Gen Con is threatening to leave Indiana over a religious "protection" law.

[Kuje]

For those of us who going to the RP convention, not sure if any of you knew this was happening today.

http://fox59.com/2015/03/24/religious-freedom-bill-passes-senate-now-awaits-gov-pences-signature/

[Lustful Bride]

People who use the right to freedom of religion to abuse others disgusts me...just thinking about it gets me seeing red. Especially when I think of all the places in the world where people suffer and die for their choices and these assholes abuse the freedom they have.

These bills disgust me and only serve to show me how idiotic our leadership is and how little they really care about us.

[Tairis]

They're stuck for at least another five years, though, I believe. Their contract with the city runs through 2020. If they have something in the contract that would let them break it for this reason though that'd be hilarious.

[Thesunmaid]

http://i.imgur.com/UFhrD.jpg


This pretty much sums up my feelings on religion and the fact that in 2015 that a law like this can actually be passed...is painful.

[Lustful Bride]

http://i.imgur.com/UFhrD.jpg

*slightly offended but understands where you are coming from* I may not like your opinion but as is said, I would fight and die for your right to have it.  :-)

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Angie]

I'm going to make a slightly odd analogy, but I think it works. First of all, I do not have the exact wording of the bill in front of me, if I did, I would be able to make a much more reasoned argument. So I will preface this by saying that I am only going by what the opponents of the bill are saying. If this bill is therefore passed, can someone explain to me how refusing service based on religious practices is any different from refusing service to someone just because they're black? Granted, I admit that religion is something you have some degree of control over and it's something you choose, but to a lot of people, religion is a deep-seated part of their identity and trying to choose to be something else would be akin to them trying to change their skin color. All I know is no matter what happens, this will end badly for all involved.

I do hope Gen Con suddenly popping up with "we have concerns" will be enough to make people go "OH SHIT!" and drop this like a hot potato.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'm going to make a slightly odd analogy, but I think it works. First of all, I do not have the exact wording of the bill in front of me, if I did, I would be able to make a much more reasoned argument.

The text can be found here: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

I'll try to read through it, but this is far from being a field of law I am familiar with, so I doubt I'll be able to make much sense of it myself.

[consortium11]

So I will preface this by saying that I am only going by what the opponents of the bill are saying. If this bill is therefore passed, can someone explain to me how refusing service based on religious practices is any different from refusing service to someone just because they're black?

You're getting the effect/intentions behind the bill confused.

In essence this bill is about the person offering a service being able to refuse that service because the application of it would conflict with their religious beliefs.

The civil rights statutes and the like are about the person offering a service not being able to refuse that service because the customer/patron is black.

Basically this bill is an attempt to avoid the civil rights acts and laws that mean someone can't discriminate against people; notably LGBT people.

It's probably worth bringing up an example of where an act like this might apply. In Northern Ireland there's been an ongoing case relating to a "gay wedding cake". In brief, a bakery was asked to create a cake which said "support gay marriage". Citing their religious beliefs they declined and have been taken to court by the Equality Commission because of it. I should note that it's not that the bakery refused to serve gay or LGBT people, they happily did so, but instead that they declined to create a cake with a message that they saw as running against their religious beliefs.

What the bill does is basically copy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal act, into state law. The RFRA has been around for a while and one can see a fair amount of discussion on it in the thread here on the Hobby Lobby ruling.

RFRA works by preventing the government from "substantially burdening" someone's exercise of religion. Fining a company/individual for doing something which they believe is in-line with their religious practices clearly represented a burden (most likely a substantial one) and so runs the risk of falling foul of it. The clear worry is that members of certain religions (notably Christianity in the US) will cite their religious opposition to LGBT and then try to use this act as a defence if challenged. However, the act does include exemptions; if it is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and there is no less restrictive way of achieving that interest. On a federal level those exemptions have been used to deny claims relating to taxes (from a pacifist Mormon who objected to her taxes being used by the defence department) and university fees (from Christians who objected to their fees being spent to help support an abortion service).

State law is different from federal law and doesn't have to follow the same precedents but my gut tells me that this law isn't quite as draconian as people may fear. I think there is prima facie a compelling governmental interest in allowing people access to all services regardless of their sexuality and I struggle to think of a less restrictive way of achieving that then preventing people from discriminating on the basis of sexuality. As such I think that would fall firmly within the exceptions and any attempts to refuse service on the basis that a customer was LGBT wouldn't be able to use the RFRA as a defence. In addition, while the courts have been very, very hesitant about ruling on what constitutes exercise of religion or whether it is a reasonable belief, I think one may struggle to argue that refusing to serve LGBT people represents the reasonable exercise of a genuinely held religious belief; is it really exercising a religion to say that LGBT can't shop at your store? Somewhat ironically I think those who would argue it is could cite the various no-platforming and "shaming" initiatives by social justice advocates as evidence that serving or working with someone represents you supporting them and their lifestyle but I'm not convinced the court would support it.

More tricky are the examples such as the bakery one I mentioned above. In that case the bakery didn't refuse service on the basis of the customer's sexuality; as mentioned they're more than happy to serve LGBT people and if a cis-straight person had ordered the cake the same issue would have occurred. There the issue is whether a business should be required to create something with a message that goes against their religious beliefs. I suspect the RFRA would prevent that. Before we all leap into condemning it I think it's also worth considering what the opposite position could be. Should a bakery run and operated by Muslums be allowed to decline service when someone orders a cake saying "Muhammad was a paedo"/"Islam = Terrorism" or which has a representation of Muhammed on it? Should a Jewish bakery be forced to accept an order for a cake which says "The Jews Murdered Jesus!"? Should an atheist web designer be required to create a website saying that God created the world in six days? In a direct contrast to this, should a company owned by LGBT people be forced to create a product calling gay marriage an abomination? All are conceivable situations if someone cannot refuse service due to their personal beliefs (and I suspect all of those cited above could be classed as religious beliefs).

[Dice]

Maybe I am a touch old fashioned but there is a saying "The customer is always right". If you offer a service and someone is playing you for that service, you should do as you have advertised you will. Unless the law is being broken in the progress of the act, you should do what your paid to do. Want to hide behind religion as a touchstone for everything you "Morally Disagree" with? Well Fuck, grow a pair. Yea, the Bible says that gays are bad, also says you should stone to death your son if he disobeys you the second paragraph after that whole guys thing. If I want a cake to celebrate the stoning to death of my son do you have a moral issue with that? Yea, hypocritical much?

Also, if someone religious asked me to help them set up a Web page I am happy to do so. If that's my job, I will do it. It's not like I am being asked to stone someone.

[Oniya]

They're stuck for at least another five years, though, I believe. Their contract with the city runs through 2020. If they have something in the contract that would let them break it for this reason though that'd be hilarious.

Here's a question that Mr. Oniya brought up (we both follow George's page - saves on sharing):

What is the penalty if GenCon breaks the contract?  Assuming it's a fine of some sort, what would it equate to if the fine was spread out over the average attendance of GenCon?

And here's the big one:  If GenCon decided to take the penalty, move to another venue and cover it by raising badge prices for the next five years, would it be feasible?

[kylie]

Yea, the Bible says that gays are bad...

...  Or so people have been told, often enough by people who haven't even looked at the ancient language carefully.  Those lines about not doing with a man as a woman?  Umm, they're more likely talking about beds literally and not in the modern euphemism "to sleep with."  They're not even directly addressing anything about having sex.  On and on.  For the New Testament lines, find someone who knows their Greek language and the culture of the times, first and then try to figure out how Paul would have realistically talked about the subject (even before the early Church got around to rearranging everything and discarding books willy-nilly from 300-something AD).

, also says you should stone to death your son if he disobeys you the second paragraph after that whole guys thing. If I want a cake to celebrate the stoning to death of my son do you have a moral issue with that? Yea, hypocritical much?

...  But yes.  Although I would say: Christian conservatives do tend to also lean more toward the "children should suck it up and learn to have a rough life cause hey, the elder must be Respected (TM) you know and if it takes beating and threatening..."  That sort of persuasion is hardly rare, particularly in the American South.  You'll even find a good few who'd rather kill than accept a gay son, I believe. 

       Maybe try out the line about not wearing synthetic clothes.  Or better, go hunting for straightout contradictory advice and then see what the excuses are. 
 
       But it's more that people will insist on following whatever they wanna buy.  Original source or not, nice or not, family or not...  It can all get thrown under the bus by some people if you follow those lines of argument.  Fanatically uptight people are just nasty and for the many who will buy a few of your arguments, there are plenty more who just don't wanna hear it cause they have to be right about who they want to single out for abuse to make themselves somehow oh sooo "right."

[Dice]

You'll even find a good few who'd rather kill than accept a gay son, I believe. 

That is all kinds of twisted. I mean, how can people not understand that we are born the way we are? When did that person choose to be straight? Yea... That really gets at me.

Also I had to look it up, turns out Leviticus 20, 9 only says to kill your son, never says how. I guess I should correct myself on that. Could swear my old study Bible said you had to stone them.

[Oniya]

That is all kinds of twisted. I mean, how can people not understand that we are born the way we are? When did that person choose to be straight? Yea... That really gets at me.

Also I had to look it up, turns out Leviticus 20, 9 only says to kill your son, never says how. I guess I should correct myself on that. Could swear my old study Bible said you had to stone them.

I don't remember all of Lev, but stoning was one of the punishments listed for adultery (famously averted by 'Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.')

Considering the amount of philandering I see among public figures - including lawmakers - they might want to reconsider using Leviticus as their system.  Stick with the 'Love one another as I have loved you.' ya know what I'm sayin'?

[Kythia]

I don't remember all of Lev, but stoning was one of the punishments listed for adultery (famously averted by 'Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.')

Just to be irritatingly pedantic, that passage is in Deuteronomy, not Leviticus.

On topic, I'm a little confused by the intent of the law.  So I'm a deeply devout cake maker and refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple.  Why do I need a law saying I can do that?  It's my cake, I can sell it to whoever I want, surely, just like my deeply devout bar owner friends can refuse to serve anyone they want.  Leaving aside everything else, why is this law needed?

[consortium11]

On topic, I'm a little confused by the intent of the law.  So I'm a deeply devout cake maker and refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple.  Why do I need a law saying I can do that?  It's my cake, I can sell it to whoever I want, surely, just like my deeply devout bar owner friends can refuse to serve anyone they want.  Leaving aside everything else, why is this law needed?

Because the law doesn't say that you can sell your cake to whoever you want; if you refused to sell your cake to black/LGBT/Jewish/*insert minority here* because they were black/LGBT/Jewish/*insert minority here* then you'd almost certainly fall foul of civil rights law. If there was some reason other than a couple being gay for you to refuse service to them then you may be fine; but that reason can't simply be a smokescreen to hide the fact that you refuse to serve gay people.

It would also seemingly protect against examples like the one I've mentioned in Northern Ireland; there the bakery refused to sell not on the basis of the sexuality of the customer but because of the message the customer wanted on it and still found themselves possibly falling foul of equality and civil rights laws.

[Kythia]

Right, I'm confused here.  I used to work in a bar - and of course I realise UK law isn't the same as US law but your bringing in the Norn Iron example seems to indicate its the same over here.  The landlord always claimed he could refuse service to anyone he felt like for any damn reason he felt like.  Was he mistaken?

[consortium11]

Right, I'm confused here.  I used to work in a bar - and of course I realise UK law isn't the same as US law but your bringing in the Norn Iron example seems to indicate its the same over here.  The landlord always claimed he could refuse service to anyone he felt like for any damn reason he felt like.  Was he mistaken?

In short, yes.

The most relevant legislation for the UK is the Equality Act 2010 which lists a number of protected characteristics, notably age, disability, race, sex and sexual orientation. One cannot treat someone with one of the protected characteristics less favorably than one would someone without it on the basis of that characteristic. So, while your landlord may have said that he could refuse service to anyone for any reason if it turned out the reason was "they're gay" or "they're black" he'd have fallen foul of the law. Of course, he could refuse service to black and/or gay patrons but it couldn't be because they're black and/or gay; he'd have to point out some other reason that would equally apply to someone without those protected characteristics.

The various federal and state civil rights acts have a similar effect in the US.

[Kythia]

Fair enough.  In fairness to him, it was before 2010 that I worked there, but that's neither here nor there.  Thanks.

[Kuje]

BTW, the governor passed this in a private ceremony on Thursday.

However the fall out continues to grow with the NCAA, the basketball organization, is thinking about their own plans that involve Indiana. Two other groups are thinking of leaving Indiana or have asked their employees to stop travel to the state.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which also holds a convention in Indianapolis, told Pence it could cancel its 2017 convention there, as well.

The chief executive of tech giant Salesforce told Pence that his company -- which had bought Indianapolis-based Exact Target for $2.5 billion in 2013 -- would abandon the state and its expansion plans there if he signed the measure into law.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday, after Pence signed the bill: "Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."

At least the mayor of Indy broke with the governor over the law: "And the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, broke with Pence on the bill, saying it would put his city's economy at risk.

"Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents," Ballard said Wednesday in a statement. "We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."

All that can be referenced here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

[Lustful Bride]

On topic, I'm a little confused by the intent of the law.  So I'm a deeply devout cake maker and refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple.

Because someone can easily (and rightfully so) claim that it is discrimination.

They only use the faith to further their own goals and bigotry.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[kylie]

     It's weird really...  By and large, the old Jewish laws were so hugely concerned with controlling women -- as in, knowing where they "belonged" when and who would have what sort of access/prohibitions with their spaces.  (Thus the thing about men staying out of their beds, ahem.)  I wonder when exactly this church fascination with (largely) male sexual behavior began to get foisted into the most unlikely interpretations of scripture.   

[Oniya]

I could go into some of the history of it - did a Biblical history course a few years back to add to the Store House -  but I think it's quite a tangent. 

[Tairis]

Here's a question that Mr. Oniya brought up (we both follow George's page - saves on sharing):

What is the penalty if GenCon breaks the contract?  Assuming it's a fine of some sort, what would it equate to if the fine was spread out over the average attendance of GenCon?

And here's the big one:  If GenCon decided to take the penalty, move to another venue and cover it by raising badge prices for the next five years, would it be feasible?

Most likely very steep. And seeing as how Gencon is already a very very expensive con they would have a hard time relocating and increasing prices. Indianapolis has been GenCons home for so long specifically because very few other locations in the entire country have a convention center of a similar size with such a large downtown that can support such a volume of attendees.

[consortium11]

Fair enough.  In fairness to him, it was before 2010 that I worked there, but that's neither here nor there.  Thanks.

