Indiana "religious freedom" law

[RockRaines]

You're not exactly telling someone who is unfamiliar, I did grow up there. I'm impressed that people in Australia now know it. That took skill.

Thats why I clarified, its funny that its finally getting out of US soil. I mean dont they know most of the south is bigoted as hell?

[Jenksismyhero]

Until the 1960s (when the federal government finally acted), society in the South was quite happy to allow its businesses to discriminate based on race. This isn't a perfect world and allowing "society" to determine if actions are acceptable allows the majority to trample the rights of the minority.

 

1) I said in a perfect world. A world that has progressed, much like ours has. It's not some uncommon thing to expect that some laws won't be necessary anymore. The SC has said as much with issues like affirmative action.

 

2) I'm not aware of any religion that would deem "being black" something that is an affront or objectionable under that religion. And before we go down the "well but yeah anyone can say their religion is whatever they want it to be" road, the SC has handled that numerous times in the past and rejected those attempts.

 

Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake. I don't think they HAVE to serve them. I don't think they SHOULD serve them. Even without the protection of religious freedom, they should be able to deny that service.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

2) I'm not aware of any religion that would deem "being black" something that is an affront or objectionable under that religion. And before we go down the "well but yeah anyone can say their religion is whatever they want it to be" road, the SC has handled that numerous times in the past and rejected those attempts.

So you actually can't see where "I don't believe in miscegenation" is going to be the immediate reply with the specific example of this case?

[southsider2k5]

1) I said in a perfect world. A world that has progressed, much like ours has. It's not some uncommon thing to expect that some laws won't be necessary anymore. The SC has said as much with issues like affirmative action.

 

2) I'm not aware of any religion that would deem "being black" something that is an affront or objectionable under that religion. And before we go down the "well but yeah anyone can say their religion is whatever they want it to be" road, the SC has handled that numerous times in the past and rejected those attempts.

 

Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake. I don't think they HAVE to serve them. I don't think they SHOULD serve them. Even without the protection of religious freedom, they should be able to deny that service.

 

This analogy keeps getting used by people who don't understand these laws, and it is 100% wrong.

 

There is no law that forces you to do something you do not already do as a business. You couldn't go into a Islam restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol and force them to serve you whiskey. You couldn't do it before, and you can't do it now. But what this new law does is allows an Islamic restaurant, even if you are ordering something that is on the menu, to say I will not serve you because you are Jewish, Christian, Hindu... whatever.

[southsider2k5]

How so? Run by males, with women who wear the appropriately required head scarves, closing down for Ramadan? I'm pretty sure I've been in those restaurants before.

Not serving women, Christians, etc?

[Balta1701]

Not serving women, Christians, etc?

Gotcha. Yeah I'd kinda have a problem with that.

 

Oh and BTW you didn't note in your opening post that the restaurant can't serve shellfish.

[Jenksismyhero]

So you actually can't see where "I don't believe in miscegenation" is going to be the immediate reply with the specific example of this case?

 

You can make that claim sure. But I have a hard time believing a person will successfully argue that service of a black person would be a substantial burden due to their disagreement with miscgenation. Is that even a commonly recognized issue these days? If not, just because you, individually, have that belief doesn't mean it falls under the religious practice/freedom umbrella. I'm confident a court's analysis would get to that conclusion given their past opinions on religious practices that are counter to federal laws.

 

I get your guys' point. But I still think the best case scenario is that everyone can discriminate as they see fit, and let the world decide. Pointing back to the 1960's doesn't work anymore. We're far too PC to let anything like that continue on a massive scale.

[southsider2k5]

Gotcha. Yeah I'd kinda have a problem with that.

 

Oh and BTW you didn't note in your opening post that the restaurant can't serve shellfish.

 

Damn it. Thank god for the disclaimer at the beginning so I can add that later.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Let's flip the switch here: a gay person runs a copy shop. A crazy, homophobic anti-gay religious person comes in and wants to order 1000 "death to queers" posters. I think that gay person should be able to say go jump in a lake.

 

Anti-discrimination laws are about protecting the customer, not any content a customer might request. The gay people being rejected by bakers and florists aren't asking for any products that the businesses didn't already produce.

[Balta1701]

You can make that claim sure. But I have a hard time believing a person will successfully argue that service of a black person would be a substantial burden due to their disagreement with miscgenation. Is that even a commonly recognized issue these days? If not, just because you, individually, have that belief doesn't mean it falls under the religious practice/freedom umbrella. I'm confident a court's analysis would get to that conclusion given their past opinions on religious practices that are counter to federal laws.

 

I get your guys' point. But I still think the best case scenario is that everyone can discriminate as they see fit, and let the world decide. Pointing back to the 1960's doesn't work anymore. We're far too PC to let anything like that continue on a massive scale.

And if you're looking for evidence that you're wrong, how many different states have now tried to pass "license to discriminate against the gay menace" bills.

 

We ended this problem in the 60s because the law forced it to happen. It's the only reason it ended. Ignoring that lesson is ignoring reality and a defense of it happening.

[Jenksismyhero]

This analogy keeps getting used by people who don't understand these laws, and it is 100% wrong.

 

There is no law that forces you to do something you do not already do as a business. You couldn't go into a Islam restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol and force them to serve you whiskey. You couldn't do it before, and you can't do it now. But what this new law does is allows an Islamic restaurant, even if you are ordering something that is on the menu, to say I will not serve you because you are Jewish, Christian, Hindu... whatever.

 

I think this is a distinction without a difference. I'm not suggesting they have to do anything new, but they can be in violation of law for not serving people they might not want to serve due to religious practices. That's why this is incredibly narrow law that won't be applied very successfully in the vast majority of cases. If you're Christian and you're really against gay marriage, this affords you the protection of not being in violation of the law for refusing to work a gay wedding (arguably, who knows what the courts will say on that). The restaurant example really doesn't apply, I don't think, because what's the burden to the practice of Islam? Serving infidels food?

 

And if that's the case, GOOD. That restaurant would rightly be outed and go out of business. Same with the photographer, hopefully.

 

My other issue with these laws, currently, is that they clearly don't work if you read the papers. There's still a ton of discrimination in hiring. Wouldn't it be better to use the most powerful weapon we have, money, instead? If businesses are forced to go out of business for their discriminatory actions, good. Fear of losing your business is bigger than fear of getting sued every once and a while.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Anti-discrimination laws are about protecting the customer, not any content a customer might request. The gay people being rejected by bakers and florists aren't asking for any products that the businesses didn't already produce.

 

So what? If i'm gay i'm sure as hell not wanting to serve a person like that. I should be able to tell the guy go f*** himself. But currently that person would be, arguably, in violation of the law for discrimination based on the customer's religion.

[CrimsonWeltall]

You can make that claim sure. But I have a hard time believing a person will successfully argue that service of a black person would be a substantial burden due to their disagreement with miscgenation. Is that even a commonly recognized issue these days? If not, just because you, individually, have that belief doesn't mean it falls under the religious practice/freedom umbrella. I'm confident a court's analysis would get to that conclusion given their past opinions on religious practices that are counter to federal laws.

 

I don't see how you can argue that "God wants the races separate" isn't an established religious belief. Serving black people would be as much a violation to people with that belief as serving gay people would be to a strongly anti-gay Christian.

 

How can we expect the courts to just arbitrarily decide which beliefs count as legitimate?

[Jenksismyhero]

And if you're looking for evidence that you're wrong, how many different states have now tried to pass "license to discriminate against the gay menace" bills.

 

We ended this problem in the 60s because the law forced it to happen. It's the only reason it ended. Ignoring that lesson is ignoring reality and a defense of it happening.

 

It's not ignoring a lesson, it's accepting that society has changed for the better. If anti-discrimination laws were eradicated you really believe "whites only" signs would be popping up everywhere?

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

So what? If i'm gay i'm sure as hell not wanting to serve a person like that. I should be able to tell the guy go f*** himself. But currently that person would be, arguably, in violation of the law for discrimination based on the customer's religion.

 

So your analogy fails. It's not about content. If a gay business owner discriminated against a person purely because they were a Christian, yes, they would be in violation of the law.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see how you can argue that "God wants the races separate" isn't an established religious belief. Serving black people would be as much a violation to people with that belief as serving gay people would be to a strongly anti-gay Christian.

 

How can we expect the courts to just arbitrarily decide which beliefs count as legitimate?

 

How many people practice it? How important is it to the religious traditions of Christianity? A court is going to decide that. They have in cases involving the use of federally banned drugs, facial hair of inmates, requests of inmates for prayer materials, etc. It's not some unknown issue. We can determine if someone's claim is credible or not to decide whether it would be a substantial burden.

 

And for the third time, GOOD! Let someone make that claim. Let's see Twitter and 24/7 cable news do a story about the local restaurant that refuses to serve black people because he doesn't want to mix races.

 

I mean look, I'm not sure if we're at that point yet, but we're sure as hell closer than we were in the 60's. I'm saying in a perfect world that would be the case.

[Jenksismyhero]

So your analogy fails. It's not about content. If a gay business owner discriminated against a person purely because they were a Christian, yes, they would be in violation of the law.

 

And i'm saying given what they know about the person and what they intend to do, they should be able to say go jump in a lake.

[southsider2k5]

I think this is a distinction without a difference. I'm not suggesting they have to do anything new, but they can be in violation of law for not serving people they might not want to serve due to religious practices. That's why this is incredibly narrow law that won't be applied very successfully in the vast majority of cases. If you're Christian and you're really against gay marriage, this affords you the protection of not being in violation of the law for refusing to work a gay wedding (arguably, who knows what the courts will say on that). The restaurant example really doesn't apply, I don't think, because what's the burden to the practice of Islam? Serving infidels food?

 

And if that's the case, GOOD. That restaurant would rightly be outed and go out of business. Same with the photographer, hopefully.

 

My other issue with these laws, currently, is that they clearly don't work if you read the papers. There's still a ton of discrimination in hiring. Wouldn't it be better to use the most powerful weapon we have, money, instead? If businesses are forced to go out of business for their discriminatory actions, good. Fear of losing your business is bigger than fear of getting sued every once and a while.

 

I think the distinction is everything. Being able to treat people differently for any reason is discrimination and de facto segregation.

[CrimsonWeltall]

How many people practice it?

 

Does it matter? Does a religious belief need a certain level of popularity before it becomes protected?

 

How important is it to the religious traditions of Christianity? A court is going to decide that. They have in cases involving the use of federally banned drugs, facial hair of inmates, requests of inmates for prayer materials, etc. It's not some unknown issue. We can determine if someone's claim is credible or not to decide whether it would be a substantial burden.

 

A court can make a judgment call on whether something is a substantial burden. It can't reasonably determine if someone's belief is credible or non-credible. It's not like religious beliefs necessarily have any ties to reality or good judgment.

 

And for the third time, GOOD! Let someone make that claim. Let's see Twitter and 24/7 cable news do a story about the local restaurant that refuses to serve black people because he doesn't want to mix races.

 

It's nice that you're probably right in the instance of race, but you're not with sexual orientation. The businesses which have discriminated against gay people have gotten big outpourings of support from similar-minded people.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think the distinction is everything. Being able to treat people differently for any reason is discrimination and de facto segregation.

 

But only about 6-7 reasons make it a violation of the law. Anything else is fair game.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Does it matter? Does a religious belief need a certain level of popularity before it becomes protected?

 

Sure it does. You can't very well claim that I can sell my slave or stone someone to death as per my Christian practice when no one does that. Its a factor to consider.

 

A court can make a judgment call on whether something is a substantial burden. It can't reasonably determine if someone's belief is credible or non-credible. It's not like religious beliefs necessarily have any ties to reality or good judgment.

 

Again, sure you can. How many times have you said X. Do you teach it? Does your church teach it? How long has the belief been held, etc. etc. It'll be a factual analysis, and it's going to be on the Plaintiff to establish it. Again, the federal government already protects religious practice. The states are just molding these laws after the federal law. So there is case law on the books about what constitutes religious practice and what types of practice deserve protection, or at least factors to consider in making that analysis.

 

It's nice that you're probably right in the instance of race, but you're not with sexual orientation. The businesses which have discriminated against gay people have gotten big outpourings of support from similar-minded people.

 

They have, but I think there are far more supporters of gay people as well these days. I seriously doubt in most areas that someone screaming from the roof tops that gays won't be allowed would result in streams of people lining up to shop/eat there. So fine, we're not there YET. Again, this is my perfect world where that stuff is a minority opinion, which is the trajectory we're on.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[cabiness42]

Consider two different scenarios. In both, a local business owner that does wedding work (baker, photographer, etc.), is known to be an anti-gay Christian.

 

Scenario 1: A gay couple goes into the business, and in the process of ordering work done for their wedding, berate the business owner, call him a bigot and all other kinds of names.

 

Scenario 2: A gay couple goes into the business, and in the process of ordering work done for their wedding, are nothing but kind and polite to the business owner.

 

Now, in #1, I'm all in favor of the business owner having the right to refuse to do business with these people because they've given him a reason other than just being gay.

 

In #2, I'm not at all in favor of the business owner having the right to refuse to do business with these people because they've given him no other reason than just being gay.

 

I'm not sure what the rights of the business owner with respect to these scenarios were before this law or will be after this law, but it doesn't seem like the law is a very good idea.

 

Also, I like ss2k's opening statement. Jesus made sure to spend plenty of time with sinners. Refusing to deal with any class of people who are "sinners" by your religious beliefs doesn't seem like a good thing to do, legal or not.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Sure it does. You can't very well claim that I can sell my slave or stone someone to death as per my Christian practice when no one does that. Its a factor to consider.

 

Of course you can claim that. The government will respond that it has a legitimate interest in prohibiting slavery and personal executioners that override your claim.

 

Again, sure you can. How many times have you said X. Do you teach it? Does your church teach it? How long has the belief been held, etc. etc. It'll be a factual analysis, and it's going to be on the Plaintiff to establish it.

 

This would be wildly unfair to people with minority beliefs that simply aren't popular or established within a formal religious framework.

 

Again, the federal government already protects religious practice. The states are just molding these laws after the federal law. So there is case law on the books about what constitutes religious practice and what types of practice deserve protection, or at least factors to consider in making that analysis.

 

This particular IN law is written vaguely like the federal law, but some of its supporters are clearly acting as if it has powers to allow discrimination (and want it to do so).

[clyons]

How many people practice it? How important is it to the religious traditions of Christianity? A court is going to decide that. They have in cases involving the use of federally banned drugs, facial hair of inmates, requests of inmates for prayer materials, etc. It's not some unknown issue. We can determine if someone's claim is credible or not to decide whether it would be a substantial burden.

 

And for the third time, GOOD! Let someone make that claim. Let's see Twitter and 24/7 cable news do a story about the local restaurant that refuses to serve black people because he doesn't want to mix races.

 

I mean look, I'm not sure if we're at that point yet, but we're sure as hell closer than we were in the 60's. I'm saying in a perfect world that would be the case.

 

The bolded factors are legally irrelevant, at least with respect to religious accommodation under Title VII. The EEOC's official position is that religious beliefs can be "unique to an individual," so long as they are "sincerely held." Evidence as to what others believe is not necessary, given the "intensely personal characteristics of adherence to religious belief."

 

http://eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359487

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course you can claim that. The government will respond that it has a legitimate interest in prohibiting slavery and personal executioners that override your claim.

 

 

 

This would be wildly unfair to people with minority beliefs that simply aren't popular or established within a formal religious framework.

 

 

 

This particular IN law is written vaguely like the federal law, but some of its supporters are clearly acting as if it has powers to allow discrimination (and want it to do so).

 

I'm saying that wouldn't be a very realistic or believable claim. How popular the practice/belief is will be a factor to consider in determining the credibility/severity of the belief in question.