Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[NasstyNate]

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.

I agree.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Demanding Congress get anything done is pushing it.

Well, yeah, but it's not helping when everyone is pointing at the wrong problem. Next thing we'll see is a demand that the federal RFRA be repealed, which likewise would do nothing of substance other than piss off some Native Americans.

I just cannot stand crappy arguments by people who should know better, even if it is "my side" making those arguments. It's just disingenuous as hell. I don't mind disagreement and rational debate, but when people are making arguments they know are wrong/misdirected, it pisses me off.

With one exception, I don't think that was happening in this thread, but in the larger national context, it is most definitely happening. People who certainly should know better are making a big deal out of this law instead of addressing the underlying issue. And the public is being led by the nose because they wrongly believe that it is generally illegal for private employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. And when you try to point that out "hey guys, the problem is bigger than you think", you get people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la" so they don't have to hear it.

 

[gourimoko]

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.

Cavatt is continuing this conversation from the Marriage Equality thread in which Q-Tip stated that homosexual parents were less fit to raise children and used that as one of a "few" unspecified grounds (including "historical precedent") to argue against same-sex marriage.

Cavatt is entirely right that Q-Tip has argued against equality in this respect.

You might not like it, but being tolerant doesn't leave room for intolerance.

 

[gourimoko]

@The Human Q-Tip , @NasstyNate , @MRMsix6 , @Cratylus , and anyone else who seems to think discrimination against homosexuals is somehow legal or constitutional.

My argument continues over from the Marriage Equality thread, and that any irrational discrimination against a group of people is a violation of that person's civil rights.

Nate, you are wrong to state that Equal Protection cannot be used to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“What [the framers of the 14th Amendment] were getting at, basically, and you will find this popping up again and again in the legislative record, they were against caste. They did not want the United States to have any classes or castes that would identify people by their birth status.” -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

--quote--
Conservatives, most notably Justice Antonin Scalia, view the Equal Protection Clause as mainly, if not exclusively, about eliminating discrimination on the basis of race; 3 hence, they often vote to permit other forms of discrimination.

The Court’s liberal Justices, frequently led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, view the Clause as more broadly prohibiting all forms of invidious discrimination that has the effect of creating favored or disfavored classes or castes.

This disagreement about the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has resulted in sharply divided rulings over whether the Equal Protection Clause limits state-sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

In these cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy has often, but not always, sided with the Court’s liberal wing, providing a viable but somewhat uncertain foundation for protection against discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

The same rational-basis test used to protect against sex-based discrimination has been used in cases to protect against sexual orientation based discrimination.

Again, by the end of the year, the court is expected to strike down state same-sex marriage prohibitions on both the basis of equal protection and due process.

Hell, even Fox News agrees the law is "clearly unconstitutional" http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4143...-freedom-law-unconstitutional/?#sp=show-clips:

Perry vs Brown, decided on the basis of Equal Protection; majority decision: “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

To that end, the Court's present view is entirely based around Equal Protection:

Justice Kennedy ... in equal protection cases, ... seems intent to move the Court away from the “tiers of scrutiny” framework toward a more focused examination of whether laws improperly discriminate against individual Americans.

Justice Kennedy began articulating these views in J.E.B, in which he wrote an important concurring opinion, emphasizing that constitutional text and history supported the Court’s holding. Justice Kennedy observed that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment rejected an equality guarantee that proscribed only racial discrimination in favor of a broad guarantee written in “more comprehensive terms,”43 extending the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws to all individuals, both women and men.

“The neutral phrasing of the Equal Protection Clause,” Justice Kennedy explained, “extending its guarantee to ‘any person,’ reveals its concern with rights of individuals . . . . ‘At the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial *or+ sexual . . . class.’”44

Which brings us to Romer v Evans, again citing the Equal Protection Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis' - the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause - is the governing standard".[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.[4][5][6][7]

The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers,[1] and for the Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor (2013).

