On the contrary, it might have been more palatable to mainstream America for the state of Indiana to clarify that their religious freedom law shall not be intrepreted to allow discrimination against gays, but looks like they're finding out the hard way.
They already agreed to add a quick amendment to the law to clarify that, since it was never any problem in the first place. It'll probably be passed this week. Perhaps they'll make that into a standard procedure, with each law accompanied by a lengthy "For Dummies" entry that explains a bit about the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, significant case law, what problems have arisen or may arise in the future and how the law in question addresses that, along with a few worked-out example problems. For instance, the RFRA laws don't allow you to do anything. They only kick in as a defense when somebody has already dragged you into court to force you to do something that substantially burdens your religious principles. Those cases are extremely rare, but often very significant. Without them a judge has to rule on the law as it stands, such as finding that Amish children must be forced to attend public schools, or allowing a church to be seized under imminent domain and bulldozed to put in parking spaces for a new mall (see Kelo). The cases are rare enough that a legislature could put off passing a RFRA, resolving to change any laws to address abuses the public finds burdensome or outrageous, such as forcing Amish to put giant, bright orange triangles on their buggies. However, that does not provide grounds for appeal, nor does it compensate victims for losses incurred and legal fees. The effect would be that years later, when a new law is finally passed, future abuses of that type won't recur but those who already suffered the abuse will still have the conviction on their record and potentially staggering losses that they just have to eat. It's like when California legalized marijuana. The hundreds of thousands of people with convictions on their records, and the thousands who'd had their property seized (including real estate), were simply out of luck. Their convictions and forfeitures stand. A RFRA gives a judge an alternative when the abuse is obvious, and most provide for recovery of fines, legal fees, and whatnot.
That should be easy enough to figure out, even for you. I'll give you one reason, I'm sure you can think of others: they are passing through, that's the one restaurant that's open.
What if it is a small town and the only gas station, pharmacy, hotel, restaurant, what not declares they refuse to allow you fair public accommodation because you are black, gay, lesbian, what ever? There is a reason we have anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations and there is a damn good reason why it has already been extended to LGBT in some states and should be extended to all states.
Also, businesses open to the public draws on public water lines, public sewer lines, public roads, public electricity infrastructure, etc. For the public to set reasonable conditions of doing business in exchange for access to public services and the power to invite the public into your business is utterly prosaic. Public resources shouldn't generally be used to subsidize bigotries that harm the public. Government should not be able to get around limitations on government bigotry by subcontracting out. Not to mention that, in the end, in order to enforce any desire to not do business with gay people or anyone else, business owners have to draw on the public police power. Why in the world should police be required or allowed to enforce bigotry in a space made open to the public?
Well, the governor is still lying and refusing to admit that discrimination against gays is the whole point of the law but he at least is now saying he wants the bill clarified where as just yesterday that was something he said he would never do.
Apparently... Pence and the Indiana Legislature were warned - in advance - by legal experts - that this RFRA was very different than the ones passed in other states, and would result in problems. An 11 page letter dated Feb. 27, 2015 was sent to Rep. Ed DeLaney from 30 expert law professors in religious freedom and civil rights (12 from IU law schools) giving their opinion on Indiana's then proposed RFRA. A PDF of the letter can be found HERE.
And Arkansas, always a contender in the dumb shit Olympics, has passed a virtual copy of the Indiana bill. The bigots are marching on.
NY has joined in on the travel ban and at least half a dozen states are considering it. No wonder governor bigot flip flopped so quickly
Pence said in a press conference today that he will work with legislators this week to "fix" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by passing legislation that will clarify that the RFRA does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/
Be interesting to see who has the better party discipline. Can the Republican leadership get enough of their caucus to vote for this patch? I doubt it. So if not, can the Democratic leadership convince their caucus to hold back and force a full anti-discrimination act?
Someone on my Facebook just shared something from Sean Hannity "Question of the Day: Should people have a right to practice their religion without interference?" uh... what?
In the spirit of fairness in which that question was asked, it ought to come with a picture of the second plane approaching the WTC.
Well, that's what RFRA laws are for, allowing the Amish to stay Amish and Native Americans to follow their own traditions without developers plowing up their ancestors. Without them, people wouldn't be allowed to act on deeply held objections, and customers could force gay bakeries to make Hitler-themed wedding cakes for Nazi marriage ceremonies.
It's some gturner level lying to call that a "clarification" of the Indiana RFRA. The entire purpose of the legislation and the explicit language of the legislation are all about allowing businesses the right to deny services.
Um, no. Maybe that was the purpose of the Illinois RFRA that Obama voted for. Nobody has ever used a RFRA to defend against any gay-related charges.
