Politics

[kmoose]

What makes it a gay event? Oh, that's right the gay people. You are discriminating against the gay people/person. You only know it is a gay event because of the gay people. This idea that you are discriminating against the event not the person is just a way to try and make it more palatable.

If it is not a fundamental human need, then all businesses should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Did any of you guys see HBO's new Scientology documentary "Going Clear"?

I gotta say, it makes the whole conversation of religious discrimination different for me. States should be moving to pull their tax-exempt status immediately.

How so? The "Church" of Scientology is obviously a predatory organization whose founder openly admitted that it's based on a farce. It can and should be hounded out of existence.

But I'm not sure how that's relevant to the larger debate on religious liberty.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The unemployment rate in California would probably be below that of Texas if you eliminated the Central Valley. AG and the related industries have been hammered there due to the drought.

Does Cali include that in their number? I think the BLS excludes agriculture, so I would think Cali would follow that?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Bill O'Reilly Lied About Rescuing Me During Buenos Aires Riot, Says CBS Cameraman

 

[Buster Bluth]

How so? The "Church" of Scientology is obviously a predatory organization whose founder openly admitted that it's based on a farce. It can and should be hounded out of existence.

But I'm not sure how that's relevant to the larger debate on religious liberty.

Only because it gets to the impossible-to-answer question of "what is a religion"? Especially in this age of millions of Christians coming up with their own version of Christianity in their "individual relationship with Jesus Christ". Being a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc is a religion, is Mary Sue's unique version of Christianity a religion? Shit my own sister (for the record, not named Mary Sue haha) is a Christian who believes in reincarnation too. Wut. So is that a religion? Are her religious beliefs valid in the eyes of federal tax forms if she built a religion on top of those opinions?

 

[pkt77242]

The Federalist's Molly Hemingway just published an article titled "Meet 10 Americans Helped by Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's".

And USA Today's Stephen Prothero just published an article titled "Indiana needs to balance gay, religious rights":

Ok, so I was going to stay out of this thread for a while but....

We would not force a Jewish baker to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass. Why would we force a fundamentalist baker to make a cake for a gay wedding?

Why would a Jewish baker make sacramental bread in the first place? You can't force a company to produce a product that isn't on their menu, so this is one of the worst examples ever. Now if for some reason a Jewish baker had sacramental bread on their menu then yes I would expect them to make it for the Catholic church.

So to state again why liberals and/or gay rights activists/defenders are upset

One this law was clearly intended for discrimination against gays, heck the Governor couldn't even say it wasn't meant for that when questioned. Plus look at some of the wonderful lobbyists that were at the signing and their opinions on gay people.

So lets move beyond that, can a bill like RFRA be beneficial to society, yes. Of course it can, no one is arguing that it can't be beneficial. People are arguing that it wasn't passed because of the beneficial reasons, it was passed because of fear, and because gay marriage recently became legal in Indiana.

The real problem comes because you have a protected class (religious people) who want to be able to refuse service (not baking a cake for a gay wedding is refusing service) to an unprotected class (gays). You have argued that a gay person should be able to decline to service (say a gay baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for a Catholic wedding) as well but it doesn't work that way as you can not discriminate based on religion. So it seems (and is if you look at the Governor's lack of answer) that a protected class is looking for a reason to discriminate against a minority that isn't protected.

The easiest way of fixing it is to make gays a protected class. Having said that, it won't happen, not in Indiana and not at the Federal level.

Also lastly, I have two disagreements with you, one that baking a cake for a gay wedding is somehow forcing that baker to be involved in the wedding. Baking the cake does not make the baker a part of the wedding. It means they baked a cake. A priest is a part of the wedding for sure. You might have a better argument with the photographer as they are actually at the wedding and involved in it but the baker is a losing proposition to me.

Secondly, you talk frequently on here about the lack of community in our society and how it is problematic. I don't understand how someone like the baker discriminating against the gay couple who want to buy a wedding cake from him, helps build the sense of community.

Edit: Sorry if this came off as harsh or short, stayed home today with my sick 5 month old and typing with one hand isn't very easy and leads to short and abbreviated thoughts.

