Support NeoGAF

[ReAxion]

The law gets repealed the next day.

Right after the Cry of Persecution Heard 'Round The World.

 

[Seth Enosh]

How is this different from denying a race or gender?

The bill doesn't legalize discrimination directly like this, it just tosses the decision to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the law or the person's religious beliefs should prevail.

If Indiana had a gay-rights statute (does it?) it's quite possible that courts would rule that businesses should serve them indiscriminately; at the same time they could make small exceptions for stuff like photographers who would be willing to take studio shots of a gay person, but don't want to be present at a wedding ceremony they find offensive.

Other than the photography case and anything really similar to that (where you have to be present at a wedding ceremony), it's hard to see how the courts would rule in favor of allowing discrimination. These bills are getting pushed by republican legislatures precisely because of the photography court case in New Mexico and a few other similar ones, not because of some epidemic of business owners denying gay people service at restaurants or business establishments.

Edit: also I suspect many of the state legislators here would be totally fine with a Muslim refusing to take photographs at a christian church ceremony, or to provide pork when catering the reception for the ceremony or something. it's pretty much the same ideas applied.

 

[jWILL253]

You guys have way too much confidence in our Supreme Court, apparently.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

 

[Metaphoreus]

Old but reliable posts providing background on this subject:

[The Indiana bill is] largely identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, enacted in 1993 by a unanimous vote of the (Democrat-controlled) House and a vote of 97-3 in the (Democrat-controlled) Senate, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. [It is] also similar to the state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts enacted by 19 other states (by Wikipedia's count) in the years since 1997 (and most before 2005), when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Act could not apply to state laws. Nevertheless, the federal Act has been applied by the Supreme Court with respect to federal laws and regulations (remember Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), so it's unlikely that a federal constitutional challenge to the state laws would succeed.

The way these laws typically work is as follows: the law provides an exemption to a person from other law if such other law substantially burdens the person's religious exercise, unless the government can prove that enforcing the other law serves a compelling government interest and that such enforcement is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. In other words, courts are called upon to balance the interests of the government against the interests of private persons on a case-by-case basis. So, contra the poster above, none of these laws would permit terrorism--the government clearly has an interest in protecting life and property against attacks, and prohibitions on such attacks are undoubtedly the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in preventing them. (For those interested in further reading on how the federal law operates, see the series of posts by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh here.)

There are a number of problems with framing these laws as anti-gay or as providing a "license to discriminate." First, the laws are far too broad to permit such pigeonholing. They apply to government actions across the board, not merely those that require non-discrimination against gays. Maybe providing religious exemptions from otherwise generally applicable laws is a good idea, or maybe it's a bad idea, but that decision should be made by considering the law as a whole, not one (merely possible, as will be seen) application of the law. (Here are a few ways in which the Texas RFRA has been applied over the years, for instance.) Second, it's not even clear that these laws provide private parties with a defense against private plaintiffs suing to enforce civil rights legislation. For example, New Mexico has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act much like the one passed by the Michigan House. Yet, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the NM RFRA did not apply in a suit between a lesbian couple and a photographer who refused to photograph the couple's commitment ceremony, because the NM RFRA applied only to suits in which the government was a party.

Finally, it should be noted that these laws do not dictate a winner; they describe a method of analysis in which the courts should engage. (And the Laycock article I linked to above claims that 18 states have mini-RFRAs already on the books, while an additional 12-13 interpret their state Constitutions to provide similar protections, meaning that a majority of states already have these sorts of laws in place.)

Ivysaur12 earlier mentioned an important difference between the federal RFRA and the bill proposed by Indiana lawmakers: namely, the Indiana bill seems to clearly apply to private lawsuits, whereas the federal RFRA isn't so clear on that point. But, as importantly, the bill still does not dictate a winner. Instead, it simply makes clear that the Indiana RFRA could be raised as a defense in a lawsuit between private parties; but it doesn't say whether that defense would be successful. Like other RFRAs, the Indiana bill creates a regime of case-by-case religious exemption, not a categorical exception to an otherwise applicable law. (And note that this bill would have no effect on a dispute between a gay customer and wayward shopkeeper unless local law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation--neither federal nor state law does so, though.)