Prior to 2010 he'd have still fallen foul of a number of anti-discrimination laws; the Equality Act 2010 largely combined and added to existing legislation rather than create new ones out of the blue.

[Sho]

It's not just Gen Con threatening to leave, either...Sales Force is pulling out despite having 3,000 employees in Indiana. As someone who works in the tech industry myself, I'm thrilled to see people from our largest companies (Apple, Yelp, SalesForce) standing up against this law.

You can read a bit more about who is making a move against the law here.

Not so much an opinion so much as I wanted to laud all the people and companies who are standing firm against this law.

[Oniya]

The NCAA and the NFL are also making grumbly noises about it.  I'll track down the links after I bring the little Oni home from school.  (Mr. Oniya told me from his talking heads.)

[Kuje]

I posted the link yesterday, over on page one... :)

The NCAA and the NFL are also making grumbly noises about it.  I'll track down the links after I bring the little Oni home from school.  (Mr. Oniya told me from his talking heads.)

[Iuris]

As someone who works in the tech industry myself, I'm thrilled to see people from our largest companies (Apple, Yelp, SalesForce) standing up against this law.

Ditto this!

[HannibalBarca]

This is the kind of reaction that, in my mind, spells the slow decline and disappearance of religion in general--at least the corrosive kind that teaches their followers to see other humans as...less than human.  What with the uptick in non-religious spiritual people, non-Christian religions, and nonbelievers, the writing seems to be on the wall.  Looking at Europe, which seems to lead social trends that eventually become the norm in the US, religion is very much on the decline.

This is a desperate attempt by the followers of hypocrisy and hatred to grab onto the shrinking control they have over other people's lives.  It's a despicable law, but I think, like gay marriage bans, it will go the way of the dinosaur.  The question is, how much misery is it going to cause in the meantime?

[Joel]

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute and say that: this has nothing to do with religion.

I mean if you really think about it, this issue is better explained by a rural versus urban divide; a middle class versus a working class; and a traditionalist versus global culture.

Anti-homosexuality is just a flag to rally behind and no surprise that the governor has got his eye on the presidential ticket right?

Everyone knows that this law won't stand long.  Same way that conservatives will never get rid of abortion (throws the grenade run away).  It's political theater to rally their base.

----

@ HannibalBarca "This is the kind of reaction that, in my mind, spells the slow decline and disappearance of religion in general--at least the corrosive kind that teaches their followers to see other humans as...less than human."

Ha nice caveat there.  SO I guess I'm not disagreeing with you by saying that I think people are becoming more spiritual, and I hazard that if organized religions adjust to meet the new mindset, then people would be more 'religious' too.  We are totally seeing pretty radical course changes in recent years yeah?  And in other news there's more interest in understanding the stuff that makes spiritual experience, or looking for the meaning in the experiences themselves.  Namely, people are dusting off the old research on psychedelics.  John Hopkins for example is running a study... like omfg.

[Oniya]

And in other news there's more interest in understanding the stuff that makes spiritual experience, or looking for the meaning in the experiences themselves.  Namely, people are dusting off the old research on psychedelics.  John Hopkins for example is running a study... like omfg.

Psychedelics aren't necessary for spiritual experiences.  ???

[Dimir]

It's not just Gen Con threatening to leave, either...Sales Force is pulling out despite having 3,000 employees in Indiana. As someone who works in the tech industry myself, I'm thrilled to see people from our largest companies (Apple, Yelp, SalesForce) standing up against this law.

You can read a bit more about who is making a move against the law here.

Not so much an opinion so much as I wanted to laud all the people and companies who are standing firm against this law.

Wonderful move Governor, caring more about one type of religious belief over businesses pulling out of a part of the struggling rust belt because of your decision. What will those 3000 employees (the ones who don't get placed elsewhere) think about your government, even those who are Republicans. As the Governor you are supposed to make your state attractive for companies. Religious beliefs aren't going to help your state move forward economically, skilled employment is one of the things that would.

[Joel]

Psychedelics aren't necessary for spiritual experiences.  ???

sorry totally going off on a tangent here

@Oniya: nope they aren't. but let me link you a couple of articles.  One in the New Yorker and just one today in the New York Times. 

"The Trip Treatment" -- The New Yorker, 2/9/2015

"In Brazil, Some Inmates Get Therapy With Hallucinogenic Tea" -- NY Times 3/28/15

[Oniya]

It was your use of the word 'namely' that made it look as though investigating spiritual experiences was intrinsically tied to investigating the effects of psychedelics.[/hijack]

Back on track, there is a much more relaxed attitude towards religion that is gaining popularity, especially (but not exclusively) among the 20-30-somethings.  There's a recognition that we're all stuck here on one planet together, and we're going to have to deal with each other. 

[Kythia]

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute and say that: this has nothing to do with religion.

I mean if you really think about it, this issue is better explained by a rural versus urban divide; a middle class versus a working class; and a traditionalist versus global culture.

Anti-homosexuality is just a flag to rally behind and no surprise that the governor has got his eye on the presidential ticket right?

Everyone knows that this law won't stand long.  Same way that conservatives will never get rid of abortion (throws the grenade run away).  It's political theater to rally their base.

I think there's a problem with arguments of this form - its essentially, if I read you right, the same one as claiming ISIS aren't motivated by Islam.  Sure, there are other factors.  Rural v urban, class issues, group identity, etc etc etc.  But the fact that those other aspects exist doesn't mean that the religious one doesn't.  It means the religious one isn't the wole cause, certainly - it's not sufficient and in some cases not necessary - but it doesn't remove it.

But that argument removes a possible method of attack against problems like thi by seeking to remove the influence and arguments of people of the appropriate religion - Christianity here, Islam for ISIS, etc.  If we accept that the Governor of Indiana is at least in part motivated by Christianity - whether his own or that of what he perceives as that of his electorate, it doesn't really matter - then we have to accept the possibility that conversations with Pastors (assuming he's some sort of protestant, which seems reasonable) are capable of removing that factor.  We believe, inherently, that there's a worth to pointing out what is wrong with arguments  criticising a position on economic, social, moral, etc grounds when those decisions are motivated by economics, society, morals, etc.  It follows that there's a worth in criticising on religious grounds when those decisions are motivated by religion.

Attempting to claim that it isn't is not only incorrect but, I believe, counter productive.  If the dominant narrative becomes that the...errr...extremes of religion are actually irreligious and merely symptoms of something else and if that is not true (as I believe it isn't) it removes a possible avenue of attack for no net benefit.

[Dice]

Whatever happened to; Make no law respecting an establishment of religion?

[Kythia]

Whatever happened to; Make no law respecting an establishment of religion?

Is that relevant here?  If the law only applied to Christians (Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians/whatever) then sure, but it doesn't.  I dunno, on the Venn Diagram of "Americans" and "Lawyers" I'm in neither circle not both, but it doesn't seem to be the issue at hand.

[Dice]

I feel that if you're making a law with the express intent of granting people of religion the freedom to discriminate, yes I think the spirit of "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" applies.

[Kythia]

I feel that if you're making a law with the express intent of granting people of religion the freedom to discriminate, yes I think the spirit of "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" applies.

Sorry, I don't think I follow.  Could you expand on that?

[Joel]

@ONIYA "Back on track, there is a much more relaxed attitude towards religion that is gaining popularity, especially (but not exclusively) among the 20-30-somethings."

-- I love that shit.  But then again I'm from the California Bay Area where Alan Watts was very much a big deal.

@KYTHIA 
"Sure, there are other factors.  Rural v urban, class issues, group identity, etc etc etc.  But the fact that those other aspects exist doesn't mean that the religious one doesn't"

"Attempting to claim that it isn't is not only incorrect but, I believe, counter productive.  If the dominant narrative becomes that the...errr...extremes of religion are actually irreligious and merely symptoms of something else and if that is not true (as I believe it isn't) it removes a possible avenue of attack for no net benefit."

-- Don't take this personally but I strongly disagree.  Let me start by addressing your central argument.  There are other factors and religion is one of them, true.  These factors including religion are contributing significantly to the discussion or issue, true.  HOWEVER!  This is a major error that people make when looking at multiple factors/variables in predicting an outcome.  Are these factors related and does change in one change in the other -- specifically are they collinear.  So in the case of religion versus the other factors, the fact might be that removing religion will not prevent the outcome because religious opinion is not causally related to the outcome.  In other words religious views on the matter and the issue itself are both symptoms of another higher order factor?  if that makes any sense at all.

-- Lastly, undermining anyone's views is polemic and I think it's no accident that the discussion circles around religious views.  You will affect no change by antagonizing people.  This whole thing is totally the conservatives baiting the liberals so that the conservative base can vilify the urban elites more.  That's my perspective on it.

[Kythia]

Didn't take it personally at all.  And I hope you don't that I, yanno, disagree.

As I mention, I don't believe religious belief actually is necessary, I think its perfectly possible to hold those views without it.  So I don't actually think they are strictly colinear.  I do think, though, that religion is one of the legs supporting his argument in a less formalised sense - that out of the professed reasons for his decision one of them is religion.  Even if that leg isn't load bearing, attacking and removing it does weaken the argument as a whole: it prevents that being used as a fallback position for one and it divides support for two.

[Caehlim]

I have to admit, I'm confused by the whole situation.

I don't know what this law does, or how it's meant to work. I've read it. To me it just looks like a copy of the federal law to apply to state legislature. I listened to the verbal briefs from the supreme court's hobby lobby case where they were using RFRA and nothing seemed unreasonable about it. Also to my best knowledge of American law, these state laws can't undermine any constitutional rights or federal laws (though they could cause a lot of local grief while appeals move up the chain into the federal or supreme courts if the state authorities are behind the law).

However you've got so many people saying that there's something wrong with these laws and the people trying to get it passed haven't come out and explained why they're wrong.

I don't get it.

[Joel]

@KYTHIA

"I think its perfectly possible to hold those views without it.  So I don't actually think they are strictly colinear."

-- clarification here.  yes I agree I don't think religious beliefs is a necessary factor to explain why groups in Indiana are anti-gay.  but 'anti-gay' here would be the outcome and you wouldn't say that religious beliefs, a factor or argument, is 'collinear' with the outcome.  rather, when I brought that up I was asserting that religious beliefs is likely collinear with socio/economic factors.... and my point was that you can ignore the religious aspect and draw a pretty strong association between socio/economic factors and anti-gay sentiment...

"...religion is one of the legs supporting his argument "

-- religion absolutely is the only leg supporting his argument and it's a completely unassailable front.  you cannot logically argue something that is completely emotional in basis.  how would you even begin?  by attacking the relevance of religion in people's lives?  you would already be wrong the moment you brought it up. 

[Kythia]

-- religion absolutely is the only leg supporting his argument and it's a completely unassailable front.  you cannot logically argue something that is completely emotional in basis.  how would you even begin?  by attacking the relevance of religion in people's lives?  you would already be wrong the moment you brought it up.

Sorry, I'm not ignoring the other bit, I'm just intrigued by this bit.  Are you claiming that no arguments can shake a religious inspired belief?  Because that's not true.  People convert, people's beliefs change and develop, people are radicalised and...de-radicalised? Hell, I'm kinda sorta in the process of changing my mind about the Trinity at the moment.   All as a result of conversation.  Or are you claiming that his particular religious beliefs are, unlike other people's immune to logical argument.  Because that's a pretty big statement to make.

As to the other bit...eh.  Let me check I've got you right.  You say:  This anti-gay sentiment directly correlates to a particular grabbag of socio-economic factors.  Those same factors correlate with a particular brand of Christianity.  As a result, religion is incidental to the sentiment and there's no point bringing it to the forefront.

Have I understood you right there?  If so, I don't understand how you're getting to the second bit - that religion is the only leg supporting his argument. 

[Joel]

@KYTHIA

"As a result, religion is incidental to the sentiment and there's no point bringing it to the forefront. "

-- precisely

"If so, I don't understand how you're getting to the second bit - that religion is the only leg supporting his argument"

-- if you make an argument to try and change anti-gay sentiment then you would direct your effort on the cause of the issue right?  if that 'cause' is not the actual cause of the issue then all of your arguments against the issue become incorrect.  this whole thing is very strategic.  also I don't think the actual issue is anti-gay sentiments at all, but for the sake of argument lets just stick with that.

so to say it another way... I don't think the governor is making an argument in favor of the legislation in good faith.  He is not positing religious views as a reason why the legislation is valid.  He is using the argument to manipulate a larger discussion in order to accomplish other things that have nothing to do with the legislation.  Do you see what I'm saying?  He's baiting you.

" Are you claiming that no arguments can shake a religious inspired belief"

-- of course not.  There's plenty of theologians that arise at very profound understandings on religious and spiritual beliefs through reasoning and logic.  But what's actually going through people's heads when they are saying they want to protect their religious freedom through this legislation... I don't think has anything to do with religion.  It's an emotional argument.  Okay i realize ive' contradicted myself and it's because I haven't defined things well.  Mostly it's because you moved it into a different area, lol.  Lets distinguish a theologian's view on religion from the very political definition of religion.  I think the governor (and maniacs like ISIL/S) is using the political definition of religion and not the theological definition of it.  One is emotional.  The other is rational.

[Kythia]

Lets distinguish a theologian's view on religion from the very political definition of religion.  I think the governor (and maniacs like ISIL/S) is using the political definition of religion and not the theological definition of it.  One is emotional.  The other is rational.

OK, that makes sense, I think I get you now.  Thanks

-- if you make an argument to try and change anti-gay sentiment then you would direct your effort on the cause of the issue right?  if that 'cause' is not the actual cause of the issue then all of your arguments against the issue become incorrect.  this whole thing is very strategic.  also I don't think the actual issue is anti-gay sentiments at all, but for the sake of argument lets just stick with that.

I don't think this can be as neatly divided into what is the "cause" and what a side effect as your statement seems to imply.  We agree that religion is a major component in the public-facing arguments in favour of this (in fact, you go further and say its the only one).  Attacking that facet has a value, even if it only attacks the PR and presentation aspects of the argument.  Saying religion isn't a root cause of his argument may well be correct, I suppose, but undermining and nullifying it still has a value.  And one that is lost if we take the religious aspects of his argument off the table.

[consortium11]

I have to admit, I'm confused by the whole situation.

I don't know what this law does, or how it's meant to work. I've read it. To me it just looks like a copy of the federal law to apply to state legislature. I listened to the verbal briefs from the supreme court's hobby lobby case where they were using RFRA and nothing seemed unreasonable about it.

