Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[elcheato]

The law would be fine if they recognized gays as a social class, but they won't because the motives behind this law are obvious, which is why any defense of it is flawed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If Indiana repealed this law tomorrow, it would have absolutely zero effect on the right of a private business to refuse service to someone who is gay. And that's because the law had zero effect on that in the first place, because Indiana, like a majority of states, has no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So I hope Pat Haden has marked all of them as well.

In any case, the ill-informed have all hopped on board the "look at me/I'm so outraged" bandwagon of the moment, so there's no stopping it now.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The law would be fine if they recognized gays as a social class, but they won't because the motives behind this law are obvious, which is why any defense of it is flawed.

Do you understand that because Indiana (and a majority of other states) do not have laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, this law has absolutely zero effect on the rights of gay people?

 

[gourimoko]

If Indiana repealed this law tomorrow, it would have absolutely zero effect on the right of a private business to refuse service to someone who is gay. And that's because the law had zero effect on that in the first place, because Indiana, like a majority of states, has no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So I hope Pat Haden has marked all of them as well.

You made this nonsensical argument in the marriage equality thread, where you stated same-sex couples did not have a right to marry, and I demonstrated it was false.

To the point, the New York Law Review in 1994 published a review detailing the reason discrimination against sexual orientation is equivalent to discrimination against sex.

Since our conversation in that thread, more than 10 states have had their own DOMA-like acts struck down by state and federal justices as being unconstitutional.

Discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional.

In any case, the ill-informed have all hopped on board the "look at me/I'm so outraged" bandwagon of the moment, so there's no stopping it now.

You're not the only lawyer in America, Q-Tip. There's just as many "ill-informed" attorneys on the right of this issue as there are on the left.

But it's telling how you can be so incredibly wrong on so many issues... This was one that I hoped you'd get right.

 

[Cratylus]

Indiana sucked before this law passed, and I can't stress that enough. The highways sucked, the restaurants sucked, the air smelled like cow shit. Hated driving through it everytime.

This law is going to crush what little outside money they had coming in. The law won't last the year.

I almost attended college in Indiana until I visited the school and the air absolutely smelled like cow shit! I asked a few students if it always smelled like that and the response was almost unanimous: "You get used to it after a while."

It wasn't the main reason, but it was a factor in why I opted for a university in Canton.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You made this nonsensical argument in the marriage equality thread, where you stated same-sex couples did not have a right to marry, and I demonstrated it was false.

To the point, the New York Law Review in 1994 published a review detailing the reason discrimination against sexual orientation is equivalent to discrimination against sex.

That's your point???

Just to be clear, is it your claim that an article in the New York Law review constitutes binding authority on federal and state courts? Because unless you're making that argument, what the NYLR says doesn't mean squat. Arguing how the law should be interpreted by courts is quite different from arguing how courts are interpreting it.

I'd also point out that the LGBT community has been pushing for an amendment to Title VII since the mid-70's, to include sexual orientation as a protected class. The most recent attempt was the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), which passed the Senate in 2013 but died in the House. Kind of funny that those advocacy groups and Senate Democrats all seem completely unaware of the controllinglegal authority that sexual orientation discrimination has been illegal under Title VII since 1994, isn't it? Same thing has been happening in Ohio for a very long time as well.

The reality is that as of now, there is no controlling legal authority in Indiana, Ohio, or more than 20 other state, holding that sexual orientation discrimination is illegal. But let's narrow the inquiry to just Ohio. Please point me to the appellate case in Ohio holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.

Or maybe you could just tell me when 2014's Burns v. The OSU College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary School was reversed:

Each appellate district in this state that has considered such a claim has concluded that the term "sex" in R.C. 4112.02(A) does not include sexual orientation. See Inskeep v. W. Reserve Transit Auth., 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 72, 2013-Ohio-897, ¶ 23; Giannini-Baur v. Schwab Retirement Plan Servs., Inc., 9th Dist. No. 25172, 2010-Ohio-6453, ¶ 18; Tenney v. General Elec. Co., 11th Dist. No. 2001-T-0035, 2002-Ohio-2975, ¶ 17; Retterer v. Whirlpool Corp., 111 Ohio App.3d 847, 859 (3d Dist.1996), abrogated on other grounds by Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 2006-Ohio-3455; Greenwood v. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, 105 Ohio App.3d 295, 298-99 (1st Dist.1995). Likewise, courts analyzing the analogous provision of Title VII have held that, for purposes of that law, "sex" does not include sexual orientation. See Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757, 762 (6th Cir.2006) ("sexual orientation is not a prohibited basis for discriminatory acts under Title VII.").

