After passing the Hate Bill, Indiana now realizes that it screwed up, but not out of morally mediated compunction, but because of the firestorm of excoriating comments, threatens of boycotts, real boycotts (e.g., Angie’s List is putting its Indiana expansion on hold), and even criticism from a basketball idol:
Former NBA star Charles Barkley added his voice to the debate.
“Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me,” he said. “As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states’ cities.”
And make no mistake about it: this was intended to be anti-gay legislation, despite the lying denial by Indiana governor Mike Pence. It was prompted by the legalization of gay marriage in Indiana, and the lobbyists (see yesterday’s post) included some particularly vicious homophobes. Now legislators who favored the bill (damn Republicans, of course) see their mistake, and are backpedalling fast. According to Yahoo News:
Republican legislative leaders said they are working on adding language to the religious-objections law to make it clear that the measure does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. As signed by Pence last week, the measure prohibits state laws that “substantially burden” a person’s ability to follow his or her religious beliefs. The definition of “person” includes religious institutions, businesses and associations.
“What we had hoped for with the bill was a message of inclusion, inclusion of all religious beliefs,” Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said. “What instead has come out is a message of exclusion, and that was not the intent.”
The efforts fell flat with Democrats, who called for a repeal, and even some Republicans.
“They’re scrambling to put a good face on a bad issue. What puzzles me is how this effort came to the top of the legislative agenda when clearly the business community doesn’t support it,” said Bill Oesterle, an aide to Republican former Gov. Mitch Daniels and CEO of consumer reporting agency Angie’s List, which canceled expansion plans in Indianapolis because of the law.
There are, for instance, tw**ts like this:
Sadly, that’s not quite accurate, for while it’s illegal to refuse blacks at places of public accommodation and service, it may now be legal in Indiana to refuse to serve gays on religious grounds (whether a restaurant can turn away gay customers has yet to be adjuciated). There are similar laws in 19 other states, although there’s variation in the degree to which companies or individuals must abide by them. Indiana’s law apparently has the broadest effects.
Designed to protect religious minorities from discrimination, “religious freedom laws” have in effect served to bolster the right of a majority faith, Christians, to discriminate against anyone deemed religiously offensive. How does “protecting religious freedom” become the right to impose one’s religious views on others? Does it really protect your religious freedom to prevent employees from getting medical contraceptive care?
Similar bills are pending in North Carolina, Arkansas, and Georgia. The problem with all of these states is that they’re fighting a futile rearguard action against the tide of anti-discrimination and pro-gay-rights sentiment that is sweeping the U.S. If the Supreme Court says that gay marriage is legal (and, despite their conservatism, I think it will), then the game’s over. These Court may still allow discrimination of the Hobby Lobby form, but eventually that, too, will be overturned.
To see an acrimonious CNN interview on the new law, featuring Ryan McCann, the policy director of the anti-gay Indiana Family Institute, click on the screenshot below. The guy is a slippery homophobe, and is obviously lying:
Finally, on a lighter note, here’s a Google+ posts on the issue:
h/t: Michael
//
Do these people support slavery? The bible is quite explicit in its support of it. Or do they simply pick which bits are “deeply held”?
Bessinger was distributing pro slavery literature as late as 2000. Yes, PRO slavery.
http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article13839323.html
I recently finished an excellent history of the US Civil War, The Battle Cry of Freedom, highly recommended.
I have many southern relatives. You would hear them all the time talk about “The War Between the States” and tell you it had nothing to do with slavery or race; but instead was about state’s rights.
Well, yeah, sort of: State’s rights to do only one thing: Enslave black people.
It’s blindingly obvious from reading the history that is was all about one thing only: Slavery. It revolved around several sub-questions:
Could southern slave holders carry their slaves into other states?
Could slavery be extended to new territories accrued to the US (e.g. Kansas, Nebraska, California, Oregon). One of the primary causes of US interventions in Central America and the Caribbean was a push from the southern states to expand slave-holding southwards. The South was highly concerned that they not be out-numbered by the accrual of free states to the US.
The Fugitive Slave laws. The South wanted to legally bind all citizens and law enforcement in the North to finding and returning slaves who had fled their slavery. — Despite the constant refrain from the South that slavery was “good for the slaves” — those slaves didn’t seem to agree. (There was rampant non-compliance with these laws of course.)
The South was absolutely shameless in pressing these cases. And they were on pretty solid ground: Since very early in the country, all the Presidents had been either slave holders, from slave states, or sympathized with them.
But, like the same-sex marriage issue in 2012, by the late 1850s, the North had had a enough; and the tide had turned. The formation of the Republican Party, mainly around abolition of slavery, was the last major party realignment in the US. (The abolition of slavery in the UK and France and those nations’ non-recognition of The Confederacy — mainly over the issue of slavery — were also key to the South’s failure in the Civil War.)
