Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Is a new era finally dawning in Illinois?
Posted in:
* Everybody keeps saying we should be more like Indiana. Well…
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) quietly signed legislation Thursday that could legalize discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.
“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement Thursday. “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”
The bill received national attention, but Pence signed it with little fanfare in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The Indianapolis Star reported that members of the media “were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.”
* They’s sooooo pro-business…
The business community also suggested the law would impact the quality of their workforces. In testimony in the legislature while the bill was debated, several businesses said the law would hamper efforts to retain employees and recruit new hires because some might object to living in a state with a religious freedom law in place. […]
Tim Brown, CEO of Meetings Sites Resources of Irvine, Calif., said it’s unlikely that conventions or other groups will cancel already scheduled meetings in Indiana because they’d have to pay stiff cancellation fees to hotels. But the multimillion-dollar convention industry in Indianapolis could be hurt if groups that book conventions years ahead of time decide to avoid Indiana, he said.
“It’s hard to quantify,” how strong the anti-Indiana feeling will be in the convention and meeting industry, he said. “But you really are talking about the potential loss of revenue and jobs if it gets legs.”
* I mean, look at them, they are hosting the Final Four…
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of “religious freedom” has left the NCAA fretting ahead of next week’s men’s basketball Final Four in Indianapolis.
“We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
He said the NCAA will “work diligently” to ensure competitors and visitors at next week’s Final Four are not “negatively impacted by this bill.” Emmert also said the organization, which is based in Indianapolis, will “closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.” […]
Indiana doesn’t currently have a law on the books protecting Hoosiers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. But a dozen counties do — and opponents of the “religious freedom” law have said they’re worried the new measure will be used to allow businesses to get around those local rules.
* And they’re so hip, man…
The organizers of Gen Con, the city’s largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.
“Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years,” said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC, in a letter sent to Pence just hours after lawmakers sent the measure to his desk.
* To the bill…
Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer
Discuss
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Is a new era finally dawning in Illinois?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Gen Con is a week long gaming convention that brings in about $50,000,000 to Indianapolis every summer already threatened to move after 2020 when their contract runs out if Pence signed the bill. It looks like fears about the effect on conventions are coming to pass.
Comment by Carhartt Representative Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:12 am
I’ll have to listen to my favorite Bottle Rockets song a few times today to celebrate not living in that hopelessly backward state.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:13 am
Don’t think it’ll effect convention business. Vegas and Denver are still the best, but Indy has a lot going for it.
Comment by Toure's Latte Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:13 am
Let the boycotts begin.
Comment by Aldyth Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:15 am
Hate is an expensive hobby.
Indiana deserves all the economic pain it has coming to it.
Comment by LizPhairTax Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:16 am
According to the Bible, sexual sins include divorce, remarriage after divorce, cohabitation, and having children out of wedlock. I wonder if this law would permit a business to refuse service to a straight couple who live together based upon the religious belief of the owner or employee?
Comment by nona Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:17 am
The fact that Pence felt the need to sign the bill in hiding tells you a lot about how worried he already is that this will be perceived negatively (which of course it has and will continue to be).
Comment by slow down Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:17 am
Indiana wants me, Lord I can’t go back there.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:18 am
Last night many of the blogs for Big-10 teams were full of people saying Indy will be hard pressed to keep the Big Ten Tourney in Indy now.
It has been hosted by Chicago and Indy for years but this may open the door to conference moving away from Indy and bringing the conference tourney to the NY area.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:18 am
Reuters: “Republican Governor Mike Pence said he personally opposes needle-exchange programs but signed an emergency order allowing one recommended by federal health officials to be used in Scott County…”
Comment by Nicholas Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:18 am
Indiana returns to the good old days, when state government promoted discrimination based on particular religious beliefs.
Those days were the 1920s, state government was run by the Klan and those being discriminated against were Jews, Catholics and blacks (the children of Ham, in some righteous circles).
Yeah, they’re just running circles around us here in the 21st Century.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:21 am
Thankfully in this country we also have financial freedom. Will do everything in my power not to shop in that state going forward.
Comment by Very Fed Up Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:22 am
Can anyone explain to me how the Indiana version of RFRA differs from the Illinois version (775 ILCS 35)?
Comment by lincoln's beard Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:22 am
Illinois starting to look a little better
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:23 am
When you lose Sulu, you lose big.
Comment by yinn Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:23 am
The bill is not legal it puts religious rights before civil. It’s discriminates against gay and probably many other people. Pence should have known better. It makes Indiana look an awful lot like Kansas.
Comment by Mokenavince Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:23 am
I understand protecting business owners, but the anecdotal evidence used by fringe groups when discussing lawsuits brought against businesses is really quite minute. There have been very few lawsuits against Christian-owned businesses whose owners refuse to provide services for gay and lesbian persons.
As a Christian who attends a fairly sizable church, I am appalled at the people in my faith who think this is okay. There is a difference between preaching against an action and actively discriminating against an entire group of people. A lot of believers and followers understand that difference. More should.
Governor Pence was a great Congressman. He needs to rethink his role as governor and he certainly just threw away any chance at 2016.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:24 am
Fed law trumps state law. It wouldn’t be wise for a business to openly use that as a defense in court.
Comment by Doesn't Make Sense Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:24 am
Great state ya got there Governor Pence. Was wondering if you would like to take one of our current residents and maybe give him a position in your Cabinet? Name? Bruce Rauner. Previous experience? Vulture capitalist who always got his way and threatened to ruin one of his employees. Social Agenda? Ummmmm…. he says no, but then again, he hates unions and probably would go along with the insane bill you just signed into law. I’m sure there are alot of unions that would help him make the transition to being a Hoosier.
Comment by NewWestSuburbanGop'er Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:24 am
Shockingly, when pressed to provide an example of someone in Indiana actually having their religious liberty attacked, Pence could think of none.
Comment by slow down Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:24 am
Thanks, Anonymous, for reminding me of a song I haven’t listened to in years…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lusr_luJDoo
Comment by Sam Weinberg Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:25 am
Word…
D.C. Stephenson would be a proud man today!!
train111
Comment by train111 Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:25 am
Speechless…
Comment by Stones Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:25 am
Anonymous - right on. Can’t go west, can’t go east
I’m stuck in Indianapolis
With a fuel pump that’s deceased
Ten days on the road now
I’m four hours from my home town
Is this Hell or Indianapolis
With no way to get around
The Bottle Rockets - Indianapolis
Comment by Paddyrollingstone Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:26 am
“Those days were the 1920s, state government was run by the Klan and those being discriminated against were Jews, Catholics and blacks (the children of Ham, in some righteous circles).”
Wordslinger, you need to read the biography of Illinois Governor Len Small. He had more than a few Klan get togethers of his own in Springfield.
Comment by Under Further Review Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:26 am
I am old enough to remember when it was common for people to use religion to justify racial discrimination. “God doesn’t want the races to mix.”
People will use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against women (”can’t hire HER; the Bible says women belong at home”), not to mention those whose beliefs are different.
Indiana welcomes you to the Dark Ages.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:27 am
Slow down, that’s just like voter fraud and the voter id push. Conservatives LOVE throwing this kind of red meat to their base. But it kind of reminds me of the title of the first Star Wars movie of the second trilogy:
Voter fraud: The Phantom Menace
Gay weddings: The Phantom Menace.
They just love tilting at the phone wind mills cause it feeds the beast. The difference is that this one is going to have some serious economic consequences.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:27 am
Where’s Henry Drummond when we need him?
I’m sure Matthew Harrison Brady and “old time religion” has this Right…
To the Post,
Sometimes thinking you’re right, doesn’t mean going too far Right. Legislating accepted intolerance shouldn’t be a plank to majority leadership, but understanding how we all can find a way to respect each other should be the rallying cry of us all.
Yep, let’s be Indiana, let’s be Wisconsin. Rigid conformity is imperative to running a state, expanding commerce, even welcoming visitors.
I’ve said it many times, Indiana should be between Alabama and Mississippi, not between Ohio and Illinois. Not necessarily a slam, but an observation that the politics and moral “integrity” at play there seems more in tune with Mississippi and Alabama as neighbors, and not Ohio “the national bell-weather state” and Illinois, the 5th largest state in America, with the 3rd largest city in the country.
Indiana is a great example; every state, every one, is just different.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:28 am
Is it possible to move the NCAA tournament to Chicago or Champaign? Rauner could make a lot of friends by making the offer.
Comment by Not it Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:28 am
I think this new law is a very bad move for Indiana. It’s “divine justice” (pun intended) that Indiana did something this stupid economically, not to mention legally and socially. I’d like to see Illinois turn the tables on Indiana and poach jobs and convention business. Let the lawsuits and boycotts begin.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:29 am
It goes beyond serving the public. They specifically protect employers from suits by employees for discrimination, if it’s based on claimed employer religious beliefs? Wow!
Comment by walker Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:30 am
Doesn’t Illinois have the exact same law on the books already? The whole blow up against Indiana and this supposed discrimination act seems like a lot of needless outrage over something that 29 other states currently possess.
Comment by sleepysol Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:33 am
I can see this law having lots of unintended consequences, not just against the LGBT community but every group or individual that some religion does not agree with.
Literally anyone someone doesn’t like could all end up on the receiving end of discrimination. Indiana just opened the door to a real quagmire.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:34 am
- Doesn’t Illinois have the exact same law -
No.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:35 am
==…because some might object to living in a state with a religious freedom law in place.===
Just like “right to work” it is offensive how quickly reporters adopt and regurgitate the p/r branding that comes out of right-wing think tanks. The Affordable Care Act immediately became widely known as Obamacare. Why can’t this be referred to as a Bigot Empowerment Law in the national conversation?
Comment by Jimmy CrackCorn Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:37 am
OW
Henry Drummond???
Indiana hung him ‘from the sour apple tree’
Comment by train111 Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:38 am
I think I’m going to move to Indiana, found The Church of the Almighty Dollar and discriminate against anyone who doesn’t have obscene amounts of money …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:39 am
775 ILCS 35/
Comment by Kill Bill Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:41 am
At least Rauner only allows discrimination based on income.
Comment by chi Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:44 am
- train111 -,
I’ll only believe that if E. K. Hormbeck reports it…
Maybe I’m missing something, but is the law moving things backwards … believing this law moves Indiana farther IN the 21st Century? How does that all work?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:44 am
In the absence of a “Like” button, a big “thumbs-up” to Jimmy CrackCorn’s statement. …
Comment by Crispy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:45 am
I was in the process of planning a road trip to Indiana this Spring/Summer but I just cancelled it.
I really doubt that anything would happen; but instead of relaxing, I would always be worried that some bigot would want to make a point and refuse service to me and my bf. Plus why should I go where I’m not wanted?
Comment by Chicago Guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:46 am
I know the few snipes above about Illinois having the same law are probably from trolls who support the Indiana law, but I’m asking seriously and I oppose the Indiana law. I looked at the text of the Indiana law and the same law Illinois passed in 1998. Illinois passed it because the U.S. Supreme Court had taken a narrow view of religious rights and both the Feds and Illinois passed a ‘restoration’ law to in effect reverse the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The history is memorialized in the recitals to the Illinois law. This was viewed as a ‘liberal’ take back from the conservative Supreme Court.
The problem is, I can’t see how the two laws differ. Illinois’ is here - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2272&ChapterID=64 . Indiana’s is here - https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101# .
Can someone explain how they differ?
Comment by Rasselas Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:46 am
Yes, Indiana. Lets see how their newly enacted RTD (Right to Discriminate) helps business.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:47 am
Sad.
Comment by not applicable Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:47 am
I took Lil Sleep 1 to Lego Fest in St. Louis last weekend. I was impressed at how seamless that Explore St. Louis makes events and conventions America’s Center and the Edward Jones Dome work. The area is clean, has parking and is a block away from the Metro Link. I would assume that Explore St. Louis is licking their chops and that the St. Louis Sports Commission will now heavily lobby the NCAA to host even more events.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:48 am
“Can anyone explain to me how the Indiana version of RFRA differs from the Illinois version (775 ILCS 35)?”
Illinois also has a law — the Illinois Human Rights Act — that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Indiana has no such law.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:49 am
=Literally anyone someone doesn’t like could all end up on the receiving end of discrimination. Indiana just opened the door to a real quagmire.=
If you read the bill, you’ll notice that there are many definitions included — “person”, “burden”, “compelling government interest”, “exercise of religion”, etc.
One conspicuously undefined term is “a person’s sincerely held religious belief”. In fact, the authors of this bill apparently went out of their way to avoid defining that phrase. According to this law, one can seek relief if their objection is “substantially motivated by the person’s sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”
So, the courts must determine what is a sincere and legitimate religious belief, and what is not. I’m not sure how that could possibly be in accordance with the Constitution.
Comment by Snucka Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:53 am
==that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Indiana has no such law.==
When asked if Indiana should consider a law the prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Governor Pence said no, he wouldn’t.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 10:56 am
To those who are trying to say Illinois’ religious freedom law is comparable to the new law in Indiana- take a few minutes to read the Illinois statue. I did, and I can’t find anything there that allows you to refuse service /avoid lawsuits from your employees because of your personal religious beliefs. Apples to oranges IMHO
Comment by Roadiepig Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:00 am
Hence why I avoid Indiana at all costs. I even drive around it when traveling.
Comment by Jorge Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:05 am
GMAB, with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers, The Big Ten has already added the Verizon in DC and Madison Square Garden to the rotation for future tourneys.
NI, Rosemont has hosted some first week games of the NCAA tourney, but I don’t think it or Champaign are big enough for later rounds.
The United Center is problematic this time of the year because of the Bulls and Hawks schedules, particularly since they have home games to make up after their traditional long circus and ice show trips.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:06 am
[This commenter has been banned for life.]
IP Address: 68.184.196.141 St. Louis, MO
Comment by 340 East Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:07 am
In a few weeks, the hoopla will die down. It’s just not all that. It doesn’t turn the Constitution on it’s head. Read the law. No doubt, it will be further refined if/when legal challenges come along. It could allow a closely held religious business to exercise their beliefs (i.e. not performing abortions at Catholic hospitals, and other hot buttons).
The market is still the greatest force for business. People can and should exercise their own values in making choices. They will. They always have.
Here’s what it would prevent perhaps: an Alderman like Proco Moreno holding up a zoning permit for a fast food restaurant because he doesn’t share the views of the founder. No discrimination in service or hiring at the restaurant, just the founder’s beliefs shared at a convention.
If someone’s rights are challenged, the law will be challenged…and refined or redefined. Our system will work.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:08 am
Roadiepig, please also take a few minutes to read the Indiana statute, not the newspaper articles describing the statute. The statute does not say “you can refuse service to people for religious reasons”. On its face, it appears to track the Illinois law quite closely.
MrJM points out that Illinois has a Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination, but it was not in place when Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed. Was Illinois’ law a ‘license to discriminate’ law until the HRA was passed? And if LGBT folks are not currently protected under Indiana law, how does the new law make things worse? Are there local protection laws that this will trump?
Comment by Rasselas Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:09 am
Rep. Peter Breen had a lot to do with it. Homophobia and bigotry in the name of religion!
https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/peter-breen-testifies-before-indiana-house-of-representatives-re-state-religious-freedom-restoration-act/
Comment by Big Muddy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:13 am
==Is it possible to move the NCAA tournament to Chicago or Champaign?==
The Final Four is at Lucas Oil Stadium which will seat over 70,000 - so no. But……
while the Super Bowl is booked through 2018, future ones could be banned in Indy if the NFL was pressured. Future NCAA tournaments (1st round, regionals) could be moved from Indiana. What about a boycott on the Indy 500?
Comment by Bogey Golfer Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:13 am
Note also that the Illinois RFRA, by its terms, applies to “all State [..] laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions and their implementation, whether statutory or otherwise and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this Act.” (775 ILCS 35/25(a)) - so it would control over the Illinois Human Rights Act, wouldn’t it?
Comment by lincoln's beard Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:14 am
=== Was Illinois’ law a ‘license to discriminate’ law until the HRA was passed?===
Yep, it was.
Ain’t no more.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:20 am
“Was Illinois’ law a ‘license to discriminate’ law until the HRA was passed?”
Why do you think it was necessary to amend to the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:21 am
Way to go TommyD.
A little R. Dean Taylor one hit wonder action for a Friday. Well played
Comment by anonymouse Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:23 am
This law says a lot about the animus in Indiana about LGBT people. In practice, courts will eventually sort out the rights under the first amendment with those under the 14th, which this law seems to violate. Indiana is a great state for second amendment freedom though. LGBT people can use their constitutionally guaranteed right to carry a gun on their person to protect themselves against a bashing. Doing so in Illinois is expensive and onerous.
Comment by Muscular Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:23 am
A Guy:
The point of the law was to allow people to refuse to serve gay people. Nothing more. I’m not sure how in the world you can defend that. All I will say is that is vehemently and respectfully disagree with your stance. It is all that and to say otherwise is ignorant.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:26 am
“I” not “is”
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:27 am
Bogey - hence my earlier post. While the Edward Jones Dome is a dump compared to Lucas Oil Stadium, it already hosts Sweet 16 & Elite 8 games most years and it has hosted a Final Four. A few alterations and add in a some more premium seating and it is an attractive spot. I doubt that the Dome would ever be in line for a Super Bowl, though.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:27 am
The race to be West Indiana gets bumpier every day. The little Scabistan scheme gets shut down by the AG and now this yikes.
BVR better find a new role model.
Comment by anonin' Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:28 am
“What about a boycott on the Indy 500?”
Yeah given there is no more Back Home Again in Indiana from Jim Nabors. How ironic….
Comment by east central Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:29 am
This is splitting hairs a bit here but the stance is ignorant, not you. That doesn’t make much sense either I guess but you know what I mean (hopefully)
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:29 am
=Read the law. No doubt, it will be further refined if/when legal challenges come along. It could allow a closely held religious business to exercise their beliefs (i.e. not performing abortions at Catholic hospitals, and other hot buttons).=
I read the law. It states that any person with “sincerely held religious beliefs” can seek relief. It does not limit itself to Catholic hospitals, or evangelical fast food operators. Please tell me why the judicial branch should be responsible for determining which beliefs are sincere and which are not.
Comment by Snucka Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:33 am
Guy, what is “all the hoopla” that is supposed to die down, from your close reading of the law?
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:33 am
“First they came for the Socialists, then the hoopla died down,” Martin Niemöller
Comment by Carhartt Representative Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:39 am
===The market is still the greatest force for business. People can and should exercise their own values in making choices. They will. They always have.===
That’s right. In fact, my grandparents told me that lots of employers used to post signs that read: “Help Wanted. No Irish!”
Freedom. That’s what makes this country great.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:39 am
If there’s one group of people who needs protection against oppression and discrimination, it’s definitely “Christians in Indiana.”
