• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Indiana, the RFRA, and the backlash

It would be pretty amazing if a lot of businesses refused service to Christians and cited the law as their reasoning. Nothing is more entertaining than a good backfire.
 
The conservative comment-o-sphere has decided to approach this with the "what's the big deal" defense.
PaternoShrug.jpg


seems to me that this approach ignores two things: (1) there are actual substantial differences, in language and intent, between the Indiana laws and the other RFRAs; and (2) perhaps more importantly, most of the other RFRAs were passed in the 1990/early 2000s. In 2015, a much larger segment of the American population has decided it's not cool to claim God tells you to discriminate against gay people, even if the Roberts court and the GOP-led state legislatures haven't caught up yet. So whether or not you choose to ignore (1), (2) is a real thing and it has real consequences, like the widely publicized decisions of large businesses to hold up investment in Indiana.
 
Deacon923 said:
The conservative comment-o-sphere has decided to approach this with the "what's the big deal" defense.
PaternoShrug.jpg


seems to me that this approach ignores two things: (1) there are actual substantial differences, in language and intent, between the Indiana laws and the other RFRAs; and (2) perhaps more importantly, most of the other RFRAs were passed in the 1990/early 2000s. In 2015, a much larger segment of the American population has decided it's not cool to claim God tells you to discriminate against gay people, even if the Roberts court and the GOP-led state legislatures haven't caught up yet. So whether or not you choose to ignore (1), (2) is a real thing and it has real consequences, like the widely publicized decisions of large businesses to hold up investment in Indiana.
Click to expand...

What's the big deal? It's already legal to discriminate.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...s-wrong-on-indiana-and-religious-freedom-laws
 
Junebug said:
Plus, Ashton Kutcher, Barles Charkley, and Miley Ray Cyrus are opposed. What more evidence that it is bad could one want?
Click to expand...

Plenty of businesses based in Indiana are against it as well.
 
Junebug said:
The language differences are so minute they are effectively immaterial. Even assuming this statute allowed discrimination, which is seriously debatable, is highly unlikely that a public company would cut off some of it revenue for religious reasons. Moreover, if the statute creates a defense against governmental enforcement, it should create one against private enforcement too.
Click to expand...

The language differences are precise insertions that are aimed to allow companies to discriminate against gays, a la the wedding photographer. Specific phrases aren't inserted into bills by accident or chance.
 
what other reason would people want to not provide a good or service based on their religion
 
Do you want someone taking pictures at your wedding who doesn't want to be there? A baker doing your wedding cake who doesn't want to do it? I would avoid those types of people rather having them pretend to do a good job for such an important moment in my life.
 
HowardDeanSux said:
Do you want someone taking pictures at your wedding who doesn't want to be there? A baker doing your wedding cake who doesn't want to do it? I would avoid those types of people rather having them pretend to do a good job for such an important moment in my life.
Click to expand...

i mean, what if you order the cake and on the day of the guy is like "oh, this is for gays? forget it, no cake, fags"
 
HowardDeanSux said:
Do you want someone taking pictures at your wedding who doesn't want to be there? A baker doing your wedding cake who doesn't want to do it? I would avoid those types of people rather having them pretend to do a good job for such an important moment in my life.
Click to expand...

That may not be an option for many small town Hoosiers.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i mean, what if you order the cake and on the day of the guy is like "oh, this is for gays? forget it, no cake, fags"
Click to expand...

How is that any different than if on the day of the guy is like "oh, this is for a Wake fan? forget it, no cake, losers"? People already choose not to do business with other people for a million different reasons on a daily basis, usually personality conflicts.
 
Junebug said:
The statute isn't about not providing goods or services. That's included, but it is much broader than that. It's about any exemption from regulation. The Smith case that gave rise to the rule that RFRA was intended to undo involved a Native American smoking peyote. The Supreme Court said that the Native American could not claim an exemption from the drug laws under the free exercise clause because the drug laws were neutral laws of general applicability. The purpose of RFRA was to undo that rule and result.
Click to expand...

so, while acknowledging my question, you chose not to answer it
 
Oh fun, now we're going to play the "we don't know why this bill was passed" game when any objective person knows exactly why this was passed. Yeah, I too wonder what author Dennis Kruse was thinking the legislative intent of a RFRA bill was when he has consistently petitioned to have creationism taught in schools and two years ago introduced a bill which would mandate the Lord's Prayer to be recited every morning before school.

I'm sure he just wants to make sure that he can say the Lord's Prayer to anyone entering his auction business and loves all gay people. Oh...geez, maybe not since he was a co-sponsor of the 2011 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the grounds that "the measure would provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society."

I'm still surprised, although I guess I shouldn't be at this juncture, that intelligent people that post on these boards and went to a top 25 university are going to play "hide the intent" and pretend like we can't discern exactly why a GOP-led legislature in a conservative Midwest state passed this bill. Come on Junebug, you're better than this and intellectually I'm sure you recognize this.

If you think states should be allowed to do this and you're fine with it just say so, don't play us all for idiots.
 
His intent is irrelevant. I am against the need for the government to be involved in every human interaction. You don't approve of someone's stance on an issue or treatment of you, don't patronize their business.
 
The rationale for the Lord's Prayer in school was "n order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen."

I think it's pretty clear that the underlying intent from the author of this bill has nothing to do with "religious" freedom, it has to do with "Christian" freedom and I completely agree with 923 that it's going to be absolutely gold when these types of laws are used by other religions and many of these same GOPers throw a hissyfit about it.
 
HowardDeanSux said:
His intent is irrelevant. I am against the need for the government to be involved in every human interaction. You don't approve of someone's stance on an issue or treatment of you, don't patronize their business.
Click to expand...

Yeah! If we don't want to serve those blacks we shouldn't have to! Stay out of my business government, you don't need to be involved in who I sell to.

Also how is his intent irrelevant? We're dealing now with what the legislature meant in the bill because Pence needs further clarification on a bill he just signed. Intent is wholly relevant.
 
Last edited:
Yet here you were to defend the law from the get go right on cue.

What other legislative intent is even feasible? They wanted to make sure that people who smoke pot religiously could do so wherever they wanted?
 
I live in a small town in the "Deep South", several gay friends whom have married, and this has not been a problem. Good bakers and good florists provided services for their wedding. Amazingly, none were forced to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top