Political foo: Here we go again

[alpharaposa]

So, today on Twitter I saw a few people talking about GenCon sending out a letter to Gov Pence of Indiana about Indiana SB 101. So, I looked up the text of the bill. I read it, grumbled a bit to my husband about it not saying anything unusual, and then sent a link to some of the people exclaiming on Twitter.

Then one of my in-laws posted about it on Facebook. Pasted the link to the text of the bill in the comments. Then one of my highschool friends shared a post by George Takei threatening to never attend an event in Indiana if the bill passes.

Okay, so this escalated quickly, didn't it?

Here's a link to the bill:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101

Take some time to read it, won't you? What is says is that the government of Indiana can't force anybody to violate their religious beliefs unless there is a clear compelling interest in doing so. If there is such an interest, the state must use the least burdensome method available to it to resolve the issue. It also provides a means of redress if the state does overstep its bounds.

This is not a law saying that people can throw gays out of their establishment whenever they feel like it.

19 other states already have laws like this. There is a federal law that states the same thing for those items under Federal jurisdiction. This is not some bright, hard, new line being crossed. Instead, it says that sometimes, what people believe is important enough that it needs to be respected. Accommodations will be found. Compromises may have to be made, so that people don't end up losing their livelihoods in the pursuit of their beliefs. Worst comes to worst, there will be lawsuits establishing just how burdensome is too burdensome.

The groups whipping up a panic over this law want to do to Indiana and GenCon what they did to Mozilla when they got the company to fire one of its own founders. They want to enforce their own dogma. Absolute purity. No accommodation. GenCon has a contract with Indianapolis through 2020. They're not leaving soon. No, the letter just says that if Indiana turns out to not be popular enough to sustain business, they'll have to go elsewhere. The people threatening that popularity? Guess who. It's not the folks who are worried about losing their businesses over a wedding cake.

Indianapolis Star article:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/indiana-house-oks-controversial-religious-freedom-bill/70336706/

Comments

[kishiriadgr.livejournal.com]

I saw the headline for that and went, "I don't even want to be near this discussion."

[zeeth_kyrah]

The problem is, it's a "Religous Freedom Restoration Act", which title has been used repeatedly as a cover for "Discrimination against people for religious reasons is legally okay" acts which have led to a number of more or less unpleasant unintended consequences.

If you want to affirm religious freedom, I'm fine with that, within Constitutional limits. But what was missing or removed, that had to be restored?

[stryck.livejournal.com]

Neither the First Amendment nor the Federal bill cover laws within the individual states. Those who have studied the history of the early colonies may well be aware that there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents a state from adopting an official religion!

That means, if the people of an individual state want to make sure that they are protected in their beliefs, it's up to them to see that a state-level law is passed that does so. Thus, the creation of Utah for the Mormons. They've since been granted more tolerance in other states, but originally they went West to find a place where people wouldn't outlaw them.

[zeeth_kyrah]

And yet, not all Christians want the state to intervene on their behalf, nor espouse beliefs for them. Surely we can agree that this bill is somewhat misaimed if it wishes to affirm religious liberty.

And if you want to discriminate, please feel free to post a sign in your business to that effect (Oklahoma's RFRA was tabled in committee because of an amendment mandating such a sign). It'll save us all time, money, and hassle.

[aefenglommung.livejournal.com]

Back in the '90s, the Courts began to use a different standard, which made it easier for government to brush past a defense of religious infringement. Congress passed -- and Bill Clinton signed -- an Act (the RFRA) restoring the original standard that had been in use beforehand. The new, looser standard that made your rights less secure was the innovation; the RFRA restored what had been before.

That only applies to federal courts, of course. If you want to make sure that your State courts won't wander off and start making it easier for government to push you around, you have to pass similar legislation so that when you get your day in court, they have to respect your religious rights, like they used to.

The RFRA (SB 101) gives no extra advantage to anybody on any given issue in the public eye today. Long after today's issues are forgotten, it will continue to help people assert their rights.

[cat-sanctuary.livejournal.com]

I still think we all need to step back, take a deep breath, and admit that people are never going to like everybody else equally or treat everybody else equally. If I own a business and I refuse to wait on anybody who looks like my first primary-school enemy, that'll cost me not only the customers who trigger my memories but all of their friends and relations--but that's where the saying comes from: it's my business. If I'm stupid enough to ask what people's private personal relationships are like, and judge people and turn down business on that basis, that's my business. That my business is thereby guaranteed to go bankrupt is my business. As long as there's no official public mandate that all businesses discriminate against all people in some specific category, my decision to self-sabotage by alienating customers would be merely clear gain to anyone who wants to adopt a more intelligent business policy. I see no need to waste public resources trying to force people to like each other.

And if I really wanted someone to bake a cake for some kind of celebration of something that person doesn't endorse, I'd be quiet about the intended purpose of the cake...refusing to bake it would be much nicer than baking it and spitting in it. Or worse.

And if people really want to go back all the way to the 1950s, 1960s, I'm prepared to rant about how heinous it was that Ruby Bridges and her equally small and innocent White counterpart had to be traumatized in the public school system...while, *at the same time,* Berea College was proving that a good private school could motivate students of different colors to work together *and like it.* Granted, a lot of people aren't mentally qualified to attend Berea College. But people who'd been honestly interested in teaching bright children (of which RB and her counterpart were two), instead of using the federal government to bully misguided citizens, would have profited by Berea's example.