Comment by Peoria Poll Watcher Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:41 am
@muscular the 14th amendment doesn’t protect you from discrimination. That’s the federal civil rights act passed in the 60s, which federal courts have not applied to sexual orientation discrimination. The 14th amendment is how that federal law gets applied to the states. But we lack federal constitutional protections against discrimination on economic activity. It’s statutory and the whims of wacko federal republicans could take them away if they were as politically tone deaf as Indiana republicans.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:44 am
If you don’t mind your kids growing up stupid in underfunded schools and getting poisoned by poorly regulated industry then Indiana is a great place to raise a family!
Is there really anybody dumb enough to buy this line about being more like the backward state next door?
Comment by Hoosier Son Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:45 am
Snucka - to be fair, intent is a big part of both our criminal and civil systems. In fact, civil law is often as much about intent as actual facts.
But with this law, how do you apply intent? Can you apply intent?
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:50 am
Rep. Breen couldn’t get it done in Illinois, so he brought his brand of fear-mongering and illogical legal nonsense, to the Indiana legislature — where they don’t have as strong a history or understanding of civil rights.
Comment by walker Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:51 am
“Market forces” performed wonders in keeping Jews, Catholics, blacks, etc. out of all sort of professions and schools for decades.
Did they complain and seek redress through the political process?
Why, yes they did.
Anything else from the shallow end, Guy?
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:51 am
Competition-wise a small plus for Illinois universities, parks, venues, and businesses in general.
Business opposition to the Indiana bill made sense, especially with younger generations tending to have more progressive beliefs on social issues.
Illinois bans discrimination that Indiana does not. Good for Illinois.
Comment by east central Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:55 am
@47th ward: yep that market will solve everything just like a guy said. The market did so much to protect my immigrant great grandfather from the violent threats of the KKK in southern Illinois coal country for being a miner who was both eastern orthodox and pro-union
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:55 am
Federal law:
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-1
(a) In general - Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception - Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Illinois law:
(775 ILCS 35/15)
Sec. 15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Indiana’s new law:
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Comment by Anon. Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:57 am
Slinger, I’m purposely not going to get deeply involved in this discussion because you can see that it’s taking on an incredibly tepid life of it’s own. I am not an advocate for “discrimination” against anyone for color, creed, sexual preference or otherwise.
I’ll stick with “Our Constitution has NOT been turned on it’s head here”.
We have a very precious balance in this country where we have to be ever cautious about going so far to protect one person’s rights that we don’t stampede on another’s.
This too will find a balance. I trust the system. I have no idea why someone wants to patronize a business that inherently opposes their lifestyle. Nobody has the entire “franchise” on anything anymore.
I appreciate the opportunity to support businesses that contribute to a better and more accepting society. I also have my own tenets of faith. The intersection is not so large that humanity must be sacrificed. Pope Francis is doing his part. I working to do mine.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:58 am
====Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 11:51 am:
“Market forces” performed wonders in keeping Jews, Catholics, blacks, etc. out of all sort of professions and schools for decades.====
If you really think that was “market forces”, you’re the shallow one. You aren’t. Get a better argument.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:00 pm
>> I have no idea why someone wants to patronize a business that inherently opposes their lifestyle.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:02 pm
Guy, you don’t get “deeply involved” in any discussion.
Once again, in this one, you’re choosing to ignore all facts, intent, and history that would challenge a conclusion that you want to reach.
And Pope Francis, really? Taking a page out of Schock’s farewell speech?
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:06 pm
Religion is a Lifestyle Choice. There is no “Jesus Gene”. People are not born “that way”. It would be nice if religious people would quit forcing their “lifestyle” on others. Which is what this law does.
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:06 pm
Yesterday Rich alluded to an article in the Atlantic about ISIS and its vision to restore 700’s AD era literal interpretation of Islam throughout the caliphate. Seeing Indiana’s new law reminds me that Christianity is oftentimes not that far from going off its rocker in the same way.
Comment by train111 Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Bye-bye to Indiana, or should I say “Buy-Bayh”
Comment by Long time listener Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Guy, did you take your meds this morning? You seem pretty grumpy. You trust the system. The same system that gave us Citizens United and allowed southern stated to bring back poll taxes.