For your relatives who argue that the Civil War was about state’s rights, I would direct them to Mississippi’s Declaration of Secession. The first sentences are:
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world.
Indeed! And they mostly originated in Mississippi! It’s selective memory. All contemporary documents, newspaper articles, speeches, etc., make it completely obvious that it was all about slavery and nothing else.
“Southern Heritage” and respect for the Confederate Flag be damned.
The “Southern Heritage” was rule by the landed elite over slaves and poor whites. Serfs by any other name. Many in the south still have a nostalgia for the good old days under the UK feudal “nobility” system. Their fondness for military titles (Colonel or General so and so) is part of it too.
There are a few tell-tale signs of deeply ingrained, old-school southern racism and I’ve found the second most obvious among them to be the use of the term “The War for Southern Independence.” Anyone trotting out that little nugget of equivocation is probably displaying a confederate flag, the most obvious indicator of deeply ingrained racism, somewhere in their home and/or vehicle.
“the greatest material interest of the world”
That’s some evil villain stuff right there!!
Not a bit of it. The Civil War was fought over control of coal mines in West Virginia. End snark.
Here’s something that seems relevant that appeared in the Spectator (London) on 12 Jan 1861:
“The Springfield Journal, Mr. Lincoln’s organ, of the 20th ult., has a leader on secession, which, from the particular relations of the paper to the President Elect, has great significance. It says- “South Carolina cannot dissolve the Union by the simple passage of resolutions or other passive demonstrations. Her federal officers may resign, and she may close her courts and post-offices, but she cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. While this government endures, there can be no disunion. If South Carolina does not obstruct the collection of revenues at her ports, nor violate any other federal law, there will be no trouble, and she will not be out of the Union. If she violates the law, then tomes the tug of war. The President of the United States, in such an emergency, has a plain duty to perform. Mr. Buchanan may shirk it, or the emergency may not exist during his administration. If not, then the Union will last through his term of office. If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 1st of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed. The President has no discretionary power on the subject. His duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards.””
Also appearing in the same Spectator:
On the very day South Carolina seceded, the House passed the Pacific Railroad Bill by 95 to 74. As it provides for a line from Texas to California, it is regarded as a bribe to Texas and Louisiana.
(Source: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/12th-january-1861/6/imign-an-crilnuial)
If I read this right, Abraham Lincoln’s ‘official’ hometown newspaper affirms he will declare war if South Carolina “obstructs the collection of revenues”, mainly, I suppose, on agricultural implements imported from Europe. No mention is made of slavery. In fact Lincoln pledges to respect slavery in his first inaugural address. The war to preserve the Union is about the Federal government’s right to levy import tariffs to protect Northern industry (Lincoln’s constituency) and fund the conquest of the West. Had South Carolina not fired on Fort Sumner, another pretext would have been found for war. The success of Lincoln’s project depended on slavery and, in 1862, after the free lunch provided by slavery came to an unplanned end, federal income tax.
Just barely on-topic: I recently finished “The Fall of the House of Dixie” which I highly recommend. “Dixie” is used here to refer to a mindset more so than a geographical place.
I have read many books about the CW. I learned a lot from “Fall…” that I hadn’t learned anywhere else.
Ever since my one summer on local swim team, I’ve wondered about:
http://goo.gl/maps/ki8Wn and such
The only thing in the world more mendacious than the media are bigots who blame their bigotry on the media.
A truly corrupt and ignorant man was Maurice Bessinger.
If the bill is not repealed but only amended to protect gays, what about atheists? I hope they don’t forget that it is not just gays that are at risk. It must be repealed.
If the law allows religious people to use excuses for their actions which are not available to the nonreligious, I don’t see how that can be understood as anything but the government favoring religion over non-religion; and that should constitute a clear-cut constitutional violation.
In other states that have these religious freedom restoration acts, discrimination against lesbians and gays is specifically prevented, so the laws don’t have the same chilling effect. Indiana has no such law, which is why this new one has such a chilling affect.
I believe the governor, Mike Pence knew what the affect of the law would be, but he sucked in other some lawmakers using inclusion language to get them to sign, and they have only now realized what they’ve done.
I’ve often read in comments about how atheists have no protection because they are not under the freedom of religion purview.
I think that is probably false and freedom of religion could be interpreted as freedom from religion but what this will do is cause bigoted hatred to come out in public and probably result in appeals.
Yes, it is not permissible to disadvantage atheists. (Even though it happens socially all the time and many state constitutions had articles preventing atheists from holding public office or giving court testimony — they are now ignored and forgotten because they are so blatantly unconstitutional.)