That's it; as far as I can tell it's pretty much word for word the federal RFRA transcribed to state level, with the exact same effects; the (in this case state) government cannot substantially burden someone's freedom to exercise their religion unless there is a compelling government interest and no less restrictive way of doing so.

I feel that if you're making a law with the express intent of granting people of religion the freedom to discriminate, yes I think the spirit of "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" applies.

I don't really follow; the establishment clause is about preventing one religion being elevated over the others. RFRA type laws don't do that; they view all religions equally. In fact, until Hobby Lobby, most of the notable federal RFRA cases and successes related to Native American's asserting their free exercise of religion was being substantially burdened.

Likewise one should also pay attention to the establishment clauses' partner, the free exercise clause. RFRA type laws are designed expressly to support that; to prevent the government from prohibiting or interfering with the free exercise of religion.

[Joel]

@KYTHIA

"but undermining and nullifying it still has a value.  And one that is lost if we take the religious aspects of his argument off the table"

-- I agree, which is why when people of like mind, like us, look at this we can both say unequivocally that the argument is wrong because using religion in that way is incorrect.  But you'll notice that any politician worth their salt would never engage directly on religion in arguing against the law.  If you want to swing this other side's position then you'd have to be more strategic about it.

@CAEHLIM

"I don't know what this law does, or how it's meant to work."

-- which pretty much gets to the crux of it.  What's the point of this really?  I think it's a political maneuver (wasting tax payer dollars) to make a statement without any actual change or improvement to the system at all.  The legislation is patently unconstitutional.  I mean... just replace 'gays' with 'blacks' and the whole thing falls apart.  Or... put it another way and ask:

1) can a business deny service to Christians because they simply don't like Christians

2) can a business deny service to Christians because they have a religious obligation to not serve Christians

3) can a business deny service to blacks because they have a religious obligation to not serve blacks.

Does having a religious obligation make it correct versus not having one at all.  Does targeting a group based on belief differ from targeting a group based on race.  And for the record orientation is not a belief or a choice, which I think (?) is something pretty well underscored by all the court cases against the defense of marriage act.

[Cycle]

However you've got so many people saying that there's something wrong with these laws and the people trying to get it passed haven't come out and explained why they're wrong.

I don't get it.

Bear in mind that the Federal law was passed over 20 years ago.  Now, consider how social attitudes have changed over that amount of time.  Some things tolerated or even encouraged back then are not so acceptable today.  Hence, the difference in public response.

[Oniya]

Angie's List has also joined the list of those backing out of Indiana.

[consortium11]

The legislation is patently unconstitutional.

It's really, really not. There are virtually identical laws in at least 20 states following  City of Boerne v. Flores and both they and the federal version have been challenged for being unconstitutional; every time that claim has failed. RFRA type laws are basically the free exercise clause of the consitution in action.

I mean... just replace 'gays' with 'blacks' and the whole thing falls apart.  Or... put it another way and ask:

1) can a business deny service to Christians because they simply don't like Christians

2) can a business deny service to Christians because they have a religious obligation to not serve Christians

3) can a business deny service to blacks because they have a religious obligation to not serve blacks.

Does having a religious obligation make it correct versus not having one at all.  Does targeting a group based on belief differ from targeting a group based on race.  And for the record orientation is not a belief or a choice, which I think (?) is something pretty well underscored by all the court cases against the defense of marriage act.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was someone out there who could demonstrate a genuinely held religious belief that required them to discriminate against black people.

Do RFRA type laws mean they are unconditionally free to do so?

No, they do not. The government can quite easily argue that there is a compelling governmental interest in preventing discrimination in offered services on the basis of race/skin colour. And that there is no less restrictive way of fulfilling that governmental interest then by preventing discrimination. This isn't radical legislation of a type that has never been seen before. The federal version has been on the books for 20+ years. State versions have been around for over a decade. Rhode Island... one of the most left-leaning, democrat-voting states with one of the better record on LGBT issues has it on the books.

Bear in mind that the Federal law was passed over 20 years ago.  Now, consider how social attitudes have changed over that amount of time.  Some things tolerated or even encouraged back then are not so acceptable today.  Hence, the difference in public response.

I don't follow.

The RFRA was signed as a response to the war on drugs and weak sacred land rights; the cases that kicked it into action and brought support from groups as diverse as the ACLU and the Traditional Values Coalition were one of two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits because they tested positive for mescaline/peyote and one consisting of a road being built across land sacred to Native Americans. I'm unaware of there being a change in social attitudes being more negative about drug use or more hostile to Native American/First Peoples rights.

[Cycle]

I don't follow.

I'm unaware of there being a change in social attitudes being more negative about drug use or more hostile to Native American/First Peoples rights.

The second quote explains the first.

Your comments are myopic and presented skewed view of the public response.  They also demonstrate a misunderstanding of what issues were considered by Congress in enacting the RFRA.  The people responding to the Indiana law are not driven by their feelings about payote.  Nor was Congress, actually, in passing the RFRA.

[Kythia]

I think what has changed is Hobby Lobby.  A lot of people got a whole load of sand in their vaginas about that, and seeing this law come in post-HL reawakens old antagonism.  I struggled at the time to see entirely what the objection to Hobby Lobby was and following consortium's explanation (thanks!) have the same problems seeing what the problem with this is.  I'll accept, cheerfully, that the thinking behind the law is to allow Christians to refuse service to LGBT people but that doesn't make it a bad law, it makes people who want to use it that way bad people.

[Joel]

@CONSORTIUM -- I'm so not a lawyer, so bear with my mumbojumbo terms.

If I get you right... you are saying that the central argument of the legislation is that it protects the freedom of expression of religious business owners in Indiana.  This is okay under the RFRA.  However, if the government can show that there's "compelling governmental interest in preventing discrimination in offered services"... then would that have precedence over the stipulations in the RFRA?

@KYTHIA & CONSORTIUM

"I'll accept, cheerfully, that the thinking behind the law is to allow Christians to refuse service to LGBT people but that doesn't make it a bad law, it makes people who want to use it that way bad people."

-- Is it legal to discriminate?

@KYTHIA

"I struggled at the time to see entirely what the objection to Hobby Lobby"

-- I don't think this law is the same as HL.  Because HL was about them choosing what sort of benefits to offer people that choose to work for them.  If they denied employment to a group of people then that'd be unconstitutional right?  Or is that a State's thing.

[kylie]

     For what it's worth, here's at least one Christian outfit, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), upset enough to officially consider leaving:

“Purportedly a matter of religious freedom, we find RFRA contrary to the values of our faith — as well as to our national and Hoosier values,” stated the letter, which was signed by Sharon E. Watkins, the church’s general minister and president, as well as the leaders of its overseas and domestic missions.

“As a Christian church, we are particularly sensitive to the values of the One we follow — one who sat at table with people from all walks of life, and loved them all.”

The General Assembly will bring more than 6,000 church members to whatever U.S. city the church decides upon and is expected to generate about $5 million in tourism dollars. After Pence signed the law, ministry leaders said they are weighing the costs of moving not only the General Assembly, but smaller meetings — such as the more frequent gatherings of the 125-member board of directors — which most often meets in Indianapolis.

Associate General Minister and Vice President Todd Adams said the church’s board will decide whether to yank the General Assembly from Indianapolis at its next meeting, which begins on April 10.

[Kythia]

-- Is it legal to discriminate?

In general, yes.  There are certain factors its not legal to discriminate on the basis of, but as a general rule - yes it is. 

-- I don't think this law is the same as HL.  Because HL was about them choosing what sort of benefits to offer people that choose to work for them.  If they denied employment to a group of people then that'd be unconstitutional right?  Or is that a State's thing.

Hobby Lobby was a case under the RFRA which - per Consortium, I don't know - is basically the same as this law.  What I meant was that the aftertase of Hobby Lobby has got people complaining about this particular law when they haven't cared about other, similar, ones passed before that.

[kylie]

     I wonder if some of that discussion re: Native American stuff may be in reference to more or less this sort of view:  Here's one Catholic News Agency article claiming this is all 'nothing new' and more about liberal causes than discrimination.  Or so they say.  I feel like it's more like a subtle "We're all under the thumb of big governments so let us do anything we want or they'll come for you next" sort of Trojan horse argument, personally.

Fiedorek pointed to numerous examples of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in place. In one case, a Texas Native American boy appealed to a similar law when his school dress code barred him from wearing his hair longer than the other students.

       People are trying to dress this up as being the same as 1993, and arguing that "freedom of religion" can be used to defend all sorts of charitable initiatives and liberal goals...  The problem is this is 2015 and not 1993 (though I'm not sure 1993 was really any nicer -- but people are more organized to respond to it now I suppose).  We clearly have lots of people using that banner in an attempt to allow outright discrimination in employment, customer service, and more.  There is an obvious interest in putting up something new to circumvent roadblocks to discrimination: Such as the often-mentioned Elaine Photography in New Mexico, where same-sex couples were denied service and the state courts called foul.   

       This article from a given Catholic side also suggests that what these additional "freedom" laws should be placed to do, is to demand that religious freedom be given a stronger level of judicial consideration.  That's a level that others would argue is a misreading of prior law and national procedures.  It flies in the face of the civil rights movement, too.  It's more handy for expressly creating a multitude of the very conflicts that the new bills claim to settle, when previously many of these conflicts would have been presumed to have more predictable outcomes.  Except this time religion would be right up there in the running with things like freedom of speech and right to pursuit of life and happiness (one might read: to have a livelihood, i.e. do business without impediment due to others' religion) and thus there would be vast areas of new conflict. I'm still highly skeptical that it's useful to go there.

     P.S. Next we'll have the "gun rights" lobby selling an amendment that every house may have full automatic weapons cause hey, the second amendment must be "protected" from everything else equally.  Actually, I think they've already attempted some bills in this general direction, though maybe not quite specifying full automatic.

[Lustful Bride]

This has all made me think of an old favorite quote of mine.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

When people are given the ability to discriminate against others and not be punished or chastised for it they will use it to their hearts content and it will only grow like a cancer.

I wish I could add more but I'm not as smrt as you all.  :P

[Kythia]

I always figured the moral of that story was "Join them or otherwise, at some point, they'll come for you"

This is why I'm no longer in charge of after school specials. 

[consortium11]

@CONSORTIUM -- I'm so not a lawyer, so bear with my mumbojumbo terms.

If I get you right... you are saying that the central argument of the legislation is that it protects the freedom of expression of religious business owners in Indiana.  This is okay under the RFRA.  However, if the government can show that there's "compelling governmental interest in preventing discrimination in offered services"... then would that have precedence over the stipulations in the RFRA?

To quote the Indiana RFRA:

A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and 30 the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

Burden is defined as:

an action that directly or indirectly:
(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by a person; or
(2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion.
(b) The term includes:
(1) withholding a benefit from a person;
(2) assessing a criminal, a civil, or an administrative penalty against a person; or
(3) excluding a person from a governmental program or 16 denying a person access to a governmental facility

So if, for example, the state made a law saying people would be fined for wearing turbans then a Sikh man (who is required to wear a Dastaar due to his religion) could assert the RFRA as a reason to block that law. The state would then have to show that there was some compelling governmental interest for preventing people wearing turbans and that there was no less restrictive way to achieve that interest then banning all turbans.

To give an example on a federal level, a Quaker tried to assert the RFRA when it came to taxes on the basis that her taxes were going towards military spending and that, as her faith required strict pacifism, paying taxes that went towards military expenditure was a burden on her exercising her religion. The court agreed that it was a burden on her religion but asserted that there was a compelling governmental interest and no less restrictive way of doing it then general taxation. In general the law is also only applied when whatever law it is requires the person to actively do (or not do) something; cases where someone asserted their RFRA rights in relation to DNA samples being stored failed.

So to apply the "a store owned by fundamentalist Christians refuses to serve LGBT people" example, I think there is an obvious compelling governmental interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sexuality/gender status when it comes to access to offered services. I can think of no less restrictive way of doing so then preventing discrimination against LGBT people. Hence an RFRA assertion against a law against discrimination of LGBT people would likely fail; while the anti-discrimination law might constitute a burden on exercising religion, it fulfills a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive way of doing so.

-- Is it legal to discriminate?

Outside of protected classes (generally race, colour, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex etc) yes. If I run a bar and refuse to serve anyone who professes to be a Manchester United fan then it may be horrible PR but I'm unlikely to have broken any laws. It's also on that basis that dress codes work; an establishment is entitled to discriminate against wearing certain clothes if it wants to (although it should be noted that there have been cases where dress codes that disallowed "thug" style clothing have been challenged on the basis that they are really discriminating on the basis of race).

-- I don't think this law is the same as HL.  Because HL was about them choosing what sort of benefits to offer people that choose to work for them.  If they denied employment to a group of people then that'd be unconstitutional right?  Or is that a State's thing.

To step in for Kythia here, the Hobby Lobby case related to the federal version of this exact law; Hobby Lobby (and the other companies involved) asserted that requiring them to fund certain types of birth control or face significant fines was a burden on their exercise of religion. The Supreme Court agreed it was and while there was a compelling governmental interest in birth control being funded as the government had already offered a less restricted method which it argued came with no additional expenses Hobby Lobby succeeded.

Your comments are myopic and presented skewed view of the public response.  They also demonstrate a misunderstanding of what issues were considered by Congress in enacting the RFRA.  The people responding to the Indiana law are not drive by their feelings about payote.  Nor was Congress, actually, in passing the RFRA.

The RFRA was brought about because Employment Division v. Smith and Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association absolutely butchered the free exercise of religion. Both cases related to Native Americans; one their rituals (and the drugs used) and one their sacred ground. One of the strongest proponents of it was the ACLU... not exactly the biggest friend to fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in the US. On a federal level it has tended to find against Christians who have brought cases (the Quaker example I mentioned above, the university students who objected to their fees being used to supply abortion services) while supporting the rights of other religions. It is used disproportionately by Jewish, Muslim, and followers  of Native American religions compared to Christians. It (along with the similar Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) have been one of the greatest protections that Native Americans have had to the federal government interfering with their religion and in general has repeatedly and reliably been used by religious minorities to protect against the state burdening or preventing them from following their religion.

However much people want to spin the RFRA as some pro-Christian act, it isn't. It's pro-religion in general, pro-the things that come with religion and has consistently been driven both in theory and practice by other religions wanting to protect their ability to worship. The RFRA is the reason that Sikhs are allowed to wear their Kirpans when working for the federal government... although they had to go to court to assert it. The above mentioned similar bill is why Muslim prisoners are allowed to grow small beards.