Comment by Jorge Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:21 pm
- If you really think that was “market forces” -
He doesn’t, genius.
The point is that market forces weren’t enough to prevent discrimination.
Maybe you should try a blog with more pictures, more on your level.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:26 pm
“I have no idea why black people wanted to eat at those lunch counters if the owners didn’t want them there.”
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:28 pm
Seems to me that a lot of the difference between the Illinois and Indiana laws is Section 7 of the Indiana law. In Indiana, companies can have religious beliefs (and thus use them to discriminate). I don’t see that in the Illinois law (unless I’m missing something.)
“As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following:
(1) An individual.
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of
communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.”
Comment by ChicagoR Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Guy, you don’t understand what “market forces” mean.
History is full of examples of people being shut out of markets based on ethnicity, religion, race and gender.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Anon and others: there are sections of the Indiana law that are virtually a cut and paste of the Illinois and Fed laws. They have to do that because it it well established law. The difference is who is empowered to invoke the protection and how. In Illinois, a “person” may invoke their “religious freedom” as a defense against a violation of of their freedom by a GOVERNMENT. (See 735 ILCS 35/20). Indiana’s law allows the “person” to invoke that defense against other individuals, i.e. a private party suing for discrimination can result in a defense of “burden to religious freedom” (its against my honestly held religious beliefs to serve them so you can’t find me in violation of their civil rights). That is a totally different animal than the existing IL law but the supporters of the Indiana bill couched it as the “same” as the law in many other states. Its simply not true.
Comment by Saul Goodman Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:37 pm
Slinger, welcome to 1950 and the greatest stain on the history of our country. When people as smart as you are keep using this kind of an idiotic argument, it brings those terrible days closer rather than further away.
We fixed that issue at the lunch counters. We’re still working to get rid of the stain. Comparing that to this insults that struggle. It’s not the same. There are better arguments for a new time and new challenges. Make one.
The law being discussed doesn’t reference “black people”.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:39 pm
I’m hesitant to defend Indiana given its habit of poaching Illinois jobs, but I think we’re all getting a bit carried away.
All the compelling state interest language is is just a restatement of the Sherbert (v. Verner) test…which was originally articulated in defense of a Seventh-Day Adventist who sought protection from losing her unemployment benefits because she wouldn’t take the first job offered when that job would require her to violate her beliefs and work on a Saturday.
The purpose of RFRA (and, in my opinion, the free exercise clause more generally) is not to protect large, politically powerful almost-majorities from laws that infringe on their religious convictions (they can, as Justice Scalia unhelpfully points out, get their concerns heard through the legislative process); it is, instead, designed to protect tiny religious minorities that lack the political savvy, public regard (or even the general public’s knowledge that they might have a problem), or sheer numbers to defend themselves in the legislative process.
If the price of guaranteeing religious freedom for all–not just those whose numbers and political power give them de facto status as an established religion–requires (as Justice Jackson put it in Ballard v. US) “that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish,” then I think it’s a price we must pay.
Comment by The Ghost of Con Law Class Past Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:44 pm
Snucka: Courts have had to decide what “counts” as religion for quite some time now. Part of the inconvenience of having to adjudicate religious freedom cases. Cf. (to name a few) Davis v. Beason (1890), Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), U.S. v. Seeger (1965).
Comment by The Ghost of Con Law Class Past Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:49 pm
Gen Con, one of the largest gaming conventions in the country, is threatening to pull its annual convention out of Indiana over the controversial law. The event had a record attendance of 56,614 people last year
Comment by Joe M Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:50 pm
Yes, Joe M. That’s already in the post. Have anything else to add?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 12:53 pm
Guy, you’re truly clueless.
The Indiana law allows refusal of service to classes of people.
Is that a real brain-teaser for you?
