Indiana Bill Allowing Rejection Of Gay Customers

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think the intention of most Christians is to deny equal protection.  I think they just don't want to be involved with certain activities they disagree with.   If someone else wants to give them the services, they are fine with that.

 

I doubt most Christians do either. The law isn't requiring them to do anything other than if they provide a good or service to the public they can't use race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation as a legal justification to deny that good or service to anyone. Public Accommodation laws apply to everyone in this country including Christians.

[bcuzbcuz]

Indiana Jones I've heard about, but who is Indiana Bill?

[Analytics]

 

This is not accurate. 

 

Indiana does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in non-discrimination laws; neither does Utah and many other States.

 

In Indiana, it has always been legal to say "Sorry, I'm not going to bake you a cake because you are gay."  This fact, is what is so fascinating about the uproar over Indiana's current bill. A religious person, in Indiana, has never needed a RFRA in Indiana to deny, employment, housing, goods or services to gays.

 

 

 

 

This is not accurate either. The amendment that was signed prohibits denying gays goods or services based on religious beliefs of the provider of the goods or services.

 

 

Regarding your first point, yes, you are technically correct. My point was to explain how non-discrimination laws actually work.  i.e., I was trying to disabuse the forum of the notion that non-discrimination somehow involves, "forcing people do something they don't want to do, such as create a cake that they don't offer. In essence, the government is telling them they no longer control their own business."  But you are right, Indiana permits discrimination based on sexual orientation.  However, social conservatives there feel that right is being eroded and wanted to use RFRA as an extra line of defense.

 

On your second point, that's a non-sequitur.  Sure, after the law was passed and after the firestorm erupted, the law was amended to say that it couldn't be used as a basis for discrimination.  But that doesn't change the fact that the original intention was in fact to create a basis for discrimination against gays.

 

From the Indianapolis Star:

 

Three of the most prominent social conservative activists in Indiana are lining up against changes being proposed to the "religious freedom" act they shepherded into law.

 

Eric Miller, Micah Clark and Curt Smith — who are collectively able to marshal thousands of like-minded supporters around the state — stood behind Gov. Mike Pence last week when he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law.

 

But on Thursday morning, when legislative leaders stood with a phalanx of the state's business and sports leaders to try and tamp out the firestorm that's engulfed the state since the signing, Miller, Clark and Smith were nowhere to be seen.

As the day wore on, the threesome made known their displeasure with changes to the religious freedom law, which now appear to be on the fast track to passage.

 

Miller, as president of Advance America, has been notable for saying the religious freedom law would protect florists and bakers who wish to decline to service gay weddings. But he was first out of the gate with a message to followers saying the changes would "destroy religious freedom protection in Indiana."

 

By afternoon, Miller was testifying before lawmakers that their proposal would remove the protections for florists and others. "I believe what you have done," Miller said, "is make it worse for Hoosier businesses."

 

Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, issued a statement urging his followers to ask Pence to veto the proposed changes, which he says go too far. "Our legal advisors tell us that it actually changes our law in a way that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana," Clark said.

 

Similarly, Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute said the changes would "erode Religious Freedom (sic) in Indiana" and urged supporters to ask Pence for a veto.

 

"By taking RFRA protection away from small business owners at the local level this additional legislation creates a problem the current law was designed to fix," he wrote.

 

Together, the three organizations lead by Miller, Clark and Smith represent a substantial block of religious and social conservatives in Indiana.

 

Like Pence, who has blamed sloppy news reporting, and like legislative leaders Brian Bosma and David Long, who say the original law was "mischaracterized," the activists said the problem with the religious freedom law wasn't in the legislation but the messaging.

 

Smith said his organization urged the veto despite being "keenly aware that misperceptions about this bill are creating economic pressures and sullying our great state's reputation." Miller, meanwhile, told lawmakers that rather than change the law it would be better to "hire a PR firm to get the truth out."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/04/02/christian-lobbyist-rfra-fix-destroy-bill/70823194/

Edited April 3, 2015 by Analytics

[Bobbieaware]

Regarding your first point, yes, you are technically correct. My point was to explain how non-discrimination laws actually work. i.e., I was trying to disabuse the forum of the notion that non-discrimination somehow involves, "forcing people do something they don't want to do, such as create a cake that they don't offer. In essence, the government is telling them they no longer control their own business." But you are right, Indiana permits discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, social conservatives there feel that right is being eroded and wanted to use RFRA as an extra line of defense.