Again, here the conservative justices are sticking to the three-tiered standard to determine compliance; however, as the majority has stated repeatedly, and has been demonstrated here, the more important question is "whether laws improperly discriminate against individual Americans." In that the justices would protect against any law that would establish or maintain "any classes or castes that would identify people by their birth status."

So, I just want to point out that Equal Protection is 100% applicable here, contrary to what is being said in this thread by several of you. Equal Protection and Due Process are the basis for most of the recent litigative victories for same-sex civil rights in recent memory.

@MRMsix6 , you argue that Q-Tip has made the only legal argument in the thread, but this is false. Rather than making one of my own, I've referred to the New York Law Review, and the Columbia Law Journal which make the position very clear: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is in violation of the law.

@The Human Q-Tip : you argue that new laws would need to be enacted to protect against discrimination. This is false. Citing the Columbia Journal, Professor David Forman states "(that) existing legal frameworks address claims of sexual orientation discrimination alongside defenses based upon religious freedom. Finally, this article seeks to accelerate an emerging trend toward including sexual orientation as a protected category in our nation's nondiscrimination laws, by highlighting an opportunity to counter religious misinterpretations currently reflected in the prevailing cultural narrative"

My point to you is that your interpretation of the law is not in accordance with the current legal "trend;" in other words, your interpretation of the law is as narrow as Antonin Scalia's; and since his opinion has not been and will not be the prevailing opinion of the court, it seems odd to suggest than any contrary opinion is somehow "wrong" or misguided.

For example, Scalia argued against the inclusion of women (sex/gender) under Equal Protection on the basis that it was not specifically mentioned and therefore not prohibited.

His words: “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.”

Again, this is the entire argument in and of itself. Does equal protection apply to sex? Reed v Reed says it does, but does not establish sex as a suspect classification. However, on this basis, other forms of discrimination, not expressly written into the law can be considered by the courts.

The point here is that,

1) Indiana's law would permit landlords, restaurants, motels and other public accommodations to discriminate on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation (a birth status, as Ginsburg puts it);

2) That Equal Protection is applicable here, according to numerous legal scholars, professors, and justices on the Supreme Court regardless of what posters here might claim from their own interpretations of the law;

3) Indiana's law is unprecedented. According to Garrett Epps, "legal scholar" and Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore:

"First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.”

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

According to Prof. Epps, the law is "likely unconstitutional."

To cite, yet another legal scholar, Associate Professor Nancy C. Marcus at Indiana Tech Law School states the following:

"One basic constitutional problem with codifying a religious exemption to civil rights protections for public accommodations is that doing so on a statewide basis is essentially undemocratic, wiping out the various local public accommodations protections against sexual orientation discrimination that have been promulgated across Indiana democratically, by a representative majority of citizens in those localities that have voted to protect the civil rights of their LGBT residents.

A statewide ban on such protections is unconstitutional in the same manner as former Colorado Amendment 2, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans two decades ago. In that case, the Court explained that “[a] law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.” The same principles apply to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is today’s version of Colorado Amendment 2."

The Fourteenth Amendment’s protections do not apply solely to people of color. Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures the equal protection of all persons under the law, which includes LGBT persons. As such, segregation – including the denial of public accommodations– is unconstitutional even when defended in the name of religion, whether perpetuated against people of color or against LGBT individuals.

Furthermore, to the extent that RFRA proponents are motivated by moral opposition to homosexual and bisexuality, the legislation violates the constitutional mandate, articulated in the Supreme Court Romer v. Evans decision, that a state “cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law.”

Reciprocally, religious people may not make themselves exempt from our Constitution’s mandates and our nation’s laws by invoking their religious beliefs."

She goes on to point out that Justice Antonin Scalia stated the chief argument against such laws when defending states' rights by stating the following:

“because ‘we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,’ and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order,” and to do so “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions” in a myriad of contexts, “such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug law and traffic laws, to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.”

My hope here is not to drown out the thread with numerous appeals to authority, but instead to offer some insight.

None of us are constitutional lawyers, AFAIK, and none of us is an authority on these issues. However, I have been alarmed by the matter-of-fact statements made by some posters suggest the Indiana law is completely legal and within the confines of the Constitution. It is not. Yes, arguably so.

Again, the Supreme Court's ruling on these issues by the end of this year will codify these protections on a federal level to protect same-sex couples.

From a legal standpoint, this law will be challenged and likely overturned on the aforementioned basises.

But more importantly, from a moral standpoint, I have to agree with some of the views presented by others in this thread that many of these arguments here are simply morally bankrupt, disgusting, and frankly bigoted.

@MRMsix6 , you accused @Cavatt of intolerance when he rightfully called those opposed to same-sex marriage as bigoted. If I were opposed to miscegenation you would likely call me bigoted, and again rightfully so.

I think many of us have outdated views and outmoded beliefs that we feel we are entitled to; and we are, but that doesn't make them any less bigoted.

Stephen Peters of the American Military Partner Association asked the question in an op-ed "Can You Be Against Marriage Equality and Not Be Bigoted?" He stops right short of answering this question, leaving it up to the reader, but in closing states:

"Now I'm sure someone reading this will say I'm being intolerant of them and their views. Fundamentalist Christians love to claim they are being discriminated against (as if they somehow are the ones who have been persecuted throughout American history). It's almost funny if it wasn't so serious. But I don't believe the majority of the American people are buying it anymore. The victim mentality doesn't work when you are victimizing others. You can't claim persecution while persecuting others.

So can you be against marriage equality and not be a bigot? I'll let you decide. Is there a difference between having a bigoted viewpoint and actually being a bigot? Regardless, I'll continue to stand for equal rights and protections for all Americans, even for those anti-equality fundamentalists I disagree with. Sadly, they will not do the same for me."

So while people will jump to defend bigoted views, I will not.

Why?

Because I used to be a bigot, and I know first-hand just how insidious such a rationale can be.

Comments, completely out of ignorance, that state that gay couples would be less suitable that straight couples to raise children, and should therefore be denied their right to marry are bigoted. Period.

Is this what we're defending here?

My intention here is not to offend anyone. I am sure everyone in this thread has, from their own perspective, admirable intentions. But let's not beat around the bush. Those in favor of this law are almost assuredly against same-sex marriage and therefore hold, at a minimum, questionable moral and ethical views towards homosexuals in general.

We can go back to the marriage equality thread and see a very interesting correlation between the views presented there and the views presented here.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Not sure what this means.

What I meant by the "bandwagon of ignorance" is the common belief that this law is the only thing that made it legal to discriminate against gay people in Indiana.

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?

Yes. I think the intent of some in the legislature was to pander to voters, but I don't think most of those legislators actually believed the law made it legal to deny services. They're all very well aware that Indiana has no state law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment or public accommodations. For those legislators (don't know the motives of all of them), it was purely a symbolic gesture that lacked any actual impact on gay rights. Bet they feel stupid now, though.

You didn't really tell them the facts,

I said in my very first post that Indiana and most other states have no law prohibiting discrimination against gay people, and that this law didn't change that. People chose not to believe that.

and what you tried to show (Title VII) was actually a legal tangent.

Gouri was arguing that private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal. The meaning of sex under Title VII is the same as under Title II.

My read of your comments was that Pat Haden and like-minded supporters were being either hypocritical or uneducated.

Correct. They were uneducated.

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?

No. The bill is a red herring at this point because it will not change the legal reality that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will still be legal in Indiana. People will nevertheless congratulate themselves that they've accomplished something.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Nate, you are wrong to state that Equal Protection cannot be used to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Nate didn't say that, but you already knew that, didn't you?

“What [the framers of the 14th Amendment] were getting at, basically, and you will find this popping up again and again in the legislative record, they were against caste. They did not want the United States to have any classes or castes that would identify people by their birth status.” -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Yes, yes, but the 14th Amendment only applies to state actors, not to private businesses, so it has nothing to do with this law.

 

[gourimoko]

Nate didn't say that,

He didn't?

I could've sworn he said "challenges to laws such as Indiana's on Equal Protection grounds will fail in the courts."

To which you responded emphatically "EXACTLY."

but you already knew that, didn't you?

Comments like this are fucking annoying. I have no idea what you're trying to get at... Keep that shit to yourself.

Yes, yes, but the 14th Amendment only applies to state actors, not to private businesses, so it has nothing to do with this law.

The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection are one of the foundational principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under theFifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by PresidentLyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, at the White House.
...
"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term 'private'"

 

[Randolphkeys]

Articles on the pizza joint in Indiana who first proudly announced a "no gays" policy are beginning to make the rounds on the internet. This is what the owner, Crystal O'Connor looks like:

I'm guessing she has personally dated a number of men who quickly turned to the cock afterwards.

 

[NasstyNate]

@The Human Q-Tip , @NasstyNate , @MRMsix6 , @Cratylus , and anyone else who seems to think discrimination against homosexuals is somehow legal or constitutional.

My argument continues over from the Marriage Equality thread, and that any irrational discrimination against a group of people is a violation of that person's civil rights.

...

I cannot see the Marriage Equality thread. We are on the same side, but you are totally wrong on the law. Everything you are arguing is based on the misconception that the Indiana law is a state action, and therefore subject to 14th Amendment review. The Indiana law is a narrow rewriting of the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision and purports to allow private citizens (not the government) to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Equal Protection only applies to governmental action, and while I agree with you that gay marriage bans will soon be outlawed based on Equal Protection grounds, there is no government action in a private business denying service. This loophole is why Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specifically Title II:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.​

This is the only method by which the government can intrude on private actions, and there is nothing about sex or sexual orientation in the law. I believe both should be included, and completely support an immediate law to do so. But until that happens, laws like Indiana's will continue to be constitutional.

I'll just add here instead of writing a new post. Your cites to legal scholars do not say what you think they say, and only Nancy Marcus stated that Indiana's law is unconstitutional, citing Romer v. Evans. There, Colorado passed a statewide ban on laws protecting LGBT rights. The Supreme Court said that law was unconstitutional because it was a state action specifically targeting a group of people for no rational reason. That case is clearly distinguishable from Indiana in light of Hobby Lobby for several reasons, including 1) it is not a state action, 2) the law is written broadly enough to not target the LGBT community, and 3) Hobby Lobby clearly confers 1st Amendment rights to private corporations.

 

[MRMsix6]

@MRMsix6 , you argue that Q-Tip has made the only legal argument in the thread, but this is false.

I said nothing of the sort.

@MRMsix6 , you accused @Cavatt of intolerance when he rightfully called those opposed to same-sex marriage as bigoted.

I stand by what I said about his post. He did more than calling someone bigoted. And it wasn't just referencing things Q-tip supposedly said in Marriage Eqaulity Thread (which I am not familiar with). Nothing he said in this thread should have elicited that kind of response. It was fucking vile.

 

[Cratylus]

@gourimoko - my contention is that if it's legal for a BUYER to discriminate on the basis for any reason he damn well chooses, then it should be equally legal for a SELLER to do the same.

While I agree with the general concept of equal access to the marketplace, I think it's just that: equal ACCESS, not equal OUTCOME. Everyone in this country can access our free market system, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to get exactly what they want from whomever they want. If our hypothetical florist doesn't want to do business with two gay men who are getting married, he can subvert your interpretation of things simply by saying, "Sorry, I don't have the resources available at the time of your wedding to help you." All the while the real reason he won't assist them is because he believes it violates his own religious principles. So, congratulations - any laws passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation won't prevent anything of the sort.

Moreover, I would think the gay couple in question would prefer to do business with somebody who was genuinely thrilled to have their business and would, therefore, provide a better overall customer service experience, rather than trying to legally force our hypothetical religious florist to do the job. Again, using the law to COMPEL a business owner to provide a service that he can't provide without violating his own religious principles doesn't help the consumer in question. It only makes it more likely that both parties to the transaction will come away from the experience unhappy.

 

[gourimoko]

I said nothing of the sort.

Then my apologies.

I stand by what I said about his post. He did more than calling someone bigoted. And it wasn't just referencing things Q-tip supposedly said in Marriage Eqaulity Thread (which I am not familiar with). Nothing he said in this thread should have elicited that kind of response. It was fucking vile.

It was over the top, but I understand where he is coming from.

Arguing that gays should not have the right to be married or raise children is "fucking vile."

 

[MRMsix6]

Arguing that gays should not have the right to be married or raise children is "fucking vile."

I agree!

But that discussion is completely outside the context of this thread, at least as far as what Q-tip has posted in here, which has not been bigoted in the slightest.

 

[NasstyNate]

@gourimoko - my contention is that if it's legal for a BUYER to discriminate on the basis for any reason he damn well chooses, then it should be equally legal for a SELLER to do the same.

While I agree with the general concept of equal access to the marketplace, I think it's just that: equal ACCESS, not equal OUTCOME. Everyone in this country can access our free market system, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to get exactly what they want from whomever they want. If our hypothetical florist doesn't want to do business with two gay men who are getting married, he can subvert your interpretation of things simply by saying, "Sorry, I don't have the resources available at the time of your wedding to help you." All the while the real reason he won't assist them is because he believes it violates his own religious principles. So, congratulations - any laws passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation won't prevent anything of the sort.

Moreover, I would think the gay couple in question would prefer to do business with somebody who was genuinely thrilled to have their business and would, therefore, provide a better overall customer service experience, rather than trying to legally force our hypothetical religious florist to do the job. Again, using the law to COMPEL a business owner to provide a service that he can't provide without violating his own religious principles doesn't help the consumer in question. It only makes it more likely that both parties to the transaction will come away from the experience unhappy.

I vehemently disagree. If a person chooses to enrich themselves by entering into the public marketplace, then they must follow the social contract and follow the rules of that marketplace. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of society apply to you. And as a society, slowly but surely we have decided that discrimination is wrong. Therefore, either participate in society and do not discriminate, or make your own private club and discriminate all you want.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

He didn't?

I could've sworn he said "challenges to laws such as Indiana's on Equal Protection grounds will fail in the courts."

That is exactly what he said about "laws such as Indiana's." You accused him of making a much broader statement -- "that Equal Protection cannot be used to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". He did not say that, because that statement also covers actual state actions such as denying marriage rights.

n fact, you've said this numerous times, but I've posted the opinions of nearly a dozen prominent legal scholars who vehemently disagree; many of which clearly are referring to this very specific Indiana law.

You are misreading your own evidence. Don't know how else to put it.

Q-Tip, I honestly don't think you have any idea as to what you are talking about. The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection are one of the foundational principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under theFifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by PresidentLyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, at the White House.
...
"Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term 'private'"

This is frustrating as hell, but I'm going to try to be more polite about this in the hope that you'll actually listen. Honestly, the state action requirement of 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not controversial. It is well-settled law, and has been for nearly 150 years.

You've apparently quoted wikipedia, and that's fine. But the constitutional predicate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 varies by Title. The Titles that address actions by the government are indeed premised upon the 14th/15th Amendment, as appropriate. But the Titles that limit actions by private citizens/businesses are based on the Commerce Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause of the14th Amendment. Here's a link to Title II -- the Title that deals with public accommodations. Please note the repeated emphasis on the requirement that the business be "affecting commerce." The only exception is if there is an affirmative state law that actually requires discrimination, which isn't at issue here.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

The claim you're making -- that the 14th Amendment covers private discrimination as well -- was specifically rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court way back during Reconstruction in what are known as the "Civil Rights Cases." Google that case (it was a consolidated case) for yourself.

Subsequent legislation that did address private conduct -- such as Titles II and VII of the Civiil Rights Act of 1964 -- were therefore based on Congress' authority to regulate commerce, not Equal Protection. That's according to Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Look that one up too if you wish.

I can't help but note that you are damaging the cause about which you claim to care so much. The false belief that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by private persons is already illegal, and that this Indiana statute reverses that, ignores the actual problem that exists in Indiana and a majority of other states.