Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It hasn't passed yet, it's just been put forward by a Senate committee.  But the prospects for it are encouraging.

Clark, aren't you a religious minority? I'd think you'd be applauding this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Clark, aren't you a religious minority? I'd think you'd be applauding this.

What? Why the f would that make me approve discrimination against gay people (like me)? Hinduism doesn't promote homphobia, and something tells me these conservative Christian Republicans won't be jumping to defend Hinduism if we come crying about something.

In most religions there are certain activities that are required or not allowed which to other religions are morally neutral. Sometimes the practice of these religions run afoul of the law in regulations that apply to all people, and so aren't directly opposed to religion but are anti-religious coincidentally. If the government makes a rule that inhibits someone's religious commitments, should it have to prove that the regulation is absolutely necessary? The Supreme Court ruled back in the 90s that the 1st Amendment doesn't actually require this so long as it is not intentionally discriminating. In response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a few other laws designed to make sure Federal regulations abided by the more stringent standard of respecting religious liberty. But this federal law does not apply to the states. This Indiana bill is the same language as in the federal law. The bill doesn't mention gays, that is just one issue that is on people's minds at the moment.  If a few of the backers of this bill say later "we didn't know we were giving rights to people of the wrong religion" then the Court will not care about such a sentiment and will decide according to the plain language of the law. Without something like this, religious minorities are at an inherent disadvantage with respect to the law due to the tendency of people to create regulations based on what they think is normal.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It hasn't passed yet, it's just been put forward by a Senate committee.  But the prospects for it are encouraging.

Clark, aren't you a religious minority? I'd think you'd be applauding this.

Are atheists and agnostics a religious minority for the purposes of this exercise?

I'm not sure the court precedent would agree with me as it would apply to this law, but if someone had a moral objection to something on humanist grounds, I would support their conscience being protected under the rubric of religious freedom.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure is a lot of hysteria over this.  Washington State has language stronger than this in their Constitution and a judge still allowed the state to drop a huge fine on a florist for not doing a gay wedding.  So don't worry folks, you may well still be able to punish people for living according to religious beliefs you don't like.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure is a lot of hysteria over this.  Washington State has language stronger than this in their Constitution and a judge still allowed the state to drop a huge fine on a florist for not doing a gay wedding.  So don't worry folks, you may well still be able to punish people for living according to religious beliefs you don't like.

How is not offering a service to a gay person on account of them being gay an extension of religious belief? Can you point me to the parts of relevant revealed texts that outline this particular nuance of religious belief?

Part of religious freedom is that religious views are not bounded by those that can be found in approved religious texts. They are a matter of belief and conscience. In the US, we do not have a certain list of approved religions.  The state does not decide what is or is not a valid religious basis for a belief.

Aside from that, if it were only a matter of stopping people from not serving "a gay person on account of them being gay" this issue would be very different. What is happening is people are being prosecuted for not performing roles related to a ceremony which goes against their beliefs.

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them

Yes, they can.  They can sleep safely because their safety is not being threatened by people who do not want to provide them wedding services.  You don't have to ruin someone's business and someone's life in order to sleep safely just because they've done something to offend you.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them

Yes, they can.  They can sleep safely because their safety is not being threatened by people who do not want to provide them wedding services.  You don't have to ruin someone's business and someone's life in order to sleep safely just because they've done something to offend you.

Ah okay. So these bills relating to personal belief and conscience, which just accidentally have been championed, written and codified with respect to religious belief and conscience only (and I await the soon be tabled amendments to those) and have absolutely nothing to do with targeting a specific out-group who are currently playing catch up with respect to having their persons respected are actually about weddings. And in order to legislate on the matter of weddings, because weddings appear to be very important in a state such as Indiana with one of the highest divorce rates in the country, they have drafted a huge wide ranging law on the matter of...well..just about anything that anyone can find objectionable for any reason they can tie to their faith, even if a person next to them with the same faith doesn't, in order that gays don't get wedding cake.

I wasn't the one claiming this bill was only about gay stuff.  The thing people have been convicted of relating to not serving gays that has caused controversy have had to do with weddings, often with people who are fine with serving gays at other events.

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

Freedom of worship is a poor substitute for freedom of religion, circumscribing it within a narrow sphere to try to manage it and keep it devoid of social power. The USSR conspicuously kept the former in their Constitution but not the latter.

What bearing should the fluidity of belief systems have on whether people should be allowed to live according to those beliefs?  Just because these views can change does not mean the state should be in the business of reeducating people whose beliefs it does not like.  Nor can they so easily control these beliefs.  Religion has often not rendered unto Caesar when Caesar has demanded more than a coin, and it has its venerated martyrs because of it.  If you want to reason with religious people about their faith you can do it, but not if you try to force them to act against it, for then you have ruined all credibility because you have shown just how much you truly despise and hate those trying to live faithfully according to their religion as they understand it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

Freedom of worship is a poor substitute for freedom of religion, circumscribing it within a narrow sphere to try to manage it and keep it devoid of social power. The USSR conspicuously kept the former in their Constitution but not the latter.