On your second point, that's a non-sequitur. Sure, after the law was passed and after the firestorm erupted, the law was amended to say that it couldn't be used as a basis for discrimination. But that doesn't change the fact that the original intention was in fact to create a basis for discrimination against gays.

From the Indianapolis Star:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/04/02/christian-lobbyist-rfra-fix-destroy-bill/70823194/

Would someone on this board (perhaps you?) please explain to me -- by the use of specific real-world examples -- what the reworked versions of the Indiana and Arkansas RFRA laws will accomplish by way of enhancing one's ability to freely exercise their religion? In other words, what do these laws accomplish for the cause of religious liberty beyond having no RFRA laws at all?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[tonie]

 

On your second point, that's a non-sequitur.  Sure, after the law was passed and after the firestorm erupted, the law was amended to say that it couldn't be used as a basis for discrimination.  But that doesn't change the fact that the original intention was in fact to create a basis for discrimination against gays.

 

From the Indianapolis Star:

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/04/02/christian-lobbyist-rfra-fix-destroy-bill/70823194/

 

yes, I agree.

 

[tonie]

Would someone on this board (perhaps you?) please explain to me -- by the use of specific real-world examples -- what the reworked versions of the Indiana and Arkansas RFRA laws will accomplish by way of enhancing one's ability to freely exercise their religion? In other words, what do these laws accomplish for the cause of religious liberty beyond having no RFRA laws at all?

 

What do you mean? It is as though you are suggesting that without being allowed to discriminate against gays, there is no religious freedom.

[Analytics]

Would someone on this board (perhaps you?) please explain to me -- by the use of specific real-world examples -- what the reworked versions of the Indiana and Arkansas RFRA laws will accomplish by way of enhancing one's ability to freely exercise their religion? In other words, what do these laws accomplish for the cause of religious liberty beyond having no RFRA laws at all?

 

Hmmmm.  Try to imagine a law that required you to do something that was against your religion, or a law that forbid you from doing something your religion demanded.

 

Perhaps you can imagine an otherwise constitutional law that made door-to-door sales illegal.  Mormon missionaries could continue to track anyway, claiming that since their door-to-door sales activity is motivated by a religious obligation, RFRA makes them exempt from the no door-to-door-sales law.

 

The 1993 Federal RFRA gives people this type of protection from federal laws, but state RFRA laws are required to get this type of protection from state laws.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Analytics

[Bobbieaware]

What do you mean? It is as though you are suggesting that without being allowed to discriminate against gays, there is no religious freedom.

What in the world are you going on about? I asked a very simple question: How do RFRA laws help promote the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the constitution? But you go off on a tare about gay rights that wasn't even implied. Read Analytics' answer to my question and you'll see he didn't read something into my question that wasn't there.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Jeanne]

All of this is getting so complicated..and should be so easy..just love thy neighbor. 

[thesometimesaint]

What in the world are you going on about? I asked a very simple question: How do RFRA laws help promote the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the constitution? But you go off on a tare about gay rights that wasn't even implied. Read Analytics' answer to my question and you'll see he didn't read something into my question that wasn't there.

 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[Freedom]

Gays are asking for equal protection under the law even if it means taking away another person's agency in providing a service.  That is just as intolerant as what is being done to them.

There is a razor thin line between not being discriminatory and not having to perform a business function they disagree with.

 

Should a children's bookseller be required to carry "Heather Has Two Mommies" to serve the gay community?

How about if it's a Christian bookstore?

Should a family owned bed and breakfast be required to allow a homosexual couple to share a bed in one of their rooms in their home?

Should a Christian student be required to study/read novels supporting or even describing homosexuality in order to pass a class?  Should a Christian school be required to teach them?

