kdaddy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't read this thing as giving businesses carte blanche authorization to discriminate at will as some are interpreting it. I just can't imagine someone successfully arguing in court that being forced to serve someone a latte is going to "substantially burden" their religious freedom. (It seems to me that it would take something like the wedding cake case to even attempt to make this argument.) I'm not saying that I agree with any form of discrimination ( I DON'T), just that I don't think this will have the broad application people are attributing it. I also believe-- fervently hope, at least-- that most businesses are decent and not itching for an opportunity to be blindly bigoted and discriminatory. (Then again, I'd also like to buy the world a Coke. Maybe I'm just naive...) My conclusion is a little different. I think this law is intended (e.g., the timing, those that wanted it passed) to say "the LGBTQ community doesn't have the rights that everyone else has." But I think that everyday life (in how businesses treat individuals) will be business as usual for the most part, at least in terms of what is being feared in this post. (I could see some unforeseen "Citizens United"-like results popping up later, but not the current fears of DCI patrons being refused service or something like that). DCI shouldn't move its headquarters or change the location of finals week. To me, the bigger issue is that this is a state mandate in the first place. State politicians voted for this thing. While DCI shouldn't move, it should have a position. DCI should let the state and the city know that this isn't okay. Even if no single human being is treated differently as a result, that this law is on the books is just mean-spirited. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually there's local law in Indianapolis itself: http://www.9news.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-law-really-means-indiana/70633532/ LOCAL NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS In Indiana, about a dozen cities, including Indianapolis, have local nondiscrimination laws that specifically protect gays and lesbians in employment, housing, education and public accommodation, which include business transactions. But in much of Indiana there is no such protection. Thanks for that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I was going to bring this up but a strange PM I got made me hesitate... Here's the thing. If DCI were to move isn't that basically saying to the people backing this law for the wrong reasons that it was successful? DCI should remain exactly as is and show that this is not going to change what they support. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually there's local law in Indianapolis itself: http://www.9news.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-law-really-means-indiana/70633532/ LOCAL NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS In Indiana, about a dozen cities, including Indianapolis, have local nondiscrimination laws that specifically protect gays and lesbians in employment, housing, education and public accommodation, which include business transactions. But in much of Indiana there is no such protection. Careful Corpsband, surfing Google and reading viewpoints varied and not does not, apparently polish up your CV or the veracity of your opinion. That's what I've read, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 My conclusion is a little different. I think this law is intended (e.g., the timing, those that wanted it passed) to say "the LGBTQ community doesn't have the rights that everyone else has." But I think that everyday life (in how businesses treat individuals) will be business as usual for the most part, at least in terms of what is being feared in this post. (I could see some unforeseen "Citizens United"-like results popping up later, but not the current fears of DCI patrons being refused service or something like that). DCI shouldn't move its headquarters or change the location of finals week. To me, the bigger issue is that this is a state mandate in the first place. State politicians voted for this thing. While DCI shouldn't move, it should have a position. DCI should let the state and the city know that this isn't okay. Even if no single human being is treated differently as a result, that this law is on the books is just mean-spirited. I agree with the first sentiment, given the verbiage of the law as well as those who were in attendance with the Gov. while he (privately) signed the law into books. I don't remember exact specifics, but you can easily find it online: there are several infamous outspoken ant-LGBTQ folks. Also, things the Gov. has said recently in interviews seems to point to an anti-LGBTQ slant; I will give him this, at least he is seemingly sticking to his beliefs and not immediately caving under mounting pressure. For your second sentiment, I really hope you're right. Only time will tell, but there have already been documented cases in other states of people/groups refused service, albeit in more oblique ways than just "you can't eat in my coffee shop because you're gay and I'm Christian" ways. For example, there are a few instances of Police officers refusing to patrol local Mosques because as Christians they disagree with Muslims (and apparently feel compelled to shirk their duty to serve and protect communities that are not in line with their specific religious doctrine), as well as a Police officer who refused to patrol a Gay pride parade. I agree with you regarding DCI. I also think a better over-all message for all who oppose this is to continually reinforce that this is not a sexual preference-type of thing, and is more a civil rights thing. The fact that Indiana does not protect LGBTQ against any sort of discrimination is just as/maybe more egregious to me than a broadly-worded law. Perhaps it would be more productive for those who think strongly against this law (note: I clearly do) to strongly advocate for a national anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ that would be applicable both at a federal and state level. IMO it's only a matter of time before this happens anyway, so as a culture of human beings we might as well strive to achieve this now before anyone else gets hurt, is meant to feel diminished as a human being, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Not sure if this has been brought up, but the argument that "20 other states have this, so DCI should stay out of those other states as well. And also, there's already a federal law." doesn't hold up quite so well. This Indiana law is unique. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=SFFB Some more reading to assist everyone. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indiana-didnt-actually-pass-an-anti-gay-bill-2015-03-30?link=MW_popular So Brett Arends writing for Marketwatch says that if people actually read Indiana's law, they'd find that it is "actually no different from the federal religious-freedom law that has been on the statute books since 1993". However, he doesn't actually quote from either Indiana's law or the federal one. Then Garrett Epps writing for The Atlantic quotes passages from Indiana's law which he compares to the federal law to show that they differ. Score one for Epps, I think, but such conflicting analyses do help to show why we're all so confused about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Imagine this debate in a bar with alcohol...but before anyone says "no way!" - the rules would be that everytime there was disagreement everyone would take a shot. In 15 minutes everyone would be on the floor and there would be no broken tables or chairs. Good times! Edited March 30, 2015 by Lincoln 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually there's local law in Indianapolis itself: http://www.9news.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-law-really-means-indiana/70633532/ LOCAL NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS In Indiana, about a dozen cities, including Indianapolis, have local nondiscrimination laws that specifically protect gays and lesbians in employment, housing, education and public accommodation, which include business transactions. But in much of Indiana there is no such protection. Not only can the new state RFRA be used to thwart any local anti-discrimination laws, it - unlike any other state RFRA - can be used by for-profit businesses to shut down any civil rights litigation brought against them in private lawsuits. But don't worry, I'm just a clueless simpleton. I've only ever passed the Indiana bar, never could pass the bar for internet lawyering. I'm sure that some frantic googling will be able to clear up any misinformation I post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) If you're a Catholic priest and you conduct a wedding mass for two people of the same sex, you will no longer be a Catholic priest. The bishop will see to it, pronto. Allow me, if you please, to gently suggest that some deeper understanding of the church is in order. The Catholic church does not forbid SSM because it hates gays. It affirms OSM only because the church understands it to be a God-created institution, with a specific formula: Man and Woman. To the church, matrimony is not a lifestyle arrangement, it is not a contract, it is not a ceremony, it is not a legal standing whose purpose is to provide access to certain civil advantages -- it is not even two people pledging to love each other for the rest of their lives. To the church, matrimony is a sacrament, meaning that, like all sacraments, a marriage is nothing less than the living presence of Christ in the world. To suggest that a priest should be expected to join a woman and woman together in matrimony is to suggest that he ought to baptize a dog, or provide the Eucharist to a satanist, or offer anointing of the sick to a rock. Conferring the sacrament of matrimony is not a matter of public relations, or even of civil rights. It is a matter of faith. The struggle in Indiana, and across America, is a struggle to provide room both for people to devote themselves to whomever they wish, and for people to live out their faith. You present Catholic theology very accurately and it is germane to the discussion only in so far as some might misread the religious element of the discussion. Bravo! Let me add one thing. In all 50 United States, a marriage ceremony done by a priest (or religious minister in most instances) whether in a church building, a restaurant or a natural setting is only civilly valid if the priest is endorsed by the religious organization he represents; he needs "faculties" from the Bishop and diocese before he is granted "civil faculties" to act in the name of the State. (Cf. Code of Canon Law.) Although some might find the names of individual officiants for hire in wedding magazines, they are fly-by-night apostates not duly or no-longer duly authorized or representative of the Church. Unfortunately, many couples who hire the outliers find to their dismay that the marriage is never civilly registered or valid. Granted there are some, even St. Paul cites in the Epistles, who use religion for their (financial) gain. I mention this because so much misinformation and therefore incorrect conclusions occur in passionate arguments of complex questions and issues such as the matter of this thread. Facts, not just intense feelings, are pivotal. Edited March 30, 2015 by xandandl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't think this will have the broad application people are attributing it. I also believe-- fervently hope, at least-- that most businesses are decent and not itching for an opportunity to be blindly bigoted and discriminatory. (Then again, I'd also like to buy the world a Coke. Maybe I'm just naive...) I tend to agree. Klan leader walks into a Kosher deli, orders up 10 dozen Rugelach laid out in the shape of swastikas. Deli owner says no way. Klan customer can force the issue if he wants, but deli owner can rely upon RFRA, forcing the state to find a compelling state interest in requiring him, in this case, to obey the generally applicable serve-everybody laws. The USA Today story mentions a real-life case, from another state, where the government required Amish residents to equip their horse-drawn vehicles with electric lights. Resorting to whatever their state's equivalent of RFRA was, the Amish were able to obtian a compromise: reflective tape and kerosene lanterns. That's the way I think this will play out, mostly. 99% of Christians will gladly sell a cake to whoever walks in the door with money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts