Indiana's Religious Freedom Law -- Not About Religion?

I don't need to explain the epic backlash associated with Indiana's recently passed legislation, but I will link you all to an article that unpacks all the avenues down which we as a society have traveled in relation to this law.

I don't have definite or unmovable feelings about the law or the implications at this time, but I do have some questions that I think are worth some additional unpacking--

1. Why shouldn't business owners be able to pick and choose who they serve?
2. The choice to refuse service to an individual or individuals only hurts their own bottom line, doesn't it?
3. If you are refused service because of the business' strongly held personal beliefs, why would you spend additional money (legal battle) to force this business to take your money? (Why would you not exercise YOUR right not to support this business?)
4. Should we be happy that the state (US Gov) can force private businesses to serve people against their will, or should that be something that is worrisome?
5. Isn't religion relative to this law more of a surface issue and not at the heart of the legislation? If so, why are we all stuck on the religious aspect?

I'm tossing these questions out there for discussion points. I'm a little bit of the wild west, politically, so I tend to think people should feel empowered to take action themselves without involving a governing body.

What do you think?

I think private businesses should have the right to not serve anyone based on whatever basis they want...racism/sexism/fatism/anti-semitism/etc included. Any backlash they get (protests, negative press, etc) would also be something they would have to endure and people offended should have that right as well.

Essentially I believe in freedom.

imo it's not as black and white as either side would like you to believe. basically society will need to determine which holds more weight, a person's right to practice their religion freely without intervention from the government vs. a person's right not to be discriminated against.

if one person's religious rights allow them to discriminate, who wins?

I'd say everyone.

QFT

This is more about the governor of Indiana trying to sure up support from the far right ahead of a run for president than anything else. On a practical side it just adds another reason to keep driving through or fly over Indiana until you get somewhere that's actually worth going. Not that most needed another reason.

What is different from Indiana's law than the Federal law passed twenty years ago and adopted by thirty other states?

My state, regardless of what the bill says, is currently suffering from a problem of perception. They need to deal with that issue or face the consequences of a massive loss of revenue ranging in the billions.

The Democrats in the state congress appear to want to throw out the whole bill. While this would be politically advantageous I personally I think that they need to add additional language to the bill specifically protecting lgbt community rather than simply getting rid of everything. This would mean less fighting among the parties and being able to move forward so that they can get more done for the people of the state.

"Discrimination" might not be the moral nor ethical thing to do but no one (especially the government) should force you to act to the contrary. Business owners are in the field to make money and why they'd want to lose money is beyond me but that should be their choice. No matter how reprehensible it might be to deny people service based on a number of criteria, that needs to be a decision made by the individual and certainly not forced by a unethical and immoral entity like our government.

A question that might be closer to questioning the nature of the discussion is an inquiry into what qualifies as unjust discrimination. Consider as examples eHarmony, match.com, or any of the other matchmaking websites which help individuals form couples. Their business model most certainly does discriminate against those who do not match, but it is for the most healthy relationships possible based on their systems. People who do not find what they are looking for in a match might feel discriminated against, but is it an unjust situation?

@musicalmac:

1. We've tried that before. Remember Jim Crow?

2. No, it hurts people that are discriminated against as well.

3. Because you want to be equal to society and not second class i.e. the civil rights movement. Again we tried this, remember the pre-civil rights movement south?

4. Why would treating people as equals be a bad thing? The feminists movement of the 20s and the civil rights movements of the 60s were good things weren't they?

5. Cause it's what people are using as an excuse for bigotry, granted it's obviously not the real reason.

6. read a history book

1. We've tried what before? Be specific.

2. How does it hurt the people who are being denied service? (notice the passive language that assumes nothing)

3. Why would you want to line the pockets of someone who has a deep interpersonal problem with you for one reason or another? (again, notice the language, keeping it general)

4. This answer doesn't address my question.

5. I don't fully understand. What is the real reason?

So your point of view, to boil it down, is don't throw out the baby with the bath water?

@musicalmac: My point of view is that we need to avoid actions that cause infighting and stagnation. Stagnation is an inevitability at this point thanks to the boycotting of the state by businesses, but fixing the bill rather than starting anew can limit the damage.

So, do we want to go back to the days of "Whites Only" signs outside of businesses, bathrooms, drinking fountains? How is refusing service to LGBT any different than discriminating based on race? You can find passages in the bible that can be twisted to support your own discrimination of nearly any racial or ethnic group.

As a Hoosier, I'm embarrassed by my elected officials. As a human being, I'm embarrassed by individuals like @JimB

@musicalmac:

1. I was? Businesses were able to turn people away for being black before the Civil rights act.

2. It makes them feel like second class citizens when they are not given equal treatment.

3. I think it's more about just wanting to be treated as equals.

4. Yes it does. The government should protect minorities (or the majority) from being discriminated against. Equality and fairness is something that should be sought. Your thinking would just set us back to before the civil rights movement where people were able to discriminate based on skin color as they wish.

5. For example. Remember few months ago that bakery refused to sell a cake to a couple for a gay wedding? They claimed it was against their religion, but when people looked into the bakery's history, they saw that they had sold cakes to Jews, Pagans, a weird witch cult, a polygamous wedding and several extremely expensive weddings, all of which are against their religion, but they've chosen to pick and choose what they don't follow. It's not about the religion, it's something more.

It's like how the bible says that slavery is allowed in the same section of the bible that gays homosexuality is not (even that is arguable though).

Yet the same people oppose slavery.

It's not about the religion anymore at this point. What the reason is though I can only guess. Conformity would be my bet though.

i guess before looking at a particular situation i would define discrimination as refusal of service and there probably needs to be some kind of legalese like "discrimination was shown to cause harm" otherwise every topless dope who walks into a store that refuses to serve topless people will claim discrimination.

if match.com allowed you to use their service but their algorithms did not find a match it would not fall into the above definition. service was not refused ( it just didn't work ) or it did not cause harm.. there is probably something in match.com's TOS that stipulates they may not actually be able to find you a match

... Yeah I am baffled people acting so fucking clueless about this, people must have absolutely NO knowledge of what it was like in pre-civil rights era United States...

In regards to the law there are a lot of misconceptions about it, just like the proposed law in Arizona last year (the difference here is that Gov. Brewer was on the fence and so she caved to pressure, while Gov. Pence has already signed the law so he can't now veto it and he wouldn't anyway). For one thing opponents of laws often exaggerate how laws are and make them out to be worse then they really are; the media do not accurately report things, and many corporations and individuals jump on the bandwagon without actually looking into the text of the law itself (which you can do by clicking on this link).

Here are some articles which explain what the law actually does and clears up some minunderstandings of the law:

1. John McCormack "Indiana's Religious Freedom Law Explained" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html

2. Andrew T. Walker "Indiana's RFRA: 8 Theses" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416156/indianas-rfra-eight-theses-andrew-t-walker Debunks some misconceptions about the law.

3. Russell Moore "What Opposition to Religious Freedom Really Means" http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/03/30/what-opposition-to-religious-freedom-really-means/ Basically claims that opponents of these laws often don't understand the motivations behind why religious objectors object to doing certain things and because of this misunderstanding opponents assume that objectors are motivated by different things than what they really are motivated by.

4. Daniel O. Conkle "Law Professor: Why Indiana needs religious freedom legislation" - http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/ The author a law professor who supports "gay rights" and same-sex marriage explains why he also supports this Indiana law.

As these articles show the law isn't as extreme as opponents make it out to be and it isn't really about "LGBT" issues. What it does it balance the rights of people to follow their religious beliefs with government laws that may interfere with there ability to do so. It doesn't give these objectors a "free pass" from following laws, it gives them the ability to raise a religious defense in court.

• Got a tattoo or pierced ear? Leviticus 19:28...no soup for you!
• Married to someone not from your race or nationality? Deuteronomy 7:3-4...no soup for you!
• LGBT? practically all of Leviticus...no soup for you!
• Are you a woman who is menstruating? Leviticus 15: 19-31...no soup for you!
• Are you a woman wearing pants? Deuteronomy:22:5...no soup for you!
• Are you a woman wearing makeup or jewelry? Jeremiah 4:30...no soup for you!

I'm having a hard time discussing these issues with you for a couple key reasons, 1. You feel very comfortable injecting assumptions into the conversation (injecting slavery, racism, and homosexuality), and 2. You seem to have your own agendas and issues related to religion. This thread is about neither, it is about personal accountability, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice for business owners and for potential patrons.

I would encourage you to be as objective as possible and enjoy imagining a place that is directly opposed to your own personal beliefs.

PS - I'm also not compelled to be moved by reasons that go as deep as, "You'll hurt his/her feelings."

