Here's the conference committee report

[Ladoga]

now being considered to fix the perception of !RFRA. This is a proposed statute, not a tweet, newspaper article, opinion of a board poster nor facebook post.
This post was edited on 4/2 10:48 AM by Ladoga

SB 50 link

 

[Fro]

You missed the link but the added text seems good to me

Props to everyone involved for getting the language added. Wish they would have taken their time and done this in the first place!

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

 

[zeke4ahs]

Seems good to me also

And yes, they should have known better to start with. Everyone tried to tell them. The intent was very clear, by the people that attended the signing. It will take a very long time for the damage this has done to Indiana's reputation to disappear.

 

[Sope Creek]

Just breezing through it real quickly . . .

my sense is that the statute is designed to preserve any pre-existing right under Indiana law to refuse service to gay/lesbian folks . . .

. . . the primary change might be a "clarification" that preserves the effect of municipal sexual orientation nondiscrimination ordinances.

And so the entire episode is but yet another tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing . . . .
ot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Rockfish1]

That's better than I expected

It would be better still if the amendment prohibited such discrimination, but at least they made clear that IRFRA doesn't authorize such discrimination. I hope this will help to end the firestorm.

 

[Rockfish1]

Political reporting in Indy . . .

Suggests that IRFRA was supposed to be a consolation prize for the social conservatives who lost on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage last year. If so, they've now lost their consolation prize as well. I expect there'll be some grumbling about that, even though as you note it remains legal to discriminate against LGBT people except in Indianapolis, South Bend, and Bloomington.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think the fix is great

My dream is to get the protected class status for gays, but that isn't possible at this time. But I do think we will see a lot more cities adopt rights.

It is surprising to me that Angie's List does not accept the fix and is demanding protected class status.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Oh they are angry already

Checked put the websites of some of the fine men Pence chose to stand with him in the secret signing. My favorite headline: Homosexual zealots to Christians in Indiana: Back to the Plantation! What? Another said that Governor Pence must choose between homosexuals and liberty. Calling for urgent action to call their representatives and senators. So yeah, there's a little bit of grumbling about.

 

[IUJIM]

If Angie's List is still around in 5 years, it will surprise me

As Amazon and Google race to that space, Angie may need to find a different business model.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Make that 18 months and I'll agree...

That donkey has never made a dime of profit. The original people cashed, and corporatism, along with Google and Amazon, will end up being AL's downfall....

The city has questioned their latest big $ subsidy, and this is all a sham for leverage.

 

[Charlesroast]

not to diminish the importance of the words

but what additional protection would come with the words "protected class" beyond what his proposal provides?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

A non-lawyer answer

In most of the state, there is nothing preventing a person from firing someone, or not renting to them, because of their GLBT status. You cannot choose to discriminate like that on basis of ethnicity, gender, race, religion. Protected class status would add GLBT to that list. In theory one would add "sexual orientation" to prevent discrimination against someone who is straight.

Some cities have this, Bloomington, Indy, Terre Haute to name 3. But most of the state does not.

 

[Rockfish1]

Authorize vs. prohibit

The amendment provides that IRFRA doesn't authorize discrimination against LGBT people, but it doesn't prohibit discrimination against them, which remains legal outside of Indianapolis, South Bend, and Bloomington. LGBT people would only gain "protected" status if the law prohibited discrimination against them, which, even as amended, IRFRA doesn't do.

 

[twenty02]

didn't dems try to amend

The original bill with basically the same protections the first time through?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[twenty02]

Re: If Angie's List is still around in 5 years, it will surprise me

I believe Angies will be bought by a yelp or Amazon in coming time.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Ladoga]

Like you, I hope

it puts out the fire. However, from the evidence now available, the original opponents do not want the fire put out, neither do they want the fix. They want the political issue and are using people as political cannon fodder.

The tweets and face book postings from the opponents are the most vile stuff I've ever seen in 39 sessions at the General Assembly.

 

[Charlesroast]

It was a non-lawyer question, but a

practical one. I believe this has been more about establishing a possible path for defense in civil actions, the next frontier in these actions. The fix fixed that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Three times, as a matter of fact.

Actually, the amendments were slightly different in all three cases, and what they've added here is closest to the broadest language the Dems wanted, because it seems to apply to local laws, and not just the Indiana Civil Rights Law.

goat

 

[Ladoga]

The Conference Committee Report passed

easily in each house. The language here does exactly what every Democrat in the House voted for on 2nd reading on SB 101, but which failed.

Today, both Democrat conferees refused to sign the report and were, accordingly, removed and replaced by Bosma and Long respectively who promptly signed. Every Democrat in both houses then, after prolonged debate in which every Democrat who spoke voiced disapproval, voted against the bill.

The message? They don't want the problem fixed. They're just using the folks they purport to support for political cannon fodder.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Along with a handful of very conservative Repubs.

I'm not going to comment on the political wrangling with the committee. I don't know about it, but I know your take is a partisan one, just as the Democratic version of events is a partisan one. I'm just going to chalk all that up to politics and leave it at that.

As for the bill itself, I have three thoughts:

1. It's a pretty good bill, for what it is, and addresses the potential problems that most people had with RFRA.
2. I think most Democrats who voted against it probably actually like it, but voted as a protest against the fact that the GA wasn't willing to go further. I find this to be somewhat short-sighted, and it reminds me a bit of things that Republicans have done in Congress that I have criticized. The difference, of course, is that Dems in the GA don't have the power to be truly obstructionist. They only have the power to make noise.
3. The handful of Repubs who didn't sign on, along with the response from special interest family groups, proves that it was not just the left who was making this about LGBT discrimination. That's what was important to these people.

Overall, I'd call this a win for the state and for the people of Indiana. I'm not going to defend the Dems for opposing it. I understand (I think) why they did, but I wouldn't have in there place. I would have happily voted for this.

goat

 

[whobop]

As a Christian and a conservative I'm glad they changed this......

I don't think most Christians agreed with this.

As a Christian myself I have mixed feelings about gays. But at the end of the day they are people too and it's not my place to judge.

If you're a Christian and you think being gay is a sin, you aren't going to do any good by discriminating against them. Two wrongs don't make it right. I think us Christians should show love an compassion to all people. God will judge us all when the time comes.

I'm a Realtor and I can't imagine not taking a listing or helping someone find a home because they were gay. I don't know if I even could here in Michigan. It doesn't make business sense and it's not the type of person I want to be.

Overall I think it's good they changed this.

 

[Sope Creek]

You need to post more often . . .

I'm no conservative, but I do recognize a person of good faith when they're as clear as you are about it. Welcome and stop by any time.