• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
business owners don't have the right to discriminate. It's specifically illegal.

According to what?

There are some laws in place that outlaw certain specifically-enumerated types of discrimination, but no laws that outlaw "discrimination" in general.

The federal law in question is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does not mention "sexual orientation" as a protected class. It does mention "sex", but every Federal Circuit court presented with the argument of whether "sex' was intended to cover "sexual orientation" has rejected that argument. that's been the rule in the 50+ years that the Title VII has existed.

And there's no way in hell this Supreme Court is going to add "sexual orientation" to a statute where it was clearly never intended. That's why people have been pushing to amend Title VII itself -- to specifically prohibit nationwide private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

All states also have laws barring discrimination against certain specifically enumerated groups. A majority of those states also do not protect "sexual orientation" from private sector discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Ask Connecticut or any of the 18 other states that have similar laws.

Asking merely out of curiosity, how long have these other states had the laws on the book? Just recently, or have they been there for 60 years or longer? I wonder if they harken back to the McCarthy era? The social climate of today is certainly different than it was in the 1950's. If in place for a good long time, I wonder if these states would attempt to pass similar legislation today.

Edit: There are some weird ass shit laws on the books that were passed many a year ago that would no longer be thought sane today. The fact that they remain on the book doesn't mean that they are in tune with the zeitgeist of today.
 
Last edited:
What do state law gay marriage bans struck down on constitutional grounds have to do with whether or not Title VII bars discrimination in the private sector on the basis of sexual orientation?
I looked through the thread and it looks like you are the one who brought up Title VII. That is a completely separate matter considering the issue at hand has nothing to do with employment, and I don't read Gourimoko's posts as relying on Title VII, but rather Equal Protection. He happens to be wrong on the law, but it has nothing to do with Title VII, and your cite to Burns v. Ohio State is totally immaterial to the Indiana issue. The intent behind the Indiana legislature appears to allow businesses to refuse to compromise their religious beliefs by refusing to participate in same sex weddings, etc. Continually beating him over the head over Title VII is a bit confusing, but I'm happy to see why you think it is relevant.

The issue is public accommodation under Title II, and The Human Q-Tip is correct that it offers no protections for LGBT persons. Further, challenges to laws such as Indiana's on Equal Protection grounds will fail in the courts. The only way this issue will be fixed, and I believe it should, is through either a state or federal law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, which is ultimately enabled through the Commerce Clause. Gay marriage is a completely separate issue.
 
Last edited:
Law is needed so that the state can "sanction" and put a stamp of approval on their bigotry. While before one could say, "Well, it isn't illegal." Now they can say, "Hey, it's legal, the state says I can." Yeah, same thing, but now one carries with it the feeling it is just.

For those who say it isn't big deal, I wonder if you or someone you loved were in the minority and were the target of such a law if it would no longer wouldn't seem a big deal. It isn't like gays are not already targets of anti-marriage laws.

You can argue businesses already have the right to refuse business based on 'religious' reasons, but the law isn't about giving them the right, it is aBbout making an official statement that gayness is wrong.

So, yeah, it is a big deal.
Are you claiming I'm wrong about that? If so, then please point me to the law in Ohio (I'm picking that as the easiest example but it applies to other states as well) that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And since you're from Indiana, please point me to the Indiana law that bars private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.



Ask Connecticut or any of the 18 other states that have similar laws.


Classic. Did I say you were wrong? Nope. I said you had a dumb argument. What are you arguing for? That is OK or that it is legal? I know it is legal in Indiana to discriminate in this way without the law, so why have it??

I find it repugnant, and your defense of it is morally bankrupt. If it was legal to rape children would you throw up your hands and say, "That's the law, buddy."? I'd punch you right in nose, sir.

Fact is that discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is not keeping with the spirit of America or the constitution, nor is keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ whom these politicians claim to hold dear. This is a law without a problem and it is petty and revengeful. Not the first nor last time the law can be used against people for revenge.

We have watched your lawyer arguments argue for many poor moral choices over the years, and your stances routinely side with bigotry and hatefulness hiding it in legal rhetoric. Have fun with that. Your heart is dark though your skin may be light.
 
Asking merely out of curiosity, how long have these other states had the laws on the book? Just recently, or have they been there for 60 years or longer?

It's all over the map, really. But heck, the federal government passed (almost unanimously) such a law back in 1993 -- sponsored by such rabid conservatives as Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, and signed by noted gay-basher Bill Clinton. Here's a link that explains it. It's a worthwhile read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

The really odd thing is that such a law does potentially have an anti-gay impact if the state in question has a law barring discrimination against gays. In that case, it is possible that an RFRA law would create an exception that would permit some people to discriminate against gays despite the anti-discrimination law.

But in states that don't have a law barring discrimination against gays, such as Indiana and a majority of other states, the RFRA has no particularly impact against gays. In those cases, it's an exception to a rule that doesn't exist.

