# 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:** 8
**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, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/141 "2015-04-01T14:49:52Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > If I were an Indiana resident/voter I’d be curious about the actual/projected cost of this bill due to lost business, etc. Anyone have an idea? As of right now, two governors have stated that they will not pay for anyone to come to Indiana on business trips. ExactTarget’s new owners will no longer send anyone to Indiana for training. Many many large businesses are saying that this is a horrible idea and that they oppose it (Lilly, NCAA, Anthem, IU Health, Cummins, Roche, Dow, etc). GenCon may look into moving for next year (not enough notice to re-organize for this year). Disciples of Christ may cancel for 2017. Here’s a good list [These Events Were Canceled Because Of Indiana's New Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Law | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/indiana-religious-freedom_n_6976712.html) NB: as an Indy resident, I am not that surprised or upset about Angie’s List not expanding on the east side. The city was going to waste $18m in taxpayer money to prop up a failing business, so that’s no skin off my tax bill. ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/142 "2015-04-01T14:52:26Z")
WHy Indiana? There are 20 other states with such laws, plus the federal government. That’s what I mean about “tactical offensive”. Not that I’d expect businesses to do things in a principled way rather than a strategic way, but I’m sure they could all go to Canada if they really felt this way and had balls to go with their feelings. ---
**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, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/143 "2015-04-01T15:01:43Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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. Correct – but when he accepts or rejects a client, it must be for legally permissible reasons. Now, it might be different if he were being hired to compose a concerto to celebrate the love of the couple. This is expressive conduct, and the law cannot compel him to create. ---
**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, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/144 "2015-04-01T15:07:58Z")
> [@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. > [@](#): > > “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. As slaves of Christ, do the will of God with all your heart. 7 Work with enthusiasm, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people. 8 Remember that the Lord will reward each one of us for the good we do, whether we are slaves or free.” ([Ephesians 6:5 NLT](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A5-8&version=NLT)) > > “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” ([1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A1-2&version=NLT)) Don’t you just hate it when one amendment contradicts another? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/145 "2015-04-01T15:10:52Z")
> [@Avarie537](#): > > As of right now, two governors have stated that they will not pay for anyone to come to Indiana on business trips. ExactTarget’s new owners will no longer send anyone to Indiana for training. Many many large businesses are saying that this is a horrible idea and that they oppose it (Lilly, NCAA, Anthem, IU Health, Cummins, Roche, Dow, etc). GenCon may look into moving for next year (not enough notice to re-organize for this year). Disciples of Christ may cancel for 2017. Here’s a good list [These Events Were Canceled Because Of Indiana's New Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Law | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/indiana-religious-freedom_n_6976712.html) > > NB: as an Indy resident, I am not that surprised or upset about Angie’s List not expanding on the east side. The city was going to waste $18m in taxpayer money to prop up a failing business, so that’s no skin off my tax bill. Thanks! I just wish I had business dealings with an Indiana based company so I could cancel. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/146 "2015-04-01T15:15:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct – but when he accepts or rejects a client, it must be for legally permissible reasons. > > Now, it might be different if he were being hired to compose a concerto to celebrate the love of the couple. This is expressive conduct, and the law cannot compel him to create. And at the end of the day, it’s a bit of a grey area that will ultimately get decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Many people in the New Mexico photography case felt that the photographers were being compelled to speak by taking photographs, but the court disagreed. ---
**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, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/147 "2015-04-01T15:16:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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. He doesn’t have to perform , and if he simply says that he’s not available as soon as the date/time/location is mentioned there won’t be a problem - as long as he doesn’t book another event after turning down this one. In most of the cases I’ve read about, ( which is by no means all of them) the problem starts when either: 1. the musician/florist/event planner has initially been available and then backs out after finding out the event is a same-sex wedding. 