jjeffeory Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Response to MelloDude, there have been a few businesses here and there that have turned down gay business and turned up in the news. Biggest issue that I remember is some that had a contract and then found out it was a gay event and tried to back out. Then it got messy with what takes precedence, the contract or the beliefs of the owner. My thought is if a business doesn't want gay business then they should be honest/brave enough to post at the door they don't want it. That way there will be no surprises. Just dust off the old "No Blacks/Irish/Chinese/Jews Allowed" signs. IOW the opposite of the blue circle stickers (pay attention DCI) some IN businesses are putting up saying they allow all in their stores. PS In PA you can fire for sexual orientation, local business did it and firing was upheld because "LGBT" is not in the list of groups that are protected. Sometimes it's what is NOT written down that bites you. That may not last for much longer. The Supreme Court recently ruled that "Gays ARE a Protected Class". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/ My spouse works in labor law and has taken a few cases on this issue, but the firm's clients have been federal employees, so I don't personally know all the rules as of today... Honestly, I don't know if the Indiana law is constitutional. ...and sorry to whoever posted before that local laws trump federal laws... That's very much incorrect. The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption have been invoked many times... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm Perhaps when America was operating under the Article of Confederation states' rights were supreme, but that's not the case today. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) That may not last for much longer. The Supreme Court recently ruled that "Gays ARE a Protected Class". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/ My spouse works in labor law and has taken a few cases on this issue, but the firm's clients have been federal employees, so I don't personally know all the rules as of today... Honestly, I don't know if the Indiana law is constitutional. ...and sorry to whoever posted before that local laws trump federal laws... That's very much incorrect. The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption have been invoked many times... http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm Perhaps when America was operating under the Article of Confederation states' rights were supreme, but that's not the case today. After the federal RFRA law was passed a second court ruled that it did not apply to states, only the federal gov't. That was the reference. Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 After the federal law RFRA law was passed a second court ruled that it did not apply to states, only the federal gov't. That was the reference. No idea, that's why I gave my information and prefaced it with the fact that federal employees were being served in my examples. There's a whole bunch of federal employees that are exempt from many of the laws we think about and talk about. For example congressional employees operated on rules that are different from other branches of government and the private sector. It's really complicated, which is why it's better for attorneys to look at this stuff. For me, there are certain premises that one must accept in this particular discussion, which are probably beyond the scope of Indiana's law and DCI. One big thing for me is that if "homosexuality" was thought of in the same vein as "race", then these types of laws would be seen as outrageous. Why in the world would someone discriminate against someone else over something that they can NOT control ( race, gender, sexual ORIENTATION ( not preference or lifestyle, but orientation), even if it is was their religion? That's the sort of thing that the government is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. One doesn't have to agree with someone else, but if one's in BUSINESS that serves the public, one needs to serve the entire public. Now Indiana has some funky hotel laws. I could see how this could adversely affect LGBT people's trying to stay in Indiana hotels during DCI championship week. That's just an example.... Anyway, I'd like to see your sources so that I can better understand what you're talking about as the post wasn't the most salient. Cheers fellow buckeye... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) No idea, that's why I gave my information and prefaced it with the fact that federal employees were being served in my examples. There's a whole bunch of federal employees that are exempt from many of the laws we think about and talk about. For example congressional employees operated on rules that are different from other branches of government and the private sector. It's really complicated, which is why it's better for attorneys to look at this stuff. For me, there are certain premises that one must accept in this particular discussion, which are probably beyond the scope of Indiana's law and DCI. One big thing for me is that if "homosexuality" was thought of in the same vein as "race", then these types of laws would be seen as outrageous. Why in the world would someone discriminate against someone else over something that they can NOT control ( race, gender, sexual ORIENTATION ( not preference or lifestyle, but orientation), even if it is was their religion? That's the sort of thing that the government is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. One doesn't have to agree with someone else, but if one's in BUSINESS that serves the public, one needs to serve the entire public. Now Indiana has some funky hotel laws. I could see how this could adversely affect LGBT people's trying to stay in Indiana hotels during DCI championship week. That's just an example.... Anyway, I'd like to see your sources so that I can better understand what you're talking about as the post wasn't the most salient. Cheers fellow buckeye... "If there's already a federal RFRA in place, why did Indiana pass its own RFRA? Great question. In a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes: Indiana became the twentieth to do so. Other states have state court rulings that provide RFRA-like protections. Here's a helpful map from 2014 that shows you which states have RFRA protections (note that Mississippi and Indiana have passed RFRA since this map was made). It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases." Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) So what happens when a number of DCI's major supporters announce that they will no longer, like some other major corporate entities, support an activity that infuses money into the economy of Indiana? Probably won't happen, but it could. So what should DCI do? You mean like Salesforce? Talk about hypocricy: "...If SalesForce CEO Benioff is going to be consistent, he’s not only going to have to lay off everyone who works out of his Chicago, Indianapolis, Tampa and Northern Virginia offices, but he can’t even do business in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas." I suspect that DCI corporate supporters know that to pull out of all support of all organizations that do business in Indiana would be tantamount to cutting off their revenue stream by taking a stand based on mis-information, hypocricy, and political expediency. The Salesforce CEO is an idiot IMO. I'd like to think that the CEO's of DCI's corporate partners aren't as misguided or bigoted as he is. "The only reason for the hyperbolic outrage coming from the entertainment and sports industries the last two days is willful ignorance. That’s their problem." It doesn't have to be DCI's Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Great question as some of those sponsors probably are promenantly displayed at that week in IN. (Never made DCI week but not that big of a guess) Think of DCI week with no corporate sponsorship or even mention. Final 4 might be interesting for this too. And just to explain my earlier posts. Why is discrimination against one group allowed under this law and not other groups? If discrimination against groups other than gays disturb you then you might understand how some of us who don't like gay discrimination feel. Very selective "Protection Of Religious Freedom" IMO... Or to put it another way, US law is supposed to be evenly applied to all. But here we are saying if your beliefs say it is OK to discriminate based on LGBT lines, the state of IN will back you up. But if your beliefs say it is OK to discriminate based on race, religion or other things that is illegal. Someone explain why this is different. To use jasgre2000s post, this goes against "force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs". Seriously, Jim, please read more on what this law actually means, because it is not what you've posted here. Maybe THIS article will help your understanding: "So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people? We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books. Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited (sic. I'm confident the author meant "permitted") discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Then we agree to respectfully disagree, and we don't forcefully impose our views on each other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, but respecting each other as a human being should be key. And each side will say that the other side IS trying to impose their views on them. So now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Sorry to confuse my point Garfield, I was not talking about the IN law specifically but used it as an example. But my understanding is it is legal to discriminate in certain states (including PA) by LGBT lines and not legal to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc. I know some (thank goodness not many) who feel their religious beliefs tell them it is wrong to be mixed race, certain religions, etc. But because those groups are listed as having their civil rights protected it is illegal to keep them out of businesses regardless of the owners religious beliefs. So until corrected I still say that some religious beliefs are protected but not all. And again I'm bringing up "unpopular" beliefs to hopefully make a point that some may not have thought of. What's that about freedom of speech that it protects even unpopular speech, just applying the same measure IMO. As for public accomodations permitting/prohibiting homosexuals, good question. For as I know there is nothing in PA law that says an owner can't kick out homosexuals because of sexual orientation. They have been fired legally because of that. Last I heard one friend is still hiding that she is in a gay relationship because her last day of work will be the day her boss finds out. And know locally of some who were denied housing (trying to buy) because they went together to look at the house. And still shake my head when I read "it doesn't commonly occur" like that means it should not be addressed. Lot of things happen infrequently but that doesn't mean they should be pushed aside. I'm hoping my friend having to hide doesn't happen frequently but..... Biggest question(s) I have and maybe you can answer: Are there any other groups that can be discriminated against legally with (or even before) the new law. And what did this law really change except bring up publicity that discrimination against LGBT is (still) legal. And yeah I think the heat that IN is getting over this should be spread over more areas (like the one I'm in fer-instance). Edited March 29, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 This law is not directed at the LGBT community (as many have already pointed out it's genesis is directed at Amish, American Indians...). This law is directed at those whose religious beliefs are harmed by governmental action. Nothing more. I think you're kidding yourself. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I think you're kidding yourself. Your opinion is as valid as mine. Maybe the litany of other voices might sway your mind by the time you reach the end of the thread. Maybe not. That's fine by me. Hope it is for you, too. Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts