Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

    That's the title of CNN's article on Indiana's just-signed law that will allow businesses to exercise their religious freedom when providing services that do not contradict the state's interests.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politi...hts/index.html

    "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said.

    "This was a measure that frankly, Indiana should have enacted many years ago," Pence said. "It gives our courts guidance about evaluating government action and puts the highest standard -- it essentially says, if a government is going to compel you to act in a way that violates your religious beliefs, there has to be a compelling state interest."
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

  • #2
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    That's the title of CNN's article on Indiana's just-signed law that will allow businesses to exercise their religious freedom when providing services that do not contradict the state's interests.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politi...hts/index.html

    "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said.

    "This was a measure that frankly, Indiana should have enacted many years ago," Pence said. "It gives our courts guidance about evaluating government action and puts the highest standard -- it essentially says, if a government is going to compel you to act in a way that violates your religious beliefs, there has to be a compelling state interest."
    I found the actual text of the law. It can be read here: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/...ument-f6915f8f

    It says

    "Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based on state action, may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability, unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is:

    (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
    (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."


    The rest of the text is definitions of terms and a statement that violation of Sec. 6 can be used as a claim or defense in court.

    You would think that would be uncontroversial, since the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And this has been extended as a limitation on all governments in the U.S, via the 14th Amendment. If anything the Indiana law seems to concede too much. After all, the Constitution doesn't add, "unless it's really in Congress' interest to do so."

    With this loophole, you know that anyone who wants to violate any rights will claim that the government has a compelling interest in doing so.

    Comment


    • #3
      A few businesses have began to threaten to take their money out of Indiana, and the Indy-based NCAA is expressing concern. This sort of thing has a precedent: The NFL would not host Super Bowls in Arizona until MLK Day was recognized as a holiday by the state.

      We'll see if they follow through or not.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        suddenly I like living in Indiana!

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow, some people are just really really desperate to be nasty to gay people, aren't they?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Wow, some people are just really really desperate to be nasty to gay people, aren't they?
            Yes. Because businesses should be forced to use their talents and resources for your personal political agenda. You don't have a right to other people's work.
            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Wow, some people are just really really desperate to be nasty to gay people, aren't they?
              The proper response to the news story is: Wow, some people really hate the 1st Amendment!

              I see nothing in the text of the law that references gay people or being nasty to them. It seems to only reaffirm (weakly) the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. What error do you see in it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                Yes. Because businesses should be forced to use their talents and resources for your personal political agenda. You don't have a right to other people's work.
                It is right that all people should be able to live in a civilized society and not be subjected to discrimination and abuse. If people want to run a business that sells goods and services to the public, that's fine, then they can act professionally and actually do business with the public, not use their business as some kind of pulpit and platform for racism, sexism, homophobia or religious discrimination.

                I'll be waiting with popcorn for when a Muslim business owner in Indiana refuses to serve a Christian customer. Presumably all hell will break lose, because, let's be very clear: the people supporting this legislation do not actually believe in freedom of religion, they believe in Christian superiority and the importance of Christians being able to enforce their religion on others.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  It is right that all people should be able to live in a civilized society and not be subjected to discrimination and abuse. If people want to run a business that sells goods and services to the public, that's fine, then they can act professionally and actually do business with the public, not use their business as some kind of pulpit and platform for racism, sexism, homophobia or religious discrimination.

                  I'll be waiting with popcorn for when a Muslim business owner in Indiana refuses to serve a Christian customer. Presumably all hell will break lose, because, let's be very clear: the people supporting this legislation do not actually believe in freedom of religion, they believe in Christian superiority and the importance of Christians being able to enforce their religion on others.
                  If a business owner refused service to me because I'm a Christian, I would shrug and go elsewhere. I believe in freedom of religion.

                  Edit: As irritating as that might be, I recognize that the product he is selling is his product, and I have no right to it. If he wants to refuse to sell his product to someone, he should be able to. Even if it's for a stupid reason.
                  Last edited by Zymologist; 03-26-2015, 05:26 PM.
                  I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    It is right that all people should be able to live in a civilized society and not be subjected to discrimination and abuse. If people want to run a business that sells goods and services to the public, that's fine, then they can act professionally and actually do business with the public, not use their business as some kind of pulpit and platform for racism, sexism, homophobia or religious discrimination.

                    I'll be waiting with popcorn for when a Muslim business owner in Indiana refuses to serve a Christian customer. Presumably all hell will break lose, because, let's be very clear: the people supporting this legislation do not actually believe in freedom of religion, they believe in Christian superiority and the importance of Christians being able to enforce their religion on others.
                    Let's be clear. I have no problem with a business making rules the owner feels are important. You do know businesses discriminate on a whole host of things right? But I forgot that homosexuality is one of those "special" cases that should be exempt. I'm very much consistent on this point. I doubt however you are.
                    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      Let's be clear. I have no problem with a business making rules the owner feels are important. You do know businesses discriminate on a whole host of things right? But I forgot that homosexuality is one of those "special" cases that should be exempt. I'm very much consistent on this point. I doubt however you are.
                      So here's what the motivation for non-discrimination laws is:

                      We can all see, I hope, that if everyone in our society decided to be nasty to black people, then this would make life hell for black people. If every restaurant they went to, there was a significant chance that the owner would kick them out rather than serving them... if in most of the jobs they tried to get they were rejected because they were black... if, when they tried to make friends with coworkers after they finally managed to get a job, half the people wouldn't talk to them.

                      We can see how the cumulative effects of this nastiness targeted at them might take a toll on their psyche and cause them stress and anxiety. We wouldn't be surprised to hear that a person in that situation might come to suffer from depression or contemplate suicide. Unfortunately chronic stress in itself has negative medical consequences ranging from a greater risk of heart attack and stroke, to slower healing, to increased risk of developing mental illnesses. These people also tend to turn to alcohol and smoking as coping mechanisms to try and deal with the stresses of life. These general cumulative effects of stress suffered by minorities due to discrimination are known as minority stress and are a fairly serious problem. The clearest form of harm is typically the much higher suicide rates among these groups of people, but much higher rates of death from smoking and alcohol are also measurable.

                      I think most people should be able to agree that there is a clear moral case for wanting to prevent this sort of cumulative harm occurring to people, especially in the case where the person hasn't done anything to deserve it. eg if their only crime is "being black in my general direction". This is why discrimination against these minority groups is immoral - because the cumulative effects (and occasionally the individual effects) cause serious harms to them. That is why we have non-discrimination laws.

                      But we don't want to go around limiting freedom unnecessarily. So the compromise is to protect from discrimination only those people who are highly likely to suffer the cumulative effects of discrimination. Thus we get the notion of "protected" groups: eg you can't discriminate against a black person on the grounds that he's black. Whereas you can discriminate against people wearing bow ties if you don't like bow ties, because other people aren't discriminating en masse against such people, and wearing a bow tie is an easily reversible choice anyway, so basically there's no danger of any life-threateningly cumulative discrimination against bow tie wearers.

                      The following things are typically considered (eg by the US Supreme Court) when trying to decide whether a particular group of people ought to be protected from discrimination:
                      • The group has historically been discriminated against, experiencing serious negative and cumulative consequences from discrimination
                      • the prejudice, hostility, and stigma has largely been fueled by stereotypes
                      • but the group's distinguishing characteristic does not actually cause harm or prevent it from contributing meaningfully to society
                      • the group is a minority, lacking the power to defend itself
                      • the trait defining the group is relatively involuntary or visible

                      The clear harms of allowing cumulative discrimination have to be balanced against the harms to freedom that occur when actions and choices are restricted. However, just as we say it's immoral to murder someone, and we want to restrict the freedom of people to be able to murder others, so too it's immoral to murder someone by driving them to suicide through repeated nastiness and so we want to be able to restrict the freedom of people to do this. This estimate (see the Abstract on page 5) from 2003 suggested that over 2000 gay people per year in Canada die prematurely due to homophobia, primarily from suicide, smoking, and alcohol. So the effects of discrimination are pretty severe. For those interested in an overview of the negative health effects of discrimination on gay people, I recommend reading this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        So here's what the motivation for non-discrimination laws is:

                        We can all see, I hope, that if everyone in our society decided to be nasty to black people, then this would make life hell for black people. If every restaurant they went to, there was a significant chance that the owner would kick them out rather than serving them... if in most of the jobs they tried to get they were rejected because they were black... if, when they tried to make friends with coworkers after they finally managed to get a job, half the people wouldn't talk to them.