[Cycle]

The RFRA was brought about because Employment Division v. Smith and Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association absolutely butchered the free exercise of religion.

No, the driving force behind the RFRA extends beyond those two cases.  Here's the legislative history.  Those cases are just two of the pieces, not all of the pieces, that went into building the RFRA.  Congress was considering the application of the "right to religious freedom" in many contexts beyond peyote, including things such as paying taxes, participating in public education, and unmarried women cohabitating with their fiancées.

But this is straying from the point I was originally trying to make:  i.e., social views have changed in the past 20 years.  Congress was nearly unanimous in passing the RFRA.  Today?  Not a chance that would happen.  This should hopefully help some folks see why the argument that "the Indiana law is just like the RFRA" is not terribly persuasive.  That is, just because they passed a law 20 years ago that doesn't mean they should pass that same law today.

[Joel]

@CYCLE
" i.e., social views have changed in the past 20 years.  Congress was nearly unanimous in passing the RFRA.  Today?  Not a chance that would happen.  This should hopefully help some folks see why the argument that "the Indiana law is just like the RFRA" is not terribly persuasive.  That is, just because they passed a law 20 years ago that doesn't mean they should pass that same law today."

-- Even if the public opinion were against RFRA... that does not mean that the Indiana legislation cannot draw precedence from RFRA.  Atop of that, I think there are plenty of laws that were passed many decades ago that people would be vehemently against now.  For example, the Clean Water Act and The Endangered Species Act -- which are cornerstones to the government's environmental protection apparatus.

@CONSORTIUM
"Burden is defined as:.... "

-- Oh, the darned thing doesn't even explicitly say that business owners can deny service does it?  If it's a total c/p of the RFRA then what new precedence would the Indiana legislation introduce anyway?  Couldn't the RFRA have hypothetically been employed in such a way to 'protect' business owners in Indiana as it is?

If so then it sounds like the Indiana law would be up to interpretation by the courts if and when a customer sues a business and it goes to the courts.  The judge might very well rule in favor of the customer even with the Indiana law right?  If nothing has changed in the books and previous cases have ruled in favor of the customer, then the Indiana law might just be a paper tiger?


"Outside of protected classes (generally race, colour, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex etc)"

"Hence an RFRA assertion against a law against discrimination of LGBT people would likely fail; while the anti-discrimination law might constitute a burden on exercising religion, it fulfills a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive way of doing so."

-- I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume that Indiana does not have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT people.  I realize the Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution, but the federal government has stepped in and changed state laws on civil rights grounds before.  Would this first require an anti-discrimination law at the federal level (is there one for LGBT)?

[kylie]

     The Employment Non-Discrimination Act or somewhat similar bills have been batted around for quite some time (some say generations).  [Yes, the link is a Wiki but for once at least it's pretty developed with general coverage.]  But these are a narrower category of protective proposals concerned mainly with employment terms, and they have recently run aground on precisely this issue of religious exemptions. 

      It's pretty to think the courts should be consistent with some more functionally direct rules of law like those found in say, interstate commerce provisions intended to keep the market open, consistently regulated, and basically accessible for everyone...  And also not go rehashing many precedents of inclusiveness generally to deal with umpteen variations of excuses to exclude people from the market (echoes of Southern schools and water fountains here).  Pass this stuff and no matter what the outcome after years of court cases, it'll be more "Protect my religious expression" or when people can't get that on the basis of strict "religion", "No my religious ideal IS freedom of speech which means denial of service."  On and on.  That is actually the sort of slippage from one amendment to another that Elaine Photography attempted to sell the Supreme Court already.  Without knowing whatever "religion" entails, we can see it being revisited all over the place with again, the goal to exclude in the name of 'protecting' whatever all one dreams up. 

      But then when we've had rulings like Citizens United and arguably, even the RFRA itself and now Hobby Lobby, there are plenty of reasons to suspect it wouldn't always be a paper tiger.  And regardless of the outcome:  In the time all these things were being argued and sorted out again in court, whoever is on the wrong end of the religious right would be getting denied service for months and years at however many local providers care to wave that paper around and say, "Nuh-uh, my particular religious conscience says don't deal with those folks."

       Once upon a time, we had to call out the National Guard to deal with schools that felt that way about Black people.  Oh but yes now they wanna do it again with orientation, which you can't even readily observe much of the time, cause those lovely founding fathers didn't bother to expressly write that one in.  Even worse?  Those lovely founding fathers were complicit in slavery -- so obviously we can't use the Constitution now, can we.  Somewhere in all this, there must be an "original intent" excuse to just disband the union already.  A very vocal fraction of Texas would probably be relieved.  ::)

[kylie]

This has all made me think of an old favorite quote of mine.


When people are given the ability to discriminate against others and not be punished or chastised for it they will use it to their hearts content and it will only grow like a cancer.

I wish I could add more but I'm not as smrt as you all.  :P

       Judging by the sorts of contorted logic being offered in that column I cited earlier?  I'd say just being able to remember the original quote in context is pretty smart these days! 

:-)

[consortium11]

No, the driving force behind the RFRA extends beyond those two cases.  Here's the legislative history.  Those cases are just two of the pieces, not all of the pieces, that went into building the RFRA.

I don't want to sound petty or trite here, but have you read your own sources?

Smith was decided on April 17, 1990. The first introduction of the RFRA came in July that year from the democrat New York congressman Stephen J. Solarz. In the sub-committee hearing on it he (and pretty much everyone else) expressly mentioned how it was as a result of Smith. When he reintroduced the bill a year later he expressly stated how it was a response to Smith. When congress reported on it in 1993 they expressly mentioned how it was created as a response to Smith.

Without Smith and Lyng there would be no RFRA. Those cases aren't just the driving force behind the act, they're the only reason the act was ever contemplated. They're the very reason it exists. If Native American peyote rituals and sacred land rights hadn't been infringed by the federal government then those cases would have never occurred and there would be no RFRA.

But this is straying from the point I was originally trying to make:  i.e., social views have changed in the past 20 years.  Congress was nearly unanimous in passing the RFRA.  Today?  Not a chance that would happen.  This should hopefully help some folks see why the argument that "the Indiana law is just like the RFRA" is not terribly persuasive.  That is, just because they passed a law 20 years ago that doesn't mean they should pass that same law today.

And I still don't follow you. Let's say there was no Smith case and thus no RFRA. If the Smith case happened today and the free exercise clause was butchered, meaning that Native Americans couldn't assert their religious rights when it came to peyote usage in rituals, are you suggesting that people would oppose reintroducing the free exercise clause?

-- Oh, the darned thing doesn't even explicitly say that business owners can deny service does it?

No... and I'm not sure why anyone would think it would (unless they've gone purely by media hype). RFRA type laws have always been about preventing burdens on exercising religions.

If it's a total c/p of the RFRA then what new precedence would the Indiana legislation introduce anyway?  Couldn't the RFRA have hypothetically been employed in such a way to 'protect' business owners in Indiana as it is?

The Federal RFRA only applies on a federal level, originally as a result of City of Boerne v. Flores and subsequently due to an amendment. That's the reason that 20 odd states already had a version of it on their own state books prior to Indiana.

If so then it sounds like the Indiana law would be up to interpretation by the courts if and when a customer sues a business and it goes to the courts.  The judge might very well rule in favor of the customer even with the Indiana law right?  If nothing has changed in the books and previous cases have ruled in favor of the customer, then the Indiana law might just be a paper tiger?

Previously there was no RFRA type defence available at a state level. Now there is. That doesn't mean the courts will always rule in favour of a business using an RFRA defence; as I mentioned previously the state can argue there's a compelling governmental interest and the method they took was the least restrictive way of achieving it.

-- I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume that Indiana does not have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT people.

As far as I'm aware there isn't a unifying state-wide one but state employers and services have one as do several counties and cities.

[Cycle]

Your original assertion:

The RFRA was signed as a response to the war on drugs and weak sacred land rights ... I'm unaware of there being a change in social attitudes being more negative about drug use or more hostile to Native American/First Peoples rights.

I pointed out this assertion is false.  The RFRA was not signed solely in response to any war or drugs or sacred land rights.  Anyone can see this is true simply by reviewing the Legislative History.

Your new(?) assertion:

Without Smith and Lyng there would be no RFRA. Those cases aren't just the driving force behind the act, they're the only reason the act was ever contemplated. They're the very reason it exists. If Native American peyote rituals and sacred land rights hadn't been infringed by the federal government then those cases would have never occurred and there would be no RFRA.

This is still incorrect.  Smith and Lyng provided an opening for a Legislator to introduce a bill.  But the issue addressed by the RFRA--the extent the government can or should limit one's "right to religious freedom"--were under debate, analysis, and scrutiny long before Smith and Lyng came along.

The numerous issues the Legislature was debating and seeking to address as summarized conveniently by the Congressional Research Service in a report that is on the Legislative Histories site I posted earlier:

Read that Summary of Smith section.  See how it clearly states the issues addressed by the RFRA are broader than the specific issues raised by Smith?  And there were other factors and issues in play.  The Report provides a nice convenient list:

The United States Congress, for all its flaws, does try to look at the larger picture when it passes laws.  The RFRA is not just about peyote, drug wars, Smith or Lyng

And I still don't follow you. ... If the Smith case happened today and the free exercise clause was butchered, meaning that Native Americans couldn't assert their religious rights when it came to peyote usage in rituals, are you suggesting that people would oppose reintroducing the free exercise clause?

Well, I won't accept your premise that the RFRA would not exist without Smith.  But that's a tangential issue. 

What I am saying is that if Congress tried to pass the RFRA today, it would not likely receive the same level of support it received 20 years ago.  In the U.S., public opinion of numerous issues have changed.  This should be self evident.  Just look at how people feel about the Indiana law that was just passed. 

[Kythia]

Off topic a little, but your second image (#3 in the second numbered list) mentions a guy arrested for fortune telling.  I looked in that a little more - Ballard v Walker 1991 and yeah, turns out that's totally a crime in New York.  Whaddya know.

[consortium11]

I pointed out this assertion is false.  The RFRA was not signed solely in response to any war or drugs or sacred land rights.  Anyone can see this is true simply by reviewing the Legislative History.

The war on drugs meant that where previously no-one had taken a strict and harsh view on Native American peyote usage the state no longer felt it could no longer find any wiggle room. (The lack of) Sacred Land rights meant that the Native Americans had to call upon free exercise in an attempt to protect them. These two cases are expressly cited as the reason the RFRA was created. Without Smith and Lyng there's no RFRA. Without the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights there's no Smith or Lyng.

This is still incorrect.  Smith and Lyng provided an opening for a Legislator to introduce a bill.  But the issue addressed by the RFRA--the extent the government can or should limit one's "right to religious freedom"--were under debate, analysis, and scrutiny long before Smith and Lyng came along.

The numerous issues the Legislature was debating and seeking to address as summarized conveniently by the Congressional Research Service in a report that is on the Legislative Histories site I posted earlier:

Have you linked to the wrong pictures/sections?

There's no discussion about legislative debate or consideration there. It's how the courts prior to Smith interpreted the free exercise clause. You may also notice how the language the courts use is almost identical to what was eventually included in the RFRA ("least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest" in Thomas). That's deliberate. The intention of the RFRA was to restore the status-quo prior to Smith, although some jurists suggest they (possibly unintentionally) went further. Which goes back to my point. Prior to Smith there was no call for an RFRA style act as the free exercise clause was seen as sufficient. It was only when Smith butchered the free exercise clause that any called for an RFRA type act in an attempt to replicate legislatively what had once been the case judicially. Without Smith (and Lyng) there's no RFRA because there's no need for an RFRA.

Read that Summary of Smith section.  See how it clearly states the issues addressed by the RFRA are broader than the specific issues raised by Smith?  And there were other factors and issues in play.  The Report provides a nice convenient list:

They're examples of the lower courts following Smith when later cases came before them. Without Smith those issues and cases don't exist; the courts' prior interpretation of the free enterprise clause would apply.

The United States Congress, for all its flaws, does try to look at the larger picture when it passes laws.  The RFRA is not just about peyote, drug wars, Smith or Lyng

Well, I won't accept your premise that the RFRA would not exist without Smith.

So when Don Edwards said "The bill responds to Employment Division v. Smith, a recent Supreme Court ruling that weakened the long-held standard of review for religious freedom cases. H.R. 5377 restores the prior legal standard" at the sub-committee hearing for the original 1990 introduction of the bill, he was lying? Was William Dannemeyer lying at the same hearing when he said "But, Mr. Chairman, this is not a normal piece of legislation and the Supreme Court decision that brings us together today was not your normal piece of reasoned jurisprudence. The embarrassment known as Employment Division v. Smith will undoubtedly go down in legal history as a case study in intellectual rigidity."? Or when Jim Sensenbrenner said "The purpose of this bill is to reinstate the "compelling state interest" test for free exercise claims that was eviscerated by the Supreme Court in Unemployment Division v. Smith."? Or Steve Solarez, the author of the bill, when he said "I see it has now taken Mr. Justice Scalia, in his opinion in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, to bring us together on the question of religious freedom."? Or when he later said "Mr. Speaker, yesterday I re-introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991. This legislation will reverse the disastrous effects of a dastardly and unprovoked attack on our first freedom by the Supreme Court of the United States. On April 17 1990, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to religious freedom in the United States. In the case of Oregon Employment Division versus Smith, a majority of the Justices virtually eliminated the first amendment's requirement that Government accommodate the religious practices of all Americans unless it can demonstrate that the burden imposed is the least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling state interest."? Or when the report on the bill stated "H.R. 1308, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith by creating a statutory right requiring that the compelling governmental interest test be applied in cases in which the free exercise of religion has been burdened by a rule of general applicability."?

Every single discussion relating to the RFRA when it was conceived and eventually passed related to Smith, because Smith (and Lyng) are the reason there was ever considered a need for it. The point of the RFRA was to return to a pre-Smith state when it came to the free exercise clause. Without Smith there's no RFRA because without Smith there's no need for an RFRA; the judicial view was virtually identical to the RFRA.

I'll simplify.

Prior to Smith the courts held that the government couldn't burden the exercise of religion unless there was a compelling governmental interest and it was the least restrictive way of achieving that interest.

Smith removed that; there was no longer a need for the government to prove a compelling interest, let alone that it was the least restrictive.

The RFRA made it so the government once again couldn't burden the exercise of religion unless there was a compelling governmental interest and it was the least restrictive way of achieving that interest.

