http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/polit...s-freedom-bill-gay-rights/index.html?ts_pid=2 Yay for more evidence that lobbyists have more power than the popular majority... yay for discrimination and bigotry the likes of which we haven't seen since the Jim Crow laws were abolished! 'Murica... because we're too stupid not to...
Well, it's Indiana. Unfortunately, the last few years have erased any pretense that we can expect anything better of the Hoosier State. And, hell, as far as they're concerned, losing Gen Con↱ is probably a good thing. ____________________ Notes: Cook, Tony and Mark Alesia. "Gen Con threatens to move convention if Gov. Mike Pence signs religious freedom bill". Indianapolis Star. 26 March 2015. IndyStar.com. 26 March 2015. http://indy.st/1HP5f9P
I would suggest that "partisan bullshit" is too "politically correct". This is straight-up bigotry. The "family values" of "Middle America" on glorious display for all to see. Here's a fun question for Indiana: Can a business now shield a rapist or DV assailant under the guise of religious freedom? I know, it sounds like hyperbole. Then again, have you heard about Georgia, lately? Georgia is poised to pass the nation’s harshest “religious freedom” law, allowing discrimination, judicial obstruction, and even domestic violence. Yet while the bill is far worse than Arizona’s notorious “Turn the Gays Away” bill, it’s attracted far less attention from national advocacy groups and businesses .... .... For example? Restaurants could refuse to serve gay or interracial couples, city clerks could refuse to marry interfaith couples, hotels could keep out Jews, housing developments could keep out black people (Genesis 9:18-27), pharmacies could refuse to dispense birth control, banquet halls could turn away gay weddings, schools could specifically allow anti-gay bullying, and employers could fire anyone for any “religious” reason .... .... Some legal commentators have said that the law would give a pass to spousal and child abusers, as long as the husband (or father) has a religious pretext. Which is easy to provide; the Christian Domestic Discipline Network, for example, offers a host of rationales for “wife spanking.” And let’s not forget Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares his rod hates his son. But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” Georgia has numerous laws protecting child welfare, which is arguably a compelling state interest. But are such laws really the “least restrictive means” of protecting it? Not necessarily. At the very least, the laws offer a novel defense against assault and battery. Or maybe not so novel. Graham says, “We have found cases where people used their religious views as an excuse to impede an investigation into child-endangerment and child-abuse charges. They were not ultimately successful, but they did slow down the investigations.” With the new law, they would be far better armed. In fact, says Graham, conservative district attorneys in Macon and Marietta have said that the bill would impede investigations and prosecutions of child abuse. (Michaelson) And, you know, perhaps something goes here about gay rights and strange bedfellows, but if you're Georgia and your homophobia bill draws the one and only Mike Bowers to the opposition, then you might want to reconsider just how far you're pushing the line. Seriously: Thank you, Mr. Bowers. We greatly appreciate your support. That's something ... well, it's not so much that I would never expect to say it, but, rather, that it would never occur to me that I might. ____________________ Notes: Michaelson, Jay. "Georgia Bill Helps Wife Beaters". The Daily Beast. 13 March 2015. TheDailyBeast.com. 26 March 2015. http://thebea.st/1BLGauW
I think Federal law may trump State law on this issue. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000a(a) ) provides: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This does not of itself prohibit discrimination based on even gender, let alone sexual orientation. Nor does it prohibit racial discrimination in hospitals. However, it sits under 42 U.S. Code § 1981(a) which provides "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. ... The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law." while 18 U.S. Code § 242 provides in part: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ..." . Further, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So a state law creating a class of "legal discrimination" is, on the face of it, disfavored by Federal law, even if sexual orientation was not adopted as a class protected from discrimination in 1964. That reasoning led to numerous court victories for sexual orientation civil rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Very clear. I would have felt better about "freedom of religion" if the constitution had made it clear that this freedom shall not be used to abridge or curtail any other civil or government rights protected by the constitution. But this fight has been brewing for some time. The Amish, for instance, claim that religious freedom protects them from paying certain taxes paid by other U.S. citizens. Nonsense. The more we insist that the freedom to do whatever regions want stops outside the doors to their respective churches, the more these right wing nut jobs seem to insist that public schools and government buildings are the doors to THEIR churches. More nonsense. Just like it was nonsense when GW Bush issued an executive order to pay tax money to religious organizations set up as charities. That was the opening salvo of this culture war. That was the executive equivalent of a law regarding the freedom of religion, and such a law cannot help but become an engine of discrimination. In Florida, republican politicians there do not allow religious charities the freedom to distribute food to the homeless, See the double standard yet?