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:02 pm
===I have no idea why someone wants to patronize a business that inherently opposes their lifestyle. Nobody has the entire “franchise” on anything anymore. ===
Maybe if you live in a bigger city. In smaller communities it is entirely possible for only one business to provide a service. That’s where the problem really kicks in.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:06 pm
==Seems to me that a lot of the difference between the Illinois and Indiana laws is Section 7 of the Indiana law. In Indiana, companies can have religious beliefs (and thus use them to discriminate). I don’t see that in the Illinois law (unless I’m missing something.)==
The Illinois and federal laws both prohibit government burdening the religious freedom of a “person,” which would include corporations in normal legislative language. The federal law, by the way, is the law that the Supreme Court held protected Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom’s rights.
Comment by Anon. Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:15 pm
===GraduatedCollegeStudent - Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:06 pm:====
Well made point grad, but the market has truly never been bigger because of whatever device you made your post with and more like it.
Slinger, since it’s such a brain-teaser for me, help me out please.
Take the other view. Who does this benefit and how? Was it enacted to protect no one? I know your view of Indiana is not a high one based on many of your posts, but this did in fact make it’s way through a two legislatures to a Governor’s desk and get signed. I think it may have even had legal hearings around it. What is it that’s so crystal clear to you that “none of those imbeciles (and me) simply can’t get?
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:18 pm
Anon., I think the difference lies in that the Indiana statute says that those corporate persons can “exercise practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity”. Even if corporations are included as persons for general legislative purposes, I’m not sure Illinois law has drawn a clear line that corporations have the religious beliefs of their owners.
Comment by ChicagoR Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:20 pm
Gee, Guy, you ask some tough questions.
Here’s an idea: read the original post that Rich provided.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:26 pm
==What is it that’s so crystal clear to you that “none of those imbeciles (and me) simply can’t get?==
That it’s wrong. I know you’re a good guy A guy so it baffles me a little as to why you would support this, even a little.
I’ve always argued that people have bastardized the 1st Amendment so much that they believe it gives them the right to not do anything that happens to contradict their religious beliefs. That’s horse manure in my opinion. If you, as a religious institution, don’t want to do certain things I’m good with that. I think it gets into “bastardized” land when you as an individual start deciding that you don’t have to do certain things because it offends your religion.
There is always a balancing act when it comes to the Constitution. I think you know where that balance should clearly come down.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:26 pm
On a similar topic … What about Illinois trying to be more like Minnesota?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html
Comment by forwhatitsworth Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:27 pm
I don’t even want to buy gas in that state anymore.
Comment by Christopher Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:31 pm
Don’t like allowing corporations to discriminate. Think religious organizations have the right to discriminate. *
(Catholic church may limit the priesthood to men. Mosque may segregate sexes.) On the fence for an individual who sells services that require interaction with the customer. Unless the individual is acting as a common carrier they can can reject customers, and lose the sale, for any reason.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:33 pm
A guy - Part of the problem is I won’t know ahead of time if I will be discriminated against or not. I was planning a road trip to Columbus Indiana. I’m not worried about staying in a hotel in Indianapolis, but I have no confidence that if I make a reservation for a hotel elsewhere that I could end up being turned down because I will be staying there with my boyfriend. I might be able to find another hotel room but if its a busy holiday weekend, maybe not.
I fully respect religious freedom but not when it is an excuse for discrimination. You must admit that one of the driving forces for this legislation is the the desire to withhold services from gays because of religious opposition to homosexuality.
Comment by Chicago Guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:33 pm
==What about Illinois trying to be more like Minnesota?==
I always took to heart the age old advice of “just be yourself.” You can be a better self, but you can’t be somebody else.
I’m sure I got that from some after school special . . .
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:43 pm
I know someone who goes to the Gen Con gaming convention every year. Gen Con - come to Illinois!
Comment by Enviro Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:48 pm
A software company named Salesforce that is based in Indy has declared they will not expand their forces in Indiana, that the law will impede their ability to attract skilled, young employees. The first of many?
Comment by Stooges Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:52 pm
“We fixed that issue at the lunch counters. