# What exactly did the Indiana GOP \*think\* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378 "2015-03-30T23:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/181 "2015-04-01T17:15:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Your religion says that gay marriage is sinful. You are asked to make a gay wedding happen. How is your religion not being threatened by being forced to do that? > > Here’s what I don’t get. We recognize that actual clergy cannot be forced to do weddings they don’t want to do. Is that a principle, or just something we’re allowing “for now”? No religious beliefs are threatened in the scenario you posit. How do you think that any religious beliefs are threatened in that hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/182 "2015-04-01T17:18:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I don’t think it violates the 1st Amendment, but I do think it does violate the 14th. I mis-spoke here: I think it _may_ violate the 1st Amendment, but think it _does_ violate the 14th. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/183 "2015-04-01T17:22:38Z")
From [a group](http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1854) that supported the Indiana law: > [@](#): > > Now the opponents of religious freedom are spreading misinformation about the law and threatening boycotts of Indiana in an attempt to force the General Assembly to adversely change the new religious freedom law. > > Here are 5 examples of how SB 101 will help protect religious freedom in Indiana: > > ``` > Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding. > Pastors should not be forced by the government to conduct a homosexual wedding at the church. > A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to rent his facility to a pro-abortion group. > A pro-life business owner should not be forced by the government to provide abortion coverage for his employees. > A Christian business owner should not be forced by the government to permit a male cross-dresser to use the women’s restroom. > > ``` > > The opponents of SB 101 say that the bill will give someone the right to refuse to serve someone in a restaurant. > > That’s not true and they know it! I’m a little confused about how this law can be used to prevent people from buying your pizza, buying a cake, or using your bathroom, but it can’t be used to refuse to serve someone in a restaurant. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/184 "2015-04-01T17:26:07Z")
Regarding the pastor, there is no way the state would ever tell any church who they could or could not marry. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/185 "2015-04-01T17:27:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a confusing mish-mash of claims. What religion do you imagine is in play here? > > The Old Testament prohibitions against mixed-cloth wearers and shellfish eaters don’t apply to Christians. > > I imagine that the Christian pizzamakers would also refuse an adulterers’ love-fest or the catering of a thieves’ conference. Please cite the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. I can’t recall Jesus weighing in on the issue… Paul, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/186 "2015-04-01T17:30:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All right, I admit that’s an arguable inference. Appreciated. > [@](#): > > Even if this were so, it seems beyond cavil that an honest commentator would admit the differences he highlights are not there. This applies especially to the second matter – the right of private action. The author strongly implies that this is not available at federal law, and in fact it is in at least four federal circuits, the majority of the circuits that have even considered the issue. > > Without that admission, we’re left with an authoritative sounding pronouncement that is substantially misleading. This goes into territory that I don’t feel qualified to judge–essentially there’s one legal scholar making one claim, and another saying the claim is leaving out a giant piece, and the first legal scholar not having an opportunity to explain why they left that piece out. I’m happy to **provisionally** accept that they should have included the explanation you said, with the provision being that I’m not completely clear on the issues involved. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/187 "2015-04-01T17:30:20Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#): > > If you’re gay and want your wedding to include catered pizza, don’t call [Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind.](http://www.eater.com/2015/4/1/8325219/indiana-pizza-parlor-public-deny-service-lgbt-gay-law-discrimination) Which ironically sounds like a gay as hell pizza place by the name. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/188 "2015-04-01T17:31:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. So cities and towns and villages and counties can all have religious beliefs, aye? Because they are corporations and corporations are people and people can have religious beliefs, aye? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/189 "2015-04-01T17:42:21Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Please cite the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. I can’t recall Jesus weighing in on the issue… > > Paul, perhaps? Yup. If Jesus ever spoke about homosexual practice, the words were not preserved. But Paul did (all translations from the New American Standard). In Romans 1:26-27: > [@](#): > > For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 1 Cor 6:9-10: > [@](#): > > Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Tim 1:8-11: > [@](#): > > But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/190 "2015-04-01T17:44:38Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Please cite the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. I can’t recall Jesus weighing in on the issue… > > Paul, perhaps? Religion can say whatever you want it to say. The New Testament can say whatever you want it to say. Jesus did say, “Keep the law.” So by inference he said man should not lie with man as with woman. **Bricker** , finest picker of nits the land has ever seen, probably picked shellfish because there is a specific out (from Peter), and I bet there’s one about mixed-cloth, too, though I don’t know it. And yeah, Paul probably did say something about gay not being the way. There’s the thing in (Corinithians?) that has that Greek verb that most scholars think means ‘to gay.’ I get what you’re doing, and I don’t agree with the law, and I’m okey-doke with gaying and gender-queering and whatever else, but there are sincere Christians who think gayness is a sin, and we can hate them, but I don’t think it’s fair to say they’re hypocrites. Dicks, sure. Hypocrites? That’s tougher to prove. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/191 "2015-04-01T17:47:18Z")