That one I can almost understand - after all, if they don't use public utilities (water/power/sewer/trash), nor public amenities (roads, etc) then sure, they don't have to pay to upkeep those... but most Amish I know DO use electricity, water, etc, as well as roads... so, yeah... seems a rather nice disconnect from reality there
Decisive Political Leadership There is an amusing footnote in all of this; Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) has been the subject of many 2016 GOP presidential dark-horse rumors, with even FOX News pushing the case in late February. Such as it is, though, Pence always had certain liabilities; while he might have had a chance to play the unenviable role of Republican "adult in the room", the Indiana appeal to bigotry has pretty much wrecked that. Mr. Pence's political leadership reminds that instead of a serious candidate, he would simply be the most serious clown in the jalope. Six days ago, on March 26, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed his state's new “Religious Freedom Restoration Act" into law, and he couldn't have been more pleased. “Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith," the governor said in a statement released shortly after he signed Senate Bill 101. Three days ago, on March 29, Pence agreed the law may need to be changed. Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify" that Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians. Two days ago, on March 30, Pence reversed course, saying the law would not be changed. “Look, we're not going to change the law, OK?" One day ago, on March 31, Pence held a press conference to say the law must be fixed. “Let me say I believe this is a clarification, but it's also a fix .... We will fix this and we will move forward."[/i] And then yesterday afternoon, still on March 31, Pence told Fox News' Sean Hannity the law doesn't need to be fixed. “I stand by this law. The law doesn't need to be fixed." So, which is it? Ove the course of just six days, Pence has endorsed the law, then endorsed changing the law, then opposed changing the law, then re-endorsed changing the law, only to then oppose changes again. At this point, I'm a little confused about the Republican governor's true intentions. Or more to the point, I suspect the governor himself is a little confused about his own intentions. (Benen↱) The thing is that Pence is trying to sell a line that there isn't really anything to see here, and if dirty, evil liberals would stop conspiring to create perceptions and appearances of a problem, then Indiana could just get on with doing whatever it is it thinks it's doing, and everybody would be happy, even those people whose rights are at stake except they aren't because the Governor wants to make an important stand on behalf of "religious freedom" while essentially presenting the law as a toothless demonstration of pious paranoia. This is what Indiana calls leadership. Which, in turn, isn't exactly surprising. Welcome to "Middle America", where "family values" include the virtues of hatred, cruelty, ignorance, and dishonesty. We're not proud, Indiana. And there's a reason. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Mike Pence's contradictory assurances". msnbc. 1 April 2015. msnbc.com. 1 April 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1aixzai
Watching the GOP editorial comments today, I couldn't help noticing, they still don't get it. Forget about gay rights for a moment. What is the basis for believing that the freedom of religion is the most overwhelmingly important civil right granted by the constitution? My understanding is that the founding fathers included that right in the constitution so as to exclude the intolerant atmosphere that forced many of our largest immigrant groups here seeking a place more tolerant of their own traditions and religious ideas than England and the Anglican church. What if a religious tradition was so anti-war and anti-gun that they insisted the NRA needed disbanding AND ALSO THAT THE SECOND AMMENDMENT needed repealing? Which civil right would be supreme in that case? NOW does everyone 'get it'? Civil rights have limitations. The particulars of those limitations vary according to values. NONE of those values are absolute. They can't be, without infringing in other rights. God is not, and never was, an "absolute" proposition (Does he/she/it exist or not?) in a tolerant society, so why should religion be any different? Obsessions are absolute, and as such, are nearly always a bad thing, in one form or other. These exist only in the context of our minds, and more often than not, not always in the healthiest ones. One look at the religious leadership responsible for the conflict in the middle east is a strong hint why this would be bad, but there are many other examples closer to home. The Westboro Baptist church comes to mind.
“As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your rights to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope you are able to rebuild.” She added: “My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” Hoffman said in a radio interview. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.” http://lgbtweekly.com/2015/04/07/lesbian-couple-donate-money-to-controversial-indiana-pizzeria/ That too is freedom to exercise your beliefs.