Smith is the reason there is the federal RFRA (and in turn the state RFRAs).

But that's a tangential issue.

It's not. We're discussing whether people would support a law or not. The reason the law came into being and the "issue" (for lack of a better term) it sought to correct are pretty vital to working out whether it would be supported or not.

What I am saying is that if Congress tried to pass the RFRA today, it would not likely receive the same level of support it received 20 years ago.  In the U.S., public opinion of numerous issues have changed.  This should be self evident.  Just look at how people feel about the Indiana law that was just passed.

So lets say there's no RFRA. The federal government passes a law banning the wearing of all head coverings within federal buildings. Do you not think that a coalition of Jews (yarmulkes and other head coverings), Muslims (taqiyahs), Sikhs (dastars), Catholic nuns (parts of their habit/coif) etc etc objecting to this would have pretty much mass support?

Or hell, repeat the Smith and Lyng cases; two Native Americans are fired and denied unemployment rights for engaging in their traditional religious ceremonies while the state also plans to concrete over Native American sacred ground. If that happened today do you not think people would support the Native Americans?

You keep saying that people wouldn't support a RFRA type law. Yet you present no evidence of this beyond pointing to Indiana. And how many people disagreeing with the Indiana situation really understand RFRA type acts compared to simply going by what the media (on both sides) are presenting it as; something to be used to attack LGBT people and that will allow any business to discriminate against them in any circumstances.

[Cycle]

Prior to Smith there was no call for an RFRA style act as the free exercise clause was seen as sufficient.

And this is where you and I disagree.  The issue was raised before Smith and after Smith.  Smith was a hook that the Legislature used in pushing forth the RFRA.  The whole issue of freedom of religion was already being tested and challenged and analyzed separate and apart from Smith.  The lists show this.  Smith is just one of many.  It isn't the be all and end all of the RFRA as you insist.  The Report literally says this:

You insist on taking a myopic view of Smith.  You insist there was no other reason for the RFRA to come into being.  It's like saying Roe v. Wade is the only reason women have the right to choose.  No, Roe is just a part of it.  An important part, but still just a part.  It's obvious you disagree.  I'll just have to accept that you and I view this situation differently.

It's not. We're discussing whether people would support a law or not.

We are?  That's not what I'm getting from you.

So lets say there's no RFRA. The federal government passes a law banning the wearing of all head coverings within federal buildings. Do you not think that a coalition of Jews (yarmulkes and other head coverings), Muslims (taqiyahs), Sikhs (dastars), Catholic nuns (parts of their habit/coif) etc etc objecting to this would have pretty much mass support?

Or hell, repeat the Smith and Lyng cases; two Native Americans are fired and denied unemployment rights for engaging in their traditional religious ceremonies while the state also plans to concrete over Native American sacred ground. If that happened today do you not think people would support the Native Americans?

What makes you think the discussion, when it took place, would be limited to head coverings or peyote?  What makes you think people won't analyze the law and consider all of the potential ramifications?

You keep saying that people wouldn't support a RFRA type law. Yet you present no evidence of this beyond pointing to Indiana. And how many people disagreeing with the Indiana situation really understand RFRA type acts compared to simply going by what the media (on both sides) are presenting it as; something to be used to attack LGBT people and that will allow any business to discriminate against them in any circumstances.

Do you honestly believe social attitudes today are the same as it was 20 years ago?

[consortium11]

And this is where you and I disagree.  The issue was raised before Smith and after Smith.  Smith was simply the hook that the Legislature used in pushing forth the RFRA.  The whole issue of freedom of religion was already being tested and challenged and analyzed separate and apart from Smith.  The lists show this.  Smith is just one of many.  It isn't the be all and end all of the RFRA as you insist.

You insist on taking a myopic view of Smith.  You insist there was no other reason for the RFRA to come into being.  It's like saying Roe v. Wade is the only reason women have the right to choose.  No, Roe is just a part of it.  An important part, but still just a part.  It's obvious you disagree.  I'll just have to accept that you and I view this situation differently.

Because there was no other reason for the RFRA to come into being. The express purpose of the RFRA, the purpose that every person supporting or debating the bill mentioned, was to undo Smith. Without Smith there's no RFRA because there's no need for the RFRA because there's nothing to undo. I'm genuinely not sure if you're debating in good faith here. The author of the bill says the reason for the RFRA is Smith. The co-signers of the bill say the reason for the RFRA is Smith. Congress' official report on the bill says the reason for the RFRA is Smith.

Yet you... and pretty much you alone... insist it isn't. You're saying that all of those people were lying when they said the reason behind it was Smith. You're saying you know more about the reasons for the bill being contemplated, written, signed and enacted then the people who wrote, debated, discussed and voted on it. I mean, I'm not sure what better source I can give you then the very author of the bill repeatedly saying "I came up with this bill because of Smith".

Had religious freedom been debated before Smith? Yes. And the position the courts had settled on was that the government couldn't burden the exercise of religion unless there was a compelling governmental interest and it was the least restrictive way of achieving that interest. There was no legislative demand or pressure for an RFRA type bill because the language used was pretty much identical to what was eventually included in the RFRA. Then along came Smith and wiped away the compelling government interest test. Then... and only then... was an the RFRA contemplated, debated and enacted. And the express purpose... as said by everyone involved... was to undo Smith, to put the law back to the way it was before, reintroducing the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive test. Which is why it copies the wording of those previous court decisions.

The RFRA was an attempt to put things back to the way they were before Smith. That becomes nonsensical if Smith didn't occur. Without Smith (and Lyng) there's no RFRA because the entire purpose of the RFRA was to put things back to the way they were before Smith (and Lyng).

We are?  That's not what I'm getting from you.

Everything I've written has been why people supported the RFRA to begin with. People supported the RFRA because they opposed the decision in Smith. If you don't have Smith you don't have any support for the RFRA.

What makes you think the discussion, when it took place, would be limited to head coverings or peyote?  What makes you think people won't analyze the law and consider all of the potential ramifications?

So, let's be clear; you think that if the federal government wanted to concrete over Native American sacred ground today the majority of people would support the government? That if it wanted to ban head coverings in federal buildings you think people would oppose the Jews, Sikhs and Muslims who argued against it and instead support the government?

Do you honestly believe social attitudes today are the same as it was 20 years ago?

No, I think they've changed. I think people are more accepting of drug use in general, let alone in religious ceremonies. I think people are more respectful of other faith's sacred lands. I think people are more aware of the abuse minority religions can suffer and more willing to protect them. I think people have seen the efforts a minority make to demonize Muslims and have rejected it.

[Cycle]

I'm genuinely not sure if you're debating in good faith here.

First, calm down please.  There's no need to get angry here.  At this rate I can see a Staff-imposed cool down coming.

Second, yes, I am debating in good faith.  I am just perplexed as you over your apparently inability to see something that seems obvious to me.

Again, recall your original premise was that the RFRA was about the war on drugs and peyote.  This was proven false. 

Since then, you have changed your position and retreated from this initial, flawed premise.  Now you're clinging to the notion that Smith is the one and only reason the RFRA could ever have come into existence.  Yet you admit the freedom of religion issue was being debated and litigated in cases other than Smith.  Is it really that hard to see the connection?

You agree that religious freedom was debated before and after Smith.  But you insist that Smith is the one and only reason for the RFRA to exist.  What makes you think that one of the other cases involving religious freedom wouldn't have raised to the Supreme Court?  What makes you think that that Court would have came to a different conclusion concerning the application of religious freedom?  See?  The forces at work were manifest in more than just Smith.  Smith was a symptom, not the cause.

The Legislative History all comment on how Smith was the starting point.  No disagreement there.  But the debate then went wider and covered issues not raised by Smith.  (See the image above.)  Thus, the final version of the RFRA cannot be just the result of Smith and only Smith and nothing else.

So, let's be clear; you think that if the federal government wanted to concrete over Native American sacred ground today the majority of people would support the government? That if it wanted to ban head coverings in federal buildings you think people would oppose the Jews, Sikhs and Muslims who argued against it and instead support the government?

Again, what makes you think that if the U.S. Federal Government tried to passed a law to govern a Native American tribe's access to its sacred burial grounds, on the basis that it was not a proper exercise of religion, that people will not see how such a law would touch on broader issues and begin discussing its ramifications?

No, I think they've changed. I think people are more accepting of drug use in general, let alone in religious ceremonies. I think people are more respectful of other faith's sacred lands. I think people are more aware of the abuse minority religions can suffer and more willing to protect them. I think people have seen the efforts a minority make to demonize Muslims and have rejected it.

Good.  Then I present you as evidence that people will respond differently to the RFRA if Congress attempted to pass it as new legislation today.

[consortium11]

First, calm down please.  There's no need to get angry here.  At this rate I can see a Staff-imposed cool down coming.

Second, yes, I am debating in good faith.  I am just perplexed as you over your apparently inability to see something that seems obvious to me.

It's not anger, it's exasperation... possibly similar to what you feel... that we seem to be arguing in circles. Especially considering that your position is that the people who wrote, debated, voted on and signed the bill were lying when they said that it was about Smith. It's hard to continue a debate about the reasons behind a bill when I post the exact reasons the people who came up with the bill gave (repeatedly) and you simply dismiss them.

Again, recall your original premise was that the RFRA was about the war on drugs and peyote.  This was proven false.

No, it hasn't been proven false. Without the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights there's no Smith or Lyng. Without Smith or Lyng there's no RFRA. Again, I don't know how to make this any simpler. The people behind the RFRA make explicitly clear time after time after time that the point of the RFRA is to undo what Smith and Lyng did. Without Smith and Lyng there's nothing to undo. Without the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights there's no Smith and Lyng thus nothing to undo thus no RFRA.

Since then, you have changed your position and retreated from this initial, flawed premise.

No, I haven't. My position is exactly the same.  The RFRA is a result of Smith and Lyng. Without Smith and Lyng there's no RFRA. Without the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights there's no Smith and Lyng. Thus there's no RFRA.

Now you're clinging to the notion that Smith is the one and only reason the RFRA could ever have come into existence.

Smith and Lyng is the only reason that the RFRA came into being. You may want to argue fantasy worlds where the RFRA came to someone in a dream or was inspired by a particularly entertaining rendition of Vivaldi's Four Seasons but the reality of the situation is that the RFRA came about because of Smith and Lyng. Everyone involved with the RFRA agrees on that fact. They state that fact repeatedly.

Yet you admit the freedom of religion issue was being debated and litigated in cases other than Smith.  Is it really that hard to see the connection?

What connection? The cases that came to the Supreme Court prior to Smith and Lyng came to the same solution that the RFRA eventually did. That's why the RFRA was an attempt to return things to how they were pre-Smith.

You agree that religious freedom was debated before and after Smith.

It was; the courts held a position which largely matched the eventual RFRA.

But you insist that Smith is the one and only reason for the RFRA to exist.

It is the one and only reason that the RFRA exists. That's why everyone involved in the RFRA says it's the one and only reason it exists. Quite a few of the legislators involved make clear that they would normally be deeply suspicious and hesitant about agreeing with other legislators on a matter like this but Smith was enough to tip them over the edge.

What makes you think that one of the other cases involving religious freedom wouldn't have raised to the Supreme Court?

Other cases involving free exercise were raised to the Supreme Court; Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, Widmar v. Vincent, McDaniel v. Paty, Thomas v. Review Board, Goldman v. Weinberger and Bowen v. Roy to name a few. In none of those cases was the free exercise clause butchered in the way it was with Smith. Hence no RFRA.

What makes you think that that Court would have came to a different conclusion concerning the application of religious freedom?

Because it didn't. Only in Smith did it come to the conclusion it did.

I think I'm beginning to see your argument here, although it's not entirely clear. What you're saying is that if we removed all context from the RFRA being created, removed all the judicial history that went before it, removed all the discussion about what the free exercise clause was and meant, then perhaps people wouldn't be as willing to support it if appeared today. I'm not even going to engage with the argument because it's intellectual slight of hand. The RFRA wasn't created out of thin air. It was created for the reason. The reason was the context and the judicial history that went before it, including the discussion about what the free exercise clause was and what it meant, which largely concluded with Smith. If you want to argue that the RFRA would be less accepted if it was created today due to changing social attitudes then you have to apply the same context that led to it being created and supported in the first place; the free exercise clause being gutted in cases that related to the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights.

Discussing this in the matter you want to is akin to arguing that the War Powers Act of 1941 would be opposed if brought in today. Yes, probably if you remove all context from the original and said it was being created out of the blue today at a time where the US is largely at peace. But if you add the context that led to the War Powers Act being signed (a literal world war going on in the rest of the world and the US being attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan, thus entering the war itself) suddenly it would likely become rather more supported. If you want to remove or change the context of things you can say that pretty much anything would be supported or opposed just by jigging the context.

See?  The forces at work were manifest in more than just Smith.  Smith was a symptom, not the cause.

No, again, Smith was the cause. The fact that everyone involved said it was the cause (I can post all the quotes again if you want) makes it pretty clear what the cause was. You can't remove the context of something just because it doesn't suit your argument. The RFRA was brought about because of Smith. Without Smith there's no RFRA.

The Legislative History all comment on how Smith was the starting point.  No disagreement there.  But the debate then went wider and covered issues not raised by Smith.  (See the image above.)  Thus, the final version of the RFRA cannot be just the result of Smith and only Smith and nothing else.

It was a result of Smith and nothing else. That's why Smith was the cause of it. It's why the people involved said that Smith was the reason. It's why they made clear that it was only because of Smith that the act was contemplated, let alone agreed. Again, you can't just remove context you don't like.

Again, what makes you think that if the U.S. Federal Government tried to passed a law to govern a Native American tribe's access to its sacred burial grounds, on the basis that it was not a proper exercise of religion, that people will not see how such a law would touch on broader issues and begin discussing its ramifications?

I'm not sure what the purpose of this example is; it doesn't relate to either Smith or Lyng or the "issue" that the RFRA was intended to solve. Neither cases related to whether something was a proper exercise of religion or not, they related to what care the government had to take when dealing with an exercise of religion. The RFRA wasn't designed or intended to correct some issue with the courts interpretation of what constituted the "proper exercise of religion", it was designed and intended to correct some issue with the courts view on how the government had to consider and react to proper exercises of religion. Once more, you're changing the context.

Good.  Then I present you as evidence that people will respond differently to the RFRA if Congress attempted to pass it as new legislation today.

