Hamilton Porter Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 http://time.com/3764320/indiana-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law/
Kenngo1969 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 There are those who believe that, since Utah gave them an "inch," gays eventually will attempt to take a "mile." Time will tell, I suppose.
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 There is nothing for Indiana to learn from Utah when it comes to "gay tolerance". The time piece is a puff piece. Indiana - does not protect LGBT individuals from discrimination with respect to public accommodations.Utah - does not protect LGBT individuals from discrimination with respect to public accommodations. Neither Utah or Indiana needs a RFRA to discriminate against LGBT community regarding public accommodations. (A proposed RFRA bill in Utah DID NOT INCLUDE LGBT individuals as a protected class; but the bill did protect race, religion, and other typical protected class.) LGBT individuals HAVE NO PROTECTION in Indiana or Utah when it comes to public accommodations.
Buckeye Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 tonie, Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that part of Utah's compromise was setting aside any decision on public accomodations. Utah agreed to ban discrimination for housing, employment, and the like, and also placed protections on religious institutions. But Utah chose to punt on public accomodations. If I'm right, then the big difference between Utah and Indiana's law (and previously Arizona's) is that Indiana does address public accomodations - expressly giving businesses the right to discrimination due to religious convictions. So, if anything, it's Utah that is learning from Indiana (and Arizona). The lesson is this: don't try to ensrine religious-based business discrimination or your business community will fight you.
Buckeye Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 And now Arkansas is planning to re-write it's law that allows for religiously-motivated discrimination. If Indiana follows suit (the state is now working with LGBT groups to rewrite its law), that would leave only Texas as allowing for religiously-motivated discrimation. Looks like the lesson is becoming even stronger for Utah. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/religious-freedom-law-arkansas-bill-awaits-governors-decision-after-indiana-n333876
Hamilton Porter Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 There is nothing for Indiana to learn from Utah when it comes to "gay tolerance". The time piece is a puff piece. Indiana - does not protect LGBT individuals from discrimination with respect to public accommodations.Utah - does not protect LGBT individuals from discrimination with respect to public accommodations. Neither Utah or Indiana needs a RFRA to discriminate against LGBT community regarding public accommodations. (A proposed RFRA bill in Utah DID NOT INCLUDE LGBT individuals as a protected class; but the bill did protect race, religion, and other typical protected class.) LGBT individuals HAVE NO PROTECTION in Indiana or Utah when it comes to public accommodations. Can you read, Billy? Utah expanded protections for LGBT in housing and employment. The writer is a prominent gay academic.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Maybe we should get to the truth about what Indiana tried to do instead of getting liberal media spin. Oh well.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 The truth is that conservative bigots tried to make discrimination against gays in public accommodations a personal religious issue.
Hamilton Porter Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 Indiana is following suit. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/
Kenngo1969 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) I'm just throwing this out. I haven't yet decided definitively either way. With regard to public accommodations that are not necessaries, if I were a cake baker, and if a gay couple were to sue me because I refused, on religious principle, to bake them a cake that says, "Happy Wedding, Bill & Ted!" should the fact that I would not bake them a cake (even though I objected as a matter of religious principle) be sufficient for them to make out a discrimination claim, or should Bill and Ted also be required to prove by the relevant evidentiary standard that a comparable cake was not reasonably available at a comparable price from another baker? Color me skeptical of anyone who says, "It's Jim Crow all over again!" I'm not talking about systemic, widespread, legally-permitted, de jure discrimination, but rather about non-systemic, isolated, de facto discrimination. From where I sit, there likely is a big enough difference between those two things for the difference to matter, legally speaking. Conversely, in my book, there's a good chance that there's not a lot of difference in the position of someone who argues otherwise from that of someone who says, "Yeah, it's OK for you to be religious on Sunday (or whatever day your holy day happens to fall); you simply cannot be religious any other day of the week." Edited April 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 tonie, Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that part of Utah's compromise was setting aside any decision on public accomodations. Utah agreed to ban discrimination for housing, employment, and the like, and also placed protections on religious institutions. But Utah chose to punt on public accomodations. If I'm right, then the big difference between Utah and Indiana's