 

The line gets vary hazy...

These are strawman arguments. There is a huge difference between the products a store carries and the people they are willing to sell to. If a family owns a bed and breakfast, they do not have the right to discriminate against what they feel is a couple. Is being in a gay relationship any different than living common law in a heterosexual relationship? What about a mormon couple who were married in the temple? What about a mixed race couple? If you own a business, you are not being compelled to support a standard, you are simply being required to not discriminate against any segment of a society. You seem to not have learned anything about past discrimination against segment of society. Blacks were prevented from even going to school. This is wrong. 

[Freedom]

I don't think the intention of most Christians is to deny equal protection.  I think they just don't want to be involved with certain activities they disagree with.   If someone else wants to give them the services, they are fine with that. 

By providing a service, they are not getting involved. If a wedding store sells a dress to a lesbian couple for their wedding, they are getting just as involved as the photographer who is taking the pictures. The nature of a photographer is to attend the function, the nature of the wedding store is to have the clients come to their store front. Neither is getting involved in the ceremony, they are simply providing a service. 

[JLHPROF]

 If a family owns a bed and breakfast, they do not have the right to discriminate against what they feel is a couple.

 If you own a business, you are not being compelled to support a standard, you are simply being required to not discriminate against any segment of a society.

 

So a Christian family running a B&B in their home should be required by law to allow homosexual relations to occur in their home?

I would have an issue with that.  

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-bb-owners-ordered-to-pay-fines-to-gay-couple.html

 

But perhaps if you don't want homosexuals sharing a bed in your home, you probably shouldn't open a B&B there.

[Daniel2]

By providing a service, they are not getting involved. If a wedding store sells a dress to a lesbian couple for their wedding, they are getting just as involved as the photographer who is taking the pictures. The nature of a photographer is to attend the function, the nature of the wedding store is to have the clients come to their store front. Neither is getting involved in the ceremony, they are simply providing a service.

I disagree, Freedom.

The one exception I believe should be allowable is for self-employed photographers or chefs who would be required to be present at a ceremony or reception. I think the same is true for attendance-requiring service-providing family owned-and-operated businesses.

I think personal autonomy should allow a self-employed individual/family to refuse to provide a service that would require their attendance (but not to self-employed indidivudals/families who sell products...).

Edited April 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

I disagree, Freedom.

The one exception I believe should be allowable is for self-employed photographers or chefs who would be required to be present at a ceremony or reception. I think the same is true for family owned-and-operated businesses.

I think personal autonomy should allow a self-emoyed individual/family to refuse to provide a service that would require their attendance (but not to self-employed indidivudals/families who sell products...).

Then you would disagree with the court decision in my post right above yours?

The B&B owners should have been able to refuse a homosexual couple to sleep together in their B&B?

[Daniel2]

Then you would disagree with the court decision in my post right above yours?

The B&B owners should have been able to refuse a homosexual couple to sleep together in their B&B?

How are B&B owners required to attend a service or reception if they have guests staying in their B&B? I would presume they aren't present during the sexual activities of any of their guests--gay or straight.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[Analytics]

So a Christian family running a B&B in their home should be required by law to allow homosexual relations to occur in their home?

I would have an issue with that.  

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-bb-owners-ordered-to-pay-fines-to-gay-couple.html

 

But perhaps if you don't want homosexuals sharing a bed in your home, you probably shouldn't open a B&B there.

 

If the B&B was really strict about making sure that heterosexual couples who wanted to stay were married, and were also strict about making sure that the heterosexuals who came in were good Christians and wouldn't engage in (allegedly) sinful behavior in the private room, refusing to allow homosexual couples to stay would be a plausible extension of their general meddling prudishness.  But if they make allowances for heterosexuals to do whatever they want behind closed doors with a basic don't-ask-don't-tell philosophy, it comes across as hypocritical bigotry to suddenly get uptight with homosexual couples.