 

[pkt77242]

If it is not a fundamental human need, then all businesses should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

We already fought this battle, that isn't how it works. You might like it to work that way, but it doesn't. So places in the South should be able to refuse service to a black person?

Federal Law already dictates that you can not be discriminated on the basis of
Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Veteran Status
Disability
National Origin
Age
Citizenship

So, that might be your ideal but it isn't in reality. In reality a gay person can not discriminate against a person because they are Catholic or Muslim, etc. but a Catholic or Muslim (or any other religion) can discriminate against a gay person. So it isn't a level playing field.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The Federalist's Molly Hemingway just published an article titled "Meet 10 Americans Helped by Religious Freedom Bills Like Indiana's".

And USA Today's Stephen Prothero just published an article titled "Indiana needs to balance gay, religious rights":

I think Prothero's article is disingenuous as it frames two entirely separate things as being part and parcel of the same fundamental issue. In some of the examples he lists... Amish driving their horse drawn carriages, Indians using hallucinogenics, Muslim prisoners wearing beards there's no problem of conflicting rights. Nobody (except, possibly, the motorist stuck behind the horse drawn buggy) is harmed by allowing those people to follow their religious beliefs. (The Muslim beard case is a good example, because it was a heavily fact-dependent case which allowed the prisoner to wear a groomed beard because the state couldn't come up with a non-absurd example of how he could use it to conceal a weapon. It was not a case of pure religious liberty.)

On the other hand, allowing businesses to refuse to render their services does raise an issue of conflicting rights. I feel, quite strongly, that if you choose to run a business that does wedding photography, for example, and you live in a state that recognizes gay weddings as legal, then you should not be able to use religion as an excuse to refuse to take pictures. I recognize that reasonable people can disagree on this, but you have to at least distinguish the two different scenarios in order to have a meaningful conversation about it. Prothero completely fails to do so in his op-ed.

 

[Bishop2b5]

How is a privately owned business any different than a privately owned home? You can allow or disallow anyone you want into your home for whatever reason. It's your private property. I'm not sure why that same principle doesn't apply to businesses. A government agency or any business that receives a contract to do business with the government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, but a private business owner should be allowed to hire or serve whomever he wants. Whether he can stay afloat choosing his workforce from a restricted pool of potential workers or only doing business with a restricted pool of customers will determine whether his decision is wise or not.

Me personally, if I owned a business I wouldn't care about the race, sexual orientation, gender, political persuasion or favorite football team of my employees or customers. I would only care about how skilled and hard working the employees were and how well my customers paid, but that's just me.

 

[IrishinSyria]

How is a privately owned business any different than a privately owned home? You can allow or disallow anyone you want into your home for whatever reason. It's your private property. I'm not sure why that same principle doesn't apply to businesses. A government agency or any business that receives a contract to do business with the government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, but a private business owner should be allowed to hire or serve whomever he wants.

Private property does not mean private sovereignty. The Federal Civil Rights Act is the law of the land (and, given the context of 1960's America, it seems too obvious to get into why it was necessary) and private businesses are subject to it. The question is whether/should that protection extend to gays and how to balance situations where there seem to be conflicting fundamental rights.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why would a Jewish baker make sacramental bread in the first place? You can't force a company to produce a product that isn't on their menu, so this is one of the worst examples ever.

Really? Sort of like the ACA can't force religious institutions to provide insurance for controversial medical services?

Now if for some reason a Jewish baker had sacramental bread on their menu then yes I would expect them to make it for the Catholic church.

Communion hosts are just unleavened bread, which is (not uncoincidentally) used in the Jewish Passover. So it would not be strange to find sacramental bread in a Jewish bakery. And if an orthodox Jewish baker decided he was uncomfortable selling to a Catholic patron because his wares would later be utilized in a mystical rite to which he doesn't subscribe, he should absolutely be allowed to refuse such business. And one would hope that the Catholic patron, as a fellow "son of Abraham" and a respectful member of the same community, wouldn't choose to act like a litigious as$hole and sue the orthodox Jewish baker over it.

