• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Serious Indiana RFRA

Wasn't the original argument against the message they were being asked to write on the cake, not the act of baking the cake itself? It seems to me that you could very easily order, purchase and retrieve a wedding cake without ever having to discuss what sexual orientation the wedding is. Cake is cake, so simply baking one does not intrude on religious grounds. But what if the message being written on the cake is one that direct contradicts their beliefs?

Not sure if this was the original issue or not, I seem to remember hearing about it somewhere but I don't recall the exact details. Does anyone actually have this info? I want to at least be informed of the situation before I make any concrete statements
 
At risk of getting mobbed by idiots, I see no issue with a private entity refusing to provide a non-essential service for whatever reason they choose. Ultimately it gives a leg up to businesses who will provide that service to the people the first group decide to knock back, so essentially they're rendering themselves less competitive.

With that said, I don't live in free-market fetishist America, where the number of private entities doing essential work is ridiculous..
 
WaterBomb said:
Wasn't the original argument against the message they were being asked to write on the cake, not the act of baking the cake itself? It seems to me that you could very easily order, purchase and retrieve a wedding cake without ever having to discuss what sexual orientation the wedding is. Cake is cake, so simply baking one does not intrude on religious grounds. But what if the message being written on the cake is one that direct contradicts their beliefs?

Not sure if this was the original issue or not, I seem to remember hearing about it somewhere but I don't recall the exact details. Does anyone actually have this info? I want to at least be informed of the situation before I make any concrete statements
Click to expand...
There is a slight distinction in the argument whether you focus on free speech or free exercise of religion. Because the free exercise argument hasn't really worked, some have tried to shift to the free speech side instead. That was the case with the photographer that was linked. The photographer's petition to the Supreme Court actually only asked the speech question, not the free exercise one, since the lower court had so thoroughly dismantled the free exercise claim (and also because basing the argument around free speech is more persuasive to swing vote Justice Kennedy).

But overall, I'm not sure about the nuances or successes/failures of the two arguments. I'm a legal enthusiast who knows a lot for a layman, but I am most definitely not an attorney.
 
my thoughts as summed up in this log:
<Stratos> mfw 75% of america thinks forcing someone to do something for you is your right
<Audiosurfer> the indiana thread?
<Audiosurfer> or are you talkin bout somethin else?
<Stratos> yh
<Stratos> indiana
<Audiosurfer> yeah i dont get it
<Audiosurfer> to me since the public isn't taking on any of the risk that comes with starting the business they shouldn't be able to dictate the terms on which they do business
<Audiosurfer> the free market discourages discrimination anyways since it's a bad business decision and more inclusive businesses will probably drive you out of business
<Stratos> exactly
<Audiosurfer> some people talk about jim crow but that is an anomaly in that whites controlled all the means of production and prevented alternatives from coming to market so it was actually more profitable for them to exclude others
<Audiosurfer> also there were a bunch of ingrained systemic issues involved too, such that the gov involvement was more necessary
<Stratos> exactly
<Audiosurfer> hell i should probs cp this log or somethin so i dont have to write a post
<Stratos> probably
 
I understand the argument "business should be able to serve whoever they want, that is the nature of a free market" as i tend to be conservative economically, but the justification "oh businesses who don't serve gays will be outcompeted" makes some assumptions that are untenable throughout the country. If, say, an Indianapolis (city doesnt matter) restaurant (business doesnt matter) refuses to serve muslims (group doesnt matter), another restaurant can easily fill the void. However, if situations arise such as an entire small town's businesses refusing to serve social groups, thus rendering people of that social group de facto banned from that town, we start to have problems. Should we have towns or locations where certain people cannot go based on a single characteristic? I understand this is an oversimplified, overdramatized example, but it is one with real possibility of occurring given a policy of "businesses can serve or exclude anyone for any reason"; unless regional segregation by sociality of some nature (greater than it is today) is an acceptable consequence, the policy cannot be absolute unregulated business decisions vis a vis who to serve. Thus, the question needs to be "how strict should the government's controls on discrimination be" rather than "should they exist at all"
 
Shrug said:
I understand the argument "business should be able to serve whoever they want, that is the nature of a free market" as i tend to be conservative economically, but the justification "oh businesses who don't serve gays will be outcompeted" makes some assumptions that are untenable throughout the country. If, say, an Indianapolis (city doesnt matter) restaurant (business doesnt matter) refuses to serve muslims (group doesnt matter), another restaurant can easily fill the void. However, if situations arise such as an entire small town's businesses refusing to serve social groups, thus rendering people of that social group de facto banned from that town, we start to have problems. Should we have towns or locations where certain people cannot go based on a single characteristic? I understand this is an oversimplified, overdramatized example, but it is one with real possibility of occurring given a policy of "businesses can serve or exclude anyone for any reason"; unless regional segregation by sociality of some nature (greater than it is today) is an acceptable consequence, the policy cannot be absolute unregulated business decisions vis a vis who to serve. Thus, the question needs to be "how strict should the government's controls on discrimination be" rather than "should they exist at all"
Click to expand...

If a small town business providing a non-essential service would actually continue to be supported by the local community despite knocking back the business of a demographic, what makes you think that town isn't already pretty much segregated?

Small town businesses basically live and die on local support and if the business is not essential and not supported it won't be around for long, if the entire community would be willing to support a business they don't need that doesn't serve a given group of people, then that's going to be a very inhospitable place for them to live regardless; finding work and socialising are both going to be very problematic and you can't really enforce those without coming up with thought crimes (which I'd fucking hope nobody supports).
 
macle said:
except that businesses that have come out saying they won't do gay weddings are getting 10s of thousands of dollars in donations.
Click to expand...

Oh jesus fucking christ. I knew someone would being this shit up, but I was hoping nobody would be fucking retarded.

A few businesses* have had a stack of money donated after they got sued, but do you legitimately think it's viable as an actual business strategy**, and do you think it could continue on a vastly larger scale? No fucking chance.

*I note that every case I've heard of has been in a city, not a rural area.

**As in do you think it will help their long term viability as a business, as they won't be getting the donations forever, and a lot of potential customers will boycott.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stratos said:
privately held businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. it's their fucking business
Click to expand...

yeah, this was my main concern with the op ?_?

i thought it was just a case of you choosing a poor example, but looking at it it rly makes me wonder why anyone thought this law was necessary??
 
trax said:
If a small town business providing a non-essential service would actually continue to be supported by the local community despite knocking back the business of a demographic, what makes you think that town isn't already pretty much segregated?

Small town businesses basically live and die on local support and if the business is not essential and not supported it won't be around for long, if the entire community would be willing to support a business they don't need that doesn't serve a given group of people, then that's going to be a very inhospitable place for them to live regardless; finding work and socialising are both going to be very problematic and you can't really enforce those without coming up with thought crimes (which I'd fucking hope nobody supports).
Click to expand...
A few businesses* have had a stack of money donated after they got sued, but do you legitimately think it's viable as an actual business strategy**, and do you think it could continue on a vastly larger scale? No fucking chance.
Click to expand...

Indubitably, a place that decided, en masse, to stop serving blacks, or gays, or muslims, or any other societal group would be a hostile place to live for members of that group regardless if that segregation was legal at the time or not. However, you miss a critical point: I was citing a hypothetical, a situation where absolutely no regulations existed. In that case, even essential services could be withheld; visitors to that town who were gay could entirely be denied any order of food, lodging, or anything else. In essence, I was trying to prove the need for regulations - even you seem to agree there is a distinction between "essential" and "nonessential" and that line is the one to be used in determining where segregation is acceptable. Thus, that town wouldn't only be a hostile place to live, it would be an impossible place to go for any offending minority. That's undesirable in a society.

az said:
yeah, this was my main concern with the op ?_?

i thought it was just a case of you choosing a poor example, but looking at it it rly makes me wonder why anyone thought this law was necessary??
Click to expand...

the premise of the law is: there is a federal law preventing discrimination. This Indiana law affords businesses the right to discriminate (and not serve) people based on the business's religious beliefs, nullifying the federal law, the Civil Rights Act. What people are disputing is the concept of mandatory non discrimination - I haven't seen an argument claiming the Indiana law is justified in undercutting the federal one given the Federal one is valid.
 