[carbon dioxide]

By providing a service, they are not getting involved. If a wedding store sells a dress to a lesbian couple for their wedding, they are getting just as involved as the photographer who is taking the pictures. The nature of a photographer is to attend the function, the nature of the wedding store is to have the clients come to their store front. Neither is getting involved in the ceremony, they are simply providing a service. 

If the photographer has to attend the event, they are a part of the wedding.  In fact they probably will get a front row set to the event.  If I was a photographer and i was force to attend one of these thing, the only thing I would take a picture would be their shoes.  It is never a good idea to make a photographer angry because you never know exactly what they are taking a picture of until it is too late. 

[JLHPROF]

If the B&B was really strict about making sure that heterosexual couples who wanted to stay were married, and were also strict about making sure that the heterosexuals who came in were good Christians and wouldn't engage in (allegedly) sinful behavior in the private room, refusing to allow homosexual couples to stay would be a plausible extension of their general meddling prudishness.  But if they make allowances for heterosexuals to do whatever they want behind closed doors with a basic don't-ask-don't-tell philosophy, it comes across as hypocritical bigotry to suddenly get uptight with homosexual couples.

 

I completely agree.

[carbon dioxide]

I doubt most Christians do either. The law isn't requiring them to do anything other than if they provide a good or service to the public they can't use race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation as a legal justification to deny that good or service to anyone. Public Accommodation laws apply to everyone in this country including Christians.

Not wanting to provide a service to a gay wedding has nothing to do with a person race, creed, national origin or sex orientation.  An event is not a protected class. 

[thesometimesaint]

Public Accommodations laws apply the everyone including Christians. No event is a protected class. It's the people at an event that are protected. You have every right to be a bigot. What you don't have is the right to is to discriminate of the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation when you are in business.

[Brian 2.0]

Public Accommodations laws apply the everyone including Christians. No event is a protected class. It's the people at an event that are protected. You have every right to be a bigot. What you don't have is the right to is to discriminate of the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation when you are in business.

Legal question. Do you need to be a legally "protected class" in order to not be discriminated against? For example could I have a restaurant in Provo and refuse to serve Utes? Or a car wash where I refuse to wash cars with drivers who have facial hair?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on television. I'm just an old retired psychiatric social worker with a big mouth. The Code of Ethics for a Social Worker is clear; we don't discriminate when providing our service to clients. That being said where federal laws are silent it largely depends on which state you live in, if you live in the US of A. With the restaurant, No you could not legally discriminate. That is already covered by federal law and would be a discrimination based on race. With the car wash, Yes you could, federal law is silent on beards, but it would be an unwise business decision.

[Brian 2.0]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on television. I'm just an old retired psychiatric social worker with a big mouth. The Code of Ethics for a Social Worker is clear; we don't discriminate when providing our service to clients. That being said where federal laws are silent it largely depends on which state you live in, if you live in the US of A. With the restaurant, No you could not legally discriminate. That is already covered by federal law and would be a discrimination based on race. With the car wash, Yes you could, federal law is silent on beards, but it would be an unwise business decision.

By Utes I meant university of Utah alums. Perhaps that might be legal?

[Stone holm]

When someone converts their home into a B&B, then they give up a lot of the rights and expectations associated with the protected privacy that we associate with a home.  At that point they are running a business, the fact that it is in their home is basically irrelevant. We have regulated business from the very beginning.  The Federal RFRA which was adopted with bipartisan support was aimed at protecting the religious activities of an individual in their private life.  The persons involved had been fired from government related positions because they participated in a religious ritual of their religion on their own private time which involved partaking of peyote.  They were not forcing anyone to partake of peyote, nor were they forcing anyone else to quit doing something during their private time.  They were not taking peyote at work and there was no indication that it had to do with their job performance.

 

However, the RFRA version as originally passed by Indiana was something quite different.  What is interesting, however, is whether this may well explode in the face of the Christian Right as now various religious sects in Indiana are claiming that the State cannot prohibit cannabis use if its part of the person's religious rites, and cannot prohibit polygamy if it is considered part of the person's religious duties.  It will be interesting to watch just how this train wreck continues to play out as more and more religious groups are either formed or come out of the shadows to claim protection under the law.