Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

They aren't going to clarify much of anything (if they clarify it at all), because that would ruin the intended point of this law by those passing it (to protect discriminatory practices "disguised" as religious rights).

Which is why we're all pretty much against this specific case. Just pointing out that I agree that in some cases this could be good concept.

 

[Kenai]

Is that true? I couldn't find anything online confirming it and I've never seen it on the news. The only thing I could find was an article in the Indianapolis Star saying

"The last major activity by the Klan in East Central Indiana was a rally in New Castle in the summer of 1996. Hundreds of police wearing riot gear used pepper gas to subdue more than 600 Klan members and supporters. An imperial wizard was arrested on charges including rioting, unlawful assembly and obstruction of traffic."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/10/ku-klux-klan-winchester-indiana-recruiting/17028771/

I know Indy is central and not east central but I would think I would be able to find some story on it.

They specifically don't cover this event because they don't want to give them any media attention (I personally appreciate that). It's usually in May iirc, we actually had Race Unity/International weekend back then to effectively counter it, but less than 100 people actually show up to it, it's a VERY small event so those "counter events" are in different times of the year now.

They just march now,, it's no rally, it's actually because of the event you quoted that it's all they do now. If they did anything like that again they'd never be allowed back (so i kinda wish they'd try something again lol)

I made that comment not just because the KKK still having their "rally" here obviously is no bueno, but because they are allowed to have it here and I think that shows that there's a hella lot of religious freedoms that we do already allow in Indy (the Amish is another good example tho I don't equate them to the KKK by any stretch).

This law IS being put into place with the intent to marginalize the LGBT community, make no mistake about it.

 

[Mazdaspeed]

They specifically don't cover this event because they don't want to give them any media attention (I personally appreciate that). It's usually in May iirc, we actually had Race Unity/International weekend back then to effectively counter it, but less than 100 people actually show up to it, it's a VERY small event so those "counter events" are in different times of the year now.

They just march now,, it's no rally, it's actually because of the event you quoted that it's all they do now. If they did anything like that again they'd never be allowed back (so i kinda wish they'd try something again lol)

I made that comment not just because the KKK still having their rally here obviously is no bueno, but because they are allowed to have it here and I think that shows that there's a hella lot of religious freedoms that we do already allow in Indy (the Amish is another good example tho I don't equate them to the KKK by any stretch).

This law IS being put into place with the intent to marginalize the LGBT community, make no mistake about it.

That's crazy to me, I had no idea. Free speech is a bummer sometimes.

 

[ImpalingNarwhal]

I still live in Indiana, but fortunately one of the few positive oases in an otherwise insane state. When I get a few miles out of town, it's not uncommon to see confederate flag flying in the back of a truck. It's things like this that just make me embarrassed to be here.

 

[ivysaur12]

Which is why we're all pretty much against this specific case. Just pointing out that I agree that in some cases this could be good concept.

Yes, there are reasons why extending protections to religious persons, especially religious minorities, are important. There are also reasons why we need to protect the rights of sexual minorities. If we're going to extend RFRA-like protections, legislatures should simultaneously adopt public accommodation laws as well as non-discriminations laws in employment and housing towards LGBT persons so these laws won't become a shield to deny services, employment, and housing towards LGBT people.

Unfortunately, most states that pass these laws won't do that, do the detriment of LGBT persons and couples.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yes, there are reasons why extending protections to religious persons, especially religious minorities, are important. There are also reasons why we need to protect the rights of sexual minorities. If we're going to extend RFRA-like protections, legislatures should simultaneously adopt public accommodation laws as well as non-discriminations laws in employment and housing towards LGBT persons so these laws won't become a shield to deny services, employment, and housing towards LGBT people.

Unfortunately, most states that pass these laws won't do that, do the detriment of LGBT persons and couples.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Kenai]

Which is why we're all pretty much against this specific case. Just pointing out that I agree that in some cases this could be good concept.

I understand that, I'm guessing most of us in this thread from Indy do, but that's why I'm stressing that it's not being made for any good cause like what you might be thinking. It is being made to legally protect discriminatory practices, period.

I could possibly imagine a scenario where this bill was rewritten over and over again enough to be a good thing, but it isn't and won't be.

 

[legend166]

If a Klan member comes in and asks for a cake for their Klan rally, does the baker have to bake it?

 

[Exalted Terraforce]

I still live in Indiana, but fortunately one of the few positive oases in an otherwise insane state. When I get a few miles out of town, it's not uncommon to see confederate flag flying in the back of a truck. It's things like this that just make me embarrassed to be here.

True that. My family tell me to stay away from Martinsville like its the plague, lol.

Pence is signing it tomorrow....someone help us...

 

[kess]

Because those scenarios won't happen... This is IN. Please don't post improbable "facts" ala Fox News as a strawman. Native American hair styles being controversial in Indiana schools is statistically improbable at best. What about a kid who just wanted to smoke his peace pipe at school? Is that the next excuse, geez...

It's a disingenuous argument because a person being straight or gay is an intrinsic aspect of a person's being in a way that being "religious" isn't.

 

[Metaphoreus]

For the sake of argument, would you not extend public accommodation laws to LGBT people?

Well, if we're going to argue about it, it seems there's only one position I could take, right?

Because those scenarios won't happen... This is IN. Please don't post improbable "facts" ala Fox News as a strawman. Native American hair styles being controversial in Indiana schools is statistically improbable at best. What about a kid who just wanted to smoke his peace pipe at school? Is that the next excuse, geez...

The situations I referred to have all been litigated. The first two were decided under the Texas RFRA, and the last was decided under the Supreme Court's pre-Employment Division v. Smith jurisprudence, which the RFRA was enacted to "restore." (In fact, the last example was an Indiana case.) The point is, RFRAs are not as narrow (nor their effect in particular cases anywhere near as certain) as their critics would have one believe.

I think the intent of this law matters. And it's blindingly obvious to people who live here that this is not meant to protect Native American kids or minority religious groups.

But the way RFRAs operate makes them particularly immune to considerations of legislators' subjective purposes. RFRAs are process-oriented, not outcome-oriented. It would be inappropriate for a judge to apply an RFRA by asking, "What would the legislature have wanted the outcome to be here?" The proper questions are those described in the law: is religious exercise substantially burdened? If so, does the state have a compelling government interest in imposing that burden, and is the burden the least restrictive means of furthering that interest?

Yes, there are reasons why extending protections to religious persons, especially religious minorities, are important. There are also reasons why we need to protect the rights of sexual minorities. If we're going to extend RFRA-like protections, legislatures should simultaneously adopt public accommodation laws as well as non-discriminations laws in employment and housing towards LGBT persons so these laws won't become a shield to deny services, employment, and housing towards LGBT people.

But, without such anti-discrimination laws, RFRAs have no effect on one's right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. RFRAs create an exception from other law, but if there is no other law on point, then there's no need for an exception. You're suggesting that RFRAs, standing alone, authorize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that's false. In fact, your proposed solution--enacting anti-discrimination laws alongside RFRAs--would be the very source of the problem you pretend is inherent in RFRAs.

 

[UncleSporky]

If a Klan member comes in and asks for a cake for their Klan rally, does the baker have to bake it?

Like I said on the previous page, I think they already don't have to bake it, even in the absence of this bill. Businesses can refuse service to anyone. It's when they outright say "it's because you're gay" or "it's against my beliefs" that they get into trouble.

 

[YoungHav]

Can we remove all gays and minorities out of a State and hand conservatives their own sovereign land? Then we'll check back in a generation and see how well their utopia is going for them. These fools fight tooth and nail to bring the country backwards.

 

[snacknuts]

The governor signed this shit legislation into law this morning in a private ceremony.

Gov. Mike Pence signed the controversial "religious freedom" legislation in a private ceremony this morning.

Spokeswoman Kara Brooks said the event was closed to the press and the public. One source said a packed house gathered for the signing just before 10 a.m.

The govrenor's office declined to immediately say who was in attendance. A large round of applause came from the governor's office at about 9:55 a.m.

The measure could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples and has set off a firestorm of controversy.