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2256406694311084017

So every appellate court in the state, and the Federal Circuit with responsibility for Ohio, Tenn., Kentucky, and Mich., have concluded that neither R.C. 4112 nor Title VII bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but the law in Ohio is instead determined by gourimoko and a New York Law review article from 20 years ago.

Impressive.

And please, don't waste everyone's time by bringing up Equal Protection or Due Process, since private employment/accommodation cases do not involve state action.

 

[Sumac13]

I wonder if those businesses that would refuse to sell to gay people were to be 'outed' if it would do them severe economic harm. I know I wouldn't patronize such businesses. And fuck the state and the retards that were part of this bill. If the state is willing to go along with this, then I would hope corporations and other organizations would take their business elsewhere. See which is more important, their bigotry or their money.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I think the informal boycott going on right now could be enough to drag Indiana into the 21st century. I doubt the big Supreme Court showdown they wanted has time to mature. Money talks, and Indiana might have plenty of media funding by the Religious Right... but they are going to get hit hard by outside corporations refusing to give them business.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The laughable aspect of this is that there have been proposals to extend Title VII to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that have failed for decades. The same thing has happened in the State of Ohio. Yet, people are pissed at an Indiana law that, at most, might be a limited exception to such a prohibition.

Being angry at an exception for a rule that doesn't even exist is....odd. Indiana could repeal that law tomorrow and there still wouldn't be a state law barring discrimination against gays in the first place. I hope they just repeal the damn thing and then laugh their asses off at a public that is expending all its ammo on the wrong target.

 

[The Oi]

If Indiana repealed this law tomorrow, it would have absolutely zero effect on the right of a private business to refuse service to someone who is gay. And that's because the law had zero effect on that in the first place, because Indiana, like a majority of states, has no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So I hope Pat Haden has marked all of them as well.

In any case, the ill-informed have all hopped on board the "look at me/I'm so outraged" bandwagon of the moment, so there's no stopping it now.

You've entirely missed the point. I think the vast majority of people recognize that businesses aren't going to start shutting every gay out of their businesses tomorrow for religious reasons. The issue is that an individual in a position of power within the state appears to be impeding social progress in a very public manner.

Impeding social progress is a no-no in this day and age, particularly when you fuck with the gays.


EDIT: On the other hand, I probably give the general public too much credit. It's entirely possible they DON'T recognize that the vast majority of businesses won't discriminate. People are stupid.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You've entirely missed the point.

No, you're missing the point. Indiana (and most other states) have no law barring discrimination against gay people, and never have. Repeal this law, and discrimination against gay people would still be completely legal until either 1) a law banning that is passed, or 2) courts decide to reinterpret existing law. But there is no earthly logic to singling out Indiana when so many other states are in the exact same position in terms of lacking protection for gays and lesbians.

Don't believe me -- do some searches about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. You'll see arguments advocating that currently existing laws should be interpreted differently, but you'll also find a lot of stuff acknowledging that the weight of current interpretations is that sexual orientation is not covered by federal law, as well as acknowledgements that most states don't cover it either.

The EEOC recently adopted a different interpretation, but that's has no legal precedential value because it's just an agency.

I think the vast majority of people recognize that the issue is that an individual in a position of power within the state is impeding social progress in a very public manner.

What individual?

This wasn't some executive action. The elected state legislature passed a law that the governor, also elected, signed. Those are elected people carrying out elected functions, and probably things supported by a majority of people in the state.

 

[The Oi]

No, you're missing the point. Indiana (and most other states) have no law barring discrimination against gay people, and never have. Repeal this law, and discrimination against gay people would still be completely legal until either 1) a law banning that is passed, or 2) courts decide to reinterpret existing law. But there is no earthly logic to singling out Indiana when so many other states are in the exact same position in terms of lacking protection for gays and lesbians



What individual?

This wasn't some executive action. The elected state legislature passed a law that the governor, also elected, signed. Those are elected people carrying out elected functions, and probably things supported by a majority of people in the state.

So hateful.

 

[gourimoko]

That's your point???

Just to be clear, is it your claim that an article in the New York Law review constitutes binding authority on federal and state courts?

Err.. do you honestly think that's what I'm saying?

Because unless you're making that argument, what the NYLR says doesn't mean squat.

It means as much as your argument does here; perhaps (probably) more so.

Arguing how the law should be interpreted by courts is quite different from arguing how courts are interpreting it.

Ahh...

So the courts should not consider discrimination against sexual orientation as unconstitutional -- because?

I'd also point out that the LGBT community has been pushing for an amendment to Title VII since the mid-70's, to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

As they should; but this doesn't mean the courts are in error by finding discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation unconstitutional.

This doesn't speak to your point.

The most recent attempt was the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), which passed the Senate in 2013 but died in the House. Kind of funny that those advocacy groups and Senate Democrats all seem completely unaware of the controllinglegal authority that sexual orientation discrimination has been illegal under Title VII since 1994, isn't it? Same thing has been happening in Ohio for a very long time as well.

This is logically fallacious, and ridiculously so.

The reality is that as of now, there is no controlling legal authority in Indiana, Ohio, or more than 20 other state, holding that sexual orientation discrimination is illegal. But let's narrow the inquiry to just Ohio. Please point me to the appellate case in Ohio holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.

What a transparent and asinine attempt at requiring an unreasonably narrow source of evidence. The federal courts have routinely struck down, and continue to do so, state laws that bar same-sex marriage or attempt to otherwise permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court will, by the end of this year and by all likely accounts, make same-sex marriage the law of the land in all 50 states by declaring such discrimination against homosexuals as unconstitutional.

Or maybe you could just tell me when 2014's Burns v. The OSU College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary School was reversed:

Reversed?

The case was just decided in state court a year ago... It's already been stated in the news, repeatedly, that the Sixth District would side with the Ohio State Supreme Court, as they are the most conservative court in the Union when it comes to LGBT rights.

Are you honestly going to sit here and say Burns v. The OSU College of Veterinary Medicine represents "the reality of the matter?" Or instead, is an aberration from the norm?

d the Federal Circuit with responsibility for Ohio, Tenn., Kentucky, and Mich., have concluded that neither R.C. 4112 nor Title VII bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but the law in Ohio is instead determined by gourimoko and a New York Law review article from 20 years ago.

Impressive.

The law in Ohio is unconstitutional, as is the law in the many states that oppress homosexuals.

More on the 6th District:

Today, November 6, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued the first ruling in favor of upholding laws that discriminate against same-sex couples from a federal appellate court in the past several years. In doing so, the Court upheld marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee and led to the continued discrimination of thousands of same-sex couples in these four states.

The plaintiffs and legal team in the case may now seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, or they could seek an en bancreview before the full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, October 6, just one month ago, the Supreme Court indicated that it saw nothing wrong with the freedom to marry for same-sex couples by effectively allowing anti-marriage laws to be struck down in eleven states.

Freedom to Marry Founder and President Evan Wolfson said today:

Today’s ruling is completely out of step with the Supreme Court's clear signal last month, out of step with the constitutional command as recognized by nearly every state and federal court in the past year, and out of step with the majority of the American people. This anomalous ruling won't stand the test of time or appeal. But with discrimination still burdening too many families, and now with this split in the circuits, Freedom to Marry calls on the Supreme Court to swiftly take these cases, affirm the freedom to marry, and bring national resolution once and for all. American couples and their families should no longer be forced to fight court by court, state by state, day by day for the freedom and dignity that our Constitution promises.

6th Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented from the ruling. She wrote:

These plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status -- de jure status, if you will -- with their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their children's schools. They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of us take for granted - the right to marry.

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court.

The 6th Circuit is the first federal appellate court this year to rule against the freedom to marry. Previous victories emerged this summer and fall in the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, and 10th Circuit. Those rulings added to nearly 40 additional wins in state and federal court.

In just the past month, same-sex couples have effectively won the freedom to marry in 16 different states: On Monday, October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in five marriage cases, clearing the way for the freedom to marry not only in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin - but also paving the path toward marriage in Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming, the other states in the 10th and 4th Circuits. Just one day later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the freedom to marry in a case from Idaho and a case from Nevada, setting the stage for marriage in those two states, as well as Alaska, Arizona and Montana. So far, just four of these states - Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, and South Carolina - have not yet implemented the appellate orders.

With these victories, just 15 states will soon remain without the freedom to marry - and today's out-of-step ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ensures that in four of these states, same-sex couples will for now continue to be denied the freedom to marry and real American families will continue to be hurt. As the prospective appeal in this ruling works its way to the 6th Circuit and, likely, the U.S. Supreme Court, it is more important than ever for the nation's highest court to recognize that it is time to take up a case and rule for the freedom to marry nationwide. It is simply untenable for 15 states to deny same-sex couples the same fundamental freedoms that are available or soon will be available in 35 other states.

It is simply time for the freedom to marry nationwide.
--end quote--

You were wrong, blatantly wrong, in the marriage equality thread and you are wrong here.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm going to go one bit at a time because otherwise you'll keep expanding things to hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. But I'll hit the rest of it in due course.

So the courts should not consider discrimination against sexual orientation as unconstitutional -- because?

Discrimination by whom -- government, or by private employers/businesses? Different rules, doncha know....

 

[Lee]

Anyone who is spending all day trying to protect themselves from gays has a severe problem.

Like maybe having a gay bully?