Finally, the final section of the bill doesn't mean that private employers can't be sued by employees. It means that the bill doesn't create any new cause of action against private employers. If some other law creates a cause of action against an employer, a person can still sue under that other law.

 

[AntoneM]

Wouldn't this bill allow for Sharia?

 

[ivysaur12]

Old but reliable posts providing background on this subject:





Ivysaur12 earlier mentioned an important difference between the federal RFRA and the bill proposed by Indiana lawmakers: namely, the Indiana bill seems to clearly apply to private lawsuits, whereas the federal RFRA isn't so clear on that point. But, as importantly, the bill still does not dictate a winner. Instead, it simply makes clear that the Indiana RFRA could be raised as a defense in a lawsuit between private parties; but it doesn't say whether that defense would be successful. Like other RFRAs, the Indiana bill creates a regime of case-by-case religious exemption, not a categorical exception to an otherwise applicable law. (And note that this bill would have no effect on a dispute between a gay customer and wayward shopkeeper unless local law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation--neither federal nor state law does so, though.)

Finally, the final section of the bill doesn't mean that private employers can't be sued by employees. It means that the bill doesn't create any new cause of action against private employers. If some other law creates a cause of action against an employer, a person can still sue under that other law.

Would you have voted for this bill if you were a member of the Indiana legislature?

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The way I figure, if it's legal to not serve one group because of your faith, then there shouldn't be any group who can't refuse to serve for the same reason.

And that's why laws like this are nonsense.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Would you have voted for this bill if you were a member of the Indiana legislature?

I haven't read the bill closely enough to be able to answer that question. However, I am in favor of RFRA-like protections for religious folk.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The bill doesn't legalize discrimination directly like this, it just tosses the decision to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the law or the person's religious beliefs should prevail.

If Indiana had a gay-rights statute (does it?) it's quite possible that courts would rule that businesses should serve them indiscriminately; at the same time they could make small exceptions for stuff like photographers who would be willing to take studio shots of a gay person, but don't want to be present at a wedding ceremony they find offensive.

Other than the photography case and anything really similar to that (where you have to be present at a wedding ceremony), it's hard to see how the courts would rule in favor of allowing discrimination. These bills are getting pushed by republican legislatures precisely because of the photography court case in New Mexico and a few other similar ones, not because of some epidemic of business owners denying gay people service at restaurants or business establishments.

Edit: also I suspect many of the state legislators here would be totally fine with a Muslim refusing to take photographs at a christian church ceremony, or to provide pork when catering the reception for the ceremony or something. it's pretty much the same ideas applied.

Actually, the pork thing wouldn't fly. That's because you can't legally compel a business to supply a product it doesn't supply.

The question is, can you compel them to offer the same service to a gay member of the public that they provide without question to every other member of the public. IMHO, yes, public is public, don't like it, then get out of that business.

 

[ivysaur12]

I haven't read the bill closely enough to be able to answer that question.

Let me know when you do.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Let me know when you do.

I'll spare you the suspense: I probably won't.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Actually, the pork thing wouldn't fly. That's because you can't legally compel a business to supply a product it doesn't supply.

The question is, can you compel them to offer the same service to a gay member of the public that they provide without question to every other member of the public. IMHO, yes, public is public, don't like it, then get out of that business.

That's a legitimate view. I think there is an obvious difference between being present at a gay wedding ceremony and serving a gay couple a hamburger at a lunch counter, but that difference doesn't necessarily mean the law should not enforce both. Of course there are also some people in this thread who think doctors should be legally required to assist in abortions, so clearly there's a wide variety of views on this.

Right now many states don't have a public accomodations law protecting gays at all, personally I'm in favor of something like what Utah has recently passed which joins new protection against discrimination with some protection for those who don't want to be forced to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate their beliefs.

Just wanted to add my original comment because some of the earlier posts and some of the reporting on these RFRA amendments has had an alarmed tone as if businesses are suddenly going to start turning away gays at the lunch counter or establishing a gays-only water cooler, like Jim Crow 2.0 or something. There's no way that will fly with or without these bills becoming law, any freedom they'd grant is much more limited.

