“I would rather not hurt innocent people over one person’s beliefs.”
But it’s not one person’s beliefs. It’s a State, via representatives voted into office by the people of that state, codifying discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This isn’t the only reason I have for “boycotting” states like Indiana. There are the hideous laws they have already on the books there, too.
Greenwich, that behavior by the doctor is obnoxious.
In other developments, the Governor of Arkansas has backtracked. I guess he got the point from Wal-Mart. Well why not? The Waltons (and the Tysons) are his constituents, too. They made their opinion known.
No, it’s a state acknowledging competing Constitutional rights, in my opinion.
^^ As they should
“No, it’s a state acknowledging competing Constitutional rights, in my opinion.”
Ok. But don’t act surprised when people like me and business refuse to do business in a state that allows it’s citizens to discriminate against a class of people.
Quoting the physician who “fired” his/her gay patient, “Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice.”
Since this physician believes, contrary to scientific studies, that sexual orientation is a choice, I think all his/her patients should abandon the physician. Obviously this ob/gyn puts agenda before medical science.
I’ve never quite understood how people believe sexual orientation is a choice. When you think of the emotional pain, social censure, and family shunning that gays had to endure in so many cases up to very recently, I just cannot fathom how certain people think the gays chose that road. I mean, seriously?
Getting back to the clumsily worded actual statute, I’d say the real issue in judicial interpretation is whether Section 9, which says the government need not be a party to a lawsuit, applies only when a business is reacting to a governmental imposition. If I were handed this law as a judge, that’s what I’d say: that the law, which clearly says it is about government regulation and the right of those with religious scruples to object to a “substantial burden” imposed by the government, doesn’t otherwise allow discrimination. That is part of what needs to be clarified, though I expect a rational judge would find this is the only way the law is coherent and constitutional. It is a typical form of judicial interpretation that one reads a statute in a way that lets it survive, that doesn’t require tossing it out. So as I read the statute, I think it means only in response to a government order or regulation.
That said, I still find this absurd because the words say “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” and then repeats that in a variety of ways. The issue is “substantially burden” is not defined. It’s clear we can say refusing to serve pizza to a gay customer doesn’t “substantially burden” religious belief, any more than my dislike of Orthodox Priests* means I could refuse to sell them shoes: there is no burden to the exercise of my religion.
The entire question becomes when is there a substantial burden to the exercise of religion. I don’t really see Hobby Lobby applying because there the point was a belief that certain medications perform what people believe are abortions. (And there is enough scientific doubt that you must give credence to the belief.) So the question would really come down to “does the provision of pizza for a wedding reception constitute a substantial burden to the exercise of religious belief?” I don’t think so because it’s not the same as actually participating in a gay marriage ceremony. That is, just because you don’t like the marriage, providing chairs for rental or flowers for a bouquet has nothing to do with the content of the ceremony itself. I mention chairs because they’re used in gay marriage ceremonies too - people sit - and thus a company that makes or rents chairs might claim they are burdened by having to supply chairs to gay ceremonies. Or perhaps to Satanic worshippers. Or to Muslims. Or Jews. Or Catholics. If it’s not a substantial burden to supply chairs, then how is it a substantial burden to supply pizza? Again, I don’t see this as being like Hobby Lobby because in that case the company insisted it was being required to participate in the act of abortion itself, as though it were the minister in a gay marriage.
To make this point legally clearer, imagine a person goes to a florist or caterer and arranges for services and doesn’t say they’re for a gay marriage ceremony. What has happened? If it finds out, does the business have the right to sue for being “misled”? But think of it this way: if it never finds out, what harm has happened? We know that in Hobby Lobby, there is a real (at least perceived) harm: a fetus has perhaps been aborted and that is viewed by those believers as murder. That is actual harm and that actual harm can rationally be said to be a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. (Remember: Hobby Lobby was about whether religious beliefs could be exercised by a company owned by religious people.) What is the actual harm if you provide flowers or pizza and you don’t know they’re for a gay marriage? Answer is none. So how is this a substantial burden?
*I don’t dislike Orthodox Priests but my grandfather hated them. Goes back to the Russian Revolution.
