The point is, any business CAN legally discriminate against people not in a protected class. A baker can decide not to bake cakes for people wearing green shirts, or people whose names begin with C, D, E or F, or people with other random characteristics. They can refuse service to customers for any reason, except for the reason that the person is a member of the protected class.
Want to refuse to bake a cake for a bride because she talks too much? Fine. Refuse to bake a cake for a bride because she’s Presbyterian? Illegal.
You have it backwards, @sylvan8798. The “Religious Freedom” law is a response to the non-discrimination ordinance, not the other way around. Some religious conservatives don’t want to have to obey local non-discrimination ordinances, and the “Religious Freedom” law means they can say they don’t have to obey non-discrimination ordinances provided they object to gays, or gay marriage, or something, for religious reasons. Here’s how the scenario would work, before and after the enactment of the Religious Freedom law:
Beforehand: Jennifer and Emily want to get married. They go to Godly Florist in Indianapolis, because Godly makes beautiful bouquets. Godly says, We don’t make bouquets for lesbian brides. Jennifer and Emily sue Godly, on the basis that the ordinance forbids them from refusing business from lesbians. Jennifer and Emily win the lawsuit.
Afterwards: Same thing, but when Jennifer and Emily sue, Godly raises the defense that the religious freedom law means they don’t have to obey the non-discrimination ordinance.
Notice that if there is no non-discrimination ordinance, there is no lawsuit in the first place. In the absence of a non-discrimination ordinance, Godly is free to discriminate. It’s only when a non-discrimination ordinance exists (as, Lergnom says, is the case in business centers in Indiana) that Godly even has to worry about not discriminating. The religious freedom law is in response to the non-discrimination ordinances.
do you think it is an accident that this all is happening before the 2016 election? Many politicians find it much easier to run on a “our way of life is threatened!” platform that address actual issues. You know, things like the Ukraine, Middle East, global warming, unemployment, wealth distribution, stuff like that. It sounds to me like they’ve found the issue that will dominate the 2016 campaign, “religious freedom is threatened!”
Note that Arkansas state senator Bob Hester, who presented the bill to the state Senate, is quoted in the nyt that the differences from the federal religious freedom law is intentional, meaning to allow override of antidiscrimination laws.
^ That’s why they have to put the specific language into the RFRA that it’s can’t override anti-discrimination laws and the the State has to enact an anti-discrimination law.
"do you think it is an accident that this all is happening before the 2016 election? Many politicians find it much easier to run on a “our way of life is threatened!” "
I don’t think it’s any accident at all. Unfortunately for them, they terribly misjudged where the country is on this.
I don’t think it’s an accident, either, because it distracts attention from all sorts of other messes. It is, however, a political unforced error by the party who passed it, which is why it was leapt upon so joyfully. But, again, where are the boycotts of places where gay marriage isn’t even legal? Not being able to be married is a pretty serious thing, but maybe I’m more concerned about that because it’s been such a priority in my life for so many years.
With the Supreme Court decision pending on the circuit court split, and in light of how the court has ruled in the most recent cases, many activists believe that there is a good chance that the bans will be struck down in June. They are waiting on the decision for their next move.
In some countries, antidiscrimination laws have various exemptions, for example for companies with fewer than a certain number of employees, or services that take place in the home, or for various personal services.
For example, under sex discrimination, can a hair stylist refuse to take male customers?
It has only been recently that public pressure has even worked. You’ll notice that the large organizations putting the most pressure on states like Indiana and Arkansas are not LGBTQ organizations. Public support for marriage equality is rapidly increasing, and that is what makes boycotts and pressure work. Previous to this, most of the marriage equality progress has been made in the court of law, not the court of public opinion.
Indiana picked an incredibly bad time to pass this law, and so they are feeling the brunt of years of backlash against oppression that only now has the support to make waves.
"What was their previous move? I’m sure they were boycotting the states to apply public pressure. I’m just not seeing it right now. "
They have been bringing suits in states which have banned gay marriage. Now that the SC agreed to take up the cases they are waiting for the court’s decision which, if I were a betting person, will be the legalization of gay marriage in all the states.
"The rejection of the deal by Oesterle is significant because Angie’s List, an online consumer ratings company, has called off a significant expansion of its Near-Eastside corporate campus over the passage of RFRA. The proposed 1,000-job expansion would have included $18 million in subsidies from the state and city.
The Angie’s List CEO has said he won’t partner with the state in the expansion as long as the RFRA remains intact and protections against those in the LGBT community aren’t put in place."
I see all these comments about company CEOs. Let’s see how consistent some are.
Interesting fact:
Apple has more Apple stores in Tehran (Iran) than they have in all of Indiana. Iran actually jails and executes people for being gay, but not a peep about Iran from Apple, but “oh no” Indiana is the most evil on earth.
That is the kind of principled moral stands I want my kids to learn. Not!
Anyway, it is clear that this is not about gay people, as Apple and other companies do not care about them being killed anywhere else in the world, and it happily make and take tons of money from those countries. But, Indiana no way should it get Apple business. Yep, classic case of bullying were you go after the target that will not blow you to bits.
EDIT: For the record, like Apple, my company makes money in Iran, but I am not being a hypocrite by bullying Indiana, while making money in a country that actually uses gays, as real target practice. I have not heard that happening in Indiana.
@CardinalFang - I saw your posts a while back. I did not forget to answer or ignore them. I was waiting to see what @fallenchemist cleaned up first. I will go back and take a look later today.
So Apple “bullying” Indiana is just the worst thing ever and you will loudly complain about it , but actual oppression of gays by Iran is just something you have to live with?