Indiana's New Law

[GUARDLING]

Because I don't see it as being in the same ballpark, I don't see it as a degree-of-difference thing. Not a "levels" thing.

you will , I have seen this over and over...when it hits close to home.

It usually takes something like that and then there's an epiphany.

[mingusmonk]

Every single argument against this law is couched in emotion, not logic. Period.

Which then makes those arguers liberals? Just trying to understand.

[JimF-LowBari]

Every single argument against this law is couched in emotion, not logic. Period.

Well not having the same rights as others would tend to P.O. people.......

[skevinp]

So levels decide respect or rights? HMMMM also Im sure many here can also give a very long list of many gruesome acts of hate against this situation also. Open the door to even the slightest bit of lack of rights and you open to the possibility of some nasty stuff.

Thanks for your honest opinion though.

Rather than suggesting over and over that this law will lead to horrific acts of hate and violence, can someone explain a plausible logical progression from it to such? That might be more effective in convincing people of what you feel they don't understand.

[GUARDLING]

Rather than suggesting over and over that this law will lead to horrific acts of hate and violence, can someone explain a plausible logical progression from it to such? That might be more effective in convincing people of what you feel they don't understand.

any law ANY that says a group is less than or doesn't deserve the same rights. For me it is very simple.

People hide behind such laws.

I also am not suggesting anything. The violence is there , better? maybe BUT give just 1 inch to some with a law that even opens a possibility then YES you will see more. I have no problem with religions protecting what they do in way of lets say marrying against their religion, like jew to christian etc etc. although Ive seen a tolerance for that but BUSINESS is very different. POST IT, those who agree with it. Lets see what wins out the almighty dollar or their convictions

Edited March 31, 2015 by GUARDLING

[mingusmonk]

Indiana's corporate leaders call for action on RFRA

http://www.wthr.com/story/28653210/indianas-corporate-leaders-call-for-action-on-rfra

This is a lot of Indy's heavy hitters.

Angie's List

Anthem

Cummins

Dow AgroSciences

Eli Lilly and Co.

Emmis Communications

IU Health

Roche Diagnostics

Salesforce Marketing

Add Delta Faucet ---> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/delta-faucet-company-response-to-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act-300057939.html

[N.E. Brigand]

Rather than suggesting over and over that this law will lead to horrific acts of hate and violence, can someone explain a plausible logical progression from it to such? That might be more effective in convincing people of what you feel they don't understand.

You're right. This law represents not the the door on hate opening, but a wedge being stuck in that door to prevent it from closing. It's wrong, on the same grounds that it was wrong not to serve African Americans at lunch counters, or to make them sit in the back of the bus, but nothing worse will follow from it. In other times or places, this little bit of hatred--which really is more fear more than hatred--could be a first step, but here it is merely out of step with history--and, as everyone posting to this thread who's still alive in 20 years will then agree, to simple decency.

Edited to fix typo.

Edited March 31, 2015 by N.E. Brigand

[2muchcoffeeman]

Attn: Eleran

Is Indiana Protecting Discrimination?

To this layman, it's a pretty thorough walk-thru on "free exercise" law, as you had brought up yesterday. It made my head hurt a little bit.

The passages that jumped out at me:

1. Indiana made explicit for its own law what the four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department had already recognized about the federal counterpart.

2. [F]our Courts of Appeals, covering nearly half the states in the Union, and the Obama Justice Department, have stated that RFRA can be asserted as a defense in a private case seeking the enforcement of federal law.

3. “The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a ‘license to discriminate,’ and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.”

That last one is from Indiana U. law professor Daniel Conkle, a supporter of gay rights, including gay marriage.


. . . and for the rest of us non-legal-eagles, I recommend this, from Elizabeth Scalia, who takes both sides to task and lets a little oxygen back in the room.

Edited March 31, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman

[GUARDLING]

You're right. This law represents not the the door on hate opening, but a wedge being stuck in that door to prevent it from closing. It's wrong, on the same grounds that it was wrong not to serve African Americans at lunch counters, or to make them sit in the back of the bus, but nothing worse will follow from it. In other times or places, this little bit of hatred--which really is more fear more than hatred--could be a first step, but here it is merely out of step with history--and, as everyone posting to this thread whose still alive in 20 years will then agree, to simple decency.

I think you are rightin part BUT say this to a victim and you might feel different, and there are many. If the law produces nothing at all in way of an issue ( and there is a very strong possibility of that )for me isnt the issue at all it's that the law is in place at all.

Edited March 31, 2015 by GUARDLING

[N.E. Brigand]

Is Indiana Protecting Discrimination?

[...]

I recommend this, from Elizabeth Scalia, who takes both sides to task and lets a little oxygen back in the room.

Thanks for the links; I don't often agree with the Anchoress, but she's usually worth reading. Be sure to follow the link she posts to Melinda Selmys's guest post. Scalia also links to Ross Douthat in the New York Times, who also asks some good hard questions.

Edit: I won't be making new posts to this thread, and thus cannot respond to the plethora of misinformation that has appeared since my final contribution, but to the links mentioned above, which argue both sides of the case, let me add one to this post by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine, because I think these quotes are apt:

"One lesson to draw from this chain of events is that Pence and his allies either overreached or blundered, and were properly forced to retreat when liberal opponents raised well-founded objections. Instead, conservatives have reached the opposite conclusion: They have been victimized by bullying social liberals, delirious with culture-war victory. . . . Either way, the backlash against Indiana was a necessary and apparently successful expression of a newfound social consensus that gay people deserve the protections of equal citizenship."

Further Edit: I like this cartoon.

Edited April 1, 2015 by N.E. Brigand