ADVERTISEMENT

OK all the misguided information

L

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,356
1,677
113
appearing in the threads below (and in so many other places aside from this board) appears to be based on some folks believing the articles and internet posts they read regarding Indiana RFRA, some folks just plain making up stuff and most folks not reading and/or not understanding what the newly enacted Senate Enrolled Act 101 actually does.

Here - at the link is the text of the bill. The printing code is NOT the law, and an enrolled act does not have a digest. Below that, following the enacting clause is the law itself.

If this issue is to be discussed, then it should be discussed on the basis of what the law actually says and what it does NOT say should be understood and acknowledged - and that appears to be gradually occurring here.


I've linked it earlier but now bring it to the top for ease of finding and reading it.

This post was edited on 3/27 10:29 AM by Ladoga

SEA 101
 
Ladoga, you continue to ignore the point

The problem with this law is a political and PR problem. It makes Indiana look bad. It could have been written in such a way as to accomplish it's purported goals without making us look like backwards hilljacks (see Utah), but it wasn't, and now the business community is punishing us for it.
 
Huh?

What people think of this law is on them, not on those who passed it. That said, and as I said before, I would not have voted for this law because it doesn't do anything important and it is more like a bumper sticker than a law. I see a lot of similarities with the reaction to this law and "hands up don't shoot". People don't give a rip about the facts or substance, they are looking for emotional reactions and outlets in current events. That is a sad state of affairs. And, just to get a zinger in before I finish this post, I think the emotionalism like the reaction to this law is a liberal construct, not a conservative one.
 
Makes Indiana look bad?

Ladoga and a majority of the general assembly think this makes Indiana look like a state interested in protecting the religious freedom of Hoosier businessmen. Futhermore businesses protesting this legislation simply don't understand the law.

Personally, I think it is a great deal about nothing with the high probability of the courts coming up with mixed opinions. Just another issue which only divides us further. Simply put, Hoosiers and others don't agree on how we want the rest of the world to see us.

Finally, doesn't the General Assembly have more important problems to address?
 
No one answered the PR question below

I can't believe the state didn't try to get out in front of this. They saw the pressure put on Arizona. And what do we get, a written statement.

All it is going to take is one person next week during the final four have one issue and they might as well close down the convention center. And I guarantee there will be people out looking to force issues. If not at the Final Four, at some future convention.

And it is sad. I attend Gencon yearly, the businesses around there are all so welcoming. Even I, a full on geek, get tired of all the geekiness of Gencon after 4 days. But the restaurants and stores always seem so friendly, it is a marvel. And those are the people that will be hurt if someone even in a different part of the state decides they don't like something.

As we know, gays are not a protected class in Indiana. Discrimination can, and probably does, exist. The unfortunate item about the law is it calls attention to that. What is strange to me, sitting right in the Indiana Constitution, is this:

Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions[/URL]Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Hoosiers have a right of conscious. How does that not protect whatever this law is supposed to protect?

Maybe our leaders don't get social media. I actually doubt this dies down like they hope. First, other convention sites have a motive to negative recruit using this law. Second, just as the groups that pushed this law wanted to show their supporters they could pass something as a consolation prize, outside forces have the same reason to show they can punish states for this. It isn't going to die down quickly.

And again, I foresee a lot of efforts to push the issue. There will be people looking through ads for businesses that suggest they are Christian and going there to try and be ejected. And if they happen to be convention attendees, bye-bye convention center, NCAA Final Four, Big Ten Championships.

There had to be some way, as Utah did, of bringing in differing views and accomplishing this. I can't believe I am praising the Mormon Church for their openness.
 
If that is the case

why isn't it a political problem for the Congress and President who enacted the federal law and the legislatures, courts and executives of states which enacted either by decision or law (19 states by legislative enactment) Before Indiana enacted it?

I checked the site for NCAA championships in the next several years in all sports. IF the NCAA would take action, they'd have to move more than half their currently scheduled championships and their choices would be pretty poor.

PR? Not if people tell the truth about it. How should we counter the PR problems when the basis is lies?

You know full well and, thankfully, have expressed your changing view, that this law produces no discrimination. You know what it does. Why should we abide falsehood?

If people were making the same kinds of false accusations against your law practice, you'd have a pretty good cause of action in defamation.
 