It’s not like Indiana is a place a lot of people are dying to go to. It’s conveniently in the middle of the country, but that’s about it. So imagine the nice cornfed fortyish Midwestern woman who is arranging Acme Tool & Die’s annual sales convention: “We could go to Indianapolis, and it’s right in the middle of our area, but hmm… I never really knew thought I knew any gay people, but then I went to Jim in Sales’ wedding to that good-looking guy in Accounting… his niece was such a cute flower girl and his fiance’s mom reminded me of Aunt Jenny… everybody cried when they kissed, just like they did at Annie’s wedding… it all seemed pretty normal to me after all… probably we wouldn’t have any trouble in Indianapolis, but why take the chance… maybe we should just go to Madison.”
Companies don’t have to bring their business to states that proudly stand on the principle that their residents can discriminate against gay people.
If the business wasn’t reacting to a government imposition, what would be the basis for a lawsuit? Doesn’t any lawsuit involve a claimed violation of a law or regulation?
So I take it this isn’ t the MOB wedding dress thread ???
JK, but seriously, isn’t this exactly why these kinds of threads were not permitted??
As a Hoosier liberal (a rare breed indeed), I can proudly say that I didn’t vote for anyone that voted for this terrible law. I also will now only shop in businesses that I can trust to treat my friends with respect. It is hard for me to support a full boycott, since my area and many parts of Indiana are actively protesting, but I do hope this will make people think twice at the voting booth.
Lergnom, I think you need to read Section 7 of the Indiana Law which defines “person’s” as “people, churches and corporations,” which is why Section 9 of the Indiana law does not just pertain to government entity.
Does anyone have an opinion on the clause that was submitted to the bill but removed- any business choosing to not serve a particular person or group would be required to have a sign notifying those it would not serve and the reason
If they did that it would save people from the embarrassment of being denied service and let others know of the businesses stand so if they wanted they could take their business elsewhere…
If students who are against this law refuse to attend colleges with in a State where such laws exist…doesn’t that just leave more room (and incentives) for those who DO support the law to populate these institutions? Thus increasing the population with in these States of law supporters. Irony and the law of unintended consequences. But it’s one of those knee jerk reactions which feel so very good and hey…that’s important.
Should an infertility specialist be required to perform IVF etc on a gay couple? Would you WANT to force a physician to do a procedure against their will?
I am so much more bothered by the states in which same sex marriage isn’t legal. I wonder what the status is of boycotts in those states, like Michigan.
“Does anyone have an opinion on the clause that was submitted to the bill but removed- any business choosing to not serve a particular person or group would be required to have a sign notifying those it would not serve and the reason.”
I hadn’t heard about it being a requirement, only that businesses in Indiana are allowed to put up a “No Gay” sign.
“During a joint press conference, Brian Bosma, Speaker of the House and the Senate’s Pro Tem David Long acknowledged that homophobic shop keepers will be allowed to display “No Gays allowed” signs.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-state-boycottindianas-rfra.html
I think the answer to that would probably be no from a legal standpoint. And I probably would hesitate to be worked on by someone who I knew was being “forced” against their will. However, I think within the medical community that kind of behavior would be considered pretty unethical. One is supposed to leave personal or religious based judgments behind once the uniform is put on.
As a nurse, If I refused to care for a gay person at the hospital or refused to care for a gay patient with AIDS, I’d be fired on the spot. Known murderers injured while committing those crimes are still treated in the hospital, even as the staff may be biting their tongue.
I wouldn’t want those doctors who refuse to treat gay couples or their children to treat me or my children regardless of whether we’re gay or not. But in order to be able to choose, I’d have to know who they are. The doctor who refused to treat the children of a gay couple is here in Michigan and I know a few parents who are glad she let her views be known so they can avoid her. If she were racist or sexist I would want to know that too.
It seems that just about anything can be perceived by someone to be pejorative. With social media and the ability to spread outrage with the click of a thumb it will take an educated and discerning populace to NOT be roused into screaming indignation when such a response if out of proportion to an event. Then again, rousing the masses is big business and many an industry depends on it’s continuation.
If the roused masses go silent and thoughtful…talk radio…on both sides of the dial would go silent too.