What's happened is that Indiana's RFRA has become a symbol of a cause, but it's just the wrong symbol. The people who are up in arms about Indiana's RFRA actually should be demanding that the federal government pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation nationally.

Though you'd have to ask yourself why Democrats didn't pass such a bill when they had control of Congress under Obama.....It was actually introduced in 2009 by Barney Frank, but died in the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee.



 
I looked through the thread and it looks like you are the one who brought up Title VII. That is a completely separate matter considering the issue at hand has nothing to do with employment,

I think activists are concerned about both employment and public accommodations, but I get your point. In any case, Title VII and Title II use the same definitions, so case law interpreting the meaning of "sex" under Title VII is applicable to cases interpreting "sex" under Title II. Just easier to find a Title VII case quickly....

I don't read Gourimoko's posts as relying on Title VII, but rather the Equal Protection. He happens to be wrong on the law,

Right. Equal protection has nothing to do with the private sector.

and your cite to Burns v. Ohio State is totally immaterial to the Indiana issue.

Nate, my point in citing to Burns was to point out that Indiana is not unique in terms of not protecting gay rights. If people are going to be angry at Indiana, they should be equally angry at Ohio and all the other states that don't affirmatively protect gay rights.

The intent behind the Indiana legislature appears to allow businesses to refuse to compromise their religious beliefs by refusing to participate in same sex weddings, etc.

What prevents an Indiana business from refusing such service even in the absence of it's RFRA? Indiana has no law prohibiting someone from refusing to participate in a gay wedding as it is. Right?

Obviously, the state itself must recognize gay marriages as a legal institution to the extent that is required by courts. But nothing under pre-RFRA law requires the participation of private citizens, and the RFRA doesn't change that.

The issue is public accommodation under Title II, and The Human Q-Tip is correct that it offers no protections for LGBT persons. Further, challenges to laws such as Indiana's on Equal Protection grounds will fail in the courts. The only way this issue will be fixed, and I believe it should, is through either a state or federal law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, which is ultimately enabled through the Commerce Clause. Gay marriage is a completely separate issue.

EXACTLY!!
 
Last edited:
Q-Tip's arguments have been strictly from a legal perspective stating what is and what is not law. Frankly, I thought it was needed in this thread given the ignorance of what is and is not protected by current law. I haven't seen many (any?) moral arguments from him that the law is needed or that discriminating against gays should be constitutionally protected.

So please, spare us your hateful, high-horse lectures about his dark heart after speaking out of one side of your mouth about tolerance. It's ridiculous.
 
Classic. Did I say you were wrong? Nope. I said you had a dumb argument.

Hey, by all means rant and rave all you want against this law. If you're lucky, they'll repeal it. Which won't do jack squat for gay rights, but hey, you'll be able to ride your moral high horse off into the sunset.
 
Nate, my point in citing to Burns was to point out that Indiana is not unique in terms of not protecting gay rights. If people are going to be angry at Indiana, they should be equally angry at Ohio and all the other states that don't affirmatively protect gay rights.
Gotcha. No disagreement that Indiana is not unique, and I understand your use of Burns to show that in a broad sense. However, I think bringing Title VII in just serves to confuse people. I haven't seen those against this law citing its potential use in employment contexts, but of course I acknowledge that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

What prevents an Indiana business from refusing such service even in the absence of it's RFRA? Indiana has no law prohibiting someone from refusing to participate in a gay wedding as it is. Right?

Obviously, the state itself must recognize gay marriages as a legal institution to the extent that is required by courts. But nothing under pre-RFRA law requires the participation of private citizens.
I agree that nothing prohibited Indiana businesses from refusing service prior to the RFRA, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the intent of the legislature. Legislative bodies pass laws all the time to clarify nebulous areas of law, or to simply make political statements (federal Congress continually passes laws prohibiting federal funding for abortions, which is already prohibited). Read in context of the recent legalization of same sex marriage in Indiana, Hobby Lobby, removal of an amendment saying the law cannot be used to discriminate, and contemporaneous statements of legislators stating the law was to be used to allow denying services to same sex couples, I think it is pretty undeniable that the intent of the law was to allow denial of service to same sex couples on religious grounds, regardless as to whether that right already existed.
 
Q-Tip's arguments have been strictly from a legal perspective stating what is and what is not law. Frankly, I thought it was needed in this thread given the ignorance of what is and is not protected by current law. I haven't seen many (any?) moral arguments from him that the law is needed or that discriminating against gays should be constitutionally protected.

So please, spare us your hateful, high-horse lectures about his dark heart after speaking out of one side of your mouth about tolerance. It's ridiculous.
It's not that simple. Civil rights history is replete with those in positions of relative power taking refuge in the systems that put them there in the first place, knowingly or not. For a very current example, you have people who will never be discriminated against often making principled stances against state involvement in private matters in order to prohibit various forms of discrimination - the heart of the much debated Title II.

