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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If flowers were a requirement to be married, then the arguments of those who want to require florists to provide them would have validity.  As I am unaware of any jurisdiction that does have such a requirement, then requiring people to participate in a ceremony by providing products or services, especially a ceremony that most consider a religious ceremony first and a civil contract second, is an impingement upon religious liberty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What a wonderful fantasy world some posters live in where anti-discrimination laws are no longer needed! If only the real world were so perfect!

Define "needed".

If you mean that there would be no discrimination if the civil rights laws were repealed, then quite obviously that's not the case and I don't think anyone here has asserting such a ridiculous strawman.  This is the Atlas Forum, not Fox News.

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.

Still, let me point out that I don't think zero tolerance for intolerance is a desirable goal.  Only when the effects of intolerance rise to the level of causing economic or physical harm to people.  But preventing hurt feelings aren't enough in my opinion to justify such laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My point is that discrimination is objectively wrong,

Objectively?  It certainly is subjectively wrong in general, and not just for those discriminated against, but also those who do the discriminating.  However objectively wrong is a stronger statement and one that I don't see as obviously true.  But even if it be objectively wrong, it is not the function of government to address every wrong, but only those which society has determined to be wrong enough to be worth the attention of the blunt instrument.  That determination is inherently a subjective one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.

It certainly would be against current law.  It certainly would be economically stupid to limit one's market, even without taking into consideration the boycott of such a business by those who would object to such discrimination despite not being personally affected.  However, the prevention of stupidity by itself is insufficient to pass a law banning a practice however much even a majority finds objectionable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The ink is barely dry on the law...

http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/

I realize that the National Report isn't as (in)famous as The Onion, but you do realize that was a satirical piece, not a real piece of journalism, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

You're absolutely right, a law protecting gays from discrimination is exactly like a law empowering the state to discriminate against or criminalize gays.

Only exactly the same in the sense that lying and murder are both sins. But of equal degree, clearly not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Not at all remarkable.  It would be remarkable if those that had suffered from an attempt to impose social limits refrained from doing the same when it had the chance.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Now that's a requirement I'd have no qualms supporting.  Sunshine is generally a good disinfectant and it always should be the first option tried as it is the least onerous.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, to be clear, when Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for anti-discrimination laws, you apply the same logic to him? He should have known better than to have the government force public accommodations to take down their whites only signs, because that was equivalent to discrimination itself?

The difference between his situation and forcing florists to sell flowers for religious ceremonies they disagree with should be fairly obvious, but apparently isn't to you.

I've already covered my views relative to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on this forum, and I referred to them in part in this thread, tho not in full.  In 1964, discrimination was certainly severe enough to warrant the CRA.  It may have eased to the point that the public accommodations portion of the law (Title II) is no longer needed, but a pruning of the CRA isn't desirable.  It would be better to wait until none of it is needed, but unfortunately we're not there yet and may not reach it in my lifetime.  Once discrimination has eased to the point that the CRA is no longer needed it should be repealed, but obviously when that situation is reached is a subjective one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.

For once you're right.  It didn't happen.  But my point wast that those laws led to anti-discrimination laws, but that both spring from the same source, viewing the law as a primary agent for forcing social change on people.  You see the possibility of some good coming from the changes you seek to force, but so did the people who passed the laws I referred to.  The primary lesson you draw from history is that the wrong social changes were imposed while the primary lesson I draw from history is that it is bad to be imposing social changes via the law.  It sometimes is necessary to deal with even worse problems.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Once discrimination has eased to the point that the CRA is no longer needed it should be repealed, but obviously when that situation is reached is a subjective one.

And your idea that we gays have it alright so nothing needs to be done isn't subjective? You keep repeating your views over and over again despite addressing a forum with a large LBGT contingency who can give you personal experience to the contrary and each time you simply splutter over the issue. I don't think you ever set foot outside your own shadow.

Of course my opinions are subjective.  I've never been one to state otherwise.

Can you point to a case more onerous than non-participation in gay weddings that these RFRA laws have actually been used?  I keep hearing all sorts of worst case hypotheticals about how they might be used, such as the satirical piece from the National Review, but never any actual cases of the sort you and others keep mentioning as a reason why they are bad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.

