Indiana's new buesinnes freedom law

[Racket_Man]

is "NOT about discrimination" says the states the state's governor.

This law apparently allows business owners to use "religions belief" to refuse service to "anyone they believe violates their (the business owner's) religious beliefs".



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ill/ar-AAaajRf

as one commenter put it "How long before the "NO Coloreds allowed" signs begin appearing.

My take would be this: If I owned a business this could potentially allow me to refuse service to

anyone who I perceive as
Chrisitian, Muslim, Jewish because HEY those religions are against MY religious (or lack of religious) beliefs

I think this commenter sums things up very nicely:

This issue has noting to do with "religious freedom". It has everything to do with using the state as a hired goon, legally allowing religious zealots to use their "faith" as a weapon to persecute and discriminate. This "law" not only legally sanctions discrimination at the business level, it could potentially deprive others of employment or even housing, based solely on religious grounds. How can people who consider themselves followers of Christ possibly be in favor of something like this? If they are indeed followers of Christ's teachings, perhaps they should ask themselves: What would Jesus do? I seriously doubt that He would condone their attitude or behavior toward some of their fellow human beings. Having one's own personal convictions is one thing, however, these so-called "Christians" should bear in mind that they are not the right hand of God and have no moral or legal authority to judge and condemn others based on those convictions. THAT is up to God. In the final analysis, legally speaking, this law is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

To put it bluntly this law is just a sugar coated version of the crap that we all crazy out against that is happening with the funddie Muslim groups.

IT seems the fundie conservative religious groups/political groups want to impose the VERY SAME RULES that we cry against except they use LEGAL means to do so and the sheeple just seem to swallow the crap coated in sugar and flowery language.

A Spoolful of Sugar

[Andara Bledin]

The law in question is supposed to require the re-addition of "strict Scrutiny" when non-discrimination laws come into conflict with "sincerely held religious beliefs" but rather than use a carbon copy of the RFRA that the federal government and 19 other states have in place, they made theirs a bit more broad and notably more likely to be misused for the purpose of being hateful bigots.

I can't wait until the unintended consequences of other religions taking advantage of the overbroad nature of the law and the people who pushed it through for their own purposes go apoplectic over it.

[Kheldarson]

They're already getting backlash from this move: http://www.indystar.com/story/money/...rfra/70590738/

[Andara Bledin]

That's come after both Gen Con and Salesforce made declarations regarding it.

[Panacea]

Gen Con is contractually obligated to Indianapolis until 2020, so for another 6 years. So unless vendors start giving attendees a hard time, it would take a very expensive lawsuit to get out early.

But they could lose the convention after that if something doesn't change.

[Herebecause]

I was shared info on this verbally, so I don't have a link, but I do believe at least one organization is starting their own church specifically so their members can then claim that their religious beliefs are against Republicans (or perhaps something more specific). Like I said, my only source is a family member who lives in Indiana and is furious about what has happened and has joined the group of protestors. I don't think he will be moving (too many other factors involved) but certainly will be doing everything they can to get this law overturned.

[Anthony K. S.]

Indiana's new business freedom law is "NOT about discrimination" says the state's governor.

You can tell people that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean they'll believe you.

[HYHYBT]

I forget which state it was, but one recently, despite insistence that the purpose was not to shield discrimination, the bill failed when an amendment saying so was added. Surely that counts as proof the law's backers, at least the ones making that claim, are lying.

I'm just glad my state's legislature is only allowed to meet for, I think, 40 days per year. So after Thursday, we don't have to worry about them until 2016.

[wolfie]

Gen Con is contractually obligated to Indianapolis until 2020, so for another 6 years. So unless vendors start giving attendees a hard time, it would take a very expensive lawsuit to get out early.

My understanding is that Gen Con deals with SciFi/Fantasy/Roleplaying/other stuff associated with those. Conventions dealing with such matters tend to try to get "big names" in as guests.

At least one "big name" from an iconic SciFi series has "come out of the closet". Considering that it's getting harder to book people from this series (as of earlier this month, one of the other actors from this series will NEVER be making another convention appearance), the chance of this person being the one booked for a convention is increasing.

