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

[Spartacus]

You make a lot of claims here, and rather than drag this out into the tangent you want it to be, you should take a step back and realize that you are arguing against a position that is unrelated to what I've said.

It is literally impossible for a local school to violate the constitutional provision on establishment since the establishment clause only applies properly to Congress, and I'm not aware of any prominent cases involving schools in which the free exercise clause was more at issue than establishment.

[Sam]

Jefferson's interpretation was, even at the time he wrote it, just one interpretation, and one of the least authoritative interpretations possible, given that he wasn't part of the legislative debates surrounding the first amendment. The Warren court was wrong to lean on Jefferson to justify their interpretation of the establishment clause.

[Teallaura]

It is literally impossible for a local school to violate the constitutional provision on establishment since the establishment clause only applies properly to Congress, and I'm not aware of any prominent cases involving schools in which the free exercise clause was more at issue than establishment.

You're after my job, aren't you?

[Spartacus]

You're after my job, aren't you?

I took a course last year specifically on the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment. I couldn't remember it all at first, but it just keeps coming back to me clearer and clearer.

[Teallaura]

[KingsGambit]

Indiana has gotten slammed by business boycotts so hard in the last few days that the governor is looking to legislatively "clarify" the bill. I'm not sure how they intend to do that.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-law/70611906/

[Starlight]

Indiana has gotten slammed by business boycotts so hard in the last few days that the governor is looking to legislatively "clarify" the bill. I'm not sure how they intend to do that.

I expect they intend to try to make it look to the angry public like they've 'changed' the bill to 'make sure' that it doesn't hurt gay people, while making sure that their changes are carefully worded so that it doesn't undermine the basic intent of the bill to hurt gay people.

[Sam]

Indiana has gotten slammed by business boycotts so hard in the last few days that the governor is looking to legislatively "clarify" the bill. I'm not sure how they intend to do that.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-law/70611906/

Well, the best way would be to add sexual orientation as a protected class in Indiana, given that Pence is ostensibly opposed to discrimination based on it.

... but since Pence pretty clearly begged off that option, I'm guessing that the RFRA itself won't be modified but a motion will be attached "clarifying" that the RFRA is not intended justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Which will be true enough but sidesteps the point of the outrage.

[Knowing Thomas]

Indiana has gotten slammed by business boycotts so hard in the last few days that the governor is looking to legislatively "clarify" the bill. I'm not sure how they intend to do that.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-law/70611906/

Angies List (who is facing a class-action lawsuit) appears to be one of the companies fighting for "equality". Funnily enough, the firestorm against Angies List for this decision is palpable.

[Sam]

Angies List (who is facing a class-action lawsuit) appears to be one of the companies fighting for "equality". Funnily enough, the firestorm against Angies List for this decision is palpable.

I guess that's what ends up happening when you sponsor Rush Limbaugh (Angie's List stopped sponsoring the Rush Limbaugh show in 2012 after his Sandra Fluke remarks). Haven't personally heard any backlash against Angie's List, though.

[Spartacus]

Indiana has gotten slammed by business boycotts so hard in the last few days that the governor is looking to legislatively "clarify" the bill. I'm not sure how they intend to do that.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-law/70611906/

As soon as the Left boycotts the rest of the country (hello, federal RFRA), I'll take their moral outrage seriously. Their memories are so short that they don't even recognize that they were protesting the federal RFRA less than a year ago after the Hobby Lobby decision.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the non-discrimination clause would be awesome. I'd like to see it happen.

[Sam]

As soon as the Left boycotts the rest of the country (hello, federal RFRA), I'll take their moral outrage seriously. Their memories are so short that they don't even recognize that they were protesting the federal RFRA less than a year ago after the Hobby Lobby decision.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the non-discrimination clause would be awesome. I'd like to see it happen.

Does the Left not recognize that they were opposed to Hobby Lobby's use of the RFRA? I'd think they're protesting Indiana's RFRA for the same reason: the use of the RFRA has morphed from a defensive issue that the Left supports (individual religious freedom from discrimination) into what's perceived as an offensive issue that they oppose (corporate religious freedom to discriminate). Whether that perspective is true or not, that's definitely the temperature I get from the room.

[Spartacus]

Does the Left not recognize that they were opposed to Hobby Lobby's use of the RFRA? I'd think they're protesting Indiana's RFRA for the same reason: the use of the RFRA has morphed from a defensive issue that the Left supports (individual religious freedom from discrimination) into what's perceived as an offensive issue that they oppose (corporate religious freedom to discriminate). Whether that perspective is true or not, that's definitely the temperature I get from the room.

They're reacting to Indiana's RFRA as if it's something entirely new. The same standards (depending on judicial interpretation) apply in 18 other states (can't really count AZ because of the veto) and have held across the country for 20 years (not counting the decades since the precedent was first set with the Sherbert case, which RFRA was designed to restore), and now they're lashing out at Indiana? Indiana?

I really can't see any good, rational, and just explanation for all these reactions to Indiana's RFRA. It's mass hysteria.

[Sam]

They're reacting to Indiana's RFRA as if it's something entirely new. The same standards (depending on judicial interpretation) apply in 18 other states (can't really count AZ because of the veto) and have held across the country for 20 years (not counting the decades since the precedent was first set with the Sherbert case, which RFRA was designed to restore), and now they're lashing out at Indiana? Indiana?

I really can't see any good, rational, and just explanation for all these reactions to Indiana's RFRA. It's mass hysteria.

It makes perfect sense if we understand that the RFRA has become (thanks to AZ and HL, in part) extremely polarized. It's not that Indiana's RFRA is totally new ... it's that the use of the RFRA in recent years is totally new. It's being utilized (or arguments very close to the RFRA are being utilized) as defense for discriminatory practices in businesses.

Folks paying attention to these events aren't crazy for looking at passage of a RFRA in a conservative state in 2015 and getting alarmed. The passage of a RFRA in 2000 or even 2010 just wasn't the same thing.

Personally, I don't think there's much doubt that Pence signed this RFRA as a way to boost his Conservative credentials. In that respect, we can't argue that it makes political sense from the Right but makes no political sense from the Left.

[Bill the Cat]

As soon as the Left boycotts the rest of the country (hello, federal RFRA), I'll take their moral outrage seriously. Their memories are so short that they don't even recognize that they were protesting the federal RFRA less than a year ago after the Hobby Lobby decision.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the non-discrimination clause would be awesome. I'd like to see it happen.

I'd like to see weight and body appearance added.