Press release from the LPIN:
When a state’s governor goes on national television and explains that a bill he just signed into law needs clarification, you know the bill is a troubled piece of legislation.
When state legislative leaders from that same governor’s party hold a press conference to explain that the legislation they just recently passed needs to be revisited and clarified, you know the bill is a troubled piece of legislation.
Reminiscent of former U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” moment, efforts by Governor Mike Pence, Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President David Long to deflect criticism to their passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act come off eerily similar to Pelosi’s ill-chosen words. Simply put, in their haste to pass legislation that appeases their far right wing through subtle changes in the bill’s language, they pushed through a bad piece of legislation that will undoubtedly carry unintended economic, political and social consequences — consequences proponents and opponents alike will come to regret.
This law needs to be repealed.
This legislation had the potential of building a coalition of support not seen since its resounding federal passage in 1993. At that time, the federal bill passed the U.S. House unanimously and the U.S. Senate in a 97-3 vote. It brought together religious fundamentalists and civil libertarians alike. Everyone seemed to like the concept of protecting our rights to religious freedoms and underscoring the importance of our nation’s 1st Amendment. Regardless of the polarizing rhetoric we are hearing today, the concept of respect for differing religious (and non-religious) beliefs is still embraced by a strong majority.
Unfortunately, Indiana’s GOP legislative majority authored a bill that slants the “two-way tolerance” Governor Pence sought solidly in one direction. In doing so, they jeopardized what otherwise could have been a bill celebrated by all.
“Nice statement from LPIN!”
Yes, it is.
3) Reverence for religion, or certain religions.
Exactly…certain religions but not others. You may have any gods you want, as long as Cesar is one of your gods (the old maxim of the Roman empire).
In your twisted imagination. Try reading what people actually wrote.
Look at all the big government Libertarians here coming out of the closet to force businesses to bake gay cakes.
Yes, and copbootlicking, among other things, but these things are rarely ever called out as “politically correct.”
Some examples of right wing “political correctness”:
1) Worshipping the military.
2) Worshipping the police.
3) Reverence for religion, or certain religions.
“paulie
March 31, 2015 at 9:28 pm
If a person is a bigot, then why would you want to patronize their business?
For some people, the answer could be because you are one yourself, and it gives you a warm feeling of shared smug superiority combined with disdain for others.”
Sure, but if a person is the target of the bigot, or is sympathetic with the target of the bigot, why would they want to spend their money patronizing the business of a person who is a bigot?
I could see if it were a situation where there were a lack of choices of businesses to patronize, but this would be a good opportunity for new businesses with a more open minded policy to compete with the businesses of bigots.
If I owned a bakery I’d have no problem selling wedding cakes for gay weddings because, 1) I don’t care what people do in their personal lives as long as it is voluntary, and 2) I’d want the money from selling wedding cakes to gay couples.
If there were another bakery in the town where my bakery was located that did not want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples, I’d be happy to take their business.
”
Rob Banks
March 31, 2015 at 9:24 pm
‘It’s an incremental step in the wrong direction. Joshua Katz explains it well at 6:54 pm as do the articles Knapp posted links to.’
As for the term ‘politically correct,’ it has become little more than an epithet for conservatives to dismiss ideas that they find, in effect, politically incorrect from their own perspective, so as to avoid actually having to think about them.”
There is also right wing “political correctness.”
For others, just convenience, price, and not really caring too much about any other factors.
For some people, the answer could be because you are one yourself, and it gives you a warm feeling of shared smug superiority combined with disdain for others.
It’s an incremental step in the wrong direction. Joshua Katz explains it well at 6:54 pm as do the articles Knapp posted links to.
As for the term “politically correct,” it has become little more than an epithet for conservatives to dismiss ideas that they find, in effect, politically incorrect from their own perspective, so as to avoid actually having to think about them.