 

[Alphahawk]

You guys have way too much confidence in our Supreme Court, apparently.

Every time a state has tried to block gay marriage the supreme court has knocked them down. I see this as nothing different.

 

[jblank83]

“It’s important that we allow our citizens to hold religious beliefs, maybe even those we might be appalled by, and to be able to express those”

No?

 

[Talon]

Did that rider from a dissenting rep. that required all businesses to proudly display that they discriminated against certain folks make it through?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

“It’s important that we allow our citizens to hold religious beliefs, maybe even those we might be appalled by, and to be able to express those,” said Rep. Tom Washburne, R-Inglefield.

Um, so, did this guy just say ISIS is welcome in Indiana?

 

[ivysaur12]

I'll spare you the suspense: I probably won't.

Fair.

 

[uncredited male]

Imagine if the Republicans were as good at everything else as they are in naming their legislation.

 

[Atlantis]

Replace with Indiana.

This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.

This is hilarious.

 

[kirby_fox]

I'm gonna open up a shop just across state lines. Due to my religious beliefs of equal rights, bigots aren't allowed in my store. I will have huge signs indicating this.

Your move Indiana.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Would you say the same thing about doctors being forced to administer euthanasia?

Yes. A close friend of mine has had to do this. It absolutely sucks for him, but he understands it's part of his job and has to go through with it.

 

[LegendofJoe]

So Muslims that practice strict adherence to Islamic law are A ok in Indiana?

 

[HylianTom]

Every time a state has tried to block gay marriage the supreme court has knocked them down. I see this as nothing different.

These laws will be challenged in court (anything remotely contentious is these days), and a case will likely reach SCOTUS a few years from now. The fate of this type of law could very well be determined on November 8, 2016.

These theocrats are going to keep on pushing until the courts smack them down for good. It'll take more than just this year's rulings to see to that.

 

[LiquidSword]

Is this the same bill that would make domestic abuse legal if you cited religious grounds?

Edit: I guess it's Michigan, but this article says that 19 states have adopted laws similar to the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. Also the politicians behind these bills in Indiana, Michigan, and Georgia have all cited the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act as a model.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-measure-moves-forward-michigan

 

[Bowdz]

Despite this law being a terrible, bigoted piece of legislation, there is a silver lining.

I originally thought that if, like the winds seem to be pointing, the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage nationally, the issue would be taken off of the table in 2016, much to the benefit of the Republicans (they would have one less social issue to be against popular opinion and the Democrats would have one less issue to highlight the GOP's backwardness). With this sudden rise of "religious freedom" laws however, the issue which has rarely helped the GOP in national elections will be forced back into the debate! Just like the slew of stupid state Reps. and Sen. candidates that ran their mouths concerning rape and abortion in 2012 (much to the GOP's national detriment), we should see state and local GOP crazies pull their national image far to the right again.

Bad policy, but great politics for the Dems.

 

[kess]

This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.

Wow, that's even better than the "Welcome to Gary" sign on I-80 located on the premises of a sewage treatment plant.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Is this the same bill that would make domestic abuse legal if you cited religious grounds?

RFRA already exists on a federal level and in many states, it hasn't been successfully used to challenge the Violence against Women Act or state laws against domestic violence.

It's extremely unlikely that state courts in Indiana will use the Indiana RFRA to overturn domestic violence laws.

 

[hateradio]

:lol

 

[Velcro Fly]

my state rep passed away today

he hasn't been down there to vote against these things (they would have passed anyway)

 

[Einbroch]

Indiana truly is fucking backwards.

Been living in Lafayette for two years now and I've never shaken my head so much in my life.

This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.

I see this sign every time I head back from Chicago. The other side says "Jesus is Real".

 

[KingK]

Glad I'll be leaving this shit state next year.

 

[Yagharek]

Christian Bigots Immunity Act

 

[LostCaress]

 

[Easy_D]

Religious Freedom at the sake of the freedom of people we don't like. So the bill has absolutely nothing to do with freedom? I guess a catchy name is better than being informative.

 

[speculawyer]

They are playing with fire here. Don't want to serve gays? Oh. So can hardcore fundamentalist Mormons not serve black people? Can Muslims not serve jews?

 

[speculawyer]

This is what greets me whenever I cross the border into Indiana.

Kinda redundant at that point.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I defer to myself.

The people in this country seriously need to learn the first amendment - freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, of religion... is not about allowing you to do whatever you want on religious grounds, or let the media do whatever it wants, or let you say whatever you want, however you want, to whomever you want - it's about individual expression, open communication, and information dissemination.

There are legal restrictions on making threatening, false, or hateful speech. But we still don't understand that using religious beliefs to impose restrictions on others or refuse service in a place of public accommodation (like a business) are not okay, nor do we seem to understand that using the media to distort information on a society-wide level (such as in matters of medicine or public policy) is poisonous to any society or democracy which is meant to either serve the public interest, or is reliant on the input and contributions of the public.

And I don't think we ever will - this country has had yellow journalism embedded into its very core, traceable all the way to the reporting on the Boston Massacre (and earlier!) - and religion is too sensitive of an issue for anyone to stand up and say "No, fuck your religious beliefs, it's not okay to have slaves/segregate/restrict someone else's abortion/not allow gay marriage/refuse jewish doctors to having admitting privileges or residency/etc. Your beliefs are you own, and no one can take those beliefs away, but you can't use them to impose your will from a position of authority or public accommodation."

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Fucking religion, man.

 

[Impotaku]

Find it bizarre that been born gay which is something that nobody has any control over is ignored & yet religon which is nothing but a lifestyle choice, is the one to be protected with this backwads ass law.

It amazes me in 2015 that shit like this is still going on.

 

[HighResTomato]

Where is this bullshit of Muslims not serving Christians or Jews coming from in this thread. This reverse is been happening for a while with or without this law.

 

[snacknuts]

Where is this bullshit of Muslims not serving Christians or Jews coming from in this thread. This reverse is been happening for a while with or without this law.

They're pointing out the fact that IF a Muslim store owner tried to refuse service to a Christian or Jewish patron on the basis of this bill, the people trying to pass this nonsense would be outraged.

 

[Ourobolus]

Cool. My business operates under Sharia Law anyway.

 

[Razmos]

Cool to see that bigots have more rights than I do.

Reminds me of the idiots online who defend homophobes by saying they have a right to say what they want and I have no right to be offended because it's just their opinion.

Ridiculous.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Indiana House staunch defenders of what they imagine Constitution to be.

 

[Pillville]

Would you say the same thing about doctors being forced to administer euthanasia?

A doctor not doing a certain SERVICE?
Ok.

A doctor not serving certain PEOPLE?
No. that's discrimination.

It's not that hard to understand, and way off topic here.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Let's see what happens when someone puts a "No Christians or Dogs" sign in their door.

 

[AndyD]

Let's see what happens when someone puts a "No Christians or Dogs" sign in their door.

I like the dogs part. Gives it a little extra.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Helpful map that reinforces that laws like RFRAs are the status quo in American law:

Imagine if the Republicans were as good at everything else as they are in naming their legislation.

This law was named by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It's only recently that liberals have started rejecting their historically strong support of religious liberty and other First Amendment concepts.

Let's see what happens when someone puts a "No Christians or Dogs" sign in their door.

They are playing with fire here. Don't want to serve gays? Oh. So can hardcore fundamentalist Mormons not serve black people? Can Muslims not serve jews?

It's not exactly a mystery what would happen in those scenarios. Discriminating on the basis of race or religion in public accommodations would violate both state and federal law. The public accommodator could raise either the state or federal RFRA in an attempt to avoid the effect of those laws, but he or she would probably lose, since the state probably has a compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination in public accommodations (either of you are free to take up the contrary position, if you'd like), and prohibiting that discrimination is almost certainly the least restrictive way of prohibiting it.

As I have said again and again: RFRAs do not dictate winners; it describes an analysis in which courts must engage in determining who wins.