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

[afleitch]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

It's not a lash out; it's planned and co-ordinated and I hate to say it, people are doing a terrible terrible of job of fighting against it. Many white Christians genuinely believe they are being discriminated against and this is their way of protecting what everyone else sees as merely the inconvenience of having to accommodate difference.

The only way to spike these bills is to tack on riders that require business owners to openly advertise who they won't serve. If someone's 'conscience' is so important to them that in the privacy of a one to one interaction with someone they disagree with they can turn them away (without the public knowing), then they should be willing nay proud, to let the public know before they do business with them.

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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?

Exclusively religious beliefs no? I mean I don't see action, petitions and public calls to incorporate other belief systems within these bills. Surely if a persons conscience and belief is so important it needs supra-constitutional protection then surely it need not be exclusively religious belief? Obviously this must be a gross oversight and those who champion personal belief as the reason for these bills will amend the legislation accordingly once they acknowledge this error.

Indeed it is nice to know that these laws are in fact not triggered by anything other than people collectively deciding completely arbitrarily, that their religious belief with respect to dealing with another human being in daily conduct and business is suddenly useful important without any external factors whatsoever.

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them it's not being denied to them at all, it's entirely unrelated and has nothing to do with a persons opinion of them and finding a legal loophole in which to demonstrate incivility and downright disassociation with someone they don't like based on a transient religious focus on disliking an out-group and instead is an entirely unrelated exercise of personal conscience.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

So should they go with 'No homosexuals' on their windows or take inspiration from the 'No ns/Wops/Chinks days of old and just go with 'No f****ts'? Might be catchier.

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.

[afleitch]

Are you seriously quoting H L Mencken? A man who was a critic of democracy and believed strong men had the right to rule the weak? A man who conflated 'race' with caste and talked about racial stocks? A man that said talking to a coloured women was like speaking to a child?

I mean seriously?

A man who said this;  'The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him.'

You are quoting HIM to back up your argument?

[afleitch]

But why do you elevate religious freedom over other freedoms in law? The right of a man to live accordingly to his conscience without legal interference as long as that conscience is derived from religion? You've never answered that, nor have you dealt with a possible redress of that. If you're going to create a law to empower the religious to discriminate carte blanche, why not empower those they may potentially be discriminated against, to discriminate against the religious in turn?

[afleitch]

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?...

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

The issue for bakers is usually not the cake and to whom it will be served, it's the decorations on the cake. They'll sell a standard unadorned cake to anyone, but some don't want to adorn it with a same-sex couple in wedding garb.

The issue for bakers is that what offends them is based on anything they can find an excuse for. Some of the examples of refusals when it came to gay couples, include wedding style cakes with no writing, no imagery, no message. Nothing. Just white icing and flowers. You could even use that style of cake for first communions or golden wedding anniversaries or just because you want to eat cake. It's nothing to do with the message, it's to do with the fact that two men or two women want a cake made (because fresh cakes are made to order) for their wedding and people have taken objection to that and refused to serve them.

The good thing about this furore is that it has finally raised this matter into the conscience of the greater majority, rather than just reactionary Christian activists and may see steps at state and hopefully at federal level to provide legal civil rights, in the spirit of the 1964 act, to LGBT people. Which is a good thing.