Pence has been under intense pressure from opponents since the Republican-controlled Indiana General Assembly approved the measure on Tuesday.

The organizers of Gen Con, the city's largest convention, sent a letter to the governor Tuesday threatening to move the event elsewhere in future years if the bill becomes law. And the Disciples of Christ, a Christian denomination based in Indianapolis, said it would look to other cities for its annual convention if Pence signs the bill.

Asked why the ceremony would be private, Brooks said there was "no particular reason."

"Some (bill signings) are public; some are private," she said. "Don't read into it any more or less."

 

[Vanillalite]

Hope stuff like Gen Con goes through with their plans to move.

The more businesses that back out the better for this type of shit.

 

[Escape Goat]

Using thinly veiled reasoning to hide blatantly discriminatory law makes it so much more infuriating. Indiana residents arent the most educated so they never think too much about anything. Bless you, Faux News.

Private ceremony? Sounds like Pence didnt want photographs of him signing discrimination into law.

 

[BamfMeat]

Just because a law "may" allow discrimination is no reason to gut it, if it otherwise serves an important function. This bill does serve an important function. If you want to be absolutely certain that it can't be used to get around public accommodations laws, then support a law that exempts such laws from this bill. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Bull. Shit. There is absolutely, *literally* no reason to create a bill that could cause discrimination. Period. If there's potential for discrimination in a bill, it literally has no use in this country. So yes, there are very very LARGE reasons to gut a bill. Again, there is NO reason ANY bill should even potentially allow discrimination.

The religious in this country shouldn't have any special provisions given to them that the rest of the country doesn't get. They're not a minority, they don't need to be protected from anything. In fact, the rest of us need to be protected from them.

I also like how you've gone from saying that this isn't a pro-discrimination bill to now saying "well it *might* support discrimination".

Unless it's about the Amish, who are quite present in sections of the state and deserve some religious respect, little of what you posted has a snowball's chance of being prescient.

Shipshewana represent!

Yes, there are reasons why extending protections to religious persons, especially religious minorities, are important. There are also reasons why we need to protect the rights of sexual minorities. If we're going to extend RFRA-like protections, legislatures should simultaneously adopt public accommodation laws as well as non-discriminations laws in employment and housing towards LGBT persons so these laws won't become a shield to deny services, employment, and housing towards LGBT people.

Unfortunately, most states that pass these laws won't do that, do the detriment of LGBT persons and couples.

This right here is the crux of the argument. Minorities need protections from the tyranny of the majority, not the other way around. All these laws do is let the tyranny continue.

 

[Fenderputty]

Well, if we're going to argue about it, it seems there's only one position I could take.

But, without such anti-discrimination laws, RFRAs have no effect on one's right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. RFRAs create an exception from other law, but if there is no other law on point, then there's no need for an exception. You're suggesting that RFRAs, standing alone, authorize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that's false. In fact, your proposed solution--enacting anti-discrimination laws alongside RFRAs--would be the very source of the problem you pretend is inherent in RFRAs.

You could just discuss your actual position.

I'm assuming ivysaur wants the exception written in because he assumes, as well as the state apparently, that these laws protecting sexual orientation will soon exist.

 

[snacknuts]

Private ceremony? Sounds like Pence didnt want photographs of him signing discrimination into law.

Look at this fucking dirtbag cheesing it up for the cameras this morning. He posted this to his Twitter.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

These bills will eventually bite them in the ass when a Muslim does something in the name of religion, and expects to be vindicated.

 

[Kiritsugu]

So obviously a law allowing discrimination is questionable at best, but I'm just as disturbed by the fact that this allows discrimination only if the motivations are religious in nature. Why should religious motivations be given more importance than regular ones? If anything, religious motivations should be given less importance, because they're based on false premises about reality.

 

[kess]

Look at this fucking dirtbag cheesing it up for the cameras this morning. He posted this to his Twitter.

Time for a 100% heterosexual cake

 

[Bio-Frost]

I can't believe this happened. Lived in Indiana my whole life till I moved in 2013. I dont miss this backward state one bit.