One this law was clearly intended for discrimination against gays, heck the Governor couldn't even say it wasn't meant for that when questioned. Plus look at some of the wonderful lobbyists that were at the signing and their opinions on gay people.

This is the equivalent of an ad hominem argument. If you've got a problem with the law or how it's likely to be employed, site to its text, or to the legal precedent set by the Federal RFRA of 1993 or the 19 other state versions of it which have been on the books for decades already.

The real problem comes because you have a protected class (religious people) who want to be able to refuse service (not baking a cake for a gay wedding is refusing service) to an unprotected class (gays).

It's worth noting that no RFRA law has ever been used for this purpose before. But the Elane Photography v. Willock case out of New Mexico prompted Indiana to add a provision extending the RFRA provisions to businesses, who can then invoke it as a defense if litigious gay rights advocates (like those in New Mexico and Oregon) seek to bankrupt a Christian-owned business in Indiana. It doesn't give religious business owners a "right to discriminate"; but it does mean that Indiana courts have to have a "compelling state interest" which is advanced in the "least restrictive means possible" to rule against them. RFRA invocations are frequently overruled on that basis.

You have argued that a gay person should be able to decline to service (say a gay baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for a Catholic wedding) as well but it doesn't work that way as you can not discriminate based on religion. So it seems (and is if you look at the Governor's lack of answer) that a protected class is looking for a reason to discriminate against a minority that isn't protected.

This gets back to Buster's issue above with deciding what counts as a legitimate religion. Regardless, forcing anyone engaged is commerce to serve all potential customers regardless of religious or ideological objections is odious and incredibly illiberal, so RFRA-type protections should be extended to the gay baker in your example above.

Also lastly, I have two disagreements with you, one that baking a cake for a gay wedding is somehow forcing that baker to be involved in the wedding. Baking the cake does not make the baker a part of the wedding. It means they baked a cake. A priest is a part of the wedding for sure. You might have a better argument with the photographer as they are actually at the wedding and involved in it but the baker is a losing proposition to me.

Certain European companies who make key components for the lethal injection drug recently started refusing to sell to the US because they weren't comfortable being complicit in our death penalty. Should the US be able to compel them to sell to us by bringing a suit against them in the WTO? I don't think so, but your argument is that as soon as one engages in commerce, all religious and ideological baggage must be checked at the door. That's simply not how humans operate.

The cake is a pretty central element in American weddings. It's not unreasonable for orthodox Christians to feel that providing such an important element to a gay couple makes them complicit in something they feel is deeply sinful.

Secondly, you talk frequently on here about the lack of community in our society and how it is problematic. I don't understand how someone like the baker discriminating against the gay couple who want to buy a wedding cake from him, helps build the sense of community.

Community demands respecting your neighbor's sincerely-held religious beliefs, not equating them with the KKK. Do you think gay rights advocates seeking out Christian businesses for litigation is a community-building enterprise? It's more like a witch hunt, and it's only going to further divide this country.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Private property does not mean private sovereignty. The Federal Civil Rights Act is the law of the land (and, given the context of 1960's America, it seems too obvious to get into why it was necessary) and private businesses are subject to it. The question is whether/should that protection extend to gays and how to balance situations where there seem to be conflicting fundamental rights.

I understand it's the law and why it was probably necessary given how things were decades ago. I'm just not sure it's morally justifiable now to tell a private business owner he has to hire or serve anyone he doesn't want to on his private property. I fully believe not doing so is a bad decision both personally and from a business standpoint, but I still think it should be his right to do so.

As for the current debate, as you point out above, it's about balance where there are conflicting fundamental rights. Few if any rights are absolute and unlimited. The exercise of any right only extends so far as it begins to unduly impede others' ability to exercise their rights. I don't want to see anyone discriminated against because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., but I also don't want to see someone else forced to do something that conflicts with their own legitimate religious beliefs or morals.