Which is what led to Jim Crow Laws, Prohibition, Blue Laws, just to mention a few of the things from our own past let alone foreign travesties like the Nuremberg laws.  The creation of social limits is not something that should be a goal of the law, tho it sometimes is a side effect.

Anti-discrimination laws led to the Nuremberg laws.  No...  That didn't happen.

For once you're right.  It didn't happen.  But my point wast that those laws led to anti-discrimination laws, but that both spring from the same source, viewing the law as a primary agent for forcing social change on people.  You see the possibility of some good coming from the changes you seek to force, but so did the people who passed the laws I referred to.  The primary lesson you draw from history is that the wrong social changes were imposed while the primary lesson I draw from history is that it is bad to be imposing social changes via the law.  It sometimes is necessary to deal with even worse problems.

You always make that assertion.  That we're depleted some precious life-force by having anti-discrimination laws and we've reached some breaking point where one more will lead to some nebulous bad outcome.  

Nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.  And, frankly, as a gay Jew, I'm personally offended that you would compare treating gay people with dignity to the Nuremburg laws.  That's a blatantly stupid thing to say.  And, that's just a basic fallacy.  Changing a law was bad once, so we can never change a law ever.  What about abolishing slavery?  Was that bad?  It certainly upended southern society by changing the law.

Laws are there to make people avoid anti-social behavior, killing each other, arson, stealing, etc.  Now, if you think arson or discrimination is fine, then it doesn't make sense.  But, your argument just pre-supposes that discriminating is not really a problem or truly anti-social behavior.  The non-green avatars simply assume that discrimination is valid behavior that ought to be protected, without telling us why.  We don't assume that discrimination is a trivial matter and all victims of discrimination are just crybabies, you do.  Make that argument, don't just skip to the part where you say, trivial things don't deserve legal redress.  I don't think it's trivial, convince me of that.  

Who said I thought discrimination trivial?  What I think is that the application of government power is decidedly not trivial and thus is not to be used except to prevent actual economic or physical harm. Arson, theft, murder, etc.: those all cause economic and/or physical harm to others and thus are certainly things to be dealt with by the law.  Discrimination may cause those things and when it does rise to that level it too should be dealt with by the law.  But when it doesn't and the only harm it causes is making those discriminated feel bad, then it shouldn't.  It is not insignificant that the Declaration of Independence mentions the right to the pursuit of happiness and not a right to happiness.  Governments can and should promote the former.  It is a foolish illusion to think they can guarantee the latter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The government does not have the right to infringe upon individual rights.


Business owners, on the other hand....

Don't have that power either because they can't force you to deal with them regardless of your desire. (Unless they get the government to force you, but that's a separate issue.)  Of the various arguments put forth by the pro-forced intercourse side, this is absolutely the weakest I've seen so far.  While I don't agree with the position put forth by bedstuy and Andrew, I respect the way they state it, for while I disagree with their premise, I find their argument from their premise to be utterly logical.  The one you just made I don't respect for it is based upon utter illogic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well all anyone has to do is claim a strongly held religious belief that black people are evil and shouldnt be allowed.

Actually no.  RFRA laws only allow religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in a lawsuit.  It doesn't make them automatic defenses to avoid a lawsuit.  Why is it that the opponents of such laws have to resort to outlandish hypotheticals instead of pointing to actual uses of them in the states that have already passed such laws?  Perhaps it's because what they claim to fear hasn't actually happened?

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 

I don't deny that.  But I don't forget that a contract between two people doesn't usually involve third parties who weren't part of the contract negotiations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.

If flowers or catering were a requirement for civil marriage, you'd have a point.  My point is that there are people who view marriage as a primarily churchy thing and requiring them to participate in a marriage ceremony that their religion would not allow is an impingement upon freedom of religion.  A minor impingement to be sure, and if it were for something more vital than celebrating a wedding, say ensuring that people could travel freely or have a reasonably equal opportunity to get a job or housing, it's an impingement that would be necessary to secure the rights of others.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually no.  RFRA laws only allow religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in a lawsuit.  It doesn't make them automatic defenses to avoid a lawsuit.  Why is it that the opponents of such laws have to resort to outlandish hypotheticals instead of pointing to actual uses of them in the states that have already passed such laws?  Perhaps it's because what they claim to fear hasn't actually happened?

