License to Discriminate laws

[Kevin]

Oklahoma's bill died after an amendment was passed requiring businesses to post prominent signs listing the people they are going to discriminate against.

[IndianaSigKap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oklahoma's bill died after an amendment was passed requiring businesses to post prominent signs listing the people they are going to discriminate against.

This is the point some Hoosiers are making in social media posts. Exactly who do these business want to keep out because they are violating the business' religious rights? Also, a point being made: How does a business have a religious right? People, we get, but a business?

Today there were quite a few signs in local businesses in Indianapolis stating that the business there happily serves everyone.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

AZ is prepping its own License to Discriminate bill. GA is also prepping one but I think they are having problems with it. Good.

But one of the AZ "senators" wants to make church attendance mandatory.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...08396517875713

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by ZetaPhi708.20

AZ is prepping its own License to Discriminate bill. GA is also prepping one but I think they are having problems with it. Good.

But one of the AZ "senators" wants to make church attendance mandatory.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...08396517875713

Again??? One was passed already in AZ a year ago but Jan Brewer vetoed it. Maybe they think the new governor will sign it this time around.

Btw I can't wait for some WASPy woman to get thrown out of a store for not wearing a hijab or being escorted by a male relative :-)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by IndianaSigKap

This is the point some Hoosiers are making in social media posts. Exactly who do these business want to keep out because they are violating the business' religious rights? Also, a point being made: How does a business have a religious right? People, we get, but a business?

Today there were quite a few signs in local businesses in Indianapolis stating that the business there happily serves everyone.

The Hobby Lobby decision was the camel's nose under the tent...

But you're right, it was strictly limited to closely held corporations.

[ZetaPhi708.20]

One business in Indiana already turns away LGBTs and will still turn away LGBTs.

https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/st...22748814635008

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Isn't this hillbilly's 2 seconds of fame up yet?

https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/581976737799643136

[honeychile]

People realize that there are now twenty states with such a law, don't they? From the Washington Post: "19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting"

For those not wishing to check out the map, the states are:

Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

"Note: Arizona is included in the map of states with a Religious Freedom Restoration Act despite the veto of the controversial SB 1062 in 2014, because a RFRA bill was passed in 2012."

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by honeychile

People realize that there are now twenty states with such a law, don't they? From the Washington Post: "19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting"

For those not wishing to check out the map, the states are:

Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

"Note: Arizona is included in the map of states with a Religious Freedom Restoration Act despite the veto of the controversial SB 1062 in 2014, because a RFRA bill was passed in 2012."

I've pondered this a lot this week. To me, the difference is the timing of most of those other states' laws, and the impetus behind the Indiana law. I've researched the would-be motives behind the Missouri law (which is about 12 years old), and it had nothing to do with local businesses or being allowed to refuse service to anyone. It was about how zoning laws impacted churches, and whether non-Christian religions were getting the same treatment as Christianity.

To the best of my knowledge (which, I'll admit, is limited since I have only spent a relatively small amount of time looking at this from a national perspective) Indiana is unique in its timing and its motives. 13 of those 19 at least have been in place over 10 years. Our society has changed a LOT in those 10 years, and LGBTQ rights is a hot topic now when it wasn't then.

Also, to the best of my knowledge (again, limited), no other states have been using their RFRAs to discriminate. They use them to prevent being discriminated against, which is a HUGE difference.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by pbear19

I've pondered this a lot this week. To me, the difference is the timing of most of those other states' laws, and the impetus behind the Indiana law. I've researched the would-be motives behind the Missouri law (which is about 12 years old), and it had nothing to do with local businesses or being allowed to refuse service to anyone. It was about how zoning laws impacted churches, and whether non-Christian religions were getting the same treatment as Christianity.

To the best of my knowledge (which, I'll admit, is limited since I have only spent a relatively small amount of time looking at this from a national perspective) Indiana is unique in its timing and its motives. 13 of those 19 at least have been in place over 10 years. Our society has changed a LOT in those 10 years, and LGBTQ rights is a hot topic now when it wasn't then.

Also, to the best of my knowledge (again, limited), no other states have been using their RFRAs to discriminate. They use them to prevent being discriminated against, which is a HUGE difference.

Indiana's law is notably different in that it extends the alleged protections to for-profit businesses. The others cover individuals and non-for-profit organizations. The Hobby Lobby decision at the SCOTUS level has cleared the path for this; now a for-profit business can have an exercise of religion. That's some serious bullshit.

That said, the law has very little support on the ground in many parts of the state, and rather than boycott Indiana, it would be nice if progressives in other states would support the progressives here rather than paint the entire state as evil.