# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/121 "2015-04-01T14:17:06Z")
The political analysis is flawed too. What the hostile coverage seems to be saying is that RFRA is inappropriate in an age of acceptance of gay Americans. So fine, advocate for repeal of the federal version. Apparently the 1st amendment has become obsolete. ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/122 "2015-04-01T14:23:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s something I always wondered about. Is that the exception in civil rights law that allows moviemakers to hire only white people for a film, that it’s not a public accomodation? But wouldn’t employment law still cover that, or is there some other legal exception that allows for that? There is another exception: the BFOQ. This is an acronym for Bona-Fide Occupational Qualification, and it presumably would shield a casting director from employment law violations by allowing him to explain that while Tom Hanks is a fine and well-qualified actor, his skin color prevents his casting as Othello. The other factor that comes into play is “compelled speech,” which is a First Amendment defense having to do with cases in which the government’s regulations compel expressive content. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/123 "2015-04-01T14:25:59Z")
Wouldn’t a florist or wedding planner be able to claim “Compelled speech”, since there is a significant art content in what they do? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/124 "2015-04-01T14:28:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not an accurate statement of the law. > > Is it how you wish the law were, or were you mistaken about what the law is? > > Even though my business is adjacent to a public road, I can turn away customers for all sorts of reasons. “No shirt, no shoes, no service,” is a classic example. I can refuse to serve anyone wearing a Cowboys jersey if I please. > > What the law does prohibit comes into play if my business is a place of public accommodation. It might not be: my business might be a movie studio, and if it is, I can make whatever movie I wish. You cannot require me to cast you, to hire you as a director, or to allow you to write the screenplay. I can even say to you, quite legally, that I am not hiring you because you’re black. > > If my business is a place of public accommodation, I can still refuse to serve you if you’re wearing a Cowboys jersey. What the law prevents me from doing in this circumstance is refusing to serve you on the basis of your race. > > Is that what you meant to say? Why are you bringing in employers rights into this debate? Yes, I’m well aware of “bona-fide occupational qualifications”. That’s not at all what I’m talking about. I’m talking about minorities getting the same customer service everyone else gets. How you thought I was referring to employers rights is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/125 "2015-04-01T14:30:36Z")
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. ---
**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, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/126 "2015-04-01T14:30:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The political analysis is flawed too. What the hostile coverage seems to be saying is that RFRA is inappropriate in an age of acceptance of gay Americans. So fine, advocate for repeal of the federal version. Apparently the 1st amendment has become obsolete. Well… …maybe not. To offer an analogy, Virginia’s laws define this crime at § 18.2-344: > [@](#): > > Fornication > Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. I can imagine a backlash if some other state now tried to pass that law, even though its continued existence in the Virginia Code is a matter of history and inertia. It was just last year that Virginia repealed the crime of “Lewd and lascivious cohabitation,” which criminalized unmarried opposite sex partners living together. It should be possible to object to the current legislation while not advocating for the repeal of similar, older legislation, under the general theory of, “Look, I get that revamping old mistakes is going to be difficult and time-consuming, and I don’t demand we spend precious legislative time to do so…but I absolutely oppose spending precious legislative time now to ADD to the body of mistakes!” ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/127 "2015-04-01T14:31:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For this reason I am inclined to believe, at least as a starting proposition and subject to correcting citation, that the mayor’s spokesperson in your quote is right, and the other commentator wrong. The mayor’s spokeman is absolutely correct- he’s the guy who’s essentially saying it’s all speculation until a court decides. The other guy may or may not be correct- but It seems to me that the reason for the backlash is the _possibilty_ that he is correct. ---
**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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/128 "2015-04-01T14:33:42Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Why are you bringing in employers rights into this debate? Yes, I’m well aware of “bona-fide occupational qualifications”. That’s not at all what I’m talking about. > > I’m talking about minorities getting the same customer service everyone else gets. > > How you thought I was referring to employers rights is beyond me. I thought so because of the lack of qualifiers, and the resulting absoluteness, of this post: > [@Shakes](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Again, why is this law a bad thing? Don’t private businesses have the right to turn away customers anyway? > > Not if your business is located on a road that was paid for (in part) by my tax dollars. Same goes for police and and firemen too. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/129 "2015-04-01T14:34:23Z")
Practical question: What about sole proprietorships that operate on something of a “feel like it/don’t feel like it” basis? For instance, a musician may offer his services for hire at weddings. However, unlike a bakery that is open 9-to-5, Mon-Sat, this musician only performs at some weddings, not every single wedding that wants his services - he can’t, isn’t able to, doesn’t have to and doesn’t want to perform at every single one. So what prevents him from declining to perform at a gay/lesbian wedding? The law shouldn’t say, “You have no scheduling conflict that day, therefore you MUST perform” - he could say, “I’d rather go watch a movie or eat dinner with my family?” ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/130 "2015-04-01T14:35:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Indiana’s law makes no mention of sexual orientation. It guarantees the exact same rights to all. This is inaccurate, at best. The law clearly grants a religous person rights that an atheist cannot claim. ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/131 "2015-04-01T14:35:42Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > The mayor’s spokeman is absolutely correct- he’s the guy who’s essentially saying it’s all speculation until a court decides. The other guy may or may not be correct- but It seems to me that the reason for the backlash is the _possibilty_ that he is correct. If Indiana is not a Dillon’s Rule state, I’m not sure I see a particularly strong possibility there. Again, I welcome correction on the point, but it seems that everyone who is confidently declaring that the law will operate to legalize refusal of service is expressing a certainty, not their worry about a mere possibility. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/132 "2015-04-01T14:35:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well… > > …maybe not. > > To offer an analogy, Virginia’s laws define this crime at § 18.2-344: > > I can imagine a backlash if some other state now tried to pass that law, even though its continued existence in the Virginia Code is a matter of history and inertia. > > It was just last year that Virginia repealed the crime of “Lewd and lascivious cohabitation,” which criminalized unmarried opposite sex partners living together. > > It should be possible to object to the current legislation while not advocating for the repeal of similar, older legislation, under the general theory of, “Look, I get that revamping old mistakes is going to be difficult and time-consuming, and I don’t demand we spend precious legislative time to do so…but I absolutely oppose spending precious legislative time now to ADD to the body of mistakes!” Bad comparison though. The RFRA is still being used faithfully at the federal level by the courts to interpret law. A principled stand for gay rights in this case would involve supporting repeal of RFRA. It’s not an antiquated, unenforced law. But I think we both know this isn’t a principled stand. It’s a tactical offensive. They can’t roll back the laws already passed, but they can prevent new ones from being passed. Once it becomes normal for the full weight of the government to fall like a ton of bricks on Jenny the Wedding Planner, so that it’s viewed as the only civilized way to go, then they’ll start their final offensive against the RFRA in general. Remember, this isn’t the first time they’ve tried to attack religious freedom under the RFRA without being willing to attack the law itself. We just litigated the birth control mandate. ---
**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, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/133 "2015-04-01T14:37:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This is inaccurate, at best. The law clearly grants a religous person rights that an atheist cannot claim. True. And a very interesting question to boot: is the RFRA violative of the First Amendment for this reason? I don’t think it is, but a reasonable argument can be made that it is. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/134 "2015-04-01T14:40:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Practical question: What about sole proprietorships that operate on something of a “feel like it/don’t feel like it” basis? > > For instance, a musician may offer his services for hire at weddings. However, unlike a bakery that is open 9-to-5, Mon-Sat, this musician only performs at some weddings, not every single wedding that wants his services - he can’t, isn’t able to, doesn’t have to and doesn’t want to perform at every single one. So what prevents him from declining to perform at a gay/lesbian wedding? The law shouldn’t say, “You have no scheduling conflict that day, therefore you MUST perform” - he could say, “I’d rather go watch a movie or eat dinner with my family?” Practical answer: a dedicated investigator can build a case. Schedule a wedding performance and then reveal that your intended, Pat, is also your gender. See if the guy backs out. Do the same with another decoy, Dale. etc. ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/135 "2015-04-01T14:42:33Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Moreover, the whole point of such laws is that they provide equal protection to everyone’s religious beliefs. Bullshit. No religious beliefs were ever threatened, and the law does nothing to protect religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/136 "2015-04-01T14:43:18Z")
The 1st amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of religion. If government passes a law that infringes on the practices of some people, that’s an abridgement of freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/137 "2015-04-01T14:43:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Practical answer: a dedicated investigator can build a case. Schedule a wedding performance and then reveal that your intended, Pat, is also your gender. See if the guy backs out. Do the same with another decoy, Dale. etc. That’s not my point. My point is, doesn’t the musician have the ability to not be required to perform, since he is on an irregular and undefined work basis? This isn’t like a bakery that’s expected to serve everyone who walks in between 9-5. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/138 "2015-04-01T14:45:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The 1st amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of religion. If government passes a law that infringes on the practices of some people, that’s an abridgement of freedom of religion. True, but by that logic, every restriction on guns infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution isn’t something followed super-strictly. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/139 "2015-04-01T14:45:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Bullshit. No religious beliefs were ever threatened, and the law does nothing to protect religious beliefs. 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”? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/140 "2015-04-01T14:47:24Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > True, but by that logic, every restriction on guns infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution isn’t something followed super-strictly. The legal standard set up by the courts is “strict scrutiny”. The government must have a compelling interest and the law must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. But that wasn’t really my point. Another poster questioned whether granting people exemptions for their faith wasn’t a violation of the 1st amendment. The answer to that is no, since seperation of church in state is implied, not stated. Congress not abridging religious practice is stated explicitly, however. The explicit always overruled the implied. [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=6) [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=8)