If a "special guest star" at Gen Con gets discriminated against (Gen Con wouldn't do it - let's assume it's a business near the convention but not affiliated with it), and this discrimination is explicitly legalized by a government having jurisdiction over the city of Indianapolis, that could easily be the "wedge" to break the deal.

[Jetfire]

GenCon's contract is probably pretty locked in, so moving before 2020 would be doubtful; but if they *really* wanted to (as in their pool of guests and vendors starts drying up due to this rule), I'm sure there are escape clauses they could bring into play to get out earlier. It would be costly, but at that point, the PR boon they'd get from it would probably be worth it. (especially compared to the losses that new law would be causing).

Hell, if they really wanted to, they could probably set up a 1 day 'convention' to cover their contract with 1 person showing up, and then hold the real GenCon (GenCon2.0) at another place.

In any case, the pressure is on, and it sounds like the Law Makers are backpedalling at mach speed to try and get out of the tar pit they threw themselves into, so GenCon probably doesn't need to worry about much (other than negotiating more escape clauses in the 2020+ contracts).

[AccountingDrone]

Hell, if they really wanted to, they could probably set up a 1 day 'convention' to cover their contract with 1 person showing up, and then hold the real GenCon (GenCon2.0) at another place.
.

I think that is a great idea. Nothing says that they need to do anything except hold it at that venue - if they can make the nut for paying that venue on the new location and 2.0con, that would be great. The community normally expects to be making money on things other than the renting of the venue - hotels, restaurants, local business concerns. Actually the venue expects to make more than the rental with other fees like con suites, suite food service [like beverage packages and the like] and other 'services' they offer to the cons.

If they pull that, they can potentially lose an area big bucks ... I know last con I went to was Balticon in 2003, and we paid for a hotel room for 3 days, breakfast, lunch and dinner, the con fee, parking fees - that doesn't include anything we spent in the vendor room. I think Rob and I ended up spending something like $350 or so [double occupancy, food and drink for 2 people] Multiply that by a thousand people or so...

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, convention contracts don't work like that.

They involve the amount of space you'll be occupying and most of the cost is for that, and that alone.

If they could find someone else who wanted the space at that time, they could probably do a transfer, but it would depend on the wording.

[Andara Bledin]

And: Here's a lovely article about a cowardly bigot who is happy to be a discriminatory asshole but not so proud as to actually give his name or the name of his business...

[NecCat]

is "NOT about discrimination" says the states the state's governor.

This law apparently allows business owners to use "religions belief" to refuse service to "anyone they believe violates their (the business owner's) religious beliefs".

As long as there is ostensibly freedom to practise religion I would have to support this law. Being allowed to practise your religion includes being allowed to refuse to do things that are against your religion. If a Muslim cake baker refused a client who wanted him to decorate a cake with a picture of Mohammad, because it was against his religion, that falls under the right to freedom of religion, and I may not get it but I support it. Unfortunately that means I have to support a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, since same-sex marriage is against many Christian religions.

I think this law and others like it that are in the works are going to cause an increase in the creation of 'religions' whose sole purpose is to allow people to avoid doing things they find distasteful (vaccines anyone). The end result may well be whole nations repealing the idea of freedom of religion.

[Andara Bledin]

No. Your right to practice your religion does not trump anyone else's right of accommodation.

Regarding your examples:

If a person refused all religious icons, that'd be ok. If a person refused only selected religious icons, that's a civil rights violation which this law is seeking to end-run around.

If a person bakes and decorates traditional wedding cakes (as in the typical three layer with white icing) but refuses custom cakes beyond a certain level of alteration, that's fine. If a person bakes and decorates traditional wedding cakes but refuses to bake one of those based purely on the two recipients being of an unacceptable configuration, that's a civil rights violation that this law is attempting to do an end-run around.

Why do so many so-called religious individuals hate civil rights so much? Is it because they're really just bigots hiding behind the skirts of "religion" and using it as a shield to be judgmental assholes? Last I checked, Christianity (the largest religion in the US) had a thing about not judging others as that was the purview of the Lord and His alone... >_>