The public and private business seems to have been inverted, there. She starts out by differentiating between operating in a public market space and attaching one's name to a private event, and then re-muddles the issue by equating political rallies to private weddings. I'm wondering how it would play in Indiana if the Muslim employee of a parking lot security firm refused to protect a white woman from harassment by young black men because she was immodestly dressed in hair-revealing attire.
The federal language you cited provides an easy remedy to the absence of coverage extended to specific categories such as gender or sexual orientation. Simply give these specific traits religious sanction, thereby giving them legitimate cover under the existing language.
Inventing a sham church for women (or possibly you mean the transgendered) does not seem to solve any problem.
Easier to cloak respectable character, be it born female or inclined towards the uncommon, with the sham of religion than to remove the respect of the sham of religion from constitutional law. I would prefer that constitutionally the term religion be replaced with personal philosophy but the current state of societal attitudes precludes this likelihood. Here’s an example of this strategy being employed. Nashville Sex Club Seeks Approval To Open By Claiming To Be A Church http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sex-club-nashville-blessing-church They may have a problem with hurdle of respectable character.
The general public market space does not advocate for any particular unifying interest, while both political rallies and weddings both organize to support a unifying interest. Both would require "attaching the name of your business to" said interest. For example, Neo-Nazis could hold a rally, and you seem to be advocating that your business would be required by law to associate its reputation, in its local market, with the interests represented by such a rally. Are you implying that a security firm doing its job would somehow have been "participating" in a woman "immodestly dress[ing]?" That is what it would take to make your analogy relevant. Seems refusal to protect would be actively participating in the harassment...as in a knowing accomplice to a crime. Depends on if they believe in the free market. Personally, I would much rather have such signs than unknowingly subject myself to the dubious service of someone who may hold some animosity toward me.
That would, technically speaking, be extraneous. There is one hitch to the preceding sentence, and we'll come back to that. However, recall that atheism, while not a religion in and of itself, is a protected religious outlook. And, yes, one can cite all sorts of local disdainment toward atheism as evidence to the contrary, just like we can for any number of protected groups still taking flak from angry bully cohorts wailing about lost privilege. But the thing is that gay marriage could have been a First Amendment issue from the outset. Nothing about, say, my religious outlook, forbids gay marriage, plenty says it's a great idea, and nothing about a Christian's right to free religion should require me to submit to their religious outlook. The hitch arises when we consider that it is people within the established religions who decide what else gets to be counted as a religion. This comes up repeatedly, and often in ridiculous ways; it is the empowering device of the censors in the heavy metal wars of my youth, as well as the driving impetus behind various objections to human rights for women and homosexuals. And, we should note, some of this even fuels fights between the established religions. The Idaho legislature, for instance, is absolutely losing its mind. But the only reason the First Amendment argument for gay marriage as matters of religious and personal expression doesn't work is because there are too many religious people in the United States who hate atheism. Strange how that works, but such are the implications of the choices people make. You know, like to be Christian, or a hatemonger. Nobody says you have to be either, and nothing says anyone needs to be both. But the fact is that respecting the First Amendment argument for marriage equality (which in turn leads to Amendment XIV and Article IV) would also be respecting atheistic rights under freedom of religion, and that's just a bridge too far for most Americans. Americans don't need to create a special church, they just need to get their heads out.
No I don't. Where would you get that idea? You seem to think that selling something to someone, or providing a service for them, "associates" one's "reputation" with whatever they do - legally You sure you want to do that? I am wondering how these clowns in Indiana would argue against the guy who claimed it did. And that would be a sane argument. But we are not dealing with sane people here: the matter of associating one's reputation with immodest attire remains - are you claiming that a Muslim is legally bound to "participate" in the violation of his religious beliefs?
You have added the "legally" strawman. Are you so idealistic that you cannot see the reality of your business providing a service for a Neo-Nazi event? How would you keep your involvement a secret from the disapproving majority of your customers? And being unable to keep that secret, how would you expect your business to fair? It only takes one person on social media now days to expose such things. I would not expect them to, because the analogy is not apt. You would be better off making an analogy about the store who sold the "immodest" clothing to the woman. Again, very poor analogy. You are adding an unnecessary third party for no apparent reason, other then maybe obfuscate the weakness of your argument. Try the clothing store analogy instead. Maybe that will give you better traction.
