No. Read up on Lester Maddox.
Perhaps. I don’t concede that point, but for the purposes of this argument, let’s say it’s true.
What was the actual effect of his statement? He may have been lying about the intent, but since the actual effect of the law is NOT to valorize discrimination, his lie doesn’t seem to have much real-world effect.
In contrast, the law’s opponents and their misstatements have contributed in a very meaningful way to threats of event cancellations and prohibitions on travel.
No, that’s the thing – the careful parsing of their comments is what convinces me that they’re not lying, but being deliberately deceitful.
It’s beyond cavil that the law in the 8th Circuit is that the RFRA gives a private right of action. No one answers that question directly. The fact of the federal caselaw is just not mentioned at all. That’s deliberate, a choice by either the author or whoever was advising him.
No, but that’s not the only piece of legislation on the books.
Yes.
But so what? In this event, I cannot see a less restrictive means of achieving the compelling goal. Can you?
Nowhere. The RFRA does not protect an atheist vendor.
It may be deceitful–or it may be that they don’t consider that to be relevant to the point they’re making. If they’re looking at the law’s intent, a court decision that appears to have changed the effect of another law beyond its intent may not be relevant.
But again – they’re arguing that the two laws are different in response to defenders of the Indiana law claiming it’s virtually identical to federal law. As evidence, they claim that the Indiana RFRA gives a right of private action, and the federal law does not.
They want the reader to conclude that the people claiming the laws are similar are lying or mistaken.
How is it not relevant to report that in the majority of federal circuits that have considered the issue, there IS a private right of action?
You seriously don’t see that as deceptive? Really?
I have a hard time seeing it as deceptive because, for example, the Republican governor of Arkansas has precious little reason to deceive folks in this fashion. It seems far likelier to me that you’re misunderstanding the point he’s making, or that he’s interpreting the law in a different way from you.
For example, while the 8th court has ruled (if I understand correctly) that the RFRA implicitly may be used in private suits, it’s entirely possible the Supreme Court will overturn this interpretation. The state law’s explicit allowance of its use in private suits may be harder to overturn. While both laws might be identical in the short term, this may be a long-term difference.
I assume ‘valorize’ is a legal term of art of which I am unaware, but it is indisputable that the the law was conceived, written and passed with the intent to provide cover for merchants who wish to discriminate against those seeking services for same sex weddings. As far as his real world effect, there are already business owners who have stated they will not provide service to gay weddings, as direct result of the new law. I guess we will now quibble over the meaning of the word ‘much’.
Okay, here you’re either wrong or being deliberately disingenuous. The claim being refuted was not that they are nearly identical; the claim was that they are identical.
Your claim that their effects are identical does not obviate the fact that the Indiana law specifies things that the federal law does not. A court case was needed to decide whether or not private, for-profit businesses could rely on the Federal RFRA but no such court case would be necessary in Indiana, since it codifies that in the language of the statute.
Are you done picking this nit?
Yes, it’s true that is technically possible, although I don’t know of any seasoned court watcher who rates it as likely.
Still, if someone had said, “One difference is that the state RFRA authorizes private party defenses, and while federal law also does in most circuits that have considered the issue, the Supreme Court could change that,” then I would agree there was no deception. But
See? You have identified a difference, and reported it forthrightly. That’s not what these commentators did. They shared their report, eliding detail in a way that helped their case.
I suppose that someone may have claimed they were precisely identical, and I agree they’re not. But many of the responses I have seen refer to this Washington Post article, which does not say ‘identical.’
Other commentaries have made similar statements.
Who made the claim you mention, that the federal and Indiana RFRA were literally identical?
So what?
Will the law actually allow it, regardless?
Yes but everyone is affected equally in your hypothetical, not one or two particular groups. So, terrible analogy.
Well, taking pictures for a gay couple getting married doesn’t affect the religious person’s life, does it? They aren’t getting married to someone of their same gender, they’re just taking some photographs. I fail to see how their religious beliefs are being threatened by doing so.
In the state of Indiana prior to the passage of this law what legal standing did gay people have to take action against a merchant who refused to serve them because they are gay?
As sexual orientation is not a protected class in IN, I think merchants can already discriminate against gay people.
So yes it’s true both opponents and proponents of the new law are either lying or misinformed when they claim the new law will ‘grant license to discriminate against gay people’. Discriminating against gay people doesn’t require a license at all as the law in that state stands.
From a legal perpective I don’t think anything really changes.
The goal of the anti-gay movement has always been to stop people from being gay. As that isn’t actually possible they’ve settled for doing whatever they can to prevent people from being openly gay and doing what they can to convince others gays should be punished for existing and be treated as second class citizens.
The proponents of the law have made it clear all be it falsely that this law would allow religious people. This furthers thier goal as socially it gives bigots a belief that it’s perfectly acceptable to refuse gays service on religious grounds. So rather than being a jer who refuses gay customers they can be a pious person of faith who doesn’t want to encourage sin.
The laws legal effect is minute compared to the social effect it encourages. The religious right views the law as a victory against the gay agenda. Unfortunately for them people noticed thier victory and aren’t happy about it. Thier victory is proving to be a financial loss to the state.
In case anyone was wondering, the two paragraphs above are a great example of how to make an effective and ethical argument for the law’s social cost.
Because you are not “making a gay wedding happen”. The loving couple that contracted you is making a gay wedding happen. You are providing a set of services such as booking a hall, renting chairs and a tent, hiring caterers, ordering invitations, etc. This is the same thing you do for all your clients. You are doing this for a fee, it is a commercial transaction. Don’t kid yourself, you are not a party to the ceremony.
Let’s try a hypothetical. Suppose you, the self-righteously smug wedding planner and the sodomite couple lived on a hypothetical remote US island with no ferry service. Let’s say your wedding hall and wedding planner services really WERE the only option for this couple and if you did not cooperate the wouldn’t be able to get married. So, by taking them as clients, you really ARE making a gay wedding happen? Do you think being the only game in town would strengthen your case for being a victim of religious discrimination? Do you think it would strengthen the couples case?
In parting, try this one on for size. How does it differ from your original example?
Your religion says that gay sex is sinful. By renting a room in your hotel to two men displaying physical affection towards each other you are being asked to help make gay sex happen. How is your religion not being threatened by being forced to do that?
The crazy length of this thread is just the thing about a dog-whistle law like this. It allows its supporters to be pedantic in hostile environments, and to claim they’ve been grievously misrepresented by the liberal media when people point out the obvious. But dog whistles assume that everybody’s a moron who can’t see the clear message being sent by every aspect of the passage of the law.
It may indeed be factual that this law merely re-states the existing legal framework that already allows Indiana businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers. That doesn’t change the fact that this law is about LGBT discrimination. And that’s why the backlash is so strong: because this kind of discrimination is so contemptible that it has no place in modern America.
Listen, fundamentally, this country is a meritocracy. We judge people by what they do, not who they are. At the moment of their creation, they’re equal - we hold that truth to be self-evident. This ideal is very, very important to our identity as Americans. And there’s no question that being LGBT is about who you are.
Christianity is inherently at odds with the American ideal because of this: Christianity holds that some humans are created unequal, and that it’s the role of Christians to persecute these people. People are happy to give religious people a lot of leeway, which is why the original RFRA laws had great support. But sometimes Christians cross a clear and important line, and that’s what they did here.
Finally some business support for the law. A small-town pizzeria says it won’t cater gay weddings. As if they’d even be asked. 