I'm more than a little skeptical about the uproar over Indiana's passing of this law and the reasons behind the uproar. My understanding is that virtually identical laws have been passed over the past couple of decades in 19 other states, and were modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 signed into law by Clinton. Illinois passed an almost identical law years ago and it was supported and voted for by then state senator Obama. It doesn't appear to have ever been used as a way to discriminate against a minority on the national or state level, so why such an uproar about it now when Indiana has passed an essentially identical law? This smacks of political grandstanding.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

But that's just it. You're definitely not interested in why. You're interested in smearing liberals and grabbing "Pure Numbers." that seem to back it while you ignore or downplay other factors. Everyone knows Texas has it going on right now and everyone knows it's enormously expensive to own a house in California. It's the economy and a ton of other factors, stupid.

I'm definitely interested in the "why", even moreso than the "what." The article posted those cities with the most migration since 2010. If it had been the same cities since the 1950's, you'd have a point in saying, "this has been going on for decades." That's not the case. You'd rather pick a fight with me than accept fact as fact.

 

[GoIrish41]

Gov. Pence was on the Sunday talk shows this weekend and he went on and on about how this law is identical to the law signed by Bill Clinton and voted on by Barrack Obama when he was in Congress. If there is a federal law on the books, what was the need for this new law in Indiana? And why now? And why not add language to the bill or, better yet, make homosexuals a protected class? He failed to answer any of those questions and kept coming back to his "Hoosier hospitality" rhetoric that was just insulting, given the fact that this law was clearly meant to discriminate against homosexuals. A baker does not participate in a wedding any more than a tailor at a tuxedo shop or a flourist. You can characterize their actions as religios objections if you like, but I prefer to call it what it is ... open contempt for people who they do not like -- persecution. The fact that any government in this country would sanction such hateful behavior is disturbing.

 

[IrishLax]

Gov. Pence was on the Sunday talk shows this weekend and he went on and on about how this law is identical to the law signed by Bill Clinton and voted on by Barrack Obama when he was in Congress. If there is a federal law on the books, what was the need for this new law in Indiana? And why now? And why not add language to the bill or, better yet, make homosexuals a protected class? He failed to answer any of those questions and kept coming back to his "Hoosier hospitality" rhetoric that was just insulting, given the fact that this law was clearly meant to discriminate against homosexuals. A baker does not participate in a wedding any more than a tailor at a tuxedo shop or a flourist. You can characterize their actions as religios objections if you like, but I prefer to call it what it is ... open contempt for people who they do not like -- persecution. The fact that any government in this country would sanction such hateful behavior is disturbing.

Serious, non-rhetorical questions for people who have actually spent time researching this or have read the bill:
1) Is it actually identical?
2) If not, what are the differences?
3) If it is identical, then was the Federal law also clearly meant to discriminate?

 

[Grahambo]

If it is not a fundamental human need, then all businesses should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

I remember a story from last year that a place, maybe in Oregon, refused service to two uniformed cops.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Serious, non-rhetorical questions for people who have actually spent time researching this or have read the bill:
1) Is it actually identical?
2) If not, what are the differences?
3) If it is identical, then was the Federal law also clearly meant to discriminate?

My understanding is that there are two major differences with the Indiana bill:

1) LGBT is not a protected class in Indiana. That matters in this situation for two reasons:

a) Same Sex Marriage recently passed in Indiana
b) Indiana is largely a Christian state, many of which don't support homosexuality​

2) This bill moves on from individuals and adds this freedom to corporations.


Everything that I've read and been told suggests that those two reasons are what has everyone up in arms about the bill. It's not the same bill other states. The verbiage is different.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm sure others can go more in-depth, but this comes off as a blatant attack on the passing of same sex marriage. It's a horrendous bill. Pence and all others involved should be embarrassed. The man can't even answer a basic question on the matter during an interview. Some involved are back pedaling or flat out saying they didn't read the bill before voting. I mean, c'mon.

 

[IrishLax]

My understanding is that there are two major differences with the Indiana bill:

1) LGBT is not a protected class in Indiana. That matters in this situation for two reasons:

a) Same Sex Marriage recently passed in Indiana
b) Indiana is largely a Christian state, many of which don't support homosexuality​

Well, ignoring a) and b) for a second, homosexuals aren't a federally protected class. Trans, etc. could/should be depending on how you look at certain laws that protect sex but now we're mixing terms when talking about whether it's "anti-gay" or not.

