indiana.

blacbird · Apr 1, 2015

The governor of Arknsasa has done a similar "face-saving" about-face on that state's bill, which is noted in the Arkansas thread.

Both these governors are using the rhetoric of trying to bring the proposed state legislation into verbal conformance with the existing Fed law, which has been in effect for 22 years. Which immediately provokes the question: If you have a Fed law in effect, why do you need a state law that mirrors it? The answer is simple, of course. This isn't about the law. It's about pandering to the far right social conservative bloc for political support. It's political theater, at its basest.

And now has come to the forefront an inter-Republican Party schism that's been simmering away for some time now: The social conservatives v. the Chamber of Commerce business interests. The latter, including such stalwarts of Liberalism as WalMart in Arkansas, has "come out", with vigor, to criticize and vaguely even threaten, the states involved in this effort.

Given that all the likely contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination lockstepped behind Gov. Pence in Indiana when the original bill passed, this could get a little messier

caw

rugcat · Apr 1, 2015

Alessandra Kelley said:
The BBC also points out the rogue's gallery of anti-homosexual crusaders who stood proudly next to Governor Pence as he signed the law.

And in today's "New York Times" (behind a paywall, so no link, sorry), Micah Clark, executive director of the conservative anti-gay group the American Family Association of Indiana rails against any softening of the law as "a capitulation that enshrines homosexual behavior as a special right," Tony Perkins, president of the conservative anti-gay group the Family Research Council, says "The government shouldn't force religious businesses ... to participate in wedding ceremonies contrary to their owners' beliefs," and Jerry Cox, president of the Arkansas-based conservative lobbying group the Family Council says "The whole gay issue really was not a big discussion four years ago."

A couple of months ago, in a story that mostly flew under the radar, members of the RNC at the urging of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took a trip to Israel sponsored (and I believe paid for) by The American Family Council.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...an-national-committee-israel-trip-114852.html

The usual presidential wannabe conservative suspects – Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, etc. are thick as thieves with these people . But make no mistake, the American Family Council''s hateful views have the full support of all the Republican contenders – as seen by the universal support of the Indiana law by every Republican presidential hopeful.

Indiana, the new lone state.

Very Tired

Handsome servant of a redhead

~~~~*~~~~

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

~~~~*~~~~

Handsome servant of a redhead

Always curious.

It's a doggy dog world

Abuses commas at will.

Absinthe O'Malice

It's a doggy dog world

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

It's a doggy dog world

Emerging Anew

Special Snowflake? No. Hailstone

Handsome servant of a redhead

Always curious.

Sophipygian

Sophipygian

Lost in the Fog

*

*