# 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:** 12
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/221 "2015-04-01T20:12:27Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > People have had a lot of fun pranking Sweet Cakes by Melissa, abakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. > [Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Gay Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter | HuffPost Voices](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-oregon_n_3355314.html) > Apparently they have no problem with expressive acts that involve making cakes that celebrate > Out of wedlock births > Pagan rituals ( with pentagram decorations, even) > Divorce parties > Human cloning So? If the gay couple wanted a standard wedding cake, then they should have gotten it. If they wanted a custom story about their unique story and love, they have no right to demand that Melissa think one up. > [@](#): > > And Elane Photograohy LOST their cases, by the way. So much for expressive acts as a defense. The US Supreme Court did not rule against Elane Photography. The New Mexico Supreme Court did, and you’re right: they rejected the argument that Elane Photography was “expressive” enough to raise a First Amendment concern. The US Supreme Court simply failed to accept the case, which is not a decision on the merits thereof. I wish they had, but I’m okay with the general concept that a wedding photographer is not doing anything uniquely creative: he’s taking the same pictures, in the same poses, of the couple and the wedding party. With all due respect to Ansel Adams (and Robert Mapplethorpe!) wedding pictures are not generally artistic expressions of the photographer in the same way that Adams’ and Mapplethorpe’s photography is an artistic expression of their view of the worlds they photograph. (And a moment’s thought experiment will make this clear: can I go to Robert Mapplethorpe and demand he take pictures of me and my wife? Of course not. He’s creating art, not commercial photography. And who ever looks at wedding pictures for a glimpse into the artistic views of the photographer?) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/222 "2015-04-01T20:20:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I asked an OT question a few posts ago that he answered. Just wanted to know why employers can discriminate against actors based on race if the role calls for a specific race. Yes. There are laws exempting theatrical casting from equal opportunity laws. The NFL is exempt from having to hire handicapped persons. But there is no reason other than bigotry for a cake-maker to refuse service to a gay couple. It neither breaks his arm nor picks his pocket. It’s a cake. There is no religious content to baking a cake. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/223 "2015-04-01T20:22:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is no religious content to baking a cake. There can be to eating one, when the heavens part and the angels come down singing… Now I want cake. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/224 "2015-04-01T20:23:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Practical question: What about sole proprietorships that operate on something of a “feel like it/don’t feel like it” basis? . . . When it becomes evident that he never “feels like it” for a black patron, but always is willing for a white one, then we sue his ass for discrimination. It is fairly commonplace in rental discrimination cases to send two identical applicants to a rental office. It sometimes happens that the white applicant is told, “Yes, the apartment is vacant, and you can move in whenever you want,” but the black applicant is told, “Oh, we’re sorry, someone else rented it before you got here.” Demonstrable proof of unequal treatment is really solid grounds for a lawsuit. Your “feelings” had damn well better be race-neutral. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/225 "2015-04-01T20:25:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. > > The misinformation machine has really done the trick. > > In your link, Gov. Hutchinson is quoted: > > But he’s in Arkansas, which is the Eighth Federal Circuit. > > In _In re Young v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church_, 141 F. 3d 854 (8th Cir. 1998), the federal court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas, ruled that the RFRA does provide a defense in citizen suits in which the government is not a party. > > So in the 8th Circuit, the RFRA is permitted as a defense in private litigation between parties. So that’s NOT a difference between the Arkansas law and the federal law. Whatever his other flaws Gov. of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson is an experienced attorney with a reputation for being fairly sharp intellectually, so I’m not going to discount his interpretation of the legislation as driven by “misinformation” (per your characterization) just yet. > [@](#): > > William Asa Hutchinson (born December 3, 1950) is an American politician who has been the 46th Governor of Arkansas since 2015. Previously he was U.S. Attorney for the Fort Smith-based Western District of Arkansas, U.S. Congressman from the Third District of Arkansas, Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the first Undersecretary for Border & Transportation Security at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In 2006, Hutchinson was the Republican candidate for governor of Arkansas and lost to Democrat Mike Beebe, the outgoing state attorney general. In 2014 Hutchinson was again the Republican nominee for Governor, this time winning the election over Democrat Mike Ross to become Governor of Arkansas ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/226 "2015-04-01T20:28:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So? > > If the gay couple wanted a standard wedding cake, then they should have gotten it. If they wanted a custom story about their unique story and love, they have no right to demand that Melissa think one up. > > The US Supreme Court did not rule against Elane Photography. > > The New Mexico Supreme Court did, and you’re right: they rejected the argument that Elane Photography was “expressive” enough to raise a First Amendment concern. > > The US Supreme Court simply failed to accept the case, which is not a decision on the merits thereof. I wish they had, but I’m okay with the general concept that a wedding photographer is not doing anything uniquely creative: he’s taking the same pictures, in the same poses, of the couple and the wedding party. With all due respect to Ansel Adams (and Robert Mapplethorpe!) wedding pictures are not generally artistic expressions of the photographer in the same way that Adams’ and Mapplethorpe’s photography is an artistic expression of their view of the worlds they photograph. > > (And a moment’s thought experiment will make this clear: can I go to Robert Mapplethorpe and demand he take pictures of me and my wife? Of course not. He’s creating art, not commercial photography. And who ever looks at wedding pictures for a glimpse into the artistic views of the photographer?) That’s why is said they lost. I never said the Supreme Court heard it, they lost in the highest court that agreed to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/227 "2015-04-01T20:28:45Z")
[Local pizzeria](http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/indiana-pizzeria-tells-local-news-station-they-won%E2%80%99t-serve-same-sex-marriages/ar-AAajvps) in Indy is counting down the days until they can freely discriminate against gays. Of course, they said they wouldn’t deny service to gays coming into the store, just that they won’t be catering the perhaps fanciest gay wedding in Indy in the near future. I guess the owners often use the arrangements of the pepperoni as an expression of their religious faith ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/228 "2015-04-01T20:34:34Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Whatever his other flaws Gov. of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson is an experienced attorney with a reputation for being fairly sharp intellectually, so I’m not going to discount his interpretation of the legislation as driven by “misinformation” (per your characterization) just yet. Then he’s pandering to the misinformation, instead of explaining that in the Eighth Circuit, federal law already gives a private cause of action defense under the RFRA. ---
**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, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/229 "2015-04-01T20:37:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do. My opinion is: a business owner is in business to make money. A foolish business owner is one that refuses to serve customers. My further opinion is that it’s a legitimate aim of government to forbid unequal treatment at places of general public accommodation. Oh, but we are not debating whether discriminatory business practice is wise or foolish. That’s a different conversation. We’re debating whether discriminatory business practice would be codified by the proposed RFRA law. And while we agree that the aim of (good) government should be to forbid unequal treatment, that does not mean we can safely assume that the aim of this piece of legislation (and its sponsors) has that primary goal in mind. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/230 "2015-04-01T20:50:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then he’s pandering to the misinformation, instead of explaining that in the Eighth Circuit, federal law already gives a private cause of action defense under the RFRA. People, organizations, and corporations are reacting to the fairly obvious intent behind these pieces of legislation and I think most people have pretty good common sense bead on why, and by whom, these specific laws are being pushed at this point. If you somehow think giving a finely parsed dissertation on why they are really not _that_ different would put out this firestorm all I can tell you is don’t go into political crisis management. ---
**Author:** ![Avarie537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/48db29/32.png) [@Avarie537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avarie537)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/231 "2015-04-01T21:04:49Z")
> [@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? > > And when religion and sexual orientation come into conflict, why is it that we must defer to the far more arbitrary (religion)? In Indiana, sexual orientation is not a protected class. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/232 "2015-04-01T21:07:45Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Oh, but we are not debating whether discriminatory business practice is wise or foolish. That’s a different conversation. We’re debating whether discriminatory business practice would be codified by the proposed RFRA law. > > And while we agree that the aim of (good) government should be to forbid unequal treatment, that does not mean we can safely assume that the aim of this piece of legislation (and its sponsors) has that primary goal in mind. But **QuickSilver** – the reference to a compelling government interest wasn’t just an idle commentary about good government. The law specifically says: > [@Indiana RFRA](#): > > 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. In other words, if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in these contexts, then the law doesn’t protect the vendors. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/233 "2015-04-01T21:10:59Z")