But I think that those changes in attitudes would make people more supportive of an RFRA type act. You've said they'd be more negative... but you've yet to present any evidence that it wouldn't other than Indiana, which... as I've previously mentioned... is presented in a different context to the RFRA.

[Kythia]

Look. It's a kitten dressed as kermit.  Look at its little face:

[Cycle]

I think I'm beginning to see your argument here, although it's not entirely clear. What you're saying is that if we removed all context from the RFRA being created, removed all the judicial history that went before it, removed all the discussion about what the free exercise clause was and meant, then perhaps people wouldn't be as willing to support it if appeared today. I'm not even going to engage with the argument because it's intellectual slight of hand. The RFRA wasn't created out of thin air. It was created for the reason. The reason was the context and the judicial history that went before it, including the discussion about what the free exercise clause was and what it meant, which largely concluded with Smith. If you want to argue that the RFRA would be less accepted if it was created today due to changing social attitudes then you have to apply the same context that led to it being created and supported in the first place; the free exercise clause being gutted in cases that related to the war on drugs and a lack of respect for Sacred Land rights.

Actually, I am arguing the exact opposite.  From my perspective, you're the one missing the context, being too focused on peyote and the drug war as the basis for the RFRA. 

Your posts are displaying an increasing level of hostility and willingness to vilify me because I disagree with you.  Accordingly, I won't engage with you further.  I'll go play with Kythia's kitty instead.

[Joel]

Actually, I am arguing the exact opposite.  From my perspective, you're the one missing the context, being too focused on peyote and the drug war as the basis for the RFRA. 

Your posts are displaying an increasing level of hostility and willingness to vilify me because I disagree with you.  Accordingly, I won't engage with you further.  I'll go play with Kythia's kitty instead.

-- Cycle I'm just going to note for Consortium's sake that you did start using words like 'myopic' fairly early in the conversation.

[Kuje]

Gen Con had a talk with the governor and sent a new letter to him after the discussion, which can be found here:

http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Anti-Discrimination.30_Mar_2015.pdf

[Cycle]

-- Cycle I'm just going to note for Consortium's sake that you did start using words like 'myopic' fairly early in the conversation.

I did.  This was his statement (emphasis added).

The RFRA was signed as a response to the war on drugs and weak sacred land rights; the cases that kicked it into action and brought support from groups as diverse as the ACLU and the Traditional Values Coalition were one of two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits because they tested positive for mescaline/peyote and one consisting of a road being built across land sacred to Native Americans. I'm unaware of there being a change in social attitudes being more negative about drug use or more hostile to Native American/First Peoples rights.

I'll leave it up to the readers to decide if these statements are myopic.

[Blythe]

Best to just agree to disagree and move on, please.

[DarknessBorne]

I think the law may have been well-intentioned, but it's turned into another "this is why we can't have nice things" scenario.  Most would use it responsibly, some even to laudably advance the cause of religious freedom.  Unfortunately, a few will abuse it and give it a bad name.

[Avis habilis]

Unfortunately, a few will abuse it and give it a bad name.

It won't be abuse. Providing a fig leaf for discrimination is the intentional purpose of the law.

[Joel]

I just wanna take a step back here and address the big picture issue.  First off, I think (maybe) we can agree that the legal argument has some basis because of the RFRA and similar laws already passed in other states.  The addition of individuals versus individuals in the Indiana law doesn't feel like such a stretch of the RFRA since the American ethos has always been very self-determinalistic (e.g., The Frontier Thesis, Frederic Jackson Turner), and government intervention into personal liberties is decidedly un-American.  But that's precisely the problem, because even Turner writing about the West as critical to the formulation of the American psyche, postulated this at the close of the frontier.  And he was also arguing against what was at the time a very cosmopolitan, Eastern seaboard view of American culture based around industry and the building of more complex, socially ordered systems.  (I mean the Federal government did win the Civil War after all).  Point being, that there has always been two sides to the American psyche.  There is the industrialist hegemony (made legitimate by the American Dream) and the Frontier.  The divide cannot be any more stark than Urban versus Rural.  The tinman versus the scarecrow and poor ol' Dorothy finds them both equally hopeless when faced with disorienting calamity of the Dust Bowl.

Does this sound familiar?

The hand lead the heart or the heart lead the hand.  I feel like Americans have been struggling with how to integrate these two sides of our culture forever.  And ultimately what makes the Indiana law so frustrating is not that it is going to do any great harm on it's own... but that it, in its intention, spits in the face of social cohesion.  It's a quixotic campaign no different than the desperate fight of Cliven Bundy who has no idea that the America he's fighting for has been gone for over a hundred years. 

Turner's assertion is that we are informed by our history.  I don't think him or any other historian after argued that we should regress back to the Frontier.  Besides, the reality is that it's impossible.  The Jeffersonian dream is not the America we've built.

We are all tinmen now in an industrialized America.  We can't pretend to be brainless strawmen no more.  But what we do need to do is find our hearts again.   

[kylie]

      Well, the rabbit hole gets busier.  There are touches of lots of things in this article about the history argued both ways, and federal and local.  But focusing more on recent news:

       Indiana has added language to the bill, perhaps even going beyond its prior laws, to specify flat out that business service cannot be denied to customers under this law.

Indiana’s governor has approved the state legislature’s changes to a controversial religious freedom law to clarify that businesses are not authorized to discriminate against gays and lesbians [among others]   

...

Under the existing law, the state cannot create legislation that infringes on a person’s religious beliefs – with the definition of person extended to include businesses, associations and other organizations. Because the state does not consider the LGBT community a protected class, the bill was interpreted as a way for businesses and organizations to legally discriminate   

...

The amendment clarifies that RFRA does not “authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.”

LGBT rights group Freedom Indiana, which has been fighting for RFRA reform, applauded the announcement in a statement.

“While there is still more work to do to ensure that Indiana state law explicitly protects gay and transgender Hoosiers from discrimination, this announcement is progress we couldn’t have imagined just a week ago when Gov Pence signed the law and created immediate national backlash,” Freedom Indiana said.

Former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson said that if the amendment is passed, as expected, it would be the first time that “the words sexual orientation and gender identity appear in an Indiana statute” in the context of non-discrimination.

But Bill Oesterle, CEO of local business review website Angie’s List, said in a statement on Thursday morning that the change was “insufficient”, because it did not fully repeal RFRA.

“Employers in most of the state of Indiana can fire a person simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning,” Oesterle said. “That’s just not right and that’s the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state.”

...

Conservative activist group Advance America, a key proponent of the bill, said that the amendment proposed on Thursday would “destroy” RFRA.

“Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That’s not right,” the group said in a statement.

[consortium11]

I think two of the quotes there may well mis-state what the RFRA actually does and how it will work (even with the amendment)

But Bill Oesterle, CEO of local business review website Angie’s List, said in a statement on Thursday morning that the change was “insufficient”, because it did not fully repeal RFRA.

“Employers in most of the state of Indiana can fire a person simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning,” Oesterle said. “That’s just not right and that’s the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state.”

The RFRA doesn't allow an employer to fire someone on the basis of their sexuality. It means that if they do fire someone on the basis of their sexuality they can raise it as a defence against any anti-discrimination laws or charges that are brought against them. Without those anti-discrimination laws in place to begin with the RFRA makes no difference. Outside of the counties and cities which have such laws on their local books the RFRA makes little to no difference; if there's no possibility of someone bringing a case to begin with then having a defence against such a ase doesn't matter.

Conservative activist group Advance America, a key proponent of the bill, said that the amendment proposed on Thursday would “destroy” RFRA.

“Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That’s not right,” the group said in a statement.

This is analogous to the case in Northern Ireland with the gay wedding cake (which for those interested is still going on... judgement is likely to be either later today or early next week) and it's far from clear whether it would apply in these situations; it largely depends on what one views as forming discrimination.

The amendment says that the RFRA does not "“authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” So if a bakery refused to serve an LGBT person because they were LGBT they would clearly fall foul of it.

But a wedding cake for a gay wedding? That's more tricky.

The bakery would argue that they're not refusing service to the member of the general public on the basis that they're LGBT; they would also refuse to serve a cis-straight person in the same circumstances (i.e. asking for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding). The question is whether refusing to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of the sexual orientation of the person actually ordering it? One could reasonably argue both ways on that; as above, one could argue that the sexual orientation of the person ordering doesn't matter and as such it's not discriminating on that basis but one could also argue that the bakery offers to serve wedding cakes and saying no same-sex wedding cakes is refusing that service on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple.

For me the second view does lead to some problematic situations though. Let's say there's a law which says one cannot discriminate of the basis of religion when offering a service (so a shop can't refuse to serve Muslims etc etc). If a Christian went into a bakery or a t-shirt printing company or approached a designer to create something with a message like "Gay Marriage is an Abomination" or "All Gays go to Hell" under the second view the shop would be forced to accept it. And that strikes me as profoundly awkward.

[Cassandra LeMay]

For me the second view does lead to some problematic situations though. Let's say there's a law which says one cannot discriminate of the basis of religion when offering a service (so a shop can't refuse to serve Muslims etc etc). If a Christian went into a bakery or a t-shirt printing company or approached a designer to create something with a message like "Gay Marriage is an Abomination" or "All Gays go to Hell" under the second view the shop would be forced to accept it. And that strikes me as profoundly awkward.

I emphasized a part of this quote here, because I wonder if there was actually any offering of a service. My understanding (which, I will admit, may be off the mark) is that what is offered by opening a shop or putting a "we create cakes with your text on it" sign in the window of a bakery is not a service - it is the offer of negotiating a contract to provide such services, an invitation to treat/bargain. There is no contract agreed on yet, so there is no refusal of a service. There is a refusal to enter into a contract negotiation.

It may sound a bit odd and a little counter-intuitive outside contract law, but my understanding of contract law is that a customer walking into a shop and proclaiming he wants to buy such-and-such item does not conclude a contract that began with an offer by the store to sell, but rather starts the contract negotiation that concludes when the store owner hands over the item and accepts the customer's money. So how can anyone who refuses to deal with a black, gay, elderly, disabled person actually refuse them a service - as far as contract law is concerned? Wouldn't they actually be refusing to negotiate the provision of a certain service, and not withhold the actual service itself?

[Kythia]

Yeah, advertisements are what's called an "invitation to treat", in UK law at least.  To consortium11 up for a moment, the case is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) - Derren Brown taught me that and for some reason its always stuck with me.  Likely witchcraft

Whether refusing to invite people to enter a negotiation is discrimination, though, I don't know.

[Valerian]

It's apparently fundamentally the same law in the U.S., except it's called an "invitation to bargain".  If, for example, a store mistakenly displays a $100 item with a sign reading "$10", this law means that the store isn't forced to sell the item at that price.  No binding offer has been made yet, it's only that the store has indicated a willingness to proceed with a negotiation / sale.

But yeah, whether it's discrimination or not is another question... and then there's the question as to whether or not that sort of misleading phrasing might be used as a clever loophole in such laws.  <.<

[Oniya]

As I understand it, the thing that caused the infamous 'cake fiasco' in the first place was that the couple placed an order for the cake, and the cake designer didn't initially say 'no'.  When the refusal finally did come through, the couple was left having to scramble to get a cake for their wedding.  If you take the RFRA bit out of it, it comes down to

Couple wants cake for event.
Couple consults with cake designer and places the order.
Some time later, cake designer backs out.
Couple now has substantially less time to get cake ordered before event.

As someone who went through planning my own wedding and all the chaos inherent to that, any excuse short of 'my bakery got shut down' or 'major family catastrophe' would have made me livid.  Something as small as 'I dun wanna because reasons.' - not going to cut it.

Now, if I were a cake designer, and had already taken an order for a cake that I found I was unable or even just unwilling to do, I think the 'right thing to do' would be to find another designer who would, and basically sub-contract it out to them.  Virtually transparent to the customer (although I'm sure that as long as they got their cake, all would be well).

[Top Cat]

Keeping it simple for the moment.

My belief is that religion (or lack thereof) is a personal thing. You can share it with other people, but you fundamentally cannot force others to believe the same way you do. Attempting to force other people to abide by your own religion (or how you see the religion, anyway) is immoral; even if they follow the same religion, it's not your place to steer their morality, to make them obey god. That's something only they can do - or not do, as they see fit. It doesn't matter if you're a priest, a Pope, a saint, a sinner, or just an ordinary lay person - someone else's sins are their burden to carry, not yours. You can give them guidance if they ask for it; attempting to force them to act and atone in the way you think they should is not your job. This is doubly so (or cubed!) if they don't follow your religion.

If there is a god, everyone will have to answer to him/her when they die, and it will be their job, and theirs alone, to answer for their sins.

Laws like this are attempting to force people to obey God's will... or, at least, one particular religion's perception of God's will. They're trying to force people to not sin by making the sins illegal, as well as against the religion. One way of looking at this is that they're attempting to do God's work for him... which is misguided, to say the least.

[kylie]

Laws like this are attempting to force people to obey God's will... or, at least, one particular religion's perception of God's will. They're trying to force people to not sin by making the sins illegal, as well as against the religion. One way of looking at this is that they're attempting to do God's work for him... which is misguided, to say the least.

This might fit if you think the intent of the law was to somehow change people's orientation or behavior by shunning them publicly...  But as far as I've heard, the only expressed purpose of this Indiana bill was to exempt people who said it was against their religious beliefs, from dealing with whatever or whoever they didn't wish to.  Check it again. 

      Now the death penalty proposal in California, that would be another can of worms.  Perhaps you're thinking more of that one??

[Top Cat]

I was mostly speaking generally, not specifically about the RFRA, but  the ideas behind the RFRAs is the latest in a long, LONG war against "people the church doesn't like" (in this case, gays). I find the idea of a company refusing a specific part of health insurance because their religion believes it to be sinful just as reprehensible as refusing to engage in the business of your company to people who you believe to be sinful. In both cases, they're attempting to use their religion's authority and influence to take control of someone else's life (to a greater or lesser degree). If the RFRA was simply, "I can say whatever I want," great, that's already covered by the 1st Amendment. But that's not what it's about... it's about trying to "hold the line" against what they view as encroaching godless behavior.

They'd succeeded for generations - sodomy laws were on the books pretty much everywhere in the States (and still are, in some places, but no longer enforced). When those became socially untenable, the "line in the sand" moved to "they can't be married." Now that even that is crumbling, the line is moved to "we won't do anything that could be construed as supporting those weddings."