”
Rob Banks
March 31, 2015 at 8:59 pm
‘Private businesses or individuals or organizations should be free to discriminate on the basis of religion or anything else. Government should not.’
In this bill government discriminates on the basis of religion in deciding who can discrminate and who can’t.”
It sounds like it is an incremental step in the right direction. It may not be “politically correct,” but private individuals should have the right to discriminate for any reason.
“In this bill government discriminates on the basis of religion in deciding who can discrminate and who can’t.”
Good point, hadn’t thought of it like that.
“Private businesses or individuals or organizations should be free to discriminate on the basis of religion or anything else. Government should not.”
In this bill government discriminates on the basis of religion in deciding who can discrminate and who can’t.
“Matt Cholko
March 31, 2015 at 8:31 pm
I think that in some cases, openly discriminating against homosexuals can be good for business.”
It could be good for some businesses, but it would be bad for most businesses. I think that most businesses want to accommodate as many customers as possible.
If a person is a bigot, then why would you want to patronize their business? Patronize the businesses of people who are not bigots.
Matt,
Yep. Business and politics are different. In politics, you have to have a plurality to be successful. In business, even a small percentage of the market can be very profitable.
Of course, most of Chick-fil-a’s customers probably just don’t care what their COO does. But as far as those who do care, remember, it’s only a few short years ago that we reached the tipping point of a majority of Americans supporting an end to marriage apartheid. A significant minority still support legal discrimination against same-sex couples, and a smaller minority, but still quite a few people, will go out of their way to affirm that support by having “buy-cotts” of busiesses that appeal to them, intentionally or not.
For that matter, even in politics, small niche markets can be lucrative. Estimates vary, but IIRC they top out at maybe 100,000 hardcore racist activists — Klan members, neo-Nazis, etc. — in the US.
And yet someone can (or at least could in the late 80s and early 90s) knock down an annual six figures, and build a huge political fundraising list, with newsletters that blow the dog-whistle at that small market. My guess is that the marketers who go whole-hog instead of just blowing the dog-whistle — people like David Duke, for example — aren’t going hungry or missing rent payments either.
I think that in some cases, openly discriminating against homosexuals can be good for business. Look at what happened with Chick-fil-a after their COO made some anti-gay marriage statements. Sales spiked, and have not come back down.
Of course, Chick-fil-a did not refuse to serve gays, or come anywhere even remotely close to that. But, this experience does show that some people, in some situations, will patronize a business for publicly taking an anti-gay marriage position. It wouldn’t surprise me to see another company pull off a similar success.
Should read. “this would just mean…:
I’d wager that only a small percent of businesses in this country want to discriminate against gays, and out of the ones that do, this just would just mean more money for businesses that do not want to discriminate against gays.
Last Saturday on SNL, the newscaster talked about this bill, and said you can recognize which businesses that wouldn’t make cakes for gays by this sign, and showed a “Going out of Business” sign. Very funny–and true.
If the only issue with this law were that it only protected religious discrimination, I could see the case for ‘under-inclusive but better than its absence.’ As it is, though, there are multiple problems with it that cannot be waved away in that manner.
In applying this law, courts will decide if a legitimate religious practice was involved. Thus, it not only favors established/organized religions over other religions, and religion over other beliefs – it also allows courts to distinguish among religious practices. Courts will almost certainly, for instance, decide that the Church of Cannabis is not a real religion. This is one of the legal pathways by which the first amendment was destroyed – in that case, it was by reference to journalists having special protection, after which courts got to decide who ‘real’ journalists were.
Consider also that it does not protect the right of others to socially penalize a bigoted businessman, just the right of the businessman to be a bigot. Thus, in a free market, a businessman who refused to serve homosexuals in his store might, for instance, face shunning and a refusal from other businesses to serve him. Establishing a law like this in a legal context that treats businesses as common carriers means he can discriminate all he likes, and be protected from suits – but if he walks into my store, and I refuse to serve him, since I’m acting on conscious or social beliefs, not religious belief, he can successfully sue me. Freedom for me, regulations for thee. I could claim I have some sort of religious opposition to serving bigots, but the courts will find my claim to not be a real religious belief.