> [@astro](#): > > People, organizations, and corporations are reacting to the fairly obvious intent behind these pieces of legislation and I think most people have pretty good common sense bead on why, and by whom, these specific laws are being pushed at this point. If you somehow think giving a finely parsed dissertation on why they are really not _that_ different would put out this firestorm all I can tell you is don’t go into political crisis management. My problem, **astro** , is that the people with their pretty good common sense bead on why, and by whom, these specific laws are being pushed are pushing back by relying on deceptive summaries. Every single thread on the SDMB has included credulous repetitions of those deceptions. So my point is this: in order to stoke the flames of attack, the law’s opponents used false and misleading claims about the law. Now, I agree, it’s too late for the governor to undertake a point-by-point refutation. ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/234 "2015-04-01T21:26:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But **QuickSilver** – the reference to a compelling government interest wasn’t just an idle commentary about good government. The law specifically says: > > In other words, **if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in these contexts** , then the law doesn’t protect the vendors. \ Pardon me if I’m asking the obvious, but can it be shown that in this piece of legislation preventing discrimination is focal to the government’s interests? My aim in asking isn’t to condemn the state government as being anti-gay; Just not to fall prey to the assumption that all legislative intentions are always in the interest of greatest social good. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/235 "2015-04-01T21:27:52Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Bullshit. No religious beliefs were ever threatened, and the law does nothing to protect religious beliefs. I have already listed, with a cite, examples in which governments in the USA tried to interfere with religious practices of different groups, and were stopped by the federal or state RFRAs. So have other posters. How do you justify saying that no religious freedom was ever threatened? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/236 "2015-04-01T21:33:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So my point is this: in order to stoke the flames of attack, the law’s opponents used false and misleading claims about the law. As did Gov. Pence when he claimed discrimination against gays was not the intent of this law. ---
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/237 "2015-04-01T21:45:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Secondly, you say the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of people who discriminate against one group more than others. Even if that’s true, and even if that’s somehow contrary their own version of their religious tradition, I cannot agree that law is unfair or unjust unless it _actually has that effect_. **In other words, you’ve hung your hat on the supposed purpose of the law. I don’t care about the subjective motivations of those who passed it: I care about the plain text of the law and how it can actually be used.** (emphasis added) Is that strictly the case? I believe in tax law, notes from the subcommittees that draft laws can be referred to by courts to help deign the intent of the law. Is that never the case outside tax law? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/238 "2015-04-01T21:48:11Z")
> [@bup](#): > > (emphasis added) > > Is that strictly the case? I believe in tax law, notes from the subcommittees that draft laws can be referred to by courts to help deign the intent of the law. > > Is that never the case outside tax law? Intent can certainly be relevant. In the Louisiana creationist lawsuit, various statements made by legislators about “Putting the Bible back in the classroom” were taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/239 "2015-04-01T21:54:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in these contexts, then the law doesn’t protect the vendors. Sure it does: it offers them the guarantee that their needs will be taken into account to the greatest degree possible when crafting a compromise; isn’t that the reason the “least restrictive means” language is in there? To continue protecting the vendors as much as possible? Where would that protection be for an atheist vendor? ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/240 "2015-04-01T21:55:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then he’s pandering to the misinformation, instead of explaining that in the Eighth Circuit, federal law already gives a private cause of action defense under the RFRA. I guess I have a problem with this scenario. Multiple legal scholars besides you are reading this law differently from you, ranging from writers at the Atlantic, to advocates for the law in Indiana, to the governor of Arkansas. In all cases, you’re positing that they’re either mistaken or lying about their interpretation. Is there no possibility either that they’re making a point slightly different from what you think they’re making (again, I think their analysis has more of a political thread than you do–they’re probably looking at the context in which the law is passed in order to determine its possible effects), or that there’s another legitimate legal analysis of the law? Or are you so convinced in your analysis that educated people who disagree with you are necessarily lying? [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=11) [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=13)