But the problem here is that baking a cake for a wedding - or being the caterer - isn't supporting the wedding in any appreciable manner. My bakery certainly didn't start asking my fiancee and me questions about our religion (or lack thereof) when we scheduled for a Pi Day wedding cake. We could be heinous sinners (and, by some narrow viewpoints, our participating in a site like Elliquiy probably does make us sinners), and they just don't care. As a company, they're providing a service, and it's really not their business to be making moral judgments on their customers (which, when you get down to it, this is what they're doing).

And, as I said, they're entitled to hold those views for themselves, personally. I believe that attempting to apply those views to others, and require others to follow one's own path, is immoral.

As far as the California proposal, it got far more news than it deserved. There's zero chance it'll make it on the ballot. I don't think there's enough people West of the Mississippi who think that being given open season for killing gays is a good idea for a law to get enough signatures to get it on the ballot, much less within California. While there's still a significant portion of the California populace who think that gays are sinful and shouldn't be tolerated, there's a huge step from "don't want to let them marry" to "we should just kill them all." And even among people who would like to go kill some gays, there's probably a significant percentage of them who have enough brains not to sign on a public document supporting that...

To say nothing about the enormous cognitive dissonance involved in the very idea of murdering the sinners. I distinctly remember murder being one of the BIG sins, from the Ten Commandments, while gay sex is mentioned elsewhere, in passing...

[Cassandra LeMay]

I find the idea of a company refusing a specific part of health insurance because their religion believes it to be sinful just as reprehensible as refusing to engage in the business of your company to people who you believe to be sinful. In both cases, they're attempting to use their religion's authority and influence to take control of someone else's life (to a greater or lesser degree).
...
And, as I said, they're entitled to hold those views for themselves, personally. I believe that attempting to apply those views to others, and require others to follow one's own path, is immoral.

I'd say the important question here is one of motivation. It is quite possible to follow one's believes not with the intend to harm others, even if that may lead to harm or hindrance to someone else. There is a big difference between saying "I won't bake this cake for you because I think doing so would be bad for my soul" and saying "I will not bake this cake for you unless you stop being gay and start attending church every Sunday". The end result will be the same, if viewed from the point of the person wanting the cake, but the question of intent should not be ignored or it be just assumed that anyone who acts based on religious convictions intends to push their views on others.

[kylie]

I was mostly speaking generally, not specifically about the RFRA, but  the ideas behind the RFRAs is the latest in a long, LONG war against "people the church doesn't like" (in this case, gays).

Yeah, articles about those laws seem to keep catching up too...  Lately, I'm reading that there was a fair bit of concern about general job discrimination more key to passing the earlier (Clinton era, national) RFRA discussion.  But it's been more swinging into a lever used by the Christian right when it comes to state bills these last few years.  The twist is that the state proponents claim to the general public (and whoever will buy it) that they're "just mirroring the national law" yada yada --- but at the same time, some are also telling the religious lobby that it's really to resist gay marriage as a part of public culture. 

...
To say nothing about the enormous cognitive dissonance involved in the very idea of murdering the sinners. I distinctly remember murder being one of the BIG sins, from the Ten Commandments, while gay sex is mentioned elsewhere, in passing...

Bit tangential but...  I think this is probably one of those cases of one law for the Jews (aka the "chosen people") and something else goes for anyone else.  Kind of the Biblical culture variation of "If you're not with us, you're against us" also heard these days among Isis and other violent Muslim outfits.  Among others who I suppose, aren't always quite so graphically punitive about it.  So while you're arguably right, there are still people who have found ways to reason around that.  I'm not sure it's "dissonance" if one is operating in another set of principles to begin with.  Though it's easy to find claims of internal conflict when a group is new, has many recruits who came from places where other rules applied for much of their lives, etc...  Maybe not the same thing.

[Kythia]

To say nothing about the enormous cognitive dissonance involved in the very idea of murdering the sinners. I distinctly remember murder being one of the BIG sins, from the Ten Commandments, while gay sex is mentioned elsewhere, in passing...

Yeah, Kylie's point is spot on there.  Plus, of course, if the legal penalty for performing an act is death then you're not actually murdering them.  Murder is, by definition, an illegal act.  Not that I'm arguing in favour of the death penalty, there's a can of worms that this thread doesn't need.  Just being specific in word usage.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know.. I've kept quiet on this subject..because I don't think either side is totally right or wrong.

I watched and listened to the argument on how religious views aren't as potent or important as other reasons for refusing service to a customer.
I noted how rabidly agressive the social campaign was against the folks at the one pizza place went. The owners said they would serve every but couldn't, in their conscience, serve a gay wedding.

I've seen how rabidly nasty the counter response has been in the conservative corners.

Neither side seems to really consider the validity of the other sides view.

I have a friend who is currently transitioning.. she's had a pretty nasty time.. but then this is the south.

My take: People need to stop being hurt at every statement and understand that some folks will take more time to consider the issues and changing. You can work to change, by actions, their attitudes.. forcing my outlook down their throat..not going to do it.

I've already told three of my buds in the Navy to start considering an exit plan if the election goes the way I fear it will next year. Cruz and some of the other GoP candidates will ruin their lives for their lifestyle, despite the fact that most of them were grade A sailors.

To me? Live and let live.. I realize that change doesn't come without pushing.. but you can nudge as well as shove. I have seen too much shoving of late.

[kylie]

      Well, it does strike me as a touch 'pushy' to have to tell businesspeople it's not okay to keep some people from transactions.  But then, it felt pushy to many people in the South through the end of racial Segregation too.  If it takes help from the National Guard to get people to share in the market (education what have you), maybe there are some corners that aren't going to change very easily anyway.  What if today, also, quite a few people aren't really intent upon changing at all?  We have plenty of gated communities catering to various demographics.  This would be more the local "one door or window or license plate, one special exception based on conscience" -- not all that great a feeling to begin with -- and in some regions they would add up to a lot of obstruction. 

       And I have to feel worried for those people who live in a smaller community with only a few businesses -- what are they supposed to do while people take however long to 'sort stuff out' (or some don't but it's a handy excuse for them too)?  Should they just up and leave?  What if they can't afford to?  Should they travel hours for florists or photography services?  And who knows what else.

         I guess I don't see a perfectly "happy" solution either way.  I do think it at least might have helped if in the test cases, people said up front they didn't think they could do a good job or be comfortable there.  And perhaps if they could recommend someone else.  But when you get people (service providers, employers) who in conscience can't appear to have any association whatsoever, at some level -- if it happens often enough at least -- that is disruptive to people's reasonable livelihood and more incidentally to the national economy. 
 

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree Kylie.. but when prodding changes to shoving it down a person's throat, how many are going to consider your rights and point of view when you're not willing to talk to them. When a woman gently and politely says she will serve LGBT folks but not cater a wedding suggests a possible willingness to discuss things.. when you see their yelp and facebook page hours later being trolled with death threats and other things.. by people not from that town and not involved in the discourse.. what do you think she is going to consider first. The nice lesbian couple two towns over who apologized for it and emphasized with their beliefs guiding their their business or the huge epicly nasty line of sewage that destroyed their social media?

You win support and respect by calm and polite discourse.. not by virtually burning down the business.

It's like the same sort of thing that I've been seeing with the SJW and Sad Puppy folks over the Hugo awards for fiction. Honest discourse vanishes behind .. hate.

I have seen less and less discourse over the years as Political Correctness has grown. Neither side wants to step out and offer there hand and say 'howdy'. And the whole thing with the pizza place? I find myself wondering how many store fronts did that station shop through before getting someone doing what that poor woman did.

[Caehlim]

This isn't about you personally, this is just conveying my emotional state in general.

I agree Kylie.. but when prodding changes to shoving it down a person's throat, how many are going to consider your rights and point of view when you're not willing to talk to them. When a woman gently and politely says she will serve LGBT folks but not cater a wedding suggests a possible willingness to discuss things.. when you see their yelp and facebook page hours later being trolled with death threats and other things.. by people not from that town and not involved in the discourse.. what do you think she is going to consider first. The nice lesbian couple two towns over who apologized for it and emphasized with their beliefs guiding their their business or the huge epicly nasty line of sewage that destroyed their social media?

So she gets to live a life and I get to live... what, a strategy? A planned political discourse? Set up my existence as the "model home" for everyone to come tour and get a positive impression? How is that fair?

What am I meant to tell this woman, "Come see the gays, it's alright we don't bite. Oh by the way can we pretty please have the rights you all take for granted? No, well thanks for being polite about it while making the celebration of our love and life together another reminder of us being unwanted and despised. I really respect the point of view that I'm an abomination. Basically I'm just grateful that finally the state has stopped murdering my kind and it's just done randomly now by strangers or people just wait for us to do it to ourselves."

Arrg! Do you have any idea at all how frustrating that is? Constantly, day in and day out. I want to be a nice guy, I hate being uncivil to anyone for any reason. But it's just getting really exhausting and I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of offering that "howdy" you're asking for while begging for my right to exist.

But no one should get death threats. That's definitely crossing a line regardless of provocation.

[Joel]

Arrg! Do you have any idea at all how frustrating that is? Constantly, day in and day out. I want to be a nice guy, I hate being uncivil to anyone for any reason. But it's just getting really exhausting and I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of offering that "howdy" you're asking for while begging for my right to exist.

But no one should get death threats. That's definitely crossing a line regardless of provocation.

I have seen less and less discourse over the years as Political Correctness has grown. Neither side wants to step out and offer there hand and say 'howdy'.

We know we live in a polarized society, and I think everyone accepts that this is the new norm.  I mean we certainly are going through tremendous social and economic changes that sure... were long happening, but it has come to a head now with: a demographic shift towards minorities, the weakening of the middle class, the focus on intellectual property and finance as dominant industries, the waning of American world dominance, oh and climate change and ecological clusterf*k everywhere...  This certainly isn't the America that was promised in the 1950s, and so I get why conservatives are upset.   

Back to the point here.  I say when conservatives are upset about "religious freedoms" or gay rights (however you want to spin it), I think it's best to look at it in context of all the other things that conservatives are upset about.  People are probably in a bit of shell shock.  And yeah I agree, you can't force people to think differently when they are in that mindset.

All that said... I am also a gay guy and a minority to boot, who's so, so very accustomed to being the brunt of everything.  I absolutely empathize with Caehlim sentiment.  It is very hard to bottle up that indignation especially when you know you are (legally and) morally right.  Now that I'm older and also feeling empowered, I know I can tear into people if I wanted to, but that won't accomplish anything and I know that.  What has been hugely beneficial I think?  Is just being steadfast and present.  Simply exposing people to the fact that yes, I exist and I'm married to another man and you know, it's okay... That's so much more effective than saying anything at all.  I just pretend like it's a complete non-issue.  I mean I've had people go off on homophobic rants on me before (not realizing I'm gay, and this is in the Badlands mind you) and then I just drop the "Oh me and my husband..." and just continue with the conversation while their brains explode.  In fact, when I got married I didn't even come out to my very homophobic extended family until I brought my fiancee to a get together and was like.  Oh by the way I'm gay and here's my fiancee.  Also here's some wedding invitations and some more booze.

Whew sorry I'm totally rambling.  My point is that there's two fronts to this War.  The personal one, which we seriously don't need to win every single battle on.  And the societal one where we HAVE to continue making progress with inclusiveness such that more people feel comfortable coming out of the closet.

So yeah.  The oppressed have always had to be stronger than the majority.  It isn't fair, but that's the reality of it.

[kylie]

I agree Kylie.. but when prodding changes to shoving it down a person's throat, how many are going to consider your rights and point of view when you're not willing to talk to them.

I suppose it depends to what degree you think rights are something that must exist by consensus.  While I suppose that certain things just might not happen, and some may even be less likely to pass the higher courts, without some degree of popular consensus...  I also think there are many places where some people are going to be obstinate, and a fair few where they may be physically dangerous about opposing the idea to boot.  Rights are also about a discussion of more or less fundamental principles, so the argument doesn't have to be entirely about convincing "enough people."  It can also be about convincing the people who serve as the gatekeepers of the system, the people who are charged with upholding a certain consistency of ideas as well as a certain sense of what works in the present.  Granted some people may not agree on things like how the notions of "equality" written in the Constitution (or even in the 14th Amendment, ugh) should be interpreted today, but at least there is some institutional basis there to argue about consistency of principles and hopefully some empirical evidence. 

     The state is certainly not a perfect forum for anything and it can be misused too (quite often has) -- but it's sometimes equally or more useful than waiting for a certain popular percentage.  Particularly if there are likely to be some especially nasty abuses of people in the meantime, or if the people you're waiting for happen to be the particularly vocal and reluctant (even some, nasty!) holdouts in a time of otherwise more positive change.   

     To flip it around: People don't all agree that they should pay taxes, or pay taxes for all the things they do...  But the government doesn't grant them "rights" to refuse based on that. It says we've looked at the situation, we tried this another way that let you all run loose before (and wow that really had a lot of problems), and now this is what we're gonna go ahead and do.

When a woman gently and politely says she will serve LGBT folks but not cater a wedding suggests a possible willingness to discuss things.. when you see their yelp and facebook page hours later being trolled with death threats and other things..

Eh.  There are ways to talk back to death threats, whether brusquely, through hard logic and philosophy, even snidely, or more in the mode of litigation.  But I don't know of any rampant, overall trend where either 1) anyone has installed requirements that actually positively help anyone who would make serious death threats avoid a negative response or 2) that in fact, those are particularly common coming from the pro-/LGBT side.   

You win support and respect by calm and polite discourse.. not by virtually burning down the business.

It's a hunch -- but something about how you're framing all this still feels far-fetched or out of context to me.  I do suppose some people are getting over the top on the response as well as on trying to shut people out.  But I don't have enough info to see that it's somehow all so frequently pervasively unreasonable, or actually violent or terroristic, if you will, in a way that I'm sensing from the hints here?  Or maybe we're thinking of different things.  Maybe I could use a link or few that shows where or how many people you're talking about and some hint how we know what they really intend by the rhetoric (if you can find so many direct supposed death threats). 

...  Whereas if a business says they will not serve LGBT, it's pretty clear I think what they mean to try and do by that. 

      Anyway, I don't think saying you don't support a business that won't support your people - or that one won't look kindly upon them for discriminating on these grounds, whoever you may be - is being unreasonable either.  And if others agree, that's a person's right - no?  I guess this sort of reasoning fails if you start with the premise that a right to deny anyone might be as good "self-expression" as a right to include (this is pretty much where Elaine Photography ended up in some desperation), but they don't really serve the same function for consumers if you apply that kind of logic here.   