2) This bill moves on from individuals and adds this freedom to corporations.

Everything that I've read and been told suggests that those two reasons are what has everyone up in arms about the bill. It's not the same bill other states. The verbiage is different.

If the only difference is that it extends to corporations and not just individuals, then I understand where people are coming from, but it also seems extreme if that's the only thing people are flipping out about.

 

[irishff1014]

We already fought this battle, that isn't how it works. You might like it to work that way, but it doesn't. So places in the South should be able to refuse service to a black person?

Federal Law already dictates that you can not be discriminated on the basis of
Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Veteran Status
Disability
National Origin
Age
Citizenship

So, that might be your ideal but it isn't in reality. In reality a gay person can not discriminate against a person because they are Catholic or Muslim, etc. but a Catholic or Muslim (or any other religion) can discriminate against a gay person. So it isn't a level playing field.

Every person is discriminated against in some way. And every person has done it. If you say you haven't you are lying.

 

[connor_in]

Well, ignoring a) and b) for a second, homosexuals aren't a federally protected class. Trans, etc. could/should be depending on how you look at certain laws that protect sex but now we're mixing terms when talking about whether it's "anti-gay" or not.



If the only difference is that it extends to corporations and not just individuals, then I understand where people are coming from, but it also seems extreme if that's the only thing people are flipping out about.

Well those reasons and the fact that it was just signed into law and getting press whereas the other states have had their laws in force longer (thus didn't get splashed on twitter).

My favorite part of this so far was HRC soming out against this when her buddy in the senate authored and he husband the President signed a similar bill. That plus her having outrage at something somebody else does at this stage in her public personna makes me shake my head

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm definitely interested in the "why", even moreso than the "what." The article posted those cities with the most migration since 2010. If it had been the same cities since the 1950's, you'd have a point in saying, "this has been going on for decades." That's not the case. You'd rather pick a fight with me than accept fact as fact.

What?

Top Ten largest cities in 1950:

New York City
Chicago
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Detroit
Baltimore
Cleveland
St. Louis
Washington DC
Boston

The cities with the highest levels of net domestic migration since 2010 are Houston, Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Denver, and San Antonio.

Top Ten largest cities in 2010:

New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Antonio
San Diego
Dallas
San Jose

Again, it all fits perfectly in line with the criticisms of suburbia. In thirty or so years the Dallas suburbs will all need new roofs and appliances, some people simply won't have the money because they maxed out their worth on the mortgage payment, so the rich will move out to nicer places and the poor will move in and be unable to put a new roof on the house, the neighborhood will implode, the city will be left to manage with only poor tax payers, the maintenance costs will undo the place, developers will make cheaper land elsewhere available, the federal government will back those mortgages instead of housing repair because it creates jobs, cities will reach a maximum level of stress before newer cities look more appealing to businesses and people alike. We build cities like the Brazilians farm the rainforest. Set up shop temporarily, use unsustainable practices to suck the life out of the place, move on to newer/cheaper spots later and forget about the damage we just did.

 

[pkt77242]

Really? Sort of like the ACA can't force religious institutions to provide insurance for controversial medical services?

I would point out that a standardized level of insurance (and a reasonable disagreement about what constitutes a religious institution) is different then demanding that a Jewish Baker make a certain type of bread. You certainly can understand that difference.

Communion hosts are just unleavened bread, which is (not uncoincidentally) used in the Jewish Passover. So it would not be strange to find sacramental bread in a Jewish bakery. And if an orthodox Jewish baker decided he was uncomfortable selling to a Catholic patron because his wares would later be utilized in a mystical rite to which he doesn't subscribe, he should absolutely be allowed to refuse such business. And one would hope that the Catholic patron, as a fellow "son of Abraham" and a respectful member of the same community, wouldn't choose to act like a litigious as$hole and sue the orthodox Jewish baker over it.

I am starting to see what some of the problem is, but I will talk more about it towards the end of the post.

