Indiana wants me

[BoSoxGal]

There's a lady who's from Indiana
Who thinks she is the top banana
She'll call you a stalker
If you try to mock her
She would not do well in Montana

[TPFKA@W]

Enjoy the ride Alabama!

[oldr_n_wsr]

I heard/read there are a bunch of other states and the federal government that have a similar laws?

[rubato]

When I look for more thoughtful analyses of this bill it appears to be completely different from both what its proponents have said and its opponents. I'm heartened that the tide of public opinion has swung so far over into protecting gay rights but they seem to have gone off half-cocked here.:


http://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8319415/in ... rimination

Why a pro-same-sex-marriage law professor supports Indiana's religious freedom law

Updated by Dylan Matthews on March 31, 2015, 12:00 p.m. ET @dylanmatt dylan@vox.com
Tweet (113) Share +
+
Opponents of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act protest outside the City County Building on March 30, 2015 in Indianapolis. Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images
Don't miss stories. Follow Vox!
Follow

Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has provoked a firestorm of criticism from activists who fear that it could be invoked as a defense of discrimination against LGBT people. And on the other side, many have embraced the law for exactly the same reason. The Indiana religious right group Advance America praised the law, saying it would help ensure that "Christian bakers, florists and photographers [are not] punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage."

But religious liberty expert Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, thinks this is all confused. RFRAs aren't about enshrining discrimination, he argues; they're about preventing discrimination against small, vulnerable religious groups. The point isn't to help homophobic bakers; it's to protect Muslim women against discrimination for wearing veils, or to ensure that Sikh men can wear turbans and kirpans in the workplace.

Laycock has a long history of defending religious groups in cases involving freedom-of-worship questions. He successfully argued on behalf of a Santeria church in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, a case in which the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a local ordinance meant to stop the church from conducting animal sacrifices. He has also advocated on behalf of the separation of church and state, arguing Town of Greece v. Galloway on behalf of plaintiffs who objected to the town board opening meetings with prayers; the Court ruled that the prayers were constitutional, 5-4. He is a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, but supports protections for the religious liberties of opponents.

We spoke on the phone Monday afternoon; here's a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.

washington florist Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll (above) sued Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, for refusing to sell flowers for their wedding. That's the kind of private suit Indiana's RFRA covers, though Laycock thinks Freed and Ingersoll would still win with an Indiana-style RFRA. (ACLU - Washington)

Dylan Matthews: Opponents of the Indiana RFRA argue that it's really unprecedented, because while a number of other states and the federal government have RFRAs, Indiana's explicitly applies to conflicts between private parties, not just to the government. How big of a deal is that?

Douglas Laycock: It's not much of a distinction. If the neighbors are mad that you're feeding the homeless, it really doesn't matter if the neighbor sues you or the city sues you. The discrimination cases, which the religious side always loses, it's always the same. Most of the cases about discrimination have been filed by the state human rights commission or the state attorney general and not by the gay couple who says they were discriminated against.

Here's the history on suits by private citizens. The federal RFRA was plainly intended to provide a defense if a church or religious believer was sued by a private citizen. They wanted to make clear that it also covered litigation against the government, because there's this issue of sovereign immunity, that you generally cannot sue a state. So they were trying to clarify, and they put in, specifically, that you can get relief against the government. Later, people began to say, "That means only against the government." It doesn't say only, and the courts are divided, but some have read it to mean only against the government. There's an article by a student in the Virginia Law Review that carefully collects the drafting history. It's very clear how this happened.

A lot of the states just copied the federal language, so the New Mexico RFRA had the same ambiguity, and then the New Mexico Supreme Court said suits by private citizens aren't covered. Indiana decided to clarify that ambiguity and make clear that suits by private citizens are covered. I think that goes back to the original meaning of the federal RFRA.

""The ultimate nightmare scenario is a case in Kansas where a woman literally died for her faith""

On discrimination cases, in particular, the state is nearly always authorized to sue on behalf of the victim of discrimination. It not only restores the original intent, but it also doesn't matter for the kinds of cases the gay rights folks worried about.