In regards to the whole boycotting Indiana thing I would say: 1. I don't generally agree with boycotting states because of their laws, for one thing it's not fair to punish an entire state, for another every state has some laws that people wouldn't like so we can't boycott them all (about thirty states and the Federal gov't have RFRA laws so to boycott Indiana for such a law is stupid and unfair) 2. The boycott will eventually blow over, I mean people aren't still boycotting Florida over stand your ground are they? 3. Big corporations are free to have their own anti-discrimination policies and most of them do, but it's not really their proper role to demand that governments force anti-discrimination policies on small businesses. They should do their thing and let the small businesses do their thing.

As regards to the TC's point, in recent years (probably since early into my college career) been moving in a more libertarian way in regards to anti-discrimination laws. The more I think about it, I come to think that it's okay for higher levels of government to prohibit lower levels of government to discriminate, that lower levels of government have more leeway than the Feds to ban private sector discrimination, that states should block municipalities and counties from adopting their own local anti-discrimination ordinances, and that when it comes to private sector laws, I could see prohibiting discrimination by large corporations, but small and family-owned businesses should generally be free to discriminate if they so choose (even more so if a business is run out of someone's home). I would also say anti-discrimination laws should be more narrowly tailored and that fines should be reduced (and fines should be the only penalty, no prison terms) and perhaps a higher standard of evidence should be required. Overall it seems to me that anti-discrimination laws are bad for the economy since they allow governments and courts to second-guess the business decisions of business owners and leave businesses targets to lawsuits.

That being said I would support prohibiting discrimination based on some things, such as pregnancy or disability but am less supportive of prohibitions of discrimination based on race or sexual preference. This is because I think there are more economic incentives to discriminate against pregnant and disabled people (they probably cost the company more money) so discrimination against these groups would be more widespread if legally allowed than against other groups. Fundamentally I would say government can act to stop widespread discrimination, but small scale discrimination is tolerable.

Are you speaking to the Jews or the Christians in the audience? Trying to figure out how you're going to make this relevant.

Everyone, though Indiana's population is predominantly Christian. Not that I think a business owner is going to deny service to a woman wearing makeup or jewelry, but there are numerous examples of arbitrary reasons why someone could deny service based on outdated religious basis if they decide they simply don't like you.

Bottom line, this Indiana law is designed to protect business owners from litigation from denying service to gays.

Well what you said applies to none of those Christians you're attempting (poorly) to 'own'. Those laws don't apply to Christians, basic understanding of the religion would have helped you to that conclusion.

So your bottom line is, if I could boil it down, that this law is to protect business owners from gays who might sue? So it's a law specifically aimed at nerfing gays in the courtroom? A group of Indiana legislators got together and said, "The gay community may sue someone who denies one of them service, so we'd better take steps to make sure that if they do, they won't have any grounds to make an argument."

Are you serious?

So lets bring back the Jim Crow laws?

............. How is this any different from a store that would not service blacks in the 50s?? Are you trying to tell me this law has nothing to do about religion? The fucking law it self is called "Religious Freedom law".. What is the current hot button topic that has Christians up at arms right now? GAY MARRIAGE! You guys must have hit your head because this how things work in society. We all agree to a social contract in which we sacrifice certain "freedoms" to live in a stable society with security.. If you wish to run business in most societies you have to go down certain LEGAL requirements in safety, worker rights, on top of countless others which INCLUDES now anti discriminatory things based on religion, race etc etc .. This allows you not only to use the societies infrastructure.. But the services that we all receive including fire department, police department, and countless others including the benefits of government support if needed..

Your right it is freedom of choice for the business owners to work that way.. Just like it is freedom of choice for a business owner to have a unsafe unsanitary environment.. Until the health inspector and government closes your ass down.. You seem not to understand, you do have freedom.. Freedom to leave this country and start a business some where else if you do not agree to the social contract of it.. This idea of "freedom and personal responsibility" can basically be used to argue against every single thing out there from unsafe work environments, from unsanitary conditions, to not paying taxes, numerous other checks that a company has to follow to operate within the United States.. Basically what your saying is "I don't like the rules, I shouldn't have to follow them!".

So...what do you think is the purpose of this law? Your right to practice your religion is already protected by the U.S. Constitution. What broader protections do those of faith need that necessitates this and other similar laws? If you think this law is intended to accomplish anything but protecting business owners of faith from invoking their believes in denying service for arbitrary reasons, I must ask you: Are you serious?

You must have a issue with reading comprehension. I didn't attempt to "own" anyone, Christian or otherwise, I simply listed a few archaic biblical passages that could be used to support denial of services. If I were so inclined, and had little better to do, I could probably find similar things from the Torah or Q'ran.

I'm curious, now, as to your religious affiliation. You seem to be struggling mightily hard, against most sense and sensibility, to support this law.

If you're open the public, you serve the whole public. If you want to pick and choose who you do business with, be a contractor.

.. Gotta love the Christian victim complex that is going around in the country right now..

The difference is that I'm only asking questions and I'm doing my best not to inject any assumptions into the conversation. Relying on broad-strokes generalizations to make a point ("What is the current hot button topic that has Christians up in arms right now? GAY MARRIAGE!") isn't helpful. That doesn't mean anything, it's just a convenient assumption.

Your example about the unsafe work environment is a poor comparison to the topic at hand. Choosing not to serve an individual for a personal reason is not the same as choosing to serve unsafe food products. In one case, someone's feelings may be bruised whereas in the other case, someone may become seriously ill. Certainly you'd agree these two items are not on par.

If someone's feeling are bruised to such a degree as to be impassioned to take action, they have the freedom to take that action without relying on a governing body to fix the problem for them. Boycott the company, encourage your friends to do the same, picket the business, make clear the practices of that business, etc. Don't be lazy, if you are passionate about something, do something. Doesn't that sound reasonable?

Doesn't it remind you at all of a younger sibling tattling on you for calling him or her a poopy head?

I don't think you know what that means...

I think (1) and (2) are a little more complicated. In theory I'd generally like to let business owners choose whom they serve, but part of the issue will be when the choices of whom to serve also reflect "community beliefs". An extreme and unrealistic case to illustrate what I'm talking about - imagine a community of 100 individuals, where 99 of them hate the other 1 individual. Now two business owners come into town, business X offers service to everyone, business Y only offers service to the 99. The 99 refuse to buy from the business that serves the 1, driving X out of business, leaving 1 unable to buy from anyone.

Not saying I've presented a realistic example, it's more to illustrate a point that the policies of businesses may also reflect the views of the population of customers. I don't have much problem with allowing businesses to discriminate as long as it doesn't lead to a large-scale tendency towards discrimination. If it does, then it starts to be concerning.

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

Oh yes.. That's it.. Why don't you talk to some of the older blacks who live during the Jim Crow era who first hand EXPERIENCED the denial of service and treatment based on their skin color due to personal issues with the employer?? I am sure they will come around to your point of view that they were "babies" and "tattle tails".. Its easy to defend this shit when it doesn't directly affect you..

Sadly, GS just ate a nice, thorough post that I had carefully crafted so you're about to get the abridged version.

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the law is, which is why I said to begin with that I don't have any strong feelings. It's why I made a thread so we could discuss it. There is a question I asked earlier that I'm going to ask again, because I truly do not understand one thing--

Why would you force a business to take your money when you know that the owners of that business have deep, personal issues about some aspect of your life, so deep that they would refuse to serve you? Why do you want them to still have your money? Where is the logic in that?

Those archaic Biblical passages are OT, no Christian in the classical sense would deny service to someone for those reasons because those laws no longer apply to Christians. And going through the Torah won't do you any good, because that's just the first five books in the Old Testament. I think there's even a law in there that says you shouldn't drink milk out of a wooden bowl. And I"m not sure why you'd look into the Quran at all in context of this discussion.

I understand sentiments expressed by many users in this thread, but I'm attempting to get people to think about it on a more basic level. Religion is a layer on this law, it's not at the heart of the matter. I do not outright support the law. Asking questions and posing different viewpoints does not equate to support.

I actually think that's all very reasonable. It may be an extreme example, but there are examples of such areas (however small and insignificant they are). The name of one in particular slips my mind. Either way, your conclusion is compelling.

Oh! OH! I got an example.. A homosexual person living in a extremely conservative bible belt area in the United States.. I know that seems like a HUGE stretch of the imagination for such a thing to occur!

@toast_burner said:

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

What's different? How about the entire social culture of the United States of America. I refuse to assume that if given the choice, we'd suddenly be transported back in time to 1950. To use these few examples as evidence to that conclusion is, I think, quite foolish.

@musicalmac said:

@toast_burner said:

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

What's different? How about the entire social culture of the United States of America. I refuse to assume that if given the choice, we'd suddenly be transported back in time to 1950. To use these few examples as evidence to that conclusion is, I think, quite foolish.

Ah yes.. Because you know we don't have popular Christian spokes people denouncing gays, and calling for martyrdom if things like Gay Marriage passes..

We're not in the 1950's anymore. It's an entirely different world. I won't pretend that things haven't changed.

I can tell you're quite passionate about this issue, and I again will implore everyone to enjoy living in the shoes of someone else. Expressing opinions should be encouraged, especially from people with whom you would disagree most vehemently.

@sSubZerOo said:

@musicalmac said:

@toast_burner said:

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

What's different? How about the entire social culture of the United States of America. I refuse to assume that if given the choice, we'd suddenly be transported back in time to 1950. To use these few examples as evidence to that conclusion is, I think, quite foolish.

Ah yes.. Because you know we don't have popular Christian spokes people denouncing gays, and calling for martyrdom if things like Gay Marriage passes..

I don't understand how that's related to this post. Would you support a law that prohibits such speech?

The whole thing boils down to gay marriage. It was forced on the population by the government. Every where it was put to a vote it was defeated by the people. GLTB are not discriminated against except where it comes to a persons religious belief concerning marriage. This law was adopted to protect the business owner whose religious belief does not condone gay marriage.

@musicalmac said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@musicalmac said:

@toast_burner said:

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

What's different? How about the entire social culture of the United States of America. I refuse to assume that if given the choice, we'd suddenly be transported back in time to 1950. To use these few examples as evidence to that conclusion is, I think, quite foolish.

Ah yes.. Because you know we don't have popular Christian spokes people denouncing gays, and calling for martyrdom if things like Gay Marriage passes..

I don't understand how that's related to this post. Would you support a law that prohibits such speech?

My point went completely over your head.. I specifically pointed out guiding examples of our current cultures in many places of the United States (namely the Bible belt) in which popular Christians speakers are talking about things like martyrdom because of a new policy.. If this were a popular Islamic speaker in the United States, people would be flipping their shit calling them a terrorist spurring on a jihad.. If you have influential people saying shit like this, what in the hell do you think they would purpose to do with using things like the "Religious Freedom Law".. Do I have to spell it out for you? Or can you connect the dots? A large group of people who all share a certain prejudice backed by religious self righteousness targeting a specific very small minority.. Maybe you should take a bit of YOUR own medicine and put your self in their shoes with empathy.. If this shit was any different we wouldn't see numerous prominent blacks speak out about this and they see it no different from the kinds of policies that occurred during the 1950s..

Maybe I have more faith in the people of the United States than you do. If you truly did want to get biblical, a true, Bible-believing Christian would never refuse service to gay people. Trying to find faults in things you don't understand will only make you look foolish.

In your Islamic speaker example, what is this speaker saying in your example?

EDIT: And your examples aren't specific at all. List them if you're going to give examples, and make sure you're specific to the incident if you're even going to go that far.

@musicalmac said:

@toast_burner said:

It means exactly what he thinks it means. Not being allowed to discriminate is not discrimination.

Are you in favour of bringing back Jim Crow laws? Because I fail to see how this is different.

What's different? How about the entire social culture of the United States of America. I refuse to assume that if given the choice, we'd suddenly be transported back in time to 1950. To use these few examples as evidence to that conclusion is, I think, quite foolish.

If murder was legal we wouldn't all start killing people. That doesn't mean it would be a wise idea.

You are delusional if you think racism and homophobia aren't around any more. Of course there are people who will refuse service to gays and blacks if given the option to.

To add the cherry on top of the shit pie we have leading conservative politicians who are rejecting fact and scientific discovery based upon religious beliefs swaying our entire policies as a nation.. Your biggest problem is not from the criticism from people of the likes of me.. It's your own selves.. People don't have to go out of their way to find crazy shit about many conservatives in this country, they just fucking open their mouths and out it comes.

Ah, no true scotsman, and on top of that, ignoring all the ghastly things the christian book tells people to do...cherry picking beliefs. Wonder how all those people in africa are doing after american christians went over there to tell them to imprison and murder gay people.

Killing someone and hurting someone's feelings aren't on the same level. We have to keep things reasonable.

And I made no such statements about racism or bigotry. I acknowledged that many forms of discrimination still exist. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the days of segregated water fountains.

The social climate today would butcher any major business who refused to sell to blacks or gays. My faith in America isn't misguided in terms of believing that we've completely stamped out racism and bigotry, but that an atmosphere exists that would greatly harm any business who has practices that go against that culture.

There are exceptions. For example, there is a Fortune 500 investment business that only served Lutherans up to 2014 when they opened their doors to Christians of all Protestant demonstrations. It's still a Christians-only club. They do, however, serve gays and minorities. So it's not a great example. If they decided they were no longer going to serve the gay community, it's no doubt hell would rain down upon them (pun semi-intended).