What bearing should the fluidity of belief systems have on whether people should be allowed to live according to those beliefs?  Just because these views can change does not mean the state should be in the business of reeducating people whose beliefs it does not like.  Nor can they so easily control these beliefs.  Religion has often not rendered unto Caesar when Caesar has demanded more than a coin, and it has its venerated martyrs because of it.  If you want to reason with religious people about their faith you can do it, but not if you try to force them to act against it, for then you have ruined all credibility because you have shown just how much you truly despise and hate those trying to live faithfully according to their religion as they understand it.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make at this stage, other than using flowery language to essentially suggest that somehow there’s something ‘anti-religious’ in opposing exclusively religiously motivated opt outs in how people can treat an out group with respect to law. Indeed if anything it is a case of special pleading; that religious personal motivation is worthy of a greater protection in law than non-religious personal motivation. It is suggesting that conscience is only important if it dovetails with the divine and therefore offers religious beliefs greater protection than non-religious beliefs. Indeed it gives a personal religious belief system which you admit can be fluid and entirely arbitrary a greater protection than a person. It protects how a person treats another person more how the other person is treated. And it will always do that if it’s an exclusive privilege given to one particular group. There is no corresponding law that allows an LGBT person to say to a person of faith ‘you think x, you act x and you undermine my safety so I want nothing to do with you based on my conscience and I want legal protection to that effect’. I wouldn’t actually want a corresponding law of course, but these religious opt out laws weaponise one group over another.

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.

No, these laws have been put in practice as they are the basis for numerous court cases against state and federal government, some of them successful.  I'm saying that those who claim that what these laws are really about is allowing discrimination against homosexuals need to put forward some actual legal evidence. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

What does religious objection to gay marriage have to do with a drug store or a supermarket?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way. 

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

You say this how?  Because he's not on your short list of approved discriminated against identities so therefore he must never have experienced any prejudice? That's incredibly small minded.

And what is this that some discrimination against people is fair? It's okay if its groups of people you don't like?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way. 

that's a pretty huge assumption to make about someone you only know from online conversation.

Ah, you're right.  He's not someone who is unfairly discriminated against in any way.

You say this how?  Because he's not on your short list of approved discriminated against identities so therefore he must never have experienced any prejudice? That's incredibly small minded.

And what is this that some discrimination against people is fair? It's okay if its groups of people you don't like?

He's a straight white Christian man in America.  Ergo, not discriminated against.

And, yes, I differentiate between the two major definitions of "discrimination."  One is unfair discrimination, IE unfairly treating a person on account of race, gender, sexual orientation.  The other is distinguishing two things.  

So, perhaps people treat you differently if you're a pedantic weirdo.  You may know the sting of that discrimination.  But, it's totally fair.  People can treat you differently based on how you act, or your character.  That's fair.  Get it?  

So "weird" stuff people do is okay to discriminate against - So if people thought of gay sex as being weird is that okay to discriminate against?  Or is it just what you think is weird?

I'm guessing people with disabilities or health issues or just look or talk kinda funny are also ok to discriminate against because that doesn't fall into your race/religion/gender/sexual orientation classification.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

By the way, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are the law in 19 states now, with some of these laws being 2 decades old, in addition to the Federal version of the statute. Can anyone point to a single case where any of these laws have been successfully used to uphold people throwing gay people, or anyone, out of an establishment? 

This isn't really an valid argument that deserves any consideration. You're basically saying that any law is fine as long as it's not put in practice.

No, these laws have been put in practice as they are the basis for numerous court cases against state and federal government, some of them successful.  I'm saying that those who claim that what these laws are really about is allowing discrimination against homosexuals need to put forward some actual legal evidence. 

I guess its just one big coincidence that these laws are coming about during a time when the ssm bans are getting overturned one after the other.....

You think it is a coincidence I take it that these laws are coming about right after the Hobby Lobby case which was decided on this law?   

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

This is ridiculous. The point of the law is to prevent people from being forced from being involved in things they consider immoral, not a blanket pass for discrimination. Gay people eating wouldn't count, I think.

Exactly. But of course that bigot believes the media hype over this law like everyone else.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I support conscience rights for those who act on religious grounds. I support conscience rights for those who act on nonreligious grounds. The fact that the latter do not have a stronger legal tradition behind them is no reason to me that I should not support conscience rights where I can. If you do not support the either anyway, then why is it so particularly vexing to you that these cases might be handled differently?

It is very strange that you say religious freedom laws give greater protection to religious belief than to a person. Who do you think these laws are for the benefit of if not for people?