So it is very easy for those unaffected by discrimination to dispassionately assess an issue. And it is very easy for those affected by discrimination to interpret a dispassionate reaction to a thorny issue as tacit approval, because often times it is. Now that doesn't make the interpretation correct, but it is also wrong to write it off as a "high-horse lecture." A little empathy for all sides goes a long way.
 
It's not that simple. Civil rights history is replete with those in positions of relative power taking refuge in the systems that put them there in the first place, knowingly or not. For a very current example, you have people who will never be discriminated against often making principled stances against state involvement in private matters in order to prohibit various forms of discrimination - the heart of the much debated Title II.

Except I didn't take a stance. Period. In fact, I've been pointing out that if they want to actually solve the problem of which they're complaining, then new legislation is needed.

Would it be better if I'd just hopped on the bandwagon of ignorance?

So it is very easy for those unaffected by discrimination to dispassionately assess an issue.

The problem is that if you address an issue on emotion unguided by facts, then you're very likely to miss out on actually solving the problem. That's exactly what was happening here. People who don't have a clue as to what the law actually is are addressing the wrong problem. And the result, as I said, is that even if they succeed in having the law repealed, they'll actually have done nothing to solve the underlying problem.

And it is very easy for those affected by discrimination to interpret a dispassionate reaction to a thorny issue as tacit approval, because often times it is. Now that doesn't make the interpretation correct, but it is also wrong to write it off as a "high-horse lecture."

No, it's still a high horse lecture. If people get offended simply because someone is telling them what the facts actually are, then the problem is their own ignorance/hypersensitivity.

This is actually a huge problem in this country. People confuse emotional commitment to something with being actually correct on substance. As a result, we often bypass the process of actually trying to understand the problem, and instead skip to the quick-fix of what makes people feel validated in the short term. Even if it is the wrong fix to the wrong problem. We feel better about it, so now we can get past that issue and go on to whatever is the next flavor of the moment. Even if we didn't do a damn things to actually fix anything.
 
Last edited:
It's not that simple. Civil rights history is replete with those in positions of relative power taking refuge in the systems that put them there in the first place, knowingly or not. For a very current example, you have people who will never be discriminated against often making principled stances against state involvement in private matters in order to prohibit various forms of discrimination - the heart of the much debated Title II.

So it is very easy for those unaffected by discrimination to dispassionately assess an issue. And it is very easy for those affected by discrimination to interpret a dispassionate reaction to a thorny issue as tacit approval, because often times it is. Now that doesn't make the interpretation correct, but it is also wrong to write it off as a "high-horse lecture." A little empathy for all sides goes a long way.

This doesn't speak to what Q-tip has posted in this thread at all. He hasn't taken any principled stances. The only thing he's done is try to clarify what current law states.

There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the type of response Cavatt gave in this situation.
 
This doesn't speak to what Q-tip has posted in this thread at all. He hasn't taken any principled stances. The only thing he's done is try to clarify what current law states

Some folks would rather tilt at windmills than actually accomplish anything. And when you say, "dude, that's just a windmill", they blame you for pointing it out. Insensitivity to their delusion, I guess.

Boo-freaking-hoo.
 
The people who are up in arms about Indiana's RFRA actually should be demanding that the federal government pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation nationally.

Demanding Congress get anything done is pushing it. :chuckle:
 
Except I didn't take a stance. Period. In fact, I've been pointing out that if they want to actually solve the problem of which they're complaining, then new legislation is needed.
Sorry, I meant to write that my post didn't apply to you. My apologies. I agree with you.

Would it be better if I'd just hopped on the bandwagon of ignorance?
Not sure what this means. People were outraged that Indiana passed a law that allows people to deny services on the basis of sexual orientation. Do you deny that the intent of the legislature was to accomplish this? How is people being offended by the legislature's actions a bandwagon of ignorance? Stating that it was already legal does not negate the legislature's actions, nor the public outcry to those actions.

No, it's still a high horse lecture. If people get offended simply because someone is telling them what the facts actually are, then the problem is their own ignorance/hypersensitivity.
You didn't really tell them the facts, and what you tried to show (Title VII) was actually a legal tangent. My read of your comments was that Pat Haden and like-minded supporters were being either hypocritical or uneducated. You then educated people on a point that really has nothing to do with the original complaints.

This is actually a huge problem in this country. People confuse emotional commitment to something with being actually correct on substance. As a result, we often bypass the process of actually trying to understand the problem, and instead skip to the quick-fix of what makes people feel validated in the short term. Even if it is the wrong fix to the wrong problem. We feel better about it, so now we can get past that issue and go on to whatever is the next flavor of the moment.

Even if we didn't do a damn things to actually fix anything.
The Governor has called for a bill addressing the issue to be on his desk. I'd call that a fix, even just a first step, no?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top