From my understanding, this law makes it illegal for a business to be forced to provide a service if that service would violate their religious beliefs. However, it occurs to me that for this to actually happen the religious belief needs to be plausible and documented. The examples we've seen used so far have been at least plausible in my opinion, but a lot of people in this thread seem to think that a business can just say "oh you're gay/black/whatever so we're not going to serve you", and that is really not what this is about. People keep throwing the words "discrimination" and "segregation" around like they are nothing, and those are really, really strong and dramatic words to be using here. Nothing in the law is talking about legalized discrimination or segregation, that's just people sensationalizing the subject. I'm pretty sure if a case came up under this law where a business refused service to a person claiming religious grounds, but the claim really wasn't substantiated, they'd probably still find themselves on the end of a nasty lawsuit and public backlash.

tl;dr this law has limits, and if a business is going to refuse service on religious grounds then that violation of their principles must be plausible, not just made up as a cheap alibi so they can discriminate. If you honestly think the government would allow something that ridiculous to happen then you're naive.
 
Just to clarify something, the law as it was originally worded made it seem that this law was going to protect discrimination. The Governor of Indiana immediately had the law reworded so that it wouldn't protect discrimination against gays or colored people, and instead it was better reworded to better state what it originally was intended to do. Protect peoples religious freedoms.

The only reason this was a huge story on the news and a thread was made about it was because of poor wording in the law which people saw could be manipulated to further goals the law wasn't trying to further. Multiple other states have passed similar laws without incident and the only reason this one was so controversial was because of poor wording.

Waterbomb hit the nail on the head, and pretty much summed up what the law is trying to do.
 
Audiosurfer said:
my thoughts as summed up in this log:
<Stratos> mfw 75% of america thinks forcing someone to do something for you is your right
<Audiosurfer> the indiana thread?
<Audiosurfer> or are you talkin bout somethin else?
<Stratos> yh
<Stratos> indiana
<Audiosurfer> yeah i dont get it
<Audiosurfer> to me since the public isn't taking on any of the risk that comes with starting the business they shouldn't be able to dictate the terms on which they do business
<Audiosurfer> the free market discourages discrimination anyways since it's a bad business decision and more inclusive businesses will probably drive you out of business
<Stratos> exactly
<Audiosurfer> some people talk about jim crow but that is an anomaly in that whites controlled all the means of production and prevented alternatives from coming to market so it was actually more profitable for them to exclude others
<Audiosurfer> also there were a bunch of ingrained systemic issues involved too, such that the gov involvement was more necessary
<Stratos> exactly
<Audiosurfer> hell i should probs cp this log or somethin so i dont have to write a post
<Stratos> probably
Click to expand...

In some places, it may be the case that homophobes or transphobes could engage in similar "local monopoly" practices. Visibly transgender individuals are also relatively rare--so in a small community, excluding visibly trans individuals (or "passing" trans individuals who mention their history) will not be as likely to seriously impact profit. I suspect including the aforementioned individuals would not seriously impact profit either.

The free market certainly provides selection pressure when the community at large does not accept discrimination. It doesn't when the local community still accepts it.

Just wanted to mention that.
 
Some context from someone who used to live in Indiana:

The bill was widely seen as being primarily designed to be anti-gay. Last year the state legislature advanced a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage so a state court wouldn't legalize it only for the federal judiciary to make it legal in the state. Furthermore, it was very much modeled after the Arizona RFRA from last year, which was widely viewed as anti-gay, meaning that the state knew what they were getting into. Anything about this bill being used to defend business owners from issues not relating to same-sex marriage is all pretense.

But with that said, I actually do really believe that RFRAs are necessary to keep free exercise meaningful. Normally they are designed to protect the freedom of minority religious groups who are most likely to be accidentally impacted by laws, such as the Native American Church being harmed by peyote bans.

The Indiana law had two big differences from the Federal, and most state, RFRAs.

1) It actually could be used as a defense in lawsuits where the government wasn't a party. Deck was wrong on this point.
2) It explicitly covered businesses.

