Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Joe Grundy

  If an outsider may be allowed to comment ...

  It often seems odd to me that in a country based on a secular constitution, with express separation of church and state, religion and the religious have so much influence. Having said that, there is a view that when the Mayflower left England the 'freedom' that the 'pilgrims' sought was the freedom to persecute each other more than they were allowed to do in England.

  Various polls show the extent of fairly fundamental religious beliefs in the US. I think I'm right in saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that over 50% of the population believe that the 'Second Coming' will occur within fifty years. That's disturbing (to me, at least) and illustrates one problem with this type of legislation. I am sure that the lawmakers blithely assumed that the 'religious belief' concerned would overwhelmingly be their brand of christianity. How would they feel if, for example, the majority of the population became muslim and it was normal to discriminate against women not wearing burkhas?

  There are many wacko religions and as I understand it in the US they are all entitled to equal status. So essentially anyone can justify any discrimination provided that they claim it is in accordance with their religious belief.

  It's a good principle when considering legislation to imagine the most absurd circumstances and see how the proposed law would apply.
  
• 

  Viviane

  The misguided outrage over Indiana's RFRA is out of hand.

  Correct. It needs to be more focused, like a laser that can surgically cut the stupid out people that pass useless and bad laws like this.
• 

  DJS

  The 1993 law was also a useless and unnecessary piece of legislation. It was also politically motivated; few if any of the Clinton era team would support such a law now, and many of them have publicly stated that the law has evolved in a manner unintended. Bad legislation following bad legislation is what this topic is about.

  Since the 1993 law was passed, the SCOTUS and other regional US courts have consistently defended gays, lesbians, etc. from being discriminated by commercial enterprises based on their orientation. So the 1993 law has not resulted in supporting discrimination based on the manner in which the courts have ruled, with some potential exceptions resulting in ObamaCare, but these issues are about such things as birth control. But that's for another OP.

  The Indiana law, similar to other state laws passed recently on the same topic, is nothing but right wing politically motivated laws to push the X-tian agenda and to support discrimination against primarily the LGBT community. The right wing fundies have lost a few cases around the country the past few years, notably the florist, bakery, wedding chapel cases, and this is their nasty, hate filled manner of responding.

  These laws are not necessary; the courts have continued to state that for profit/commercial business or enterprises discriminating based on sexual orientation is illegal, and the sanctity of the insides of churches, including how they operate and whom they serve, has never seriously been threatened in this country and there is nothing that has occurred recently that would insinuate otherwise.

  To line up the rabbis, nuns, priests and preachers for a photo-op to suggest otherwise sickens me.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Whatever happened to the separation of church and State within the American government ?

  They should call this the freedom to hate and prejudice act.

  Surprising in this day and age that this would come about .

  Doesn't this infringe upon the constitution of human rights ?
  
• 

  stealyourface

  Correct. It needs to be more focused, like a laser that can surgically cut the stupid out people that pass useless and bad laws like this.

  You do realize that the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, voted yea on the Federal law? How could a Constitutional scholar vote for such a law? How could soi disant 'stupid people' elect a man for the highest office in the nation who would support such a law? That is another issue altogether and not really germane to the history and scope of the laws, although perhaps it needs to be the focus of genuine outrage.

  The key to the Federal law is a statutory right to practice your religion, free of government regulation except where necessary to serve a compelling government interest. The real question becomes what is compelling government interest? Interstate commerce?

  Interestingly, in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled the Federal RFRA could not Constitutionally be applied to individual states. If states wanted to protect religious practice subject to the compelling interest test, they would have to do it themselves. This is the background to why states began enacting their own RFRAs. Again, State's interest is the question, and the free market will provide the answer, not lawsuits.
• 

  DJS

  Arguing the intelligence of anyone supporting either the original 1993 law or the present state laws is an exercise in futility, because it assumes there was any intelligence involved. Politics, votes, and placating constituents is what those laws were and are about. Politics is rarely about ethics and doing the right thing.

  Lawsuits will determine the manner in which these laws are applied, as they already have. The free market is free to the degree it does not violate the Constitution. When it appears to do so, people sue. And to this point, the SCOTUS and the regional courts have almost universally determined that commercial for profit businesses do not have a right to discriminate. The protected groups have evolved over the decades, and it includes blacks and other minorities, women, religion, the disabled and now sexual persuasion. These laws were not necessary; they are political in nature and will ultimately accomplish nothing but allowing narrow minded people to attempt to impose their own specific religious beliefs on others, which to this point in time has thankfully failed.

  The free market will eventually rule out because large national and multi-national corporations will ultimately avoid the states supporting such hatred. To this end the Indiana governor is already feeling the heat. Good for him. But that is a result of people driven by secular humanistic objectives who think discriminating against the LGBT community is hate, which it is. That is not what Adam Smith had in mind when he originally talked about free markets, but it is a 21st Century version of how those markets can be controlled.
• 

  Viviane

  You do realize that the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, voted yea on the Federal law?

  Yes. I do. why do you ask?

  How could a Constitutional scholar vote for such a law? How could soi disant 'stupid people' elect a man for the highest office in the nation who would support such a law?

  Because of several reasons. I assume you understand those reasons, so I won't patronize you by pretending you don't. However, none of those reasons means this current law that is based in ignorance of religion, fear and intolerance is right in any way.
  
  

  This is the background to why states began enacting their own RFRAs. Again, State's interest is the question, and the free market will provide the answer, not lawsuits.

  Yes, I am aware of that. There is, as far as I am aware, no religious ban on making cakes for, arranging flowers for, selling a car to or fixing a dishwasher for a gay person. The government has a compelling interest in promoting the economy and business and this hampers it. This law, specifically designed to allow one group to discriminates against another group because they live in fear of sexuality does none, not one, of this things it is claimed to be for.

  As usual, Christians get it exactly backwards.
• 

  JeffT

  I have mixed thoughts on this subject. My daughter is a lesbian married to a transgender woman. They have already been subject to employment discrimination (in Oregon for crying outloud! A lawsuit is under way). They do not need any more such treatment.

  On the other hand, I do not believe the government should be ordering people to do things they don't want to do. Ask yourself a question: if you're planning a wedding do you want to put it in the hands of people who are doing it only because the state is threatening them?
• 

  Viviane

  On the other hand, I do not believe the government should be ordering people to do things they don't want to do.

  The government does that all the time. Speed limits, taxes, school, building permits, work safety, etc., and we are fine with it.

  No one forces anyone to open a business. The government should simply be saying "If you CHOOSE to open a business, then the rules are 'no discrimination'".

  Ask yourself a question: if you're planning a wedding do you want to put it in the hands of people who are doing it only because the state is threatening them?

  Sorry, they don't get tax breaks AND the right to discriminate. Pick one.
• 

  DJS

  Viv,

  Here we go again. Each time this topic comes up we get the same comments from the Libertarians and those who haven't realized that for decades the SCOTUS has interpreted laws based on the US Constitution, which is predicated on the common good for all, not special interest groups and with a clear delineation between church and state. And we say the same things. It may be grand in the Libertarian or Laissez faire utopian world some want to live in, but it isn't the reality of a constitutional democracy.

  It's like wishing that Santa and the Easter Bunny were real instead of make believe. Wouldn't it be nice? Laws protecting minorities, women, the disabled, religious people and the LGBT community from discrimination make us better humans, give us better communities, a better country and a better planet. But the right wing, the X-tian fundies and the Libertarians will cloak their beliefs behind a fence made of hate.