> [@astro](#): > > A few ID’d here > [Indiana Bill Signing Guest Bigots](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/29/1374042/-Indiana-Bill-Signing-Guest-Bigots) Thank you astro! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/192 "2015-04-01T17:47:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So cities and towns and villages and counties can all have religious beliefs, aye? Because they are corporations and corporations are people and people can have religious beliefs, aye? No, no, and no. Once again I will point out that the RFRA protects religious _practices_ of corporations, not religious _beliefs_. Cities, towns, villages, and counties can’t have religious practices, because such practices are forbidden as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) as applied to the states via the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)). (Humorously enough, at least in this discussion of corporations, the practice of applying the Bill of Rights, which originally bound only Congress, against the states is called _selective incorporation_.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/193 "2015-04-01T17:49:50Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Bricker** , finest picker of nits the land has ever seen, probably picked shellfish because there is a specific out (from Peter), and I bet there’s one about mixed-cloth, too, though I don’t know it. There’s a general exemption for Gentiles from the bulk of Mosiac law, as seen in Act 15:6. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/194 "2015-04-01T17:56:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, no, and no. > > Once again I will point out that the RFRA protects religious _practices_ of corporations, not religious _beliefs_. > > Cities, towns, villages, and counties can’t have religious practices, because such practices are forbidden as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) as applied to the states via the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)). > > (Humorously enough, at least in this discussion of corporations, the practice of applying the Bill of Rights, which originally bound only Congress, against the states is called _selective incorporation_.) Thank you for pointing out my erroneous use of the word “beliefs” when I meant “practices”. If a corporation is a person and the government cannot restrict the practice of said religion, how is a city prevented by the 1st Amendment from practicing a religion? Are you saying that some people have a different set of rights with respect to the the practice of religion? That some people are, in fact, prevented from practicing their religion? Because I think the 1st Amendment prevents _governments_ from establishing religion, but not people. How is “government” defined legally, like in the Dictionary Act? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/195 "2015-04-01T18:03:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > WHy Indiana? There are 20 other states with such laws, plus the federal government. Because we have to start fighting back somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/196 "2015-04-01T18:03:31Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Thank you for pointing out my erroneous use of the word “beliefs” when I meant “practices”. If a corporation is a person and the government cannot restrict the practice of said religion, how is a city prevented by the 1st Amendment from practicing a religion? Are you saying that some people have a different set of rights with respect to the the practice of religion? That some people are, in fact, prevented from practicing their religion? The RFRA is a federal law. It binds Congress and the federal system. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The RFRA cannot permit that which the Constitution forbids. Nothing in the federal constitution forbids the RFRA’s protection of private corporations. But something in the federal constitution – the First Amendment – forbids state-run corporations such as cities, towns, and villages from exercising the practice of religion. So, yes: some people – not natural people, but corporate people – are prevented from practicing religion. The people that are prevented by this constitutional bar are corporate people such as cities, counties, towns, and villages. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/197 "2015-04-01T18:05:09Z")
Why is this even a conversation we’re having in this day and age? Are there not fundamental principals and laws on the books that say you cannot discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation or religion? And when religion and sexual orientation come into conflict, why is it that we must defer to the far more arbitrary (religion)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/198 "2015-04-01T18:06:42Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Because I think the 1st Amendment prevents _governments_ from establishing religion, but not people. How is “government” defined legally, like in the Dictionary Act? Your thinking is incorrect. The First Amendment prevents _Congress_ from establishing religion, and later cases extended that prohibition to other governmental functions. The entities that are prevented from establishing religion are clearly defined in the body of caselaw surrounding the Establishment Clause, but the word “government” is not defined in this context because the prohibitions don’t mention “government” to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/199 "2015-04-01T18:07:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The RFRA is a federal law. It binds Congress and the federal system. > > But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The RFRA cannot permit that which the Constitution forbids. > > Nothing in the federal constitution forbids the RFRA’s protection of private corporations. > > But something in the federal constitution – the First Amendment – forbids state-run corporations such as cities, towns, and villages from exercising the practice of religion. > > So, yes: some people – not natural people, but corporate people – are prevented from practicing religion. The people that are prevented by this constitutional bar are corporate people such as cities, counties, towns, and villages. Where is the language that differentiates between state-run corporations and other corporations? Is that something that has been decided in SCOTUS decisions? Has a case ever been brought that argued that cities, etc. are people and the case was lost? And again, how is “government” defined in our laws? ETA: Just saw your post above with the answer to this; thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/200 "2015-04-01T18:10:39Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Why is this even a conversation we’re having in this day and age? > > Are there not fundamental principals and laws on the books that say you cannot discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation or religion? No. Gender: yes, but laws impacting gender classifications are analyzed with an intermediate standard of scrutiny. Race: yes, and laws impacting racial classifications are analyzed with strict scrutiny. Religion: yes, and laws impacting religion are analyzed with strict scrutiny. But sexual orientation: no, at least not on the federal level. Some states have higher levels of protection for sexual orientation, but others do not. Laws impacting classification by sexual orientation are analyzed at the lowest, most forgiving standard, called “rational basis.” The rational basis test is sometimes know as the test that’s impossible to fail. > [@](#): > > And when religion and sexual orientation come into conflict, why is it that we must defer to the far more arbitrary (religion)? Because that’s the law passed by the legislature. Why must you limit your speed to 55? Same answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378.md?page=11)