Normally these laws are designed to mitigate the damage of federal law and have nothing to do with individual interactions, or businesses for the most part. This established the ability of corporations to be religious (already a tenuous argument) and then would have shielded them from lawsuits involving the denial of service on religious grounds. The state legislature even initially voted down an ammendment explicitly clarifying it couldn't be used for discrimination until the backlash forced Pence and the assembly to backtrack. So there was good reason to believe that the bill was really intended to deny service to LGBT customers. That wasn't just an incidental bug.

But it seems as if most people here already knew or suspected that. At least I don't have to argue those pretenses.

Anyway, the reason that it matters is largely that it would be an issue in small rural towns, of which the state has many. Those areas tend to be strongly socially conservative (and small) meaning that particularly for trans individuals and same-sex couples, people would know who they're serving and there aren't many alternatives. And by denying service to the person already in a small, marginalized group in that society you aren't likely to be seriously impacted. Even if you do get Yelp flooded with backlash when the Internet finds out, you're just as likely to make a couple hundred thousand dollars when the conservatives on the Internet find out.

I opposed the law for a few reasons. The first being that it was absolutely horrible PR for the state, and the boycotts and lost conventions would've been economically damning. Indiana is more or less the nation's center of gravity by air so we get a lot of conventions, as well as sports events from the NCAA being hosted there (to say nothing of the events Lucas Oil and the Speedway bring). The second was basic human decency. While I recognize that there is something of a "persecution" of Christians in America (as a Christian in America), that's absolutely nothing compared to what the LGBTQ* community goes through, especially in the rural areas of a red state. Being able to have service refused at businesses on top of existing discrimination is a little much. The third is that the point of a business is legally to make money. As such, I don't see how a money-making entity can have religious views. Even if they do, being able to use those to justify not doing the thing you legally exist to do seems a little much, especially when you're singling out and refusing service to a marginalized group.

But with that said it was already legal to do that in Indiana, and still is. In fact it's pretty routine in some areas for openly gay or transgendered individuals to be denied service on buses or at least harassed by the driver. But the bill mattered because it represented a backlash mentality: yeah, the gays may have thwarted our attempt to keep them from marrying, but we'll show them now. That was more or less the political point of the bill in context, and a large part of why it was so odious. The opposition was less about keeping change from happening (because nothing really changed) and more about refusing to have what little rights the LGBTQ* community has accumulated be swept away in a conservative backlash to their right to marry.
 
Last edited:
If anyone's being sensational with this issue it's the frozen peaches who try so hard to present themselves as detached and logical when they're far from it. Some are pretending as a cover for their bigotry, while others really are detached from the issue and don't quite understand what the actual problem is, but they like to think they understand anyway. The former repeats its absurd falsehoods over and over again until the latter uncritically accepts them as fact.

If you're unironically approaching this solely as a rights issue then I'm afraid you're doomed to miss the problems. Reality is more complicated than the idealized society you dreamed up in college while reading the philosophical ramblings of rich people who strangely benefit from their defenses of the status quo. It takes a particularly obscene warping of reality to commit the kind of false dilemma fallacy that says if I'm against this law I somehow believe that "forcing someone to do something for you is your right." It takes some serious lack of perspective to make arguments implying that a store making a cake for a gay couple is anywhere near comparable to the oppression faced by sexual, racial and religious minorities. This issue crosses so far into self-parody that it's amazing that anyone actually defends this crap.

The only reason anyone stands for this is that it's so commonplace that we hardly notice it. So honestly, I can understand and partly forgive people under ~25 who buy into this religious freedom bullshit because it's hard to figure out that that's what's going on without much compulsion to do so. I know I should be understanding of that. If you're older, though, fuck you. You should have enough fucking life experience to be sensitive to this stuff.

So, the point: The outcry is not about the law or its various details. In a developed country, bigotry is rarely so overt as to attempt to inflict explicit, major government oppression. This is about what the law represents. There's no reasonable denial that this law was conceived to fuck over sexual minorities; it's just that the effect is small enough to spark silly, meaningless debates about whether this is "worth worrying about" or whether the law "gets the wording right." These small aggressions add up to the major problems that we're facing. It's how the status quo continues to bully itself into getting special treatment, with its go-to defense being "b-b-b-b-but my rights!!!! OPPRESSION!" I'm sorry, but Christians getting yelled at for refusing service to customers based on their sexual identity is not persecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top