       

[Callie Del Noire]

...  Whereas if a business says they will not serve LGBT, it's pretty clear I think what they mean to try and do by that.     

They (the pizzeria) didn't say that. Essential what they said was they would serve LGBT but in good conscience with their beliefs they wouldn't cater a wedding. That is the example I'm using..though both the florist and baker said similar things.

I have been told, personally, that I would not be served at a store. Once in California because I was clearly a military member (this was pre-9/11) and three times overseas (Once for being white, and twice for being American).

There is a difference from totally turning a customer away and saying 'I can't do that particular service'. Destroying a persons livelihood in court isn't winning any support among some folks.

Where does your rights and another person's religious rights meet and how do they balance out? It's a delicate dance.

Like I said before.. I'm for full service, but I'm also thinking there has to be a better way that utterly destroying people in courts and the media and mandating by law. Both sides have issues that have valid concerns.. if you can't accept that folks on the other side of the divide have both valid and invalid concerns.. mediation is impossible. And if it's impossible, the discourse that can settle this in a civilized manner.

I'd use an example but if I do.. odds are I would piss off a lot of folks. But consider this.. radical change can take heavy heavy tolls on the society. So, I've said my say. I am not supporting the laws, I think it's badly thought out, poorly written, and ill considered that will open the door for MASSIVE abuse. Of course half the tech laws I've seen in the last 2 decades are similarly ill thought out.

I've had my say.. I realize that as a moderate non-socially conservative RHINO that my thoughts that discourse, debate and discussion should consider both sides of the event are in a minority and considered irrelevant. Which is why I'm backing out of the discussion again.

Just one last thing.. not every religious dissenter of Gay marriage is a frothing at the brain westboro baptist church member. I know several who are truly working through this issue.. but feel that their concerns and religious faith is used to destroy them.

[kylie]

       I wouldn't deny that some people are just trying to work through things more calmly, but even from a popular opinion point of view:  If you look at the polls, I think we're reaching a point where in many states now you're talking about waiting for a minority to change their minds.  How small a minority does that have to be before people say that it's not "radical" change to go ahead and write something up into civil code?  (Leaving alone the part that, being seen as radical by some doesn't mean it's a bad idea - take racial desegregation again.)  And the farther that goes, the more reluctant a minority it's perhaps going to be.  It may not be quite there yet, but assuming stuff all continues in generally the same direction (and nothing all too wacko happens in the news or courts to disrupt the trend), I can imagine reaching a point where quite a few of the minority who wouldn't support doing business with gays just won't give in soon.  And there, waiting won't help much either. 

       We also have some people that are keeping pretty busy recycling as "evidence" information that isn't supported by well, serious empirical evidence (one good example, very poorly sourced claims about LGBT and children) -- doing all they can to get people who otherwise might make quiet decisions not to make a choice to open up.

       The thing that nags me perhaps about religion, is it's amorphous.  It could be used to "justify" doing or not doing just about anything.  If one has the right to live or "express" based on any belief whatsoever, then what's the point of any other sort of order?  Who can be excluded tomorrow?  The farther right often says, "Next dogs will be getting married," but the rejoinder here could as well be, Next people will be demanding a religious exemption to form another country inside the US or to marry all their kids for that matter...  Or just not to recognize the government at all -- which isn't so far from what some on the right have been (at least selectively) asking for anyway.  On and on.  Who's to really say what religion provides for?  Stoning today, no shellfish tomorrow, sphaghetti monster says the next day, and "I just believe" after that. 

         I don't see LGBT inclusion in business and civil society as asking for nearly as vague.  As a public movement, this is generally asking for an opportunity to largely (or ideally, fully) share in public life as so many other people do commonly exercise...  And not so much to arbitrarily pick out and specify some for whom basic opportunities will not be possible. 

         If anything, I would say the gay rights lobby has actually contorted itself to advertise just how "normal" and even "responsible" and "just like everyone else" things like gay marriage are expected to make it, in the name of making everyone who is more into the rhetoric of 'family' and even 'business' oh so comfortable.  As if singles, poly, and people without marriage licenses wouldn't be responsible because they weren't being regulated enough....  Ahem.  Although I suppose, one could argue better it's hard to be fully "responsible" when oh, say the the law in a few parts just wasn't allowing them to be fully compliant:  For example, when the 'wrong' (non-authorized) parent picked up the kids from school etc.  Though in practice quite a few people never would realize that was what was happening in that case...  But I feel that isn't nearly the full breadth of what the 'normality and responsibility' discourse has been hinting toward -- however loosely.
   

[consortium11]

I emphasized a part of this quote here, because I wonder if there was actually any offering of a service. My understanding (which, I will admit, may be off the mark) is that what is offered by opening a shop or putting a "we create cakes with your text on it" sign in the window of a bakery is not a service - it is the offer of negotiating a contract to provide such services, an invitation to treat/bargain. There is no contract agreed on yet, so there is no refusal of a service. There is a refusal to enter into a contract negotiation.

It may sound a bit odd and a little counter-intuitive outside contract law, but my understanding of contract law is that a customer walking into a shop and proclaiming he wants to buy such-and-such item does not conclude a contract that began with an offer by the store to sell, but rather starts the contract negotiation that concludes when the store owner hands over the item and accepts the customer's money. So how can anyone who refuses to deal with a black, gay, elderly, disabled person actually refuse them a service - as far as contract law is concerned? Wouldn't they actually be refusing to negotiate the provision of a certain service, and not withhold the actual service itself?

You're basically right when it comes to contract law and advertising (although different jurisdictions use different terms); I let my language be a little loose in this case as (for once!) I didn't think it helped to get too bogged down in legalese.

In these cases it's also actually largely irrelevant. The vast majority of anti-discrimination statutes in the US (both on a state and federal level) use the term "public accommodations". This doesn't just relate to what we'd colloquially think of as accommodations (hotels, renting a property etc etc) but to anything that "accommodates the public"... so all shops, most businesses etc etc, with slight exceptions made for private clubs and religious groups (although private clubs are now largely classified as a public accommodation). Anti-discrimination laws tend to sidestep issues relating to contract law and exactly when something is offered by saying that all public accommodations can't discriminate.

To see this is action one can consider the fairly well known Elaine Photography case. Looked at purely through contract law no service was offered; when the company advertised that they did wedding photography that was merely an invitation to treat/bargain thus they did not refuse to offer a service. But as the relevant New Mexico anti-discrimination statue states that (emphasis mine) "in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership" one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity and the court held that refusing to photograph a gay wedding counted as discrimination on the basis of sexuality, the photography studio lost their case.

On a side note and relevant to the wider topic of this thread New Mexico also has a state RFRA which, while different to the one proposed in Indiana, is arguably actually somewhat stronger in that it doesn't have the clarifying clause that was subsequently added. It hasn't stopped New Mexico from being one of the most legally accepting states in the US for LGBT issues or deciding against Elaine Photography in the above mentioned one.

[Top Cat]

I'll state my position on the whole matter one more time, and then let it drop: A religion is a personal thing. Everyone is entitled to believe, or not believe, as they see fit. For example, Orthodox Jews demand that their food be kosher, which they are absolutely entitled to do. But they cannot demand that everyone in the city/state/country follow the kosher rules as outlined in the Torah. They cannot even force other Jews to eat Kosher if those people do not wish to, for whatever reason.

Similarly, the Mormon faith demands that Mormons wear holy underwear, but it would be wrong for them to start demanding that everyone start observing this religious expectation. Their holy documents make a demand, and it is each and every Mormon's choice and religious decision of whether or not to do this.

Can they provide social pressure? Sure, that can happen for anything, and often does - Talking on the cell phone while on a bus, or wearing white after Labor Day, for example, will get some people to consider you uncouth and uncivilized, and may result in some negative treatment from others. But it's not a law, so there's no reason that you can't... except that other people say you can't. There are plenty of other things, even new ones, that are getting social pressure against them. But that doesn't mean that those people, no matter how much of the population they may be, can use their beliefs to force you to follow them.

It is a Christian conceit that everyone must follow their religion's rules (not solely Christian, but as Christianity is the dominant religion, they certainly have more opportunities to engage in this officious demand). There is no reason that a Christian demand that people not engage in homosexual acts should ever flow over to people who aren't Christian, or even that Christians must force other Christians to observe and obey this law.

And yet, this is something that our government has had some difficulty in applying properly. Despite the First Amendment's laws regarding religious freedom, there's been blindness about dealing fairly with non-Christian religions. Thanks to the Communist Scare in the 50s, several government agencies started making changes to things to follow a Christian view - the currency had In God We Trust replace the previous slogan, E Pluribus Unum; the Pledge of Allegiance had "under God" added. Other things have been done, and made into law, because of the common belief that "everyone" was Christian.

Scientific studies over the past few decades have proven pretty categorically that sexual orientation isn't just a decision, isn't just something that people can "turn off" just because a law, or an authority, tells them that they cannot do it. Criminalizing "gay-ness" (or homosexual acts, if you prefer) does not make people decide to just be straight. As such, it's improper (and, arguably, immoral) for a government to be making these demands on someone's behavior, or making laws that only apply to this subset of the populace.

[Caehlim]

Similarly, the Mormon faith demands that Mormons wear holy underwear, but it would be wrong for them to start demanding that everyone start observing this religious expectation. Their holy documents make a demand, and it is each and every Mormon's choice and religious decision of whether or not to do this.

Forgive the slight derailment but to the best of my knowledge it's not compulsory for members of the LDS church to wear those sacred garments. They're something that some members choose to wear sometimes as a source of personal religious comfort, much like any christian might choose to wear a cross necklace and keep it tucked below their neckline. It's something comedians frequently make sport of, but it's not really a major or important doctrine of the LDS church.

However I agree entirely with your point in general that the line of religious freedom is crossed when it stops being about what you're doing and starts being about controlling what others do. If the pizzeria were muslim instead and refused to supply pizza to someone because they planned on refrigerating the pizza and eating it during the day in the holy month of Ramadan, then that would be a similar case of crossing the line into controlling what other people do. However demanding that they eat that pizza themselves during Ramadan would be restricting their freedom to practice their religious faith and perform a ceremonial fast.

[Oniya]

However I agree entirely with your point in general that the line of religious freedom is crossed when it stops being about what you're doing and starts being about controlling what others do. If the pizzeria were muslim instead and refused to supply pizza to someone because they planned on refrigerating the pizza and eating it during the day in the holy month of Ramadan, then that would be a similar case of crossing the line into controlling what other people do. However demanding that they eat that pizza themselves during Ramadan would be restricting their freedom to practice their religious faith and perform a ceremonial fast.

Kind of funny story - Back when we lived in VA, Mr. Oniya worked with a couple of Muslims.  One year, one of the DMs came in during an inventory or checklist (both are circumstances where the company gets as many people working at tearing up the store and putting it back together).  As a 'morale thing', the DM was going to buy everyone lunch.  Mr. Oniya told the DM that it would be better to wait until after sunset and put the order in then - that way, everyone could eat.

[Top Cat]

Forgive the slight derailment but to the best of my knowledge it's not compulsory for members of the LDS church to wear those sacred garments.

I did a quick search, and I stand corrected. *doffs his salacious hat*

I was trying to find three significantly different examples of religious requirements, and that one came to mind. Should have taken a few minutes on the homework, there. ;)

[Caehlim]

Kind of funny story - Back when we lived in VA, Mr. Oniya worked with a couple of Muslims.  One year, one of the DMs came in during an inventory or checklist (both are circumstances where the company gets as many people working at tearing up the store and putting it back together).  As a 'morale thing', the DM was going to buy everyone lunch.  Mr. Oniya told the DM that it would be better to wait until after sunset and put the order in then - that way, everyone could eat.

Great example of how people of different religions can all work together respecting one another's beliefs and practices without necessarily sharing them.

I did a quick search, and I stand corrected. *doffs his salacious hat*

All good, I just have a few friends in the LDS Church so I've picked up a bit about their practices.

[Dimir]

Thought this would apply to the thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/us/michigan-business-bans-openly-gay-people/

Car shop owner Brian Klawiter says that gay couples openly showing affection will not be allowed service while gun owners will get a discount. Appears to be more of a political statement and free advertising for this business, although it came along with death threats and protesting. However it appears to be legal under Michigan law.

[kylie]

    He might have to renew his license? first. 

    And it sounds like there may be additional state scrutiny, at least in cases like this where one might be found to have been making particular enough threats of sabotage or other material (and possibly physical) harm.

Brian Klawiter, the Grandville business owner at the center of a firestorm of controversy because of his Facebook post that he would deny service to openly gay people, has not been a legally licensed mechanic in Michigan since Oct. 12, 2014.

...

MLive reports Klawiter still has not registered his business in Grandville, in violation of local ordinances.

...

Woodhams also said the original post by Klawiter might raise concerns. In that post Klawiter threatened to reassemble the vehicles of customers who argued with him on gay rights, with bolts without any nuts. He has since claimed that statement was not a threat, rather it was an allusion to gay sex.

"The department is concerned about any work done in an improper or unsafe way by a mechanic and will take licensing action as appropriate when it receives a complaint," Woodhams says. "As we discussed, Mr. Klawiter is not a licensed mechanic."

[Formless]

Kind of funny story - Back when we lived in VA, Mr. Oniya worked with a couple of Muslims.  One year, one of the DMs came in during an inventory or checklist (both are circumstances where the company gets as many people working at tearing up the store and putting it back together).  As a 'morale thing', the DM was going to buy everyone lunch.  Mr. Oniya told the DM that it would be better to wait until after sunset and put the order in then - that way, everyone could eat.

I salute Mr. Oniya for this.

[Ironwolf85]

*facepalm, facepalm, facepalm*
I sorta feel like venting a bit, I swear the guys making this law had no idea what the fuck they were doing. There was no reason for it except "WE MUST STOP DA EVIL GAYS" no religious practices were under threat, no lawsuits filed, nothing... written in haste and parinoia.

According to Gallup polling, Something like 86% of Christians under 30 support gay marrage, and I'm one of them. Even if they are fudging numbers this way or that, it is a wide margin. So when someone from the bible belt old enough to be my grandfather goes and does this. it makes me want to facepalm so hard. X,x

[Callie Del Noire]

I salute Mr. Oniya for this.

Reminds me of standing watch with a driver on rotation between the Jebel port and Dubai. It was my first Ramadan in the gulf. There were six of us who talked with our drivers and hit it off well. They took us to this nice Iranian place and we had a good time after sunset. We asked questions, they explained things. Wish my photos survived the trip (someone stole the ten rolls I took on that first cruise)