This is the equivalent of an ad hominem argument. If you've got a problem with the law or how it's likely to be employed, site to its text, or to the legal precedent set by the Federal RFRA of 1993 or the 19 other state versions of it which have been on the books for decades already.

No it is different and covers businesses. Also if you don't think that the intent behind its passage (even if it won't hold up in court) doesn't matter and doesn't add to the backlash being experienced, then I am flabbergasted.

It's worth noting that no RFRA law has ever been used for this purpose before. But the Elane Photography v. Willock case out of New Mexico prompted Indiana to add a provision extending the RFRA provisions to businesses, who can then invoke it as a defense if litigious gay rights advocates (like those in New Mexico and Oregon) seek to bankrupt a Christian-owned business in Indiana. It doesn't give religious business owners a "right to discriminate"; but it does mean that Indiana courts have to have a "compelling state interest" which is advanced in the "least restrictive means possible" to rule against them. RFRA invocations are frequently overruled on that basis.

Again the Indiana law adds the exemption to businesses (as you pointed out) not just individuals, so it is different. Also the again the intent is to let them not bake the cake for the gay couple (not saying it will hold up in court, just that that is the intent).

This gets back to Buster's issue above with deciding what counts as a legitimate religion. Regardless, forcing anyone engaged is commerce to serve all potential customers regardless of religious or ideological objections is odious and incredibly illiberal, so RFRA-type protections should be extended to the gay baker in your example above.



Certain European companies who make key components for the lethal injection drug recently started refusing to sell to the US because they weren't comfortable being complicit in our death penalty. Should the US be able to compel them to sell to us by bringing a suit against them in the WTO? I don't think so, but your argument is that as soon as one engages in commerce, all religious and ideological baggage must be checked at the door. That's simply not how humans operate.

The cake is a pretty central element in American weddings. It's not unreasonable for orthodox Christians to feel that providing such an important element to a gay couple makes them complicit in something they feel is deeply sinful.

First off it wouldn't be extended to the gay baker by this law, so again the law is unfair and treats religious people differently by adding more protections to them (on top of the already great protections they have as a protected class). Also the wedding cake is a central element in the reception, not the wedding. I have never seen a religious wedding (I have been to many Catholic, Methodist, Christian Non-denominational, Baptist and even a few Jewish weddings) where the cake was any part of the religious ceremony. The cake is not a symbol of religion.

Community demands respecting your neighbor's sincerely-held religious beliefs, not equating them with the KKK. Do you think gay rights advocates seeking out Christian businesses for litigation is a community-building enterprise? It's more like a witch hunt, and it's only going to further divide this country.

Really as if Christians don't do the same, looking for every perceived insult? This is what upsets me the most. You act as if gay people wanting to be treated the same as everyone else is some horrible thing. Religious conservatives treat gay people as if they are the devil incarnate, and then get upset when the gay community lashes back at them. If Religious Conservatives had treated Gay people as equals then you might have an argument, but they haven't previously and still won't. Sorry while I fill bad for the individuals that suffer because of this, the truth is that Religious Conservatives brought it upon themselves by treating gay people like shit. How did you expect a group to respond when they are being discriminated against frequently?


For the record, I don't think that gay people should search out businesses to sue (I don't think anyone, disable, religious, etc should), and I agree that that ruins the community. My personal belief is that you help everyone (within reason, they threaten you, run around naked, are drunk and disorderly, etc are reason to not serve), and that we should be blind of things like religion, sex, age, race, sexuality when providing a service (obviously Church's are different). If you are a baker and the person is reasonable and orders something off your menu then you make it. If it isn't on your menu then feel free to decline.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation — The Atlantic

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

 

[pkt77242]

Well, ignoring a) and b) for a second, homosexuals aren't a federally protected class. Trans, etc. could/should be depending on how you look at certain laws that protect sex but now we're mixing terms when talking about whether it's "anti-gay" or not.



If the only difference is that it extends to corporations and not just individuals, then I understand where people are coming from, but it also seems extreme if that's the only thing people are flipping out about.

