1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Article argues that Indiana RFRA actually pretty irrelevant

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by CuriousLiaison, Mar 30, 2015.

  1. CuriousLiaison

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I know that just on page 1 of this sub-forum there are at least 6 threads on the RFRA, but I thought this was fairly important, so as a point of order I thought it was worth giving it its own title.

    Why no one understands Indiana’s new religious freedom law - The Washington Post

    It argues that both sides are overselling the effect of the RFRA. This is for two reasons. First, courts have found with other RFRAs that they can't be used to discriminate against people. Second, discrimination against LGBT people was already legal in Indiana unless you lived in a city with a specific ordinance against it, which most of the state doesn't.

    That said, I would add that that doesn't make the attention-raising of all of the boycotts pointless. I think they're having an important effect towards discouraging further anti-LGBT legislation.

    Don't know if there are any lawyers here with a view on this article.
     
  2. greatwhale

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    413
    Location:
    Montreal
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I actually read the Indiana RFRA law, it is confusing as hell. Pence's argument is that it is just like the federal RFRA (if so, why have another law just like it?), but the fact is, his law is NOT like the others, there are important distinctions with regard to who can litigate and what constitutes a person. In addition, he has refused to include LGBT folk in anti-discrimination legislation.

    More to the point, however, the outrage and uproar is completely warranted, to serve primarily as a signal to other states that there will be a price to pay. It isn't even about this or any other similar types of laws, it's about the perception that they promote discrimination.

    Pence and his acolytes argue that the law is not discriminatory; well of course it isn't (those lying logs of excrement), it is designed to give cover to those who would discriminate on the basis of their "sincerely held" religious beliefs.
     
  3. kindy14

    kindy14 Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Gender:
    Male
    From what I have read, this issue is being oversold by both sides.

    The uproar on each side feeds the other sides agenda. And the uproar is not meant to feed meaningful change or mutual understanding.

    Questions:
    Should a Jewish baker be allowed to refuse a customer who asks for a likeness of Hitler on a cake?
    Should a Muslim be allowed to refuse a customer who asks for a likeness of Mohammad on a cake?
    Should a Christian be allowed to refuse a customer who asks for a likeness of Jesus being defecated on, on a cake?
     
    #3 kindy14, Mar 31, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2015
  4. Summer Rose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    A field
    Of course if you read the comment section, or just the law in general, you know that people actually do have a reason to believe that this law is more about discrimination than religious freedom; the fact that the good ol' gov. has been against the lgbt does not help.

    Umm...Do Muslims really hate Mohammed? Pardon the ignorance, this one just seems surprising.

    Except that's hate speech and thus they can deny service; they wouldn't be denying service to a minority (unless you're a genuine neo-nazi), they would be rightfully ignoring/denying hate.
     
  5. aboutface

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mississippi (US)

    I feel like there is a fundamental difference to not offering a particular service to ANYONE (such as your examples of hate-cakes imo), and refusing to offer the SAME service to LGBT people that you currently offer to everyone else. The former is perfectly fine. The latter is discrimination.
     
  6. greatwhale

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    413
    Location:
    Montreal
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    There needs to be a distinction between a customer asking for outrageous and insulting things (most likely an individual) like images of Hitler or Muhammad being foisted on those most likely to be offended and discriminating against a group, such as LGBT folk, because they belong to that group.

    I agree however that it is egregious and ridiculous to fine a baker in the tens of thousands of dollars for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple.

    There is a good article on this by David Brooks of the New York Times, here is an excerpt:

    There is a way to live with disagreement without being disagreeable, Brooks brings up the concept of politeness and it is important.

    The problem with these RFRAs is that they do not promote the kind of dialogue that is necessary on both sides of this debate. It does not sufficiently separate church from state. The state should not be taking sides.

    Sincerely held religious beliefs do need to be respected, and so do LGBT folk need that same respect, our marriages need to be honoured just as much as those between heterosexuals. There should be no tolerance for LGBT folk to be fired for who they are. This is the crux of the anger being expressed, there is still too much discrimination. This RFRA may not be the problem it is seen as being, but it most certainly is part of a larger state-sanctioned and disrespectful pattern that finally needs to be stopped.
     
  7. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Certainly this law isn't for anti lgbt bigotry! Perish the thought!

    Those anti gay lobbyists surrounding Pence as he signed the bill were just a wacky coincidence!
     
  8. ember

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Long Island
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Muslims don't accept physical interpretations of Mohammed or Allah. (e.g paintings, sculptures)
     
  9. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Northern CA
    @greatwhale

    There was a Supreme Court case in 1997 which held that the federal RFRA was an unconstitutional overreach when applied to state governments. Thus, these state level laws.
    Unlike in most of the other states, in either the language of the law or other legislation, Indiana doesn't consider lgbt to be a protected class. Therefore, it's possible that someone could claim a religious freedom argument for their bigotry.

    Which is actually fairly amusing, since it was already perfectly legal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality in Indiana.
     
  10. greatwhale

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    413
    Location:
    Montreal
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Here is an interesting take on it by Malcolm Gladwell from a recent interview:

    They need to accept us, even though we don't want to be like them, and, we need to accept their existence as well...and this is indeed where the difficulty lies.
     
  11. CuriousLiaison

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Strictly their religion prohibits depictions of any prophet. So they should be getting as angry about all the pictures of Jesus in the world's churches as they do about Mohammed. Luckily they seem to have culturally settled on not bothering too much about that.

    I wouldn't argue that the law isn't there to look tough on gays, it's just a question of whether it actually allows anything that wasn't already permissible.
     
  12. BobObob

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I disagree about sincerely held religious beliefs needing to be respected. People's right to believe should certainly be respected, but the belief itself should not be respected unless it's respectable. That may come across as unreasonable, but automatically respecting beliefs has serious consequences. Respecting a belief is more than just tolerating it, it's treating it as deserving of admiration. If the belief is false, and it harms others, respecting it can add to that harm.

    If someone sincerely believes that I deserve to be tortured for all eternity if I am in a relationship with another guy, that belief should not be respected.

    In this case, treating religious beliefs as automatically worthy of admiration just because they're religious beliefs provide fertile breeding grounds for tolerating discrimination. If people don't consider religious beliefs automatically worthy of respect, people would be a lot less likely to put up with "sincerely held religious beliefs" as a valid reason to exempt someone from laws that require them to behave like a decent person to others. People would likely agree that religious liberty does not include a right to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
     
    #12 BobObob, Mar 31, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2015
  13. CyclingFan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Actually that one doesn't bug me so much. It's what they think they are empowered to do in life that's far more problematic.
     
  14. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New York
    Article argues that Indiana RFRA actually pretty irrelevant

    Sorry Hoosiers....