All laws are not equal

Not all states passed the same RFRA. I mention Utah below, you haven't commented on it. Illinois passed it as well, but made gays a protect class for housing and employment. That's a fair amount different than Indiana, wouldn't you think? Are there other states we want to compare? I keep mentioning Arizona, I know you must like Governor Brewer, what was she thinking. I bet you like Mayor Ballard, why did he oppose it?

Couldn't we have accomplished religious freedom in a way more like Utah? I know you hate it when the Democrats control DC and we have one party rule, couldn't this be the same problem in Indiana?
 
How could I possibly be any clearer?

Other states passed these laws for different reasons and with different language. Indiana could have included a civil rights exception. Indiana didn't have to be the only state giving itself a black eye over this.
 
I wasn' t involved in the

bill, but observed with some personal interest and said not one peep of approval/disapproval.

Terrific lawyers were involved in drafting it. They knew exactly what they were doing.

This is an attack from the usual suspect on the extreme left using absolute lies - regarding what the bill really does and you seem to know that it does not do what its loudest and most vociferous critics say, don't you?

You've surely read the IU Law professors' article by now. That should reduce to zero any veracity claimed by the objectors.
 
Who is Nancy Armour?

Nancy's emotionally charged piece about this is exhibit "A" of so much of what is wrong in today's discourse and society. Reading the posts about this, and reading this link, explains very clearly to me how emotionalism can create a false reality separate and apart from the real world. We learned an awful lesson about this with "hands up don't shoot". Sadly, many like maybe Nancy, couldn't see that lesson even if she was hit over the head with it. This law is another example of emotionalism run amuck. One has to wonder what it is about thought processes of human beings that drive us to places like this when thinking about objective facts and events.
 
Still...

If discrimination were not the motivation behind the law, they should have included a civil rights exception.

I have been very consistent on this. The law is likely to have very little consequence, other than the negative PR. And that could easily have been avoided. This is an irresponsible bit of law making. The positives of the law could easily have been stripped from the negatives.
 
Indianapolis is a great place to come...

...for a sporting event with our modern sports facilities being close to the hotels and entertainment venues. Furthermore our merchants and their employees have considerable experience in making all visitors feel at home.

The decision to come to Indianapolis for a NCAA basketball tournament should be based upon talking to someone who has experienced going to a tournament game in Indy and not some law passed by our General Assembly which will have no effect on their visit to Indianapolis.
 
Better, here's the article

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation
Daniel O. Conkle 10:21 a.m. EDT March 26, 2015
I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?
It's because - despite all the rhetoric - the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.
The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.
Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.
If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.
But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.
Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.
But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.
In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.
Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
 
This is a great chance for the CoC to step up.

Would love to see campaigns in various cities basically saying, "RFRA doesn't force us to be assholes; we are committees to welcoming all to our town ."
 
It is all about politics

The more I read, the more I become convinced that the law was purposely made different than all the other RFRA acts in hopes that it will allow courts to even be more broad in the ruling, but unless that happens it isn't that much of a deal.

But let's look at the bidding. One side touts to their people that this is needed to protect their rights from some LGBT agenda. They even tout, as I link somewhere below, that without this act churches will be forced to carry out gay weddings even if it is against their doctrine. We both know that could not happen. They get the bill passed, fairly quietly. Even GOP reps were quoted as saying at the beginning of the session this bill was way down on the agenda, but somehow moved to the top.

Now the groups that touted that bill, that actually exaggerated what it would do, are proclaiming a great victory. So what is the logical next step? The other side to rail against the bill. To likewise exaggerate. To score a victory by forcing a repeal of this bill (or make Indiana suffer). The game plan isn't necessarily about Indiana, it is about the next state (insert slippery slope argument here).

And of course this was foretold. The Indiana Chamber warned it could hurt business. Lilly and Cummins the same. In Arkansas, WalMart and Apple have also testified that their bill will hurt business.

So why not make Utah the model. Sit down and negotiate a deal? I link it below. I can't believe anyone is going to think the Mormon Church has gone leftist on the issue, but they did say that they didn't want to approach the issue as a war any more.

It may be there is some fairly small changes to wording that would make a huge difference in how this is perceived.

In looking through the news, I didn't realize how often these acts lead to lawsuits. A police officer refused to go to a sensitivity training at a mosque (he lost). A Sikh could not wear a hardhat on the job because he had to wear the turban (he lost). I believe an officer has sued to not work at a casino, and lost.