                        We can see how the cumulative effects of this nastiness targeted at them might take a toll on their psyche and cause them stress and anxiety. We wouldn't be surprised to hear that a person in that situation might come to suffer from depression or contemplate suicide. Unfortunately chronic stress in itself has negative medical consequences ranging from a greater risk of heart attack and stroke, to slower healing, to increased risk of developing mental illnesses. These people also tend to turn to alcohol and smoking as coping mechanisms to try and deal with the stresses of life. These general cumulative effects of stress suffered by minorities due to discrimination are known as minority stress and are a fairly serious problem. The clearest form of harm is typically the much higher suicide rates among these groups of people, but much higher rates of death from smoking and alcohol are also measurable.

                        I think most people should be able to agree that there is a clear moral case for wanting to prevent this sort of cumulative harm occurring to people, especially in the case where the person hasn't done anything to deserve it. eg if their only crime is "being black in my general direction". This is why discrimination against these minority groups is immoral - because the cumulative effects (and occasionally the individual effects) cause serious harms to them. That is why we have non-discrimination laws.

                        But we don't want to go around limiting freedom unnecessarily. So the compromise is to protect from discrimination only those people who are highly likely to suffer the cumulative effects of discrimination. Thus we get the notion of "protected" groups: eg you can't discriminate against a black person on the grounds that he's black. Whereas you can discriminate against people wearing bow ties if you don't like bow ties, because other people aren't discriminating en masse against such people, and wearing a bow tie is an easily reversible choice anyway, so basically there's no danger of any life-threateningly cumulative discrimination against bow tie wearers.

                        The following things are typically considered (eg by the US Supreme Court) when trying to decide whether a particular group of people ought to be protected from discrimination:
                        • The group has historically been discriminated against, experiencing serious negative and cumulative consequences from discrimination
                        • the prejudice, hostility, and stigma has largely been fueled by stereotypes
                        • but the group's distinguishing characteristic does not actually cause harm or prevent it from contributing meaningfully to society
                        • the group is a minority, lacking the power to defend itself
                        • the trait defining the group is relatively involuntary or visible

                        The clear harms of allowing cumulative discrimination have to be balanced against the harms to freedom that occur when actions and choices are restricted. However, just as we say it's immoral to murder someone, and we want to restrict the freedom of people to be able to murder others, so too it's immoral to murder someone by driving them to suicide through repeated nastiness and so we want to be able to restrict the freedom of people to do this. This estimate (see the Abstract on page 5) from 2003 suggested that over 2000 gay people per year in Canada die prematurely due to homophobia, primarily from suicide, smoking, and alcohol. So the effects of discrimination are pretty severe. For those interested in an overview of the negative health effects of discrimination on gay people, I recommend reading this.
                        What does this long winded response have anything to do with what I was talking about? Your weird fantasy about everyone being nasty to blacks never happened. Nor was it true about any other minority. This is a real simple concept to grasp; businesses discriminate constantly on a whole range of issues. In my view they have the right to do so. As Zymologist pointed out to you, you do not have a right to another person's product or skills. It doesn't matter what race/creed/sexual orientation you are. If a business doesn't want to serve me for whatever reason, I go elsewhere. The market handles the rest.
                        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Starlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?
                          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                            Starlight, I gather by your logic that you would be ok with, and defend, a business posting a sign saying "No Whites Allowed"?
                            Of course he would. Because "whites" haven't been discriminated against enough.
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              homophobia
                              Well, since there's no such thing...
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ronson, Today, 11:16 AM
                              0 responses
                              9 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 04:13 AM
                              1 response
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Maranatha  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:20 PM
                              16 responses
                              84 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:10 PM
                              5 responses
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 11:36 AM
                              14 responses
                              60 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Working...
                              X