This is the crux of the argument against anti-discrimination laws – the market can handle it. Here, the market is crippled from handling it, then license is given out for one form of discrimination.
That, and everything TK said.
“I agree with you that this bill should not be conditioned on religion. The bill is under-inclusive in that regard. I wouldn’t oppose it on those grounds, however.”
I tend to agree. I also agree with TLK that the rationale behind it is deplorable.
“True freedom of association for businesses requires a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”
Part of it anyway. Civil rights are necessary, but private businesses have the right to be wrong.
Tom,
I agree with you that this bill should not be conditioned on religion. The bill is under-inclusive in that regard. I wouldn’t oppose it on those grounds, however. True freedom of association for businesses requires a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that is far beyond anything Indiana can do.
Jed,
Here’s what you’re missing:
1) The bill only protects freedom of association/freedom to discriminate if it’s based on a religious belief.
2) There’s not any need for it. I’ve scanned Google News for reports of any rash of discrimination complaints in Indiana over people declining to serve gays/lesbians for religious reasons. It hasn’t been happening. And if it did happen, the correct response would be to defend freedom, period, not to legislatively carve out a special exception for people who have religious beliefs.
3) The reason and intent for it is not to protect religious freedom or freedom of association. The reason and intent for it is to signal to voters who don’t like homosexuality that Republicans don’t like homosexuality either. That’s the entirety of its purpose. It’s dog-whistle bullshit; that’s all it is; and dog-whistle bullshit belongs on the hustings, not in the statutes.
Deplorable as discrimination is, private individuals & privately-owned businesses should be free to do so. Government should not. As it stands I see no reason to oppose this bill, no matter how deplorable the reasoning behind it. Unless I’m missing something.
Private businesses or individuals or organizations should be free to discriminate on the basis of religion or anything else. Government should not.
If a business or an organization receives governments hand outs, I think a compelling case could be made that they should be barred from discriminating.
William,
Libertarians who believe in freedom of association don’t condition that freedom on religious belief.
Here are the two pieces I’ve written on the bill.
http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/755
http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/832
I very much doubt Gov. Pence did not read the bill. It is very short. This press release is misguided. Libertarians who believe in freedom of association should support the bill.
So here we have the Libertarian Party showing its true colors – not in defense of religious freedom, including freedom of thought, to protect Christian businesses who were attacked by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement for not bowing down and groveling before their demands but rather stepping up to support their attackers. So much for being in favor of ” liberty ” and ” freedom.” So much for opposing the oppression of government and its being used to crush the singular citizen to believe what the government declares that they must believe.
This is just the ultra phony ” Libertarian ” Party ” coming out of the closet ” as not in favor of true liberty but against Christians as an ally of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement in its war against Christianity.
Bottom Line – The LP is anti-liberty, anti-Christian, and pro-Sodomy. They will not lift a finger to defend businesses being attacked for their religious beliefs but will instead cheer on and totally support the attackers. Unacceptable thought and beliefs will not be tolerated by the same rodents who quack about ” diversity,” and ” tolerance.” Any law which defends Christianity, individual rights, the right to believe as you wish and live by those beliefs – all of these must be crushed in our Orwellian nation with the LP leading the parade as they oppose, and work to crush, any religion but their own humanism/atheism/Satanism.
No dissent to the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement will be allowed and any person objecting to the slavery which the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is imposing on the nation will be crushed.
Leading the way to this New World Order dictatorship – the ” Libertarian ” Party.
So predictable when reading the comments of the self-professed Libertarians at this site.
They will spout off platitudes but the mask comes off when they smell blood and the chance to impose their dictatorship.
The New World Order boot of dictatorship comes with a ” Libertarian ” Party foot in it.
Nice statement from LPIN!