No accounting for lying loonies.
The line of anti-gay bigots that supported the law and that were invited to the signing suggests there just might be a teensy weensy bit of bigotry associated with it. The fact you’re pretending there is none is well ‘interesting’
Are you in agreement that
‘You should have seen the line of people protesting the no gasoline in baby food law’
The only problem is that the specific religious freedom in question is “to deny services to gay customers.” It isn’t a law to allow people to ring church bells on Sunday, or to issue the Call to Prayer five times a day. It’s a law to allow people to turn away gays who want to obtain services.
What specific religious freedom are you imagining it protects?
In this picture of Spence signing the bill, several lobbyists stand behind Spence, including:
-Curt Smith, who said, “I believe homosexuality is harmful to all, including society, and is against the teachings of the God of the Bible.”
-Micah Clark, who writes that “Retiring open homosexual U.S Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), has told the Washington Blade that the 15-member panel of the Democratic Party platform committee unanimously approved language calling for the unraveling of marriage via support for same-sex marriage.”
-Eric Miller, who writes that “If hate crime legislation passes, the next step could be to criminally prosecute pastors who preach what the Bible says about homosexuality, male cross-dressers and pedophiles.”
Now, it’s totally reasonable to think that the presence of these men at the signing ceremony was pure coincidence. Some of us are more suspicious than you.
No. Most laws go through the whole process with the majority of folks not being aware that they exist. Politicians prefer it that way. There are, however, plenty of laws that provoke a strong backlash. Some Democrats seem to find it extremely meaningful that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act has provoked a strong backlash. Well, so did Obamacare. And the Patriot Act. And No Child Left Behind. Can we repeal those three as well?
That’s true. I mean, it will prevent straight people as well as gay people from getting gay wedding cakes. That’s equality!
Where exactly in the law do the words “to deny service to gay customers” appear? I’m pretty sure they don’t appear in the law, and neither do any other words that say anything about sexual orientation. (Full text is here.)
We all know that there’s a Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the federal level, and many in the states, all using similar language. Do you claim that all of them are secretly only about denying gays, or just Indiana’s? RFRAs have been used to defend many rights:
[ul]
[li]An Orthodox Jewish man in Texas was allowed to hold services in his own home because of the state’s RFRA.[/li][li]A Sikh who is a government employee was allowed to bring her religious mementos to her office.[/li][li]A Muslim in prison was allowed to grow a beard, as his religious beliefs require.[/li][li]A Native American dancer was allowed to make his tribe’s traditional costume.[/li][/ul]
So plainly there’s a number of religious freedoms that are protected by the RFRA. Moreover, the whole point of such laws is that they provide equal protection to everyone’s religious beliefs. Nobody knows what attacks on religious freedom may occur in the future, but there will be a greater likelihood of defeating those attacks with such laws in place. Listing a small number of people who attended a signing ceremony and at some point expressed anti-gay views obviously proves nothing.
Who exactly is making the argument that laws with backlash should be repealed?
This has been my question all along. Nothing I’ve seen has provided any real answers.
“A few people”? They’re the three people positioned directly behind the governor in this photo-op.
“At some point”? They’ve made the expression of anti-gay views major planks of their careers.
You’re trying very hard to dismiss these guys’ presence, but your reasons for doing so remain opaque. Imagine for a moment that yes, the bill was lobbied for by a buncha homophobes because they wanted to be free to discriminate, and the governor invited these homophobes to the signing ceremony. How does that change your view of the law?
So, if they are used to deny service to gay customers, are you for that or against it?
Indiana has said they are planning to “clarify” the law to make sure no one thinks it’s all about the gays, 'bout the gays, no trouble. You’re in favor of such clarification, I assume, since you don’t think it had anything to do with the gays to start with?
Not much. I tend to judge a law based on what it says, not on who was in the room when the governor signed it. Any political party can play the game of “Oh my gosh, person A issued an invitation to person B who holds horrible belief C”. Both Democrats and Republicans do it all the time. Witness the endless mentioning of how often Barack Obama invited Al Sharpton to the White House, including for signing ceremonies. That scarcely tells us anything about the motivation behind the laws that were being signed.
You’re reaching and you know it.
– There was language Democrats added to the bill preventing the LGBTQ community from discrimination as a result of the law, which was stricken by Republicans. Speaks to intent.
– Pence stated, when asked, that he has no interest in adding to the law protections for the LGBTQ community. If there truly is no intent to discriminate against gays and lesbians why not just include the language and get out from in front of the steamroller barreling down on his ass? The answer is because the Republican base would have his head, and that is who he is really trying to please.
– Regardless of your continuing to ignore it when pointed out to you, the Indiana law IS NOT IDENTICAL to RFRA laws in other states; it is broader, but I really don’t have to tell you that, do I?
– It is significant, regardless of your protestations, that 3 known anti gay zealots were at the signing of the bill.
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.
The law permits businesses to turn away customers on the basis of the business-owner’s religious beliefs.
We know that there are cases already extant where business owners state their religious objections to serving gay customers.
The law doesn’t have to say “gay customers can be discriminated against.” The law has that effect.
If a law says, “You may not get wet,” you can’t pretend to me that it doesn’t ban swimming.
n/m
But completely in the spirit of the fourteenth.
So, in other words, you know it’s wrong to discriminate but you don’t mind if other people do it???
A ‘religious freedom’ to practice your faith is one thing. When the practicing of that ‘faith’ directly impacts the lives of other people, well that’s another thing. Allowing a Muslim to grow a beard in prison doesn’t impact anyone but the prisoner. Allowing an Orthodox Jew to practice his religion in his own home doesn’t impact anyone but the Orthodox Jew. Allowing a Sikh who is a government employee to bring her religious mementos to her office doesn’t impact the life of anyone but that Sikh.
Allowing a business owner to turn away customers based on their ‘religious beliefs’ does impact others besides the business owner. The customers that have been directly, negatively impacted by being forced to find another business to receive the services they need.