Analysis: Effects of Indiana's Religious Freedom Act

[Carolyn Marie]

I think this is a pretty fair analysis of what might happen, and who would benefit or be harmed. I'm not seeing where this would impact trans folk, but I suppose a law giving trans folk the right to use the proper restroom might come into play here.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html

I'm not sure if the text of the final bill has been posted before. So here it is in black and white. You decide what it all means.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f

Carolyn Marie

[Guest LizMarie]

The article itself, in text, gives examples of similar laws already being used in cases against LGBT persons.

[Guest]

Here's my thoughts:

This is a free country or at least it's supposed to be. If I don't like a group of people because they, lets say they like to eat dog. Should I have the right to refuse to serve them (regardless of my business). While discrimination is a terrible thing, should I be forced to serve them?

The way I see it, a person has the right to be themselves, whether thats gay, straight, trans, black, asian etc. That also meams that a person should have the right to be themselves and not like someone or what someone is or how someone behaves, etc. This theory means that I should have the right to not serve anyone for any reason I want. In fact, do I actually need to provide a reason for not serving you?

If the governemt starts 'protecting' certain groupes of people, that becomes discriminitory towards all other groups that aren't being 'protected', so that's not right either!

If I go into a store and they refuse to serve me for whatever reason, I have the right to bad mounth them and go elsewhere. Why would I sue them? They have the right to believe what they want whether I agree or not, I have the right to think they are idiots. Why should the legal system be involved?

What's my point? I guess my point is that I'm not sure that anyone should have extra protection. In fact, there is a legal doctrine that all people have equal protection under the law. Adding special protection for a subset of the population violates that doctrine and probably some part of the constitution that I would have to think about...

Don't get me wrong, I wish people would get their heads out of their butts and quit worrying about my life, I just don't know...

Let me think about it and I'll get back in here. And who knows, maybe someone will convince me that I'm thinking about this incorrectly.

Just my insignificant random thoughts on the subject..m:)

[Guest LizMarie]

Fiona, that was the exact same argument made by white bigots against blacks. This country settled that question, once and for all, with extensive lawsuits and legislation that found that free exercise of religion does not include the right to discriminate. This is and has been settled case law for 50 years.

Yet here we are yet again with the exact same arguments. Did you know that here in Houston, one of the "religious freedom" leaders, when questioned by the city council, freely admitted that "religious freedom" meant the right to discriminate against blacks, gays, lesbians, hispanics, even Jews... and the city councilwoman asking the question was, herself, Jewish. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the KKK is loudly backing Judge Roy Moore in Alabama about his support for "religious freedom"?

This nation resoundingly said "No!" to that nonsense 50 years ago. It's time to remind people that "separate but equal" is never right and never equal.

As someone else noted on Facebook, "If you have to pass a law that harms someone else to demonstrate your ethics or morals, then you have no ethics or morals to demonstrate."

Some will always believe they should have a right to discriminate, but any public business, built on top of public infrastructure, paid for by all taxpayers and impossible to operate without that public infrastructure, should automatically be required to serve all taxpayers. Otherwise some businesses are basically stealing taxpayer dollars from those taxpayers against whom they choose to discriminate.

I know others will feel differently about this, but clearly, men like Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and many others felt as I feel - that discrimination is wrong and should not be sanctioned by law.

[Guest Megan_Lynn]

Fiona,

LGBT are not getting nor asking for any special privilege at all just equal ones. Nobody has ever been asked to leave a store, restaurant, restroom nor refused life saving service cause they were straight/ci/white.. But stupid religious laws will allow people to refuse everything from shopping at a store to life saving services..to anyone they desire and this is plain and simple wrong. How would you like it if you were in an accident and some bigoted person found out you were a crossdresser and they let you die cause of it by refusing to treat you and or even transport you... This has already happened before and this is the kind of madness religious protect laws allow. The constitution already states these kinds of laws are a no no. Laws are made to stop a majority from abusing a minority. They are not made for any special protect but to advise the majority not to be picking on a minority thats all no more no less. They are mad cause the average person seems to think its just fine to be mean to someone cause you think they are icky or not having same morals as you do. That is bs superiority crap that needs to stop its the reason we have war its the cause of most violence and needs to be stopped. Civil rights will always trump religious rights. Freedom of religion means you can be what ever religion you want in your home in your church and nobody can stop you , but this does not mean you can discriminate against anyone outside of your home and church. Since there are so many religions with so many different rules allowing total free practice in society would be madness and cause so much death and suffering. You would have people killing other for being a different religion or for violating a religions laws even though they are of a different one. This country was founded to get away from that type of bs.

[Carolyn Marie]

Civil rights will always trump religious rights.

I think the Hobby Lobby decision showed that the majority of Supreme Court Justices disagree, sadly.

Carolyn Marie

[Drea]

I tend to agree with you Fiona.

Once you walk down that road of protecting certain groups, well every other group that experiences persecution will be looking for protection.

In the US today folks with strong religious convictions are under assault. But if one holds certain political beliefs being protected is of course the natural order of things and if some of those individuals act out in some negative ways, well that is okay because they are part of the correct political group and if it is seriously embarrassing, well they are an individual and so that person is an idiot.

Since certain Christians belong to the opposite political party, well expressing hate and prejudice towards them is completely acceptable. And if there is some crazy person who is Christian advocating something crazy, well all Christians and all conservatives should be ashamed and are held responsible for that person's action.

It doesn't surprise me that with such a double standard in place that there are people out there that feel it is about time to create legal protections for this persecuted group.

The pendulum swings one way and then it swings the other. I suspect if the one group adhered to their beliefs of tolerance and didn't go expressing hate and prejudice and smearing all of the other ideology for the actions of a few, that this need to protect religion would never have come about.

In my opinion zealots on all sides are exactly that, zealots. They don't care about realities and practicalities, they will find their way of expressing hate and just engage in inflaming the situation in any way possible.

[Guest LizMarie]

There is a rather simple legal principle called "first harm". First harm refers directly to physical or economic harm caused by another. Psychological, spiritual, religious "harm" have never been covered by this principle which is why winning legal cases about "bullying" is so very difficult.

The principle of "first harm" asks "who is harmed first by someone's actions"?

In Selma, Alabama, the black youth who sat down at that counter were not harming the shopkeeper. In fact, they were benefiting the shopkeeper by adding to his profit margin. But in throwing them out of his establishment, calling the police, etc., those students were harmed first in both physical and economic ways.

Likewise, a gay couple requesting a cake from a bakery is not harming that bakery either physically or economically. They are benefitting the bakery. But the bakery refusing them on religious grounds is harming the couple in forcing them to do business elsewhere, to spend additional time (and money) further searching for a bakery that will serve them.

The principle of first harm distinguishes clearly between religious bigots who wish to physically and/or economically harm LGBT people and LGBT people who simply want to live their lives.

I urge each of you to learn the principle of first harm and see who is harmed first, in physical or economic terms, by acts of discrimination by another person. This is a long held and very old legal principle in US and British common law.

If you are arguing to protect someone's "religious freedom" and that "freedom" requires actions that economically or physically harm another human being, then your position is one that is basically arguing in favor of placing certain religions above others and above the civil rights of others. If this is your position, I strongly suggest you re-evaluate that position in light of the concept of first harm.

Evaluating these arguments, I always begin from the principle of first harm and then see who is causing whom economic or physical harm. When I find the ones causing economic or physical harm, those are the ones whose rights should be curtailed in favor of those whose rights are not harming another.

[Guest Mia J]

The interesting thing I find is that while it is aimed at the LGBT community it does not state so anywhere in the law. All of the media that I have seen focus on LGBT rights and issues. I have not heard anyone say that this law could be applied to just about any group that someone could justify a religious reason for not service.

The Civil rights act of 1964 put in federal laws to protect race and religion which you would think would trump over Indiana law. But with the what the supremes did with Hobby Lobby was to open the door for a group to ignore some federal laws such as the ACA.

This is going to lead to a lot of taxpayer money fight issues in court.

The far right have opened themselves up to sharia law.

Mia

[Charlize]

I agree with that one Mia. Who is to say what "religious principals" can be forced upon others. Pity.

There is one other problem the christian right didn't expect. Many businesses are leaving or cutting back their business in Indiana.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/angie_s_list_cancels_40_million_1000_jobs_indiana_expansion_over_anti_gay_religious_freedom_law?recruiter_id=2

The protests alone may silence some and the feedback is growing. Maybe the majority speaking up will make a difference. There is hope.

Hugs,

Charlize

[Guest]

I'm not speaking of legal right per se. I'm talking about the overall loss or violations of our rights. Let's forget for a moment about case law. Case law does from time to time violate the bill of rights, like TSA screening and DUI check points, just to name the obvious. Heck, our second amendment rights are being destroyed and many courts maintain that status quo.

Based on the bill of right and constitution, I'm not sure I agree with the government intervening in life.

If I owned a business and decided that I didn't want to sell products to people with black hair, how can the government possibly have any cause to intervene? It's MY business. It seems to me that the government wants to legislate morality. But I 'get' what you're saying. And these conundrums weigh on me for who's rights should be violated.

On the other hand, this will also allow other discrimination as well. Muslim business owners may refuse service to non-muslim people for a variety of reasons that they can easily point out in their 'book'! Which many try to do every day.

This is just another topic for me to think about.

Freedom of speech and religion and the persuit of happiness...

If I asked 10 people to define above, I wonder how many amswers we get.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; it's just this sort of political topic that I've alway seen both sides but without real compelling arguements, I tend to err on the side of rights...

[Guest]

The way it's always been framed the idea behind this law actually makes sense - it's just that the potential for abuse is there.

For example: let's say you run a bakery a member of the KKK comes in and wants you to make a cake that says "white people Rule". Furthermore since you offer the option of delivery they want you to come to their event to deliver the cake. Both making this cake and going to the event make you extremely uncomfortable and you don't want to do it. Without this law the KKK could sue you if you refused to make it.

Or let's say you're an event photographer and a wet Tshirt contest wants you to photograph their event. That makes you uncomfortable - you don't think women should be demeaned in that way. But because you're a business and supposed to serve everyone equally this means that without this law you'd be forced to attend the event.

For some a gay wedding or message could cause equal feelings of uncomfortability why should we force people to create messages or participate in events that cause deep moral conflicts within themselves?

To my understanding, laws like this do NOT apply to places of public establishment (ie a lunch counter) and do not permit anything like refusal of entrance or service.

Of course the potential for abuse is there, and you know people will take it to its extreme...but the basic concept seems sound.

I work freelance and also have my own one-person business working on similar projects. But I certainly want the right to refuse to work on any project that doesn't fully resonate with me. I'm not going to make religious propaganda videos that denounce homosexuality (in the off chance a church came to me with that concept) and I respect the right of a religious production company/network to not make videos endorsing it. If there are currently no protections in place for those kind of situations then by all means there needs to be.