It appears Michigan isn’t quite as superior as romani noted, in several regards. Illinois also has had 4 of their 7 most recent governors in the pen. Lots of states need to do clean-up in many areas.
No, I wouldn’t want a doctor doing medical procedures on me in those circumstances.
Update on the pizza case: a HS coach tweeted seeking others to burn down the establishment. She was fired and her case turned over to the prosecutor. The pizza place has received incredible backlash and is currently closed.
In the other laws - except SC, I’ve heard (but not read the law) - you need to have the government as a party, which means the business has to sue the government to claim that its right to exercise religion without a “substantial burden” - or whatever those statutes’ words say - has been infringed. (Or the government sues the business for non-compliance.) Section 9 of the Indiana law says you don’t need the government as a party in a lawsuit, which suggests that a business may be sued by some 3rd party (e.g., a gay customer, etc.) and that the sued business can use the statute to assert a religious defense. That’s the difference in the laws and the concern of people: that it enables businesses to discriminate and then use this statute to defend themselves when sued. (My take is it may only involve discrimination in violation of a government regulation and that the lawsuit by a 3rd party in essence involves the government’s regulation. I’m saying that a narrow reading of the statute in line with its overall wording about its intent is that it’s about government regulation’s effect on religious beliefs, so this is a form of “impleading” government.)
As to who this applies to, it’s been clear since Hobby Lobby (and Citizens United) that pretty much anything is a person. That doesn’t mean anything for the interpretation of the statute. A person is whatever entity.
Note also the statute doesn’t define religion or what constitutes beliefs. My religious beliefs might, for example, be entirely opposed to devout Christians and thus I would potentially be able to claim that refusing service to devout Christians “substantially burdens” my beliefs. So for example, I could refuse services of chair rental, flowers, etc. to Christian services or Christian gatherings because of my beliefs and the statute essentially says you can’t question the validity of my beliefs. I find that weird.
Actually, you cannot discriminate against someone for a different religion, because that is a protected class, along with race, familial status, gender, color, national origin. The solution to this issue is to make sexual orientation protected as well. If they also take the part of the law prohibiting local governments from passing local ordinances that specifically make LGBT protected classes, then local communities could prevent the discrimination to some extent.
@Lergnom, I’m trying to figure out where the new law would have effect. Suppose two grooms approached Memories Pizza and asked for 15 pizzas for their wedding reception, and Memories Pizza said, “No, we don’t do weddings for gay people.” The state of Indiana doesn’t have gays as a protected class and neither does the little town where the pizza parlor is, so the two guys would have no cause of action with or without the law, correct? The judge would just say, the pizza parlor is allowed not to serve gay people, end of story.
So it would only be in a municipality like Indianapolis, with a municipal non-discrimination ordinance, that the law would have teeth for gay people, correct? The two grooms would sue the Indianapolis pizza parlor on the basis of the municipal ordinance, and then the pizza parlor would point to the state law as a defense. Is that correct?
"That’s the difference in the laws and the concern of people: that it enables businesses to discriminate and then use this statute to defend themselves when sued. (My take is it may only involve discrimination in violation of a government regulation and that the lawsuit by a 3rd party in essence involves the government’s regulation. I’m saying that a narrow reading of the statute in line with its overall wording about its intent is that it’s about government regulation’s effect on religious beliefs, so this is a form of “impleading” government.)
@Lergnom, yes I understand that first part that is why this law is not the same as the other laws (except SC.) I believe Texas has something in it’s statute or in a separate statute regarding protections. I disagree with your second interpretation ie “impleading” government. But I am not a lawyer.
That is exactly NOT the solution. Suppose gays and lesbians become a protected class in Indiana. A bakery refuses to bake a cake for two women getting married, saying they disapprove of gay marriage. The two brides sue. The bakery then points to the new law and says that baking a cake for two brides is against their religion so they don’t have to obey the law that gays and lesbians are a protected class. That’s the whole point of the law-- that people can get out of obeying other laws because of religious sensibilities.
There are a lot of posts that are just personal attacks and/or way off topic. Let’s stick to the topic and stop the insults or this thread will be closed. It is going to take me awhile to go through all this, but quite a few posts are going to disappear or be edited.
I’m going to go back to the point that I so obviously failed to make: Indiana’s hospitality industry is going to take a big hit, because many people organizing conventions and group trips are not going to want to take the risk that gay and lesbian members of their group won’t feel welcome in local establishments. Even if, let’s say, not one single dining establishment in Indianapolis actually would reject gay or lesbian patrons, people arranging the events are going to think, “Why take the chance of going to Indianapolis, when we can just as easily go to some other state?”
I think the other states/Fed FRRA’s have explicit language in them that FRRA cannot be used to discriminate against anyone.
Indiana has no such language yet
Since Indiana bill doesn’t have that language FRRA trumps local anti-discrimination acts.
And in Georgia, "Rep. Mike Jacobs, a Republican who supports gay rights, introduced an amendment explicitly providing that the Georgia bill could not be used to overcome anti-discrimination provisions at the state and local level. The amendment was staunchly opposed by the bill’s sponsor, who complained that protecting victims of discrimination would “completely undercut the purpose of the bill.”
The comments made by the owner of the Memories pizza shop that has now been forced to close due to backlash illustrates the point that IN’s legislation was deliberately anti-gay, not a positive “religious rights” law:
"When asked about pizza for weddings with divorced couples, O’Connor paused.
‘You know, that’s something that I don’t have figured out in my own mind yet,” he said. “Because I’m divorced. So that’s something I don’t have figured out’"
He’s such a proponent of marriage that he is divorced, and he chooses to ignore the biblical condemnation of divorce??? So many of our legislators and public commentators that condemn gay marriage are on their 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages. Let’s adhere to scripture we agree with, and ignore the verses we don’t!
Cardinal, yes. Indiana protects state employment rights but has no other protections so it’s up to localities. But it appears the bigger places have those laws. It appears, in fact, that every major population center in the state has this kind of anti-discrimination law. I’ve found Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, West Lafayette, Terre Haute, etc. and counties like Marion - which includes Indy - and Monroe (Bloomington), etc. So the reality is nearly all the people of Indiana are in fact under these anti-discrimination laws and the notion of a state-wide lack is misleading. This reveals why the law was passed: as a blunt attempt to override local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual identity. I’ve found statements in Fort Wayne that this was the intent.
It’s somewhat unfair for people to say “Well, Indiana lacks anti-discrimination laws so these companies are hypocrites for doing business there now” when every employment center - maybe not Carmel - has such a law.
Back in the late 70s-early 80’s, ERA supporters boycotted the states that didn’t ratify the amendment. I remember a big conference being relocated because of it. Despite it, no more states ratified the amendment. During the 1996 olympics, one county had all the planned olympic activities pulled because of a “family values” policy. Stores and other facilities were boycotted. The county is doing just fine. While I agree that people should vote with their feet, it often doesn’t have the desired impact.
Also FYI, the pizza place in the news is in a small town near South Bend. It has no anti-discrimination law so they really didn’t have to say anything. I have no idea what stupid pills they took to say something inflammatory about a law that doesn’t even apply to them. The place is near South Bend, which has an anti-discrimination law, but the county doesn’t.
Well Arkansas can use all the hospitality $ it can get and Arizona has been known for having a series of whackjob governors. Glad someone is thinking. But is it really a threatened boycott that made them change
The law says the government has to show it has a compelling interest in preventing the discrimination. Wouldn’t adding LGBT to the protected class show a compelling interest? Otherwise, this bill allows anyone to discriminate against anyone else. Dig out that “No blacks allowed” sign, honey, we’re back in business!