It probably has to do with the fact that this is the first time an RFRA law was passed that specifically recognized businesses as legal "people" capable of holding religious beliefs, and that this is the first time an RFRA law now applies to civil lawsuits where the government is a party.

Again, it's not the same law that is present at the federal level and with 19 other states and the pro-RFRA crowd have been repeating ad nauseum. AFAIK, none of them grant corporate personhood or apply RFRAs to lawsuits that don't involve a unit of local/state/federal government.

Leaving aside the point over corporate personhood, the lawsuit point if followed the way you would like would have the odd effect that if anti-discrimination laws were enforced by government action instead of personal lawsuits they would be subject to RFRAs.  The mechanism of enforcement shouldn't affect the efficacy of RFRA laws.  Either they should apply in both cases or in neither case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.

If flowers or catering were a requirement for civil marriage, you'd have a point.  My point is that there are people who view marriage as a primarily churchy thing and requiring them to participate in a marriage ceremony that their religion would not allow is an impingement upon freedom of religion.  A minor impingement to be sure, and if it were for something more vital than celebrating a wedding, say ensuring that people could travel freely or have a reasonably equal opportunity to get a job or housing, it's an impingement that would be necessary to secure the rights of others.

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

It wasn't that long ago that only a few nutters believed that a wedding, by definition, would not be between only a man and a woman. That's the problem with trying to define the law without taking into consideration those who are nutters or stupid. What's considered to be neither nuts nor stupid changes. Basing the law on actual damages to be prevented is less mutable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, we seem to be relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one is insisting "anyone," this is about vendors who provide services to couples that are not religious in nature outside of people's tortured rationales.

Whether it be peyote use, marriage, or any other topic, when it comes to religion, it isn't up to government to decide what is a rational belief. That's why when it comes to impinging religion it should be the burden of those doing the impinging to show that harm would result if the belief were not impinged. That's all that RFRA laws do. They allow persons who feel an action would impinge upon their beliefs to raise that fact in court and place the burden upon the impinger. The only significant difference between Indiana's law and other RFRA laws is that it explicitly includes nongovernmental impingers among those held to that standard.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's all that RFRA laws do. They allow persons who feel an action would impinge upon their beliefs to raise that fact in court and place the burden upon the impinger.

No need for obscuring abstractions to "persons" and "actions" when we are talking about specific cases. The issue here is that Indiana considers persons to equal vendors, public accommodations, and businesses who participate in the economy and now would like to pick and choose among customers if they don't like gays. Back to my previous point, we are relitigating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Not really. The CRA has always included exceptions for religious groups. The Hobby Lobby case made clear that religious exemptions are not to be limited to groups.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

The clarification more or less says that you can't discriminate against LGBT's in cities/counties that have nondiscrimination ordinances that cover LGBT discrimination. You can still do it in locations that don't have these ordinances. You can also still discriminate for other reasons - such as the fact that the customer voted for Obama or is an athiest - as long as you claim you're doing it for religious reasons.

Since Obama is the latest incarnation of Angra Mainyu, I'd expect all followers of Ahura Mazda to have no dealings with those who follow his opposite.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we. Still, as I've expressed before, my personal views on the appropriateness of antidiscrimination laws doesn't depend upon why people wish to discriminate but whether such discrimination is pervasive enough to lead to economic or physical harm.

Right now I think access to wedding cakes doesn't meet that standard while access to jobs and housing does.  If the excessive hyperbole expended on frosting leads to some long delayed needed protections finally being enacted, I suppose the mess would be worthwhile, but I'm doubtful that will be the case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we.

Your historical narrative is extremely problematic. Early America was hardly a libertarian paradise.  In the 18th century, government actively protected the right to own other humans. Several states had official religions. Government granted monopolies were a commonplace thing in commerce. To say that government didn't get intimately involved in people's day to day lives is either a complete misunderstanding of history or a deliberate distortion.

Did I say that it was a libertarian paradise?  No, I said, there was general agreement as to which topics were political and which were not.  Granted, that 18th century liberal practice and 21st century libertarian theory are one and the same is a common misperception of 21st libertarians. It's not one I share.