The Indiana RFRA does not give Indianans some new 'right' to discriminate. It is a law that gives individuals and businesses a DEFENCE in court or administrative hearings - one that still must be proven.
FACT: Sexual orientation is NOT nor has it EVER BEEN a protected class under Indiana state law.
In other words, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, it doesn't need the RFRA. It can merely avail itself of the same laws that existed in Indiana last week, last month, last year, a decade ago, fifty years ago, a century ago and right back to the creation of the state. The RFRA doesn't change that.
I will acknowledge that most of this hysteria is based on PROFOUND LEGAL IGNORANCE, but there is, at least on some level, something else going on here. If people were really concerned about discrimination against the LGBT community in Indiana, advocates would be pushing for legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. They haven't. They aren't. Instead, they are going after religious freedom. Hmmm...
If you think Native Americans, who use peyote in their rites, should not be denied benefits, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that Hindus Sikhs should be able to carry their sacred kirpans, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that Muslim men should be able to grow their beards, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that the Amish should be able to drive their buggies, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that Jewish prisoners should be able to get Kosher meals, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that Muslim prisoners should be able to get Halal meals, then you should support RFRAs.
If you believe that Native American children should be able to grow their hair and not get expelled from a public school for doing so, then you should support RFRAs.
For more examples, read: Meet 10 Americans Who Have Benefited From Laws Like Indiana's RFRA
Question: If Indiana is so full of bigots, they why are there no or so very few examples of businesses discriminating against the LGBT community since they have had the 'right' to do so since 11 December 1816?
Question: If the critics of Indiana are so concerned about - thus far, non-existent - discrimination against gays, then why are they screaming about a law that will change NOTHING when it comes to that issue rather than seeking legislation that would prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community?
Question: Why is the Left - and I ask this as an atheist - so afraid of religious liberty?
Question: If you could outlaw religion, would you? If you could incarcerate believers, who refuse to accept your secular orthodoxy, would you?
PS: Just to reiterate: INDIANANS HAVE HAD THE 'RIGHT' TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY SINCE 11 DECEMBER 1816.
So, where are the myriad examples of rampant discrimination against gays from the last 199 years that RFRA critics believe and have assured us will happen 'if Indiana permits discrimination against the LGBT community'?
One more question: How is it that APPLE, a corporation, can have a conscience when it comes LGBT discrimination, but Hobby Lobby, also a corporation, cannot when it pertains to abortifacients?
PPS: YOU MAY COPY & PASTE THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY. JUST LINK TO IT OR SIGN MY NAME.
UPDATE:
Pence admits to being wrong and today he is calling for an amended law. It was broken beyond all rational defense. The federal RFRA protected people from government. The Indiana RFRA pitted people against people.'
- Christians Love
Once again, sexual orientation is NOT a protected class in Indiana. It never has been. The RFRA doesn't change that.
If a business wanted to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, under Indiana state law, it could before RFRA. It can now. Again, Indiana's RFRA changes NOTHING.
If you want the LGBT community to have legal protections, then advocating against the RFRA isn't the way to do it. If you want to prohibit such discrimination, YOU MUST MAKE SEXUAL ORIENTATION A PROTECTED CLASS...just like race, gender, national origin, and religious affiliation.
If, as you say, Indiana's RFRA pitted people against each other, repealing it will not change the situation one iota, at least as it pertains to the LGBT community.
Say Indiana repeals the law. Guess what?
Indiana businesses will STILL be able to discriminate against members of the LGBT community for any damn reason they choose.
'Again, Indiana's RFRA changes NOTHING.' Then repeal it.
Reposted from below for your edification: Advance America, the organization that helped lead the campaign for SB 101, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, described its rationale: "Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!"
Now, tell us how it isn't meant to target gays.
- rhymes with angelic
So, you want to deny Hindus from laws that prohibit them from carrying their kirpans; prevent Native American children from getting expelled from public schools for growing their hair; deny kosher meals to Jewish prisoners and Halal meals to Muslim prisoners, etc. Amirite? How very 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' you are! /
'Reposted from below for your edification: Advance America, the organization that helped lead the campaign for SB 101, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, described its rationale: "Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!" Now, tell us how it isn't meant to target gays.'
Dude, you aren't paying attention. Gays have NEVER had protection from discrimination under Indiana law. Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class. It never has been in the 199-year history of the State of Indiana. Repealing RFRA won't do a goddamn thing to protect gays, but it will absolutely harm religious people.
I guess you will support a law, if passed in Indiana, that prohibits Muslim men from growing their beards. Right? It's obvious that you do not give a bloody fuck about protecting their interests.
Once again, Indiana's RFRA Doesn't Give People The 'Right' To Discriminate Against Gays. They Already Have That 'Right'.
Time to end the last legal prejudice. This old evil can be remedied by protecting all citizens from discrimination.
- Christians Love
Fine, but advocating against this legislation is not the way to do it. Fight to make sexual orientation a protected class in Indiana...and on every level, including federally. Democrats couldn't even pass ENDA when they had veto-proof majorities in Congress.
Listen, I support SSM and, as an atheist, religion hardly plays any role in my arguments. As a libertarian, however, I have a real problem with government forcing association and contractual relationships. I think a printing company owned by gays should be able to deny service to the Westboro Baptist Church. I think a Jewish bakery should be able to refuse to make a Neo-Nazi cake. I think that Alpine Village restaurant in California should have been able to refuse service to Neo-Nazis, who refused to remove their swastikas - California's insane Unruh Act notwithstanding.