What weaponizes one group over another is when disagreements over belief are taken to the realm of force, when the state says "you offended this person with your belief, now pay us a huge sum and/or go out of business."  You think that is a recipe for peace and cooperation between different groups of people?

It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but then again from your posting history it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anything outside of your narrow, ideological point of view.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between religious thought, religious speech, and religious action (or thought, speech, and action in general)

The protections pertaining to your right to belief is absolute. You believe that homosexuality and abortion are immoral and go against your religion-based beliefs? That’s fine. No problem.

Your rights to speech are almost universally protected, only restricted in the time/manner/place sense and any legally-sanctioned restriction for government interest, among other things. You wanna give a speech about how abortion and homosexuality is wrong? Fine. People may disagree with you, using their freedom of speech, but the government cannot restrict you unless there is a time/manner/place issue, or if you do something like incite violence.

Your rights to action, however, are not universally protected.

Therein lies the problem with this bill.
 
The government is not going to fine someone or shut down their business because someone else complained about their beliefs. That’s a completely fabricated strawman you cooked up that conflates restrictions on action with a restriction on beliefs.

It is about beliefs, not just the action (or more accurately the lack of action).  If someone couldn't photoshoot a gay wedding because they already had that date booked, no one would think of bringing a case against them. 

Hobby Lobby was not without precedent and does not create a blanket allowance for anything, much less discrimination.  Have you read the actual decision?  And why do you assume the impetus for these laws are primarily about gay marriage rather than things like contraception and abortion?   Do you believe all the RFRA laws should be repealed because of your hypothetical concerns?

Please don't call me "straight." I don't give you permission to define my sexual identity for me.  Nor should you assume that all LGBT people agree with you on this. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Some of the proposed versions of RFRA laws are not good, like the one you cited introduced in  SD, which is why like in SD they tend not to get very far even in conservative states. There's nothing like that prohibition on bringing a suit in the IN law. The RFRA laws are generally about allowing possible line of defense in cases of a suit, not barring the suit to begin with, and don't deal specifically with sexual orientation.   

I don't know where you get the idea I am trying to act above it all, whatever that means. I guess because I defend the rights of people to live out their faith in ways I wouldn't? I do that because my own beliefs are important to me, I want to be able to live them out, and I wouldn't want the government to come in and tell me I couldn't so long as I wasn't actively aggressing on someone.  Ultimately being confident I can live according t the convictions of my conscience is a more important issue to me than the possibility offended or excluded by someone.  So if you are going to limit religious freedom, you'd better have a rock solid reason for doing so as far as I'm concerned.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It seems to me that government power can be used to protect things like freedom of speech or right to assemble, even when restrictions on freedom of speech or assembly may not directly cause physical or economic harm.  Even if one individual's freedom or speech or assembly rights are impinged, I don't think the individual's case so trivial that they can't bring a case against that impingement.  Why then would defending people's rights to be treated equitably in business transactions need to pass some kind of critical mass test before such defense can be undertaken?  And I still fail to see how expecting the owner of a cake store to sell already available products to customers willing to pay the seller's price for them as the imposition of a "substantial burden" on them.  But now Indiana and some 19 other states protect the cake store owner. 

Yes, I find a rather sharp difference between a guy selling something over the counter to someone who goes in their store (really none of his business as to why someone is purchasing the product), to a guy having to spend the day filming a gay wedding ceremony, when gay marriages is against his religious views.

This is pretty much my position as well, though maybe I'd go a little bit further.  If the cake is baked, and it is up for sale then there can hardly be a substantial religious burden in merely selling it to the customer, whoever that customer is. If someone asked for something to be created specifically for an event which the creator of that product disagrees with, then I believe there is a strong claim as being a burden on the conscience. As a person involved in creative arts, this principle is important to me.

And substantial burden is the standard set up by the RFRA laws. It doesn't matter that some people may want to use it as an excuse to carte blanche discriminate against a person. There's nothing in this law to suggest it could be read that way.  The possibility that someone without an understanding of the law might use it as an excuse to do something they aren't allowed to is not generally a sufficient reason not to have that law allowing certain freedoms.  Discrimination against gays in employment or public accommodations is not prohibited in Indiana, but that's simply because there haven't been any laws prohibiting it. The law just passed is in no sense the reason for it.

btw, that H.L. Mencken quote is great. That Mencken himself was one of the scoundrels he mentions shouldn't diminish it's value ad hominem.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does this even mean? Your language is so empty and vague and broad that it means absolutely nothing, and can be interpreted in an infinte number of ways.

Religion can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways?  Imagine that!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by antisocial behavior you mean limiting one's social interaction in certain ways, yes, it very much is for a great many religions.   You are free not to like it, but do not pretend you are not thereby restricting religious freedom in a time-honored fashion.  Wide scale persecution, at least in the modern Protestant West, has rarely been merely on account of belief in the abstract divorced from social manifestations.