I don't think this letter from law professors has been posted here. I think you'll hate it, but it will be interesting to see your reaction.

If you will say both sides more want to claim a victory than write legislation that works, I'll agree that seems to be the case.
 
That's one person...one

Against the millions of others speaking out. Are you saying the Fortune 500 Company, Gen Con, Apple, and everyone else denouncing it is just not smart enough to understand the bill? Pence and his gang finally pushed too far and I suspect you know it too.
 
I read indianapolis is trying

The city-county council wants to pass their own bill but doubt it will have much real impact since the state law supercedes.

Of course there is the giant campaign to place stickers on business windows.
 
Doesn't need to be the city...

A "license to discriminate" is not a "mandate to discriminate." The various Chambers and Visitors' Bureaus in the state can take this opportunity to sell their towns as inclusive and desirous of new business from all Americans and American companies, and completely turn this story around.

But if the city wants to go for it,they have a good legal argument. This law doesn't prevent them from passing an ordinance. It just makes it difficult to enforce, because they'll have to accept the fact that a loss will be expensive. But I think they could win. I think one could argue that preventing discrimination is a compelling state interest, and a LGBT public accommodations ordinance is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal.

Actually, now that I think about it more, that might be the best outcome, especially if it can be done quickly. If Indy passes such an ordinance, and no business owner sues them, then great, everyone knows that Hoosiers aren't going to use this law to justify discrimination. Good press. If a business owner does sue them, and they win, then everyone knows that the law won't have the dreaded effect people feared. Good press. If they lose, well, that's not good press, but maybe it's what's needed for the GA to realize that they should have carved a civil rights exception into this thing.

goat
 
a business I follow on facebook

Today put an "open to all" sign up. She said she felt sad having to do that.

The link below is a take I like on the issue, what do you think of it?

outside the beltway
 
First Church of Cannabis has filed

A petition on IN.gov......
 
A few things

I don't think the Indiana law is broadly written at all. In fact it is fairly narrow in scope. It purports to only control the actions of government, not actions of individuals. Whatever the claims and defenses were between, say, a homosexual couple who wants a wedding cake, and a baker who, for religious reasons is unwilling to bake the cake, those relationships are left untouched. The law could affect a state or local law, regulation or ordinance that required the baker to make a cake for a homosexual couple, and if it does, I don't think there is a problem.

Lets analogize to abortion. The right to an abortion is a matter of constitutional protection. No government can pass a law prohibiting the performing of abortions. Yet there is no law, nor can there ever be, which would REQUIRE a doctor to perform an abortion if the doctor doesn't want to. Same with cakes. A law prohibiting the making of cakes for homosexual couples cannot stand. Similarly, a law requiring one to make a cake for a given customer is not okay in my book. This statute might address that issue. I recognize and have already discussed the issues of public accommodation in this matter. The law professors didn't approach the problem as a public accommodations issue and I won't either here. I also recognize the issues that might be raised if homsexuals are made a protected class, which in most places they are not. As the professors noted, the courts have been dealing with this kind of legal conflict or decades and have worked it out. I expect the same here and I don't see this Indiana law having an effect on that because the law mostly restates established legal precedent.

I have no general problem with the legal academics letter. They properly outlined the law and legal principles involved.* But I think they are overreacting and inserting substantial subjective emotionalism into what should be a logical and objective analysis. As I said, the law does not address individual relationships at all, yet they dwell on that issue as if this statute authorizes discrimination and bigotry. It doesn't.

The biggest problem, in my view, with any law that purports to deal with sectarian issues is the legal meaning of religion. The legal academics totally ignored that thorny issue as do most commentators. The courts are in the process of mucking this up with its "excessive entanglement" cases. The courts must entangle itself, otherwise "religion" will become a meaningless and amorphous concept. I posted about this issue here.

*although their bias shows with the gratuitous and unnecessary commentary about Hobby Lobby

This post was edited on 3/27 7:33 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
Here's a link to Downtown Indy's response.

I think this is the right way for the Hoosier business community to respond to this. Change the story immediately.

As for your link, I think the author makes a pretty sound libertarian argument against RFRA. I said somewhere else earlier today that "I oppose the Indiana RFRA for many reasons, but the idea that it will lead to a bunch of discrimination isn't one of them." That author does accurately describe what one of my reasons is, though. While I don't agree with him that federal RFRA might be unconstitutional, there has always been a bit of discomfort for me with that law, and I think he pinpoints where that comes from.

goat

Open for Service
 
It is broad...