Do I think that businesses should discriminate? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes. The free market will take care of bigots. A couple of weeks ago, I went into a small market and went to pay for some milk. The guy behind the register said that the milk that I wanted to purchase was halal and available for Muslim customers only. Fine. No problem. I wasn't looking specifically for Halal milk. I mistakenly picked it up. Did I get angry and start screaming about discrimination? No, I did not. I just purchased Infidel Milk and left.
Many states have RFRAs and I cannot think of one where Christian businesses won the right to discriminate against homosexuals. Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin lost their business - Elaine's Photography - in New Mexico. Aaron and Melissa Klein lost their business - Sweet Cakes by Melissa - and are facing bankruptcy in Oregon. Barronelle Stutzman has been fined and may lose her business - Arlene's Flowers - in Washington. Jack Phillips has stopped selling all wedding cakes at his bakery - Masterpiece Cakeshop - in Colorado and is facing all sorts of legal problems. In other words, RFRA defences seldom win in public accommodation disputes.
The fact of the matter is that the Indiana RFRA - regardless of what some of its religious supporters desire - is not really about permitting legal discrimination against homosexuals and it certainly doesn't change the very fact that members of the LGBT are not protected currently under Indiana state law because they lack protected class status.
If you are really concerned about discrimination based on sexual orientation, I would suggest that you focus your energies on that rather than the RFRA.
Also, since the LGBT community hasn't been protected under Indiana state law since 1816, where are all of the cases of discrimination? If Indiana's RFRA would produce rampant discrimination - it wouldn't - because it would permit discrimination against gays - it wouldn't - then why has there not be a LGBT discriminatory dystopia in the state before now? After all, the if repealing the rascally RFRA would not change the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class under Indiana state law, where are all of the tonnes and tonnes of examples of businesses discriminating based on such?
UPDATE #2:
For years - as many of you know - I have supported SSM. Yes, I was warned about what might happen. Naively, I believed that we could move to a more enlightened and tolerant society - at least as it pertained to this issue. Now, I am no longer so sure.
Lefties, if you thought that your Gestapo tactics would ensure that more and more would fall in line, then: Congratulations, you have managed to push me away - or, at least, begin that transition.
First, they came for...
UPDATE #2:
Truly dumb comment. Thank goodness your vote on this issue won't matter in the end. If you are attempting to claim that Christians are victims because they can't refuse to bake cakes for gays, then you are on the wrong path. These religious freedumbs bills are nothing more than bigotry clothed in a new clothe. We're not buying it. Sorry, but baking cakes, taking pictures and arranging flowers aren't religious rites nor rituals. If you bake a cake for a gay wedding your beliefs are not compromised. I'm an Atheist musician and have performed for dozens of heterosexual religious weddings. I entered the sanctuary as an Atheist and left as one. My beliefs were not compromised when I participated in a religious wedding. It's lame, and thankfully most courts are not buying it as an argument.
- DGJC
Dude, in the 199 years of the state of Indiana, sexual orientation has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been a protected class; yet, you fools believe that, somehow, Indiana's RFRA will permit discrimination against a heretofore protected class. LOLZ. AGAIN, sexual orientation has NEVER been a protected class under Indiana State law. If businesses wanted to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, they could have...under the law today, last week, last year, five years ago, a decade ago, fifty years ago, a century ago, or 199 years ago.
You are - quite ignorantly, I might add - screaming and hollering over something that you quite evidently do not understand. You believe that Indiana's RFRA creates some right that permits businesses to do something that they heretofore could not do. Bullshit! Demonstrate that sexual orientation was a protected class under Indiana state law and that, somehow in the RFRA, gays were given rights and they had then rescinded all within the RFRA. It didn't fvcking happen.
And, as far as a few bakeries, photographers,. and florists, who the bloody fvck cares? An RFRA has NEVER protected a business from discriminating against gays. NEVER.
And, even if a few cranks were protected, again, who the bloody fvck cares?
Recently, a Muslim refused to sell me 'Islamic milk' in a store. Did I bloody cry, wet my pants, scream discrimination, and demand that you come to my rescue? F.U.C.K. N.O. I bought the Allah-damned 'Infidel Milk' and left the 7th century shop.
If you believe that my backing away from your cause is of no consequence, please know that I have fought tooth-and-nail for SSM on the best 'conservative' websites out there much to the chagrin of the vast majority of members. I have done that for years.
Go on with your authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Convince yourself that people like me are nothing more than old gum stuck to the bottom of your old shoe. No biggie. No problem. No worries...
'My beliefs were not compromised when I participated in a religious wedding. It's lame, and thankfully most courts are not buying it as an argument.'
Really? Riddle me this:
What was the holding in Hobby Lobby?
Held: The government cannot force individuals and businesses to act in a manner that would substantially burden their sincerely-held religious beliefs without meeting each prong of strict scrutiny.
What do you want to mandate at the state level?
You want the government to force individuals and businesses to act in a manner that would substantially burden their sincerely-held religious beliefs and forget strict scrutiny.
Riddle me this, too, genius: If the courts are 'not buying into that argument', then why, pray tell, did the LGBT leadership groups drop their support of ENDA after the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby?
Yes, I know, understand, and realise that you are going to require more than a few minutes to absorb all of this and begin to comprehend what it means.
Thankfully, you've told me that you no longer either need nor desire my help in these matters. Considering the fact that you obsessed over gay wedding cakes, etc, - a non-existent matter - good luck figuring them out on your own.
