It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.* This means it could be used as a cudgel by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law.
* Texas’ RFRA, enacted in 1999, contains similar — but not identical — language. The Texas law, however, also specificly exempts civil rights protections from the scope of the law.
Beyond the differences between the Indiana law and other states, many of the other states that have a RFRA also have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana does not have one.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
Indiana trial lawyer Matt Anderson, discussing this difference, writes that the Indiana law is “more broadly written than its federal and state predecessors” and opens up “the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate…”
Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne) and House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) were put in the hot seat when a reporter asked, point blank, about the state’s lack of protections for LGBT people, regardless of this new “religious freedom” law. The reporter said:
“You guys have said repeatedly that we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anyone, but if you just ignore the existence of this law, can’t we already do that now? Can’t so-and-so in Richmond put a sign up and say ‘No Gays Allowed?’ “That’s not against the law, correct?”
Bosma was forced to answer, saying: “It would depend. If you were in a community that had a human rights ordinance that wouldn’t be the case.”
The reporter pressed on: “But most of the state does not have that, correct?”
Bosma reluctantly answered, “That’s correct.”
(d) This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to: (1) any civil rights law, including, but not limited to, the Indiana Civil Rights law under IC 22-9-1; or (2) a criminal prosecution under state or federal law.
Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, "That's not on my agenda."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Greven
I despise the fact that people are even catagorized and then have to be specifically protected. Why "protected groups?" Why can't it just be protections that extend to every citizen without race, sexual orientation, or anything else being a qualifying factor in order to make them valid for legal protection?
Am I one of the few who remembers this verbiage from the fourteenth amendment?:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We should not need to specify catagories of people in laws--every person is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the laws.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.
So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.
originally posted by: johnwick
That doesn't guarantee commerce though does it?
I should not be compelled to do business with or work for anyone I don't want to.
Is it dumb to refuse services to a person simply because they are gay?
Without a doubt it stupid.
But it should still be voluntarily done, not forced.
The way I see it the anti gay business is only hurting itself honestly, as the gay and pro gay community just goes someplace else to spend their money.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: johnwick
That doesn't guarantee commerce though does it?
I should not be compelled to do business with or work for anyone I don't want to.
Is it dumb to refuse services to a person simply because they are gay?
Without a doubt it stupid.
But it should still be voluntarily done, not forced.
The way I see it the anti gay business is only hurting itself honestly, as the gay and pro gay community just goes someplace else to spend their money.
I absolutely agree with you on this, and I would add that society, with all of its social-media capabilities and overall accepting attitude, will destroy these businesses by (like you said) moving on somewhere else and letting their revenues dry up. The owners will probably lose some friends along the way, too.
I remember as a kid seeing signage on storefronts in California that read something similar to "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone." As privately owned businesses, I believe they should retain that right, but if they're intelligent at all, they will only exercise that right during extreme circumstances, if at all.
It takes a pretty poor human being and business person to refuse business with someone because of race or orientation or how they're dressed or whatever--but on the same note, it takes a pretty poor human being, in my opinion, to think that he government should be able to force a private business to do business with anyone. If they want to be a racist or homophobic business, so be it, but I would hope that they don't last long and that they experience karma in the form of financial ruin in the process.
The vast majority of our society's businesses have moved on past this type of thinking, and I can't help but think that the overall outrage over this IN law shows a severe lack of faith in humanity, as I suspect that any blatant discrimination will be as rare as an uncooked steak.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
We should not need to specify catagories of people in laws--every person is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the laws.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.
So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.
So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.
Serving a gay person has f-all to do with your religion. There is NOTHING in the Bible about refusing to serve LGBT people, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims. You are manufacturing "beliefs" to allow you to be a bigot.
If those of "deep religious faith" want to discriminate against others because of their "beliefs", they should be forced to show in court that they adhere to EVERY other rule in their book, no picking and choosing when your "deeply held beliefs" apply, solely for your convenience in being a bigot. If you want to preach Leviticus, you have to show that you comply with the rest of it, not just the one thing that allows you to be a nasty cretin towards others.
Finally, if this law has nothing to do with Christians wanting the right to be bigots to LGBT people, why is Pence openly refusing to pass LGBT protections into law? It's really pretty simple, the man cannot claim to be all about equality and freedom while actively refusing to pass legislation protecting ALL from discrimination.
Either way there are always going to be conflicts arriving in court, but nothing about this man, his words or his actions says he is actually against discrimination, while everything he says and does shows that he is actively trying to pass laws allowing Christians to be hateful bigots.
This is going to be interesting to watch, Pence has put himself (and the GOP) in an impossible position. He will either have to make this law worthless, or refuse to change it. Neither is going to help him hold onto his career. If he makes this law pointless the other ignorant Repubs and Fundies will disown him, and if he refuses to change it or reverse course his career is completely over and the people of Indiana will likely be protesting against the Republican party for months to come - and not just in Indiana.
Either way this law is doomed. If Pence doesn't do the right thing his career is finished and he will have damaged the Republican party immeasurably in the process, along with the state of Indiana. Then Dems will take over and put right all the damage the Repubs have done.
There is absolutely no denying that the public is on the right side of this, public opinion is massively against Indiana, the GOP and this law, Pence should get some kind of award for doing so much damage to his own faith, his own party and his own career.
originally posted by: johnwick
But the religious fundamentalists can't follow basic tenants of their religion that have been just fine for thousands of years?
The bible flat out says men laying with men, being gay, is a sin.