Indiana rollback in progress?

[MillCreek]

Especially with the increasing opposition of the state's business and sports community, I wonder how long it will be before the new Indiana law is effectively rolled back or that sexual orientation and gender identity are added as protected classes to antidiscrimination laws.   And with their endorsement of the law, will this hurt the 2016 Republican presidential aspirants?

[vaskidmark]

How about "yesterday"?

Adding sexual orientation & identity as protected classes was proposed then.

Depending on which source you read, the Gov did or did not specifically ask for that.  But he'll sign pretty much whatever comes out of the legislature.

stay safe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They've said they want to clarify the law, not change it.

We'll see what happens.

[roo_ster]

Funny thing, the law in question does not mention sexual orientation and merely codifies in law first amendment religious liberty guarantees.

If Pence wants to forever destroy his chances for a POTUS candidacy, he will sign some explicit LGBTBS speshul rights law.  His best bet is to show some scrote and stand up to the homofascist onslaught.  Capitulation to the bent sons and daughters of stalinism is a fool's erand.

The MSM is already set against GOP candidates.  One more minor issue will not make or break them.  What the GOP needs to do is to break the MSM and power centers of the left: MSM, academia, Hollywood.

[wmenorr67]

Can someone please answer why in the hell is Indiana getting raked over the coals so much over this when at least 20 some other states have similar laws along with Clinton in 93 signing a similar law?  I don't recall so much outrage over the others.

[makattak]

Can someone please answer why in the hell is Indiana getting raked over the coals so much over this when at least 20 some other states have similar laws along with Clinton in 93 signing a similar law?  I don't recall so much outrage over the others.

The left needs a new shiny object to attack conservatives. This provides that object.

(BUT BUT BUT, THE TIMING!!!)

[HankB]

Since "discrimination" is bad, when will we see activists -

* Protesting a black-owned dry cleaning business that refused to clean the white sheets of the local KKK chapter?

* Protests of a Jewish baker who declined to make a swastika-shaped cake for the birthday party of the local Nazi party chairman?

* Prosecution of a Moslem catering service who refused to cater a bat mitzvah - or to provide an Easter ham for a local Christian dinner?

I'm sure you can come up with additional instances of discrimination that probably won't draw the ire of activists or the media . . .

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The same charade happened in Arizona a few years back.  Legislature passed a religious freedom law, left through a hissy fit, governor caved and vetoed the bill.

Here's a great article on how opposition to religious freedom works in the media.  It was written in response to the Arizona thing but it's perfectly suited to today.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/28/dumb-uneducated-and-eager-to-deceive-media-coverage-of-religious-liberty-in-a-nutshell/

And here's report by the AP on how religious freedom laws work in the real world.  Spoiler alert - the AP grudgingly admits they don't cause discrimination against gays.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ee8b2d9fc11c462eaa204dbee5e7253d/religious-freedom-laws-not-used-against-gays-past

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Arkansas gov has caved


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[MillCreek]

Can someone please answer why in the hell is Indiana getting raked over the coals so much over this when at least 20 some other states have similar laws along with Clinton in 93 signing a similar law?  I don't recall so much outrage over the others.

From my reading, I know that one key factor in the Indiana religious freedom law is that sexual orientation or gender identity is not explicitly identified as a protected class in Indiana anti-discrimination statutory or case laws.  Therefore, this allows you to legally discriminate against this class on the basis of religious freedom.  Many other states with religious freedom laws do not permit discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity on the basis of religious freedom because those are protected classes in those states.  

This is why I think that when (not if) Indiana modifies this law, it will be by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their anti-discrimination laws.  You cannot cite religious freedom as a basis to discriminate against a protected class in matters of public accommodation.

[Jamisjockey]

Public accommodation....what a joke.  If I run a business I should be able to boot anyone I want out, refuse service, etc. 
That Freedom word....is more of a joke every day.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

From my reading, I know that one key factor in the Indiana religious freedom law is that sexual orientation or gender identity is not explicitly identified as a protected class in Indiana anti-discrimination statutory or case laws.  Therefore, this allows you to legally discriminate against this class on the basis of religious freedom.  Many other states with religious freedom laws do not permit discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity on the basis of religious freedom because those are protected classes in those states.  

This is why I think that when (not if) Indiana modifies this law, it will be by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to their anti-discrimination laws.  You cannot cite religious freedom as a basis to discriminate against a protected class in matters of public accommodation.

In theory you coulda without the rrfa . As you observed they were not a protected class.Has it happened? There? Anywhere where they have rfra?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pb]

Under Freedom of Association, people should be free to be as big a bigots as they want in privately owned groups and businesses.  We are free to associate or refuse to associate with anyone we want for any reason. 

Bigotry should be prohibited in publicly owned groups of course.  Jim Crow laws, for example were laws- these are a violation of the Constitution.  Private bigotry is protected under Freedom of Association, just like hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

The Supreme Court does not recognize this, unfortunately.

[MillCreek]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law

This was one of the better analyses of the law that I have read.

[MillCreek]

Public accommodation....what a joke.  If I run a business I should be able to boot anyone I want out, refuse service, etc. 
That Freedom word....is more of a joke every day.

And you can do this, as long as you can say with a straight face that you are not refusing service on the basis of a protected class.  As an example, I fire patients all the time who are scamming us for narcotics; I have had several of them file complaints that I had fired them due to race or handicap.  None of their complaints have been upheld.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And you can do this, as long as you can say with a straight face that you are not refusing service on the basis of a protected class.  

So then, no, you can't actually boot anyone you want.

[SteveS]

Funny thing, the law in question does not mention sexual orientation and merely codifies in law first amendment religious liberty guarantees.

Exactly. For most of our history, the .gov could infringe on religion if they wanted to. In the early 1960's, the Supreme Ct. correctly decided that they could not, as it was an infringement on the free exercise of religion and applied strict scrutiny to any law that had that effect. In the early 1990's the Supreme Ct. changed their minds and went back to letting the .gov do mostly what they wanted. The federal gov't decided that this wasn't a good idea and Clinton signed the federal religious freedom act that restored the strict scrutiny test for any law that deals with the exercise of religion.

On a practical level, the .gov hasn't been stopped by these laws. Courts have mostly sided with the government when people have sued.

[wmenorr67]

Whatever happened to walking into an establishment and seeing signs that said something to the effect of, "We have the right or We can refuse service to anyone?"

[dogmush]

The signs still exist, they just don't, and never really did, have the law on their side.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I am not so sure about that. So long as you weren't messing with a protected class you can refuse. Home builder refused to sell to lawyers. Lawyer sued over it and lost


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk