License to Discriminate laws

[ZetaPhi708.20]

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

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

[Nanners52674]

Ad letting people know Indiana us great for bigots lol

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LH2FVxrj4k

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

Ad letting people know Indiana us great for bigots lol

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LH2FVxrj4k

Damn. I was just going to post that.

Hell, I will post it anyway.

https://youtu.be/5LH2FVxrj4k

[ZetaPhi708.20]

Here is a ever-growing list of the businesses that are or will be taking their staffs elsewhere instead of Indiana:

Gen-Con (calls to move this convention)
Salesforce
Angie's List
NCAA (calls to move the final Four)
Seattle and San Francisco (restrictions and/or travel bans by their mayors for state/employee business to IN)
Church pulls its convention from IN (sorry, I forgot which domination)


Any others?

[Nanners52674]

I wish they could pack up and move next weekends final four. That'd be a quick message.

Any lawyers know if a suit will be brought against the law?

[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."

[1964Alum]

The 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom removed the Anglican church from being the official religion of the state and provided for religious freedom. It essentially established the separation of church and state.

Homosexuals may now marry in Virginia.

ETA: I realize that the above is not the same as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in
Virginia! It is being primarily applied to homeschoolers. Rights of homosexuals have actually been expanded.

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/va/200704230.asp

[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.

[Nanners52674]

NSFW!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cUA9m-g12ag

Hilarious response to the law, in song.

[naraht]

One thing that I think has to be appreciated in this is that the following two ideas will poll significantly differently:
1) A Cake shop on the block can refuse to make a "congratulations on your marriage Bill and Mark" with two grooms on the top" and send them to the Cake shop down the block.
2) The only Grocery store for 50 miles in any direction can refuse to allow a gay man to shop there.

But while they poll differently, it would be pretty much impossible to write a law that would allow one, but not the other.

[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.

[joliebelle]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

This. My husband lives in Indiana, and there a lot of awful things being said about the entire state that just simply aren't true. Pence singing this bill made the perception of this state rewind.

This article from The Atlantic explains how this law is different from other states' religious freedom bills.

[aephi alum]

It's disgusting.

I'm half tempted to go to Indiana, go into an establishment where they won't serve members of the LGBT community, buy something (small - wouldn't want them to profit too much), and, as I walk out the door, toss a comment over my shoulder: "Oh, by the way, I'm a lesbian! Thanks for the coffee! <or whatever>"

When my husband and I fell in love, got engaged, and applied for our marriage license, we took it for granted that we'd get the license. It should be no different for same-sex couples.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

Part of the problem with that is that a majority Republican Legislature and a Republican governor will be forced to act more quickly if many big business leave the state versus if they're voted out in the next election. It's almost a two-pronged approach. The sad part is that businesses leaving the state punishes primarily Indianapolis, and that there are real people in Indianapolis who may be told their office is relocating which doesn't always come with offers to relocate with the office or offers to telecommute.

[Nanners52674]

Can this be challenged in court?

Pence clearly never learned that business and profit are often more important than religion. People care about beliefs but only to a point, causing major corporations to lose money isn't smart. Hobby Lobby is an outlier, not the norm.