law (and previously Arizona's) is that Indiana does address public accomodations - expressly giving businesses the right to discrimination due to religious convictions. So, if anything, it's Utah that is learning from Indiana (and Arizona). The lesson is this: don't try to ensrine religious-based business discrimination or your business community will fight you. Utah did not pass a Religious Freedom Restortoration Act law. RFRA establish the standard of review that a Court must use when a person is claiming religious freedom to not abide by laws. This is what was passed in Indiana. Utah simply established that it is unlawful to discriminate against LGBT individuals in terms of hiring, promotions, and housing. Utahs non-discrimination was deliberately set-up to discourage lawsuits. Utahs bill has a non-severability clause (if any part of the bill is found in violation of the law, the entire law is thrown out). This mean that if an employer wanted to sue about the "you have to allow equal discussion of issues" in the work place, and that employer won in court that the clause violates the employers rights to establish workplace speech; then the whole law is thrown out and employers are free to discriminate against LGBT again. As for Utah and public accommodation, Utah WILL NOT address the issue of non-discrimination concerning public accommodations. Indiana, Utah, and Arizona, DO NOT prohibit discrimination against LGBT with regard to public accommodations.
Hamilton Porter Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 Human Rights Campaign said the bill was "all upside" as now Utah is one of 21 states to include sexual orientation among protected classes. Of course, ex-Mos will never shut up no matter what. But that's not important; the Church has repaired its image in a short amount of time.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Indiana is following suit. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/Would that be "filing"? Has auto-complete or auto-correct struck again? P.S.: You mean, Indiana is following Utah's suit ... Edited April 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Gray Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) if I were a cake baker, and if a gay couple were to sue me because I refused, on religious principle, to bake them a cake that says, "Happy Wedding, Bill & Ted!" Bogus!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist) Edited April 1, 2015 by Gray
danielwoods Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Indiana is following suit. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/ A quote from the article above, "Although the law does not mention sexual orientation, opponents fear it could allow business owners to deny services to gays and lesbians for religious reasons." And it should also be pointed out that it never has been used as such either.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 ... [T]he Church has repaired its image in a short amount of time."Repaired" is in the eye of the beholder. There are some (including some who, no doubt, post here) who will forever be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any credit.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 A quote from the article above, "Although the law does not mention sexual orientation, opponents fear it could allow business owners to deny services to gays and lesbians for religious reasons."And it should also be pointed out that it never has been used as such either. Except that it has even for pizza.
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Maybe we should get to the truth about what Indiana tried to do instead of getting liberal media spin.Oh well.Facts, verifiable facts, are liberal spin? Once again your logic is undeniable.
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Can you read, Billy? Utah expanded protections for LGBT in housing and employment.The writer is a prominent gay academic.Can you read? Utah DOES NOT prohibit discrimination against LGBT with respect to public accommodations providing goods and services.
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 A quote from the article above, "Although the law does not mention sexual orientation, opponents fear it could allow business owners to deny services to gays and lesbians for religious reasons."And it should also be pointed out that it never has been used as such either.You are confusing two issues.Indiana DOES NOT prohibit discrimination against LGBT; the times article even mentions this fact.Anyone in Indiana who wants to discriminate against LGBT does not need a RFRA. The people of Indiana are already permitted to discriminate against LGBT. And you might want to read the legal cases, wherein the baker, photogragher, and florist each claimed that religious freedom allowed th to discriminate against LGBT.
Hamilton Porter Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Can you read?Utah DOES NOT prohibit discrimination against LGBT with respect to public accommodations providing goods and services.Whatever you say, Billy. I don't really care if the bill isn't perfect. Like I said, ex-Mos will never shut up. The Church has been meeting with LGBT leaders for about two years now, and the mode of negotiation is a model for other states to follow. Edited April 1, 2015 by Hamilton Porter
tonie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Whatever you say, Billy.It is a fact that Utah does not protect LGBT from discrimination when it comes to public accommodations peoviding goods and services. Elder Christofferson was recently asked directly about this fact.
Recommended Posts