I thin part of what is making it a bigger deal is the intent of the law (not that it will necessarily hold up in court) and that is that it was written by Religious Conservatives (some with extreme anti-gay agendas) with the intent to target businesses dealing with gays. I think in this case part of the backlash is due to intent, not just what the courts will allow. More of a big F U to the gay population.

I will say that the RFRA can be good when used appropriately as IrishinSyria pointed out earlier (say to let a Muslim keep his beard in prison, or the Amish and the horse drawn carriage, etc).

 

[Bishop2b5]

Serious, non-rhetorical questions for people who have actually spent time researching this or have read the bill:
1) Is it actually identical?
2) If not, what are the differences?
3) If it is identical, then was the Federal law also clearly meant to discriminate?

1) Probably none of the laws are 100% identical. My understanding is that most or all of the legislation passed by each individual state is based on the '93 federal law, but certainly each has tweaked and added to and clarified numerous points.

2) I haven't read any of the bills in their entirety, so I can't answer this one.

3) Almost certainly not 100% identical, but essentially the same. Clearly the Federal law was not intended to discriminate and hasn't been used to do so, nor have any of the similar state laws. In '93, speaking of the new Federal law, then president Clinton said of it, "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that ... we can never be too vigilant in this work."

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

It's somewhat startled to see Whiskey take the time to make, what I thought was a solid explanation, only to have countless people talk about how it's "persecution" of homosexuals.

Should you not be allowed to run a business while simultaneously holding religious values? Does a photographer have a reasonable objection if they don't want to capture a wedding for homosexuals?

If not, then it is seems the ploy is to run anyone with religious beliefs out of the private sector. They can be employed by others, since they won't have any power to operate the business but they are not allowed to go any further. This would in effect create a system that subdues and marginalizes those with fervent belief. And if those beliefs were acceptable in the past but are no longer in vogue, too bad. The mob will hear none of it.

I guess my biggest question is: What makes one complicit? Is there any justifiable reason to object a service?

I would never turn away, think badly of or intend to embarrass any homosexual customers if I were a restaurant owner, sporting good store owner, web developer, etc.

If I were a photographer, a wedding cake baker, a tailor or jewelry designer, wouldn't it seem reasonable for me to feel complicit in the marriage if I'm providing a service or goods that are used in the state-sanctioned union?

Maybe I'm overly sensitive in believing that most people don't "hate gays". I assume most would only object if true complicity was felt (not to mention, I'd be incredibly embarrassed for having to turn anyone away).

If we could somehow give homosexual unions a protected class and still allow businesses to withhold service only on basis of violating moral values, then it may be a happy medium.

I imagine a number of you will find these words bigoted. For that, I apologize.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

1) Probably none of the laws are 100% identical. My understanding is that most or all of the legislation passed by each individual state is based on the '93 federal law, but certainly each has tweaked and added to and clarified numerous points.

2) I haven't read any of the bills in their entirety, so I can't answer this one.

3) Almost certainly not 100% identical, but essentially the same. Clearly the Federal law was not intended to discriminate and hasn't been used to do so, nor have any of the similar state laws. In '93, speaking of the new Federal law, then president Clinton said of it, "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that ... we can never be too vigilant in this work."

See my post above. It is substantively different.

 

[Bishop2b5]

It seems that those opposed to this law are insisting that its motivation is discrimination, shouting it loudly over and over, and then proclaiming it as fact. The more I see of this entire thing, the more I'm convinced it's nothing more than a special interest group distorting and exploiting the hell out of the whole thing in an effort to get their way without regard to anyone else's rights.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It seems that those opposed to this law are insisting that its motivation is discrimination, shouting it loudly over and over, and then proclaiming it as fact. The more I see of this entire thing, the more I'm convinced it's nothing more than a special interest group distorting and exploiting the hell out of the whole thing in an effort to get their way without regard to anyone else's rights.

Or, conversely, maybe people find it disagreeable that a person could be refused service by a for profit organization (with a law that goes further than any previous law has) because of who they are attracted to.

You don't have to agree with that perspective. But it's a bit over the top to say that gay people wanting to be treated equally by businesses would qualify as a "special interest group" exploiting the situation. It could just as easily be seen as Pence exploiting gay people to curry favor with the religious right.