Disadvantaging atheists is the same as forcing people to have a religion — prohibited by the first amendment to the US Constitution.
But it is a constant battle.
Wow, I cannot recall when I saw the heat come down so fast and hard. Pence is tap dancing as fast as he can, but to no avail. Repeal may be the way to go — admit you made a mistake and own up to it. He may buy himself some good will. Maybe the haters will think twice before they try to ram a similar law down in another state.
I’m not surprised to see companies pulling out of the Indy Big Data Conference. Having to vet the people you’re sending on the basis of their sexuality because you don’t want to risk someone refusing them service is insane and insulting.
That was me. I deleted my cookies last night but failed to fill my info back into the reply form and then clicked away like an idiot without noticing. Many apologies, Professor Ceiling Cat.
This is just a prelude of what we are going to be dealing with when eventually the GOP takes over again, non-apologies for stupid ideas and laws. Notice that republicans only respond to threats to profit making.
One question won’t be asked – does religious freedom include the freedom not to believe any of this nonsense – or are we atheists non citizens.
Pence is on TV as we speak attempting to do the Indiana two-step. It’s kind of like watching the kid at church who got caught stealing out of the collection plate. I just visualize this as I have never been there.
On another note, Jerry did you notice another infamous blogger is launching personal attacks against you under the pretense of presenting another point of view by a guest blogger. What a display of cowardly petulant chutzpah yet again. Just wanted to let you know about it.
Perhaps I am missing something? I am no fan of the blog you are referencing so rest assured if I am biased it is not in its favor. But the implications you make about the blog post you reference do not seem warranted at all. You seem to just be stirring the pot to try and get something started.
I find that endlessly amusing as PZ Myers has a heavy hand with the banhammer. I’ve been banned twice for disputing another commenter over there. In fairness, I was previously banned here for a negative commentary about a prominent physicist (not Sean Carroll). However, both Professor Coyne and Professor Myers have a perfect right to police their blogs in any way they see fit. Not every blogger uses the banhammer as lightly as does Ed Brayton.
On the original post a Hoosier was standing up for his home state against the “Alabama of the North” slurs. He should take heart that a good number of his neighbors are standing up for the right, and that the rest of the country is sending in reinforcements!
I don’t believe for a minute that this is a turning point in the battle, but hopefully people of conscience will note that it is possible to push back.
Pass the popcorn!
Sure RFRAs are not written to be “anti-gay.” They’re written to protect people who’s outer space friends are “anti-gay”.
Jokes aside, you should have the right to or not to associate with anyone you wish. But basing that decision on orders from outer space friends and his band of fairy helpers is silly.
I’m reading “Madison’s Music” (written by Burt Neuborne) at this moment. It’s a book about the First Amendment. He writes:
“But whatever we do in an effort to tolerate religious conscience, it cannot shift a significant cost to nonbelievers. That’s why religiously based claims to be free to discriminate against blacks or gays in employment or in the delivery of consumer services are such constitutional nonstarters. It would force members of the minority to bear the cost of the true believers’ religious bigotry.” (p. 138)
It would be only a matter of time before the Indiana law is either repealed or demolished by the Supreme Court.
I have seen only a couple of things on this book but will plan on reading it. I understand the fellow who writes it is more a lawyer than historian but still, may be a good one.
My reading of American History tells me that initially, at the Convention in Philly, Madison did not want a bill of rights and neither did the majority. So it was most certainly left out. However, as the ratification proceeded it became obvious that many wanted a bill of rights. Reluctantly, Madison agreed to get this done after the first congress got started.
One thing we know, none of this was really spoken of in the Federalist papers for the very reason that the bill of rights came later. Also, Madison’s original vote of no on this was because he thought it was not necessary and to scratch out these rights would then leave the impression that anything left out was fair game.
Yes, this is correct.
“It would be only a matter of time before the Indiana law is either repealed or demolished by the Supreme Court.”
Wouldn’t it be a great day if that happened, and was used as a basis for taking down all RFRA laws, including the federal one?
The line from Tora ,Tora, Tora comes to mind,
“I’m afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant.”
I’m going to make a movie about the Mexican invasion of the U.S. It will be called
Goya, Goya, Goya
Oh, yeah… Oh, yeah… Oh, yeah… 😉
I’ve just read that Arkansas is planning to enact a law just like the one in Indiana. Like Indiana, they don’t currently have any laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people. Also, this article states they are not planning any of the modifications that Arkansas are talking about in their back-tracking: http://www.courant.com/nation-world/chi-religious-objection-indiana-arkansas-20150331-story.html
It looks like those cartoons about the USA becoming two separate countries by the end of the century might be prescient.
I for one would welcome the South (which includes Indiana) to secede from the US. Good riddance.