DM: The nightmare scenario, from a gay rights perspective, seems to be that this would provide a defense for discriminatory practices. If a same-sex couple sues a florist who refuses to work on their wedding, the florist could use this defense. Would that happen? What is this defense used for in practice?

DL: No, I don't think that's the nightmare scenario, because religious folks haven't been winning discrimination cases anyway. There aren't that many of these cases, and they're quite diverse. They involve all sorts of religious practices, usually from non-mainstream religions, small minority-group religions.

But at mainstream churches, there has been litigation about religious feeding programs. The one case everyone has heard about is Hobby Lobby, which is almost the only case that became at all controversial. That's a case where, really for the first time in our history, the government made it illegal in certain contexts to practice a core teaching of the largest churches in the country. They knew what evangelicals and Catholics thought about these forms of contraception that they think cause abortions, and said they needed to pay for them and provide them anyway. That's an unprecedented intrusion into religious liberty.

Even so, that case was decided on the premise that the government had another way to provide free contraception without making the employer pay for it, so the impact on female employees, the court said, was basically zero. They'd still get their contraception. So nothing in Hobby Lobby suggests that employees or customers have to do without to accommodate the merchants' or the employers' religious beliefs. The ultimate nightmare scenario is a case in Kansas where a woman literally died for her faith because of government intransigence, and for lack of a state RFRA. It doesn't happen very often, but it's at least a real case, and all the complaints about the discrimination that's going to be authorized by the Indiana RFRA is not based on any real case; it's all completely hypothetical.

jehovah's witness A mass baptism is held at the International Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses in Melbourne, Australia, October 18, 2014. (Angela Wylie/Fairfax Media via Getty Images).

DM: I'm not familiar with that Kansas case. What happened?

DL: The Kansas case concerned a woman named Mary Stinemetz who needed a liver transplant. She was a Jehovah's Witness, so she couldn't have a blood transfusion. It turns out that there are bloodless liver transplants, and they were available in Omaha, and it was actually cheaper in Omaha than it would have been anywhere in Kansas.

And Kansas Medicaid said, "We don't pay for out-of-state medical care, period." So she filed a lawsuit under the state constitution, and the state said, "Well, our state constitution means the same thing the Supreme Court says the federal constitution means. It means we don't have to make any exceptions for religious people."

It took two years to litigate that, and finally the Kansas court of appeals said basically that the Kansas constitution means the standard of a RFRA applies. The government needs a compelling interest to refuse an exception, and it didn't have any interests at all here. She won her lawsuit, but it took two years, and by that point her medical condition had deteriorated. She was no longer medically eligible for the transplant, and she died in 2012.

DM: That's horrible.

DL: It's horrible. And it was all motivated by this rule, "We don't have to make exceptions." That's the government's understanding of the law in most places, apart from a state RFRA. [see link for the rest]

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

She won her lawsuit, but it took two years, and by that point her medical condition had deteriorated. She was no longer medically eligible for the transplant, and she died in 2012.

Gee, talk about winning the battle but losing the war...

Douglas Laycock

Oh come on, they guy's name is really Laycock?

That must have been a lot of fun in Junior High gym class....

[rubato]

Pence is still an idiot:


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... .mdwPv8Jyo

“Smoking Doesn’t Kill” And Other Great Old Op-Eds From Mike Pence

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.
posted on March 31, 2015, at 9:38 a.m.
Andrew Kaczynski

BuzzFeed News Reporter

“Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”

Via web.archive.org
Pence explains why Titanic was a popular movie, calling it a “metaphor before our eyes.”

Via web.archive.org
On climate change, Pence says CO2 from burning fuels can’t be the cause of increased global temperatures because it “is a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature…” not an unnatural one. He also mixes up India and Indonesia.

Via web.archive.org
Pence says George Washington was a Republican: “Republicans, from George Washington to George W. Bush just have better ideas.” Washington didn’t belong to any political party and famously warned against them in his farewell address.




Via web.archive.org
Pence wrote that Clinton must resign or be impeached.

[Econoline]

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Joe Guy]

Hey @W!! (hollow sound)

I know you're pretending to not read my posts but I have a question for you...

Your sig line/icon is too blurry. What is it???....

[BoSoxGal]

Just read this bit of related Indiana news; I find this absolutely chilling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... mm&hpid=z3

Watch out women of childbearing years - you may be prosecuted for miscarriage or stillbirth!

[Long Run]

Your use of the term "tourism" related to Indiana gave me the giggles. Except for very specific events I don't think we actually have a tourism clientele.

Indiana, and specifically Indianapolis, invented sports tourism (the "sweaty convention" business) in the 1980s. It goes beyond the high profile events like the NCAA Final Four to include run of the mill regional soccer and softball tournaments and the like (thousands of kids and families at each event), times 100s of events each year, equals big bucks. Every other city/region has been playing catch-up ever since.

[TPFKA@W]

Your use of the term "tourism" related to Indiana gave me the giggles. Except for very specific events I don't think we actually have a tourism clientele.

Indiana, and specifically Indianapolis, invented sports tourism (the "sweaty convention" business) in the 1980s. It goes beyond the high profile events like the NCAA Final Four to include run of the mill regional soccer and softball tournaments and the like (thousands of kids and families at each event), times 100s of events each year, equals big bucks. Every other city/region has been playing catch-up ever since.

Thus the "very specific events" part. Other than coming for that, a few museums to see perhaps, there isn't much else to do. We are not a vacation destination and if you aren't into sports there is no reason to visit.

[Econoline]

I dunno about Indy, but the gaming industry is pretty big in northern Indiana: there are 5 "riverboat" casinos lined up along the shores of Lake Michigan (two in Gary and one each in Hammond, East Chicago, and Michigan City)--all of which, I assume, would like to attract a lot of customers from out-of-state. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (part of the National Park system) may also attract a few visitors.

[rubato]

Your use of the term "tourism" related to Indiana gave me the giggles. Except for very specific events I don't think we actually have a tourism clientele.

Indiana, and specifically Indianapolis, invented sports tourism (the "sweaty convention" business) in the 1980s. It goes beyond the high profile events like the NCAA Final Four to include run of the mill regional soccer and softball tournaments and the like (thousands of kids and families at each event), times 100s of events each year, equals big bucks. Every other city/region has been playing catch-up ever since.

"... invented sports tourism ... "

Really. So you are saying that no one went to baseball games, football games, sailing races, track meets, soccer games, basketball games, cycling races, marathons, ORV races, motocross racing, rock climbing, hang gliding, mountaineering, sail boarding, mountain biking, cyclocross, kite boarding, scuba diving, surfing, in California until the 1980s?

Pull the other one. "Invented sports tourism" means that they categorized something that was already happening and came up with a slogan (to a modest degree compared to places with better weather for sports).

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

lets not forget the Indy 500.
And thanks for that article rubato.

[liberty]

It may not be a good Christian attitude, but when it come to matters of sex I am quite liberal in the old sense of the word. I don’t care what anyone does as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. However, I feel no one should be forced to engage in an extensive contract with anyone they don’t wish to engage. If a person wants to by a standard cake at a bakery that is their right, but they don’t have the right to force the proprietor to decorate it with any sentiment he does not want.

[Long Run]

"Invented sports tourism" means that they categorized something that was already happening and came up with a slogan (to a modest degree compared to places with better weather for sports).

Thanks for saving Meade the effort of pointing out that I meant the folks in Indiana invented the business of sports tourism. No one actively and in a coordinated way went after this business until Indiana showed real money was involved. And I suspect that states other than California enjoyed visitor dollars from sports before it became a sought after business, but again, there was not a real industry until the explosion of traveling youth and adult sports adding regional and national championships for everything from archery to badminton to wrestling. This began about the time of the last great California drought.

[Econoline]

I just came across this today. An interesting (and very Christian Christ-like) take on gay wedding cakes:

"If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two." ~ Matthew 5:41

[BoSoxGal]

[Big RR]

Ditto.