...in comparison to other RFRAs. The clause which allows the defense to be raised in cases not involving state parties is rare in state RFRAs (and non-existent in the federal law), and it is the most likely place this law will intersect individual relationships.

goat
 
What is the law in Indiana concerning implied civil actions?

The way I would read this statute under Colorado law, I don't see any way for the issue to come up except in a government regulatory enfocement action. Your post seems to me is one of the ways people have overreacted to the law.
 
I think Indy's response is as good as possible

I admire their efforts. but there is only so much they can do. I think Barkley is as big of an idiot as anyone, but he has a large soapbox. Him urging the NCAA and Big 10 to leave has some weight.

And never underestimate George Takei. He has a huge following. If you have ever heard him speak, his story about growing up in the internment camp is powerful. And he is not at all bitter about it, but that experience gives him a certain gravitas when it comes to discrimination.

I have not seen numbers, but from someone I know in the convention business cancellations are happening.

And even if this bill is 110% innoculous, after Arizona last year the fact that our leaders were caught so unprepared is gross incompetence. That is what annoys me now. The Chamber, Lilly, Cummins predicted problems. Arizona last year showed this would happen. What were our officials thinking, that Arizona was just a fluke?
 
Re: Ladoga, you continue to ignore the point


Originally posted by TheOriginalHappyGoat:
The problem with this law is a political and PR problem. It makes Indiana look bad. It could have been written in such a way as to accomplish it's purported goals without making us look like backwards hilljacks (see Utah), but it wasn't, and now the business community is punishing us for it.
Click to expand...
PR problem for who? (or is it whom)?

certainly not a PR problem for those that actually voted for it.

this was done for PR, and those that passed it care only about the PR message it sends to their base

and the PR message it sent, was exactly the message their base wants to hear.


what your, (and others), post neglects to point out, is that the real purpose of this law was simply to pander to the "backwards hilljacks", because the "backwards hilljacks" pretty much run this state on social issues.

the real purpose of this bill, was for the repubs to send a public message that they love Christianity, and hate gays, which is exactly what their base wants to hear.


others can quibble about what the exact actual legal implications of the law are, but this law was never about exact legal implications anyway..

it was about PR to those doing the voting in state elections.

and the PR message to those doing the actual voting, was exactly what they wanted to hear.


as for the leaders of business and industry who publicly decry the message.

regardless of anything they publicly say in the media, they will also continue to fully back the GOP, because other than for show, they don't care squat about social issues.

they like the fact that the GOP fully backs the corporate and moneyed interests on all economics issues, just as they pander to the religious white on social issues.

big money and backwards hilljacks have a very nice coalition govt rule thing going.


the big moneyed interests agree to stay out of it and let the backwards hilljacks have their way on all social issues.

and in return, the backwards hilljacks agree to let the corporate and big moneyed interests have their way on all economic issues.

and voila, you have the formula for success for the GOP.
 
In a private action to enforce an anti-discrimination law

That is the situation in which this would arise between private parties, and the main reason the debate about this is focusing on public accommodations (although employment should probably be a bigger star in this discussion).

Indiana law on implied causes of actions is still relatively unsettled in some areas, although the Supreme Court seems to lean against them at least as arising from the Constitution. You'd need someone who is a legit expert on procedure here, and I'm not that guy, unfortunately. But private civil actions are brought in civil rights cases, so RFRA will be applicable to them.

I'll be honest with you, although this is the part that many people have a problem with, and it seems to be getting a lot of press, it's by no means my big complaint. It actually makes sense to me. My big complaints legally have more to do with the wisdom of the legislature stepping in to meddle with delicate legal issues that have been gradually settled by the courts for years. And my big practical complaint is that, if this law truly isn't about discrimination, why not just add an exemption for civil rights laws? One simple phrase would have made this entire law just fine in everyone's books.

goat
 
Couldn't the negative "PR" . . .

Which is really just political gamesmanship, also be avoided by opponents of the bill not misleading people and causing them to get whipped up into hysterics over the bill? Maybe if opponents (and the media) would stop calling it "anti-gay" and "discriminatory" legislation and putting up signs and posting drivel on social media and holding rallies, but instead were more sensible and balanced, there would be no "PR" problem for the state. If the bill is harmless, as you correctly observe, then why are Democrats making the state look bad over it if not for political gain?