2. the musician/florist/ event planner’s initial response is not " I’m unavailable that day" but rather an explanation of why s/he doesn’t take jobs involving same-sex weddings. or 3. The potential customer suspected discrimination and found out that the provider subsequently accepted a booking forthe same date and time for some other sort of event. ---
**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, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/148 "2015-04-01T15:17:37Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So your claim that the RFRA only protects business owners who want to turn away gays is clearly false. Where did **Trinopus** make that claim? ---
**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, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/149 "2015-04-01T15:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It depends on the purpose of the analysis and the results to which it is employed. > > For example, if you wish to say, “Symbolically, this is a bad bill, because it creates an impression of hostility to gays,” then certainly a political analysis is the correct one to apply. > > If, however, you wish to make factual predictions about the reach, breadth, and effect of the law, then the only appropriate analysis is a legal one. I’ll modify this slightly. Some of us are not legal experts, but are nonetheless allowed to have opinions about laws, yes? When we encounter competing legal expertise, we may lack the ability to evaluate the particulars of the law. This is a common situation when dealing with areas of expertise. You, for example, lack medical expertise, but need to make medical decisions. Sometimes there are competing medical claims. In such circumstances, it can be helpful to look at the people making the medical claims. If you discover that the medical experts who are advising against a particular treatment are a subsidiary of PETA, and that they have agitated against any medical treatment that was developed using animal experimentation, you may rightly cast a skeptical eye toward their medical analysis–even if your level of medical expertise precludes your finding specific flaws in their arguments, or entirely understanding the flaws that other physicians claim exist in their arguments or understanding the PETA scientists’ rebuttals of those claims. Similarly, we’re in a situation in which competing legal experts are claiming what the effects of the law would be. The law is passed in a climate where SSM is gaining ground, a few months before a Supreme Court decision that will likely make it the law of the land. Conservative activists haven’t been complaining lately about how the government is impinging on religious freedom because it’s blocking Native Americans from taking peyote, or blocking Orthodox Jews from practicing religion in their homes; but they sure have been complaining a lot lately about how the government might make a baker provide a cake to a gay wedding. **In this climate** , several vocal anti-gay activists have asked for this law to be passed, and it’s been passed by a governor who’s spoken out against protection for gay people. Now, I’m no lawyer. I can’t provide legal analysis. But I can read competing legal analyses. And I can look at the folks who passed the law. It doesn’t make any sense to me, given the timing and the people arguing for it, that they’d go to all this effort and risk all this opprobrium and refuse to include protection for LBGT folks if the law **doesn’t** provide them with cover for engaging in legal discrimination against gay people. That’s the political analysis I’m talking about. How do you explain the timing and the activists pushing for the law, if it’s not intended to protect discrimination against LGBT folks? ---
**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, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/150 "2015-04-01T15:38:00Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As I’ve said before, I am personally opposed to any private business that denies service to anyone based on sexual orientation (or race or any other category irrelevant to the service), but I don’t support the government getting involved in such things other than in cases such as medicine where the customer’s well-being is at stake. While the Constitution may not specifically prohibit the government from interfering with freedom of cake-baking or flower arranging, forcing someone to fill a business order which they desire not to fill is plainly against the spirit of the First Amendment. Okay, so you’ve been arguing in this thread that Indiana’s law doesn’t do anything to harm gay LGBTQ folk. Indiana’s legislature is saying they are going to “clarify” the law to make sure that people understand that it doesn’t allow for discrimination of gay folk. You’re for this clarification, right? Since it brings everyone’s understanding of the law into line with your initial understanding? ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/151 "2015-04-01T15:42:31Z")
Better watch out, everyone! [Glenn Beck](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0kRbdXerHM&feature=youtu.be) says opposition to the law will lead to concentration camps. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/152 "2015-04-01T15:47:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Is “expressive content” a class of service governed by a different set of regulations? Is there a definition? “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” These are lines from _West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette_, which held that even though there is a legitimate governmental interest in national unity, it was impossible to conclude that “…a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.” ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/153 "2015-04-01T16:04:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s the political analysis I’m talking about. How do you explain the timing and the activists pushing for the law, if it’s not intended to protect discrimination against LGBT folks? I explain it by noting that similar – virtually identical – laws were passed in many different political climates, earlier. Therefore, it seems obvious that we do not need to postulate animus and intent to discriminate in order to explain the existence of such laws, since they found fertile ground in other times and places not so fraught with these political hot button issues. And I can point out that the legal commentators opposing the issue are doing so by very carefully parsing their words to create a false impression while remaining technically accurate. If we are to leave fact and enter the realm of speculation, I’d say that this is a good reason to infer that they know the facts are not as helpful to their cause as the false impression is. For example: I say that the laws are virtually identical. Someone posts a link to a legal commentator saying that the laws are actually very different. And nothing in that legal commentary is false, but… [This link has been offered at least once.](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/) > [@The Atlantic](#): > > That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. That’s a very deceptive claim. The federal RFRA _does_ embody such language, because it uses the word “person” and the federal Dictionary Act (also federal law) mandates that any federal law that says “person” must be read to include corporations, and it does not exclude ‘for-profit’ corporations. In fact, Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, and as you undoubtedly remember, the Supreme Court just recently validated Hobby Lobby’s ability to use the federal version of the RFRA for protection. So you can see for yourself: the defenders of this law are trying very hard to remain technically accurate while giving misleading information. The second supposedly different feature from the Atlantic article: > [@The Atlantic](#): > > The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. True…but very deceptive. Six federal circuits have considered this issue, and four of them found that the federal RFRA has an implied right to private action, even if the government is not a party to the proceeding. So in the majority of federal circuits that have confronted the issue, the federal RFRA **DOES** contain such a feature. The author doesn’t mention this, either. I agree that evaluating this second example is a little more difficult for the non-lawyer, but I can give you the case cites if you like. And in any event, the first one is easy for a non-lawyer to see through, since you know Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company and you know the Supreme Court found in their favor under the RFRA. That fact alone shows that the author’s claims are misleading. Doesn’t it? ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/154 "2015-04-01T16:09:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I explain it by noting that similar – virtually identical – laws were passed in many different political climates, earlier. Therefore, it seems obvious that we do not need to postulate animus and intent to discriminate in order to explain the existence of such laws, since they found fertile ground in other times and places not so fraught with these political hot button issues. Actually, I conclude the opposite from that. Indiana didn’t pass such legislation when there were other triggering events. Those states that passed their own RFRA in the wake of the SC’s decision limiting the federal RFRA to federal practices, for example, weren’t motivated by animus and intent to discriminate. States that are bringing up such laws right now? Animus and intent to discriminate may reasonably be postulated. But in this case, animus and intent to discriminate don’t need to be postulated: they’re plainly there. How else do you explain the anti-gay activists present at the signing ceremony? The differences in political climates don’t render the political climate irrelevant. Quite the opposite: differences in political climates mean that the political analysis is different in each case. And if we’re trying to figure out what folks want from the law, we look at the political background in which each law was passed. I agree with you that some of the legal analysis offered–on each side–is likely flawed. As a layperson, I’m not fully equipped to make that evaluation on my own (I can do so in certain clear or egregious cases, of course, but not in all cases). But what I can do is to look at the people involved in passing the law, see what they were trying to accomplish, and use that understanding to color my understanding of the law itself. Edit: and I think you’re misreading the Atlantic’s criticism of the law. I think they’re analyzing it both from a political and a legal perspective. The RFRA, while it technically embodies businesses given the Hobby Lobby decision, was likely not intended to do so (I’m certainly unaware of anyone promoting the law during its debate who talked about corporations being affected by it). This law is clearly intended to do so, and that’s a significant difference. The RFRA, given the recent decision, may have been rendered into one of those bits of poor law that inertia makes it difficult to undo, whereas this new law is a piece of bad legislation from the outset. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/155 "2015-04-01T16:13:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Well… this Indiana business seems poised to act on the “possibility” of refusing to provide service for gay weddings if the scenario presents itself. [Indiana Pizzeria: No Pies for Gay Weddings](http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/01/indiana-pizzeria-no-pie-for-gay-couples.html) > [@](#): > > A Walkerton, Indiana, pizza shop is the state’s first business to declare it will not service gay weddings after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law last week. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Memories Pizza’s Crystal O’Connor told a local news station. “We are a Christian establishment.” However, gay couples—like those of other faiths—are welcome to patronize the establishment on non-matrimonial occasions. “I don’t think it’s discrimination,” she told the news station. “It’s supposed to help people that have a religious belief.” > > When contacted by The Daily Beast, Memories Pizza owner Kevin O’Connor said he didn’t expect the statements to become a national story when the local news crew walked into his shop to ask questions Wednesday. > > “I don’t have a problem with gay people, I do not condone gay marriage and that’s what I said,” he said. “I don’t turn anybody away from the store, I don’t have a problem with gay people. I just don’t condone the marriage.” ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/156 "2015-04-01T16:20:18Z")
> [@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? Does feeding people make a wedding happen? Does taking pictures make a wedding happen? Does providing flowers make a wedding happen? Of course not. I’ve never heard of the couple that says, “We would have a wedding, but we can’t have pictures taken, so let’s call the whole thing off.” What’s happening is that you’re providing your service to people for a celebration. What they’re celebrating is not especially significant. We’ve decided as a society that you’d can’t fail to provide your services for certain reasons–you can’t refuse to provide it because you disapprove of the religion of the people involved, or the race, or the sex. And we’re very close to ruling that you can’t refuse to provide it for the sexual orientation. It’s all of a piece. A pizzeria can’t currently say, “I disapprove of miscegenation because I’m Christian Identity, so no pizzas for your wedding.” ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/157 "2015-04-01T16:22:19Z")
What about all the Christians who, holding the same beliefs, end up selling cars to, or building homes for, or doing network support, or serving drinks to gay people? They do so every single day, most likely. Somehow this doesn’t turn them into hell bound Christians, in fear for their mortal souls. So why is the caterer a special case? Because he knows they’re gay? If you’re in my restaurant and reveal in conversation that you’re gay am I allowed to cancel your order and refuse to serve you? It’s completely ridiculous in it’s entirety, in my opinion. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/158 "2015-04-01T16:26:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Actually, I conclude the opposite from that. Indiana didn’t pass such legislation when there were other triggering events. Those states that passed their own RFRA in the wake of the SC’s decision limiting the federal RFRA to federal practices, for example, weren’t motivated by animus and intent to discriminate. States that are bringing up such laws right now? Animus and intent to discriminate may reasonably be postulated. All right, I admit that’s an arguable inference. > [@](#): > > Edit: and I think you’re misreading the Atlantic’s criticism of the law. I think they’re analyzing it both from a political and a legal perspective. The RFRA, while it technically embodies businesses given the Hobby Lobby decision, was likely not intended to do so (I’m certainly unaware of anyone promoting the law during its debate who talked about corporations being affected by it). This law is clearly intended to do so, and that’s a significant difference. The RFRA, given the recent decision, may have been rendered into one of those bits of poor law that inertia makes it difficult to undo, whereas this new law is a piece of bad legislation from the outset. 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. ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/159 "2015-04-01T16:27:31Z")
I don’t buy the corporations are people argument. In some instances, there is an implied corporate personhood. Corporations pay taxes and may sue and be sued. But we don’t require corporations to be immunized nor does a corporation vote. It’s just as silly to state that a corporation can have a religious belief. If corporations were always people in every sense, then we wouldn’t have all found it so funny when Romney made his “corporations are people” statement. So the flower shop owner can have a religious belief, but the flower shop does not. It is an artificial construct made by the owner. You open a flower shop, you agree to serve the public like all public businesses. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/160 "2015-04-01T16:29:14Z")
> [@](#): > > A Walkerton, Indiana, pizza shop is the state’s first business to declare it will not service gay weddings after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law last week. “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Memories Pizza’s Crystal O’Connor told a local news station. “We are a Christian establishment.” One fallacy in their argument that they seem to be singling out only one (supposed) sin–homosexuality. I suspect that they happily serve adulterers, murders, thieves, non-believers, people who take the Lord’s name in vain, mixed-cloth wearers, shellfish eaters, etc., etc. I might actually support their position if they refused the business of anyone who sinned according to the bible. But when they just refuse gays, then it’s more because of bigotry rather than adherence to religious beliefs. [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=7) [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=9)