I’m being facetious because I know there are many rational people who live there, but the religious-based hate and bigotry really gets my ire up.
First Church of Cannabis has apparently already filed there.
I see here in Texas. as of yesterday, that the party of putrefaction has introduced a similar bill that is so wide in interpretation that I am sure will pass given the proto-fascist ideology that is
prominent in the Texas legislature.
Just mention anything about religious “freedom” here and the rabid Christian dogs in the tea party start foaming at the mouth in ectasy. You can be sure that gays aren’t the only targets. Jews, Hindus, and Muslims should be very worried.
Government force is not the answer. The moral arc has bent far enough that the outrage and bad publicity will destroy any racist or sexist business or individual faster and more effectively than any politician’s club or police state tactics. This is a perfect example of how our society should work. Keep state, especially a government that instituted slavery and mass murder, out of our more efficient crowd source moral regulating.
I agree. You give a good argument for repealing a lot of the laws the RFRA bills seek exemption from as well as for the repeal of the RFRA laws themselves. Less nanny-stating and less religious coddling both.
Well, only to a point. You want the enforcement of laws in the hand of the state & not vigilantes.
If the Supreme Court says that gay marriage is legal (and, despite their conservatism, I think it will), then the game’s over.
I am less optimistic about game over, especially if it is a 5 to 4 decision. If a Rethuglican is elected president in 2016, he/she will quite probably have at least 1 Supreme Court vacancy to fill, almost certainly a replacement for Ginsburg who is unlikely to make it to 2020. A right wing replacement like Alito would open up the possibility of reversal of the presumed 2015 decision. To quote the eminent sage, Yogi Berra, it ain’t over until it’s over.
“Smoking Doesn’t Kill” And Other Great Old Op-Eds From Mike Pence.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/smoking-doesnt-kill-and-other-great-old-op-eds-from-mike-pen#.aaAEBOVJ3
The Indiana governor who is at the center of the debate surrounding the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his state wrote some interesting op-eds 15 years ago.
I believe Pence will capitulate as the money interests will outweigh the bigotry. Money has been proven time and time again to be more powerful and loved than any sky-god. Arizona went through the same controversy, though their heinous bigotry bill was never signed into law; the AZ governor obviously had a lot more common sense than this joker.
I still maintain that absent the “private parties” clause, this law is fairly noncontroversial. What is truly pernicious here is the messaging. Given the letter of the law, there is no more right for Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people in Indiana than there was a month ago. The problem is that they have been given not-so-subtle hints that any theoretical discrimination now enjoys the imprimatur of law.
I’m not clear on why religious conservatives have such a hard time remembering that religious freedom is about their protection from oppression, not a cover for their oppression of others.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2015/03/oh-inhumanity.html
Nice!
I’ll be devil’s advocate here and admit that the religious people do have a point, to a certain extent. They don’t want to be an “accessory to the crime.” After all, they think gay marriage is a crime (a sin). And if they sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, they’re an accessory to the crime.
So now the government is telling them they must go ahead and be accessories to this crime of gay marriage. The government says gay marriage isn’t a crime at all, but to the religious people, that looks like the government dictating religious doctrine to them. That’s why they’re protesting about their religious freedom being violated.
What are you going to say to these religious people? (a) Yes, the government of the people knows better than you what your religious beliefs should be, or (b) No, it’s not really being an accessory to the crime somehow, or (c) the rights of LGBT people to marry are more important than your right to avoid being an accessory to the crime?
I personally think it’s (c).
Imagine you own a gun shop where you sell guns for hunting or self-defense, but a customer tells you outright that he wants a gun to commit murder. Will you sell him the gun? For some admittedly crazy religious people, selling a cake for a gay wedding is like selling a gun to an intended murderer.
“I’ll be devil’s advocate here and admit that the religious people do have a point, to a certain extent. They don’t want to be an “accessory to the crime.” After all, they think gay marriage is a crime (a sin). And if they sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, they’re an accessory to the crime.”
Which brings up the point that almost every argument used against gay marriage was previously used against interracial marriage, which by the way many people also thought went against the Bible.
Bible Verses About Race Mixing
Here is a good piece that explains why the Indiana law is different (and worse) than the state and Federal laws: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-twitter-pckt.
Thank for the link. It was very helpful.
Yeah, that tweet with the segregated lunch counter is so relevant, because that has happened in precisely zero states besides Indiana that also have a RFRA.
You might like to read the link given in DrBrydon’s comment.
Whoa. Looks like Arkansas is heading for the same thing. A “religious freedom” law has passed the legislature and is heading for the Governor’s desk. He is expected to sign it. I’m thinking there may not be much of a fracas this time. Arkansas is a Southern state and there may not be enough of a constituency for fairness.