I don't really see a pressing need for this bill and I would rather the Indiana GOP spend its political capital elsewhere, but there exists no support--none whatsoever--for the idea that the statute can be utilized by private citizens to discriminate against gay people. Slippery slopes and paranoia and over-parsing of a statute drafted and passed by a legislature that has very few lawyers in it and that regularly passes bills with imprecise language are flimsy justifications for the frenzy over this bill.

There's no case law or "trajectory" that supports these meritless arguments that the statute can be used as a cover for private individuals and entities to discriminate. It simply has not and never will be the case that a court sanctions such an interpretation of the statute. The rest is politics and that is easy enough to cut out if it's making the state look bad.
 
It is incompetence on a grand scale, there is no doubt about that.

And I would not be surprised if this is seriously damaging whatever slim hopes Pence still had for a legit White House run. Pandering to the religious right and tea party can be useful for name recognition, but you need that Chamber of Commerce money, dammit, and this isn't how you get it.
 
Perception is everything ...

Indiana loses big time. My 13 year old daughter is outside in our suburban neighborhood with a sign for people to honk for equality for all and anti-discrimination. She hates Indiana. She doesn't care about what the laws is ...the perception is Indiana discriminates against people which is absolutely true. And they wonder why Indiana youth leaves the state.
 
I didn't say it was harmless.

I said it would have very little consequence. It absolutely could be used to discriminate against LGBT customers and perhaps even employees, in certain places such as Bloomington and Indianapolis, where there are varying laws in place to protect them.

But most businesses won't do that. Most businesses didn't want this law. That's why it will have very little effect. It's a bad law, but it simply won't be used very often.

You need to be able to distinguish between legal effect and practical effect. There are legal effects to this bill. Some good, some bad. Some of the bad ones are closely related to discrimination. Practical effects will be slight, though, because in most cases, the law won't be raised in order to discriminate.

But once you move from legal, past practical, into the political, it becomes obvious that this was just plain stupid. Everyone warned the state what would happen. Businesses, towns and counties, Chambers of Commerce, law professors. Everyone told them, this is a poorly-written law, and if you pass it, it will open the door to these kinds of complaints, and those types of complaints are going to make our state look bad and hurt our economy. Everyone knew exactly what would happen if this bill were passed. It's absolutely unforgivable that our leaders didn't do something to avoid that backlash, especially when the solution would have been extremely simple, and would have allowed them to keep all of the positives of the bill they claimed to want. The only change they would have had to make would have been to exempt civil rights laws from RFRA. That's it. Had they done that, the discrimination issue would disappear, and everything would be fine.

But they didn't do that. Because, in truth, the discrimination issue is the one they wanted. Because they're idiots.
 
Goat and CO

How does the Indiana Constitution not settle this as is? Article 1 Section 3 basically says no law can interfere with rights of conscience. I cannot think of a case where a strong religious belief would not be conscience.
 
part of the problem

I was just reading a conservative site that said this law was needed to block the LGBT agenda. Another conservative site specifically mentione how without this law Christian bakers will be forced to service gay weddings. Another specifically said this law will stop churches opposed to gay marriage from being forced to perform gay marriages.

In other words, some of the problem is the right wanted a bill they could brag about for cash and they too misrepresented it.

Which gets back to the Utah compromise where the Mormon Church invited LGBT groups in to help write their bill. If only we were that smart.
 
It's unclear.

Some recent law suggests "rights of conscience" refers only to the right to hold beliefs, but not to any right to act on them illegally. Other cases suggest it may be broader. The Supreme Court has never actually defined it, other than to say that it includes at least religious belief and worship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C

Is "True the Vote" another Smirnov about to make MAGA look duped?

Replies
0
Views
110
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
C

Is the Document case reaching a critical juncture?

Replies
96
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
mcmurtry66
M
B

Clarence Thomas

Replies
21
Views
473
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
B

We Have the Talent

Replies
15
Views
1K
TheHoosier.com IU Hoop Forum
VanPastorMan
VanPastorMan
C

Meanwhile in the MAL documents case...

Replies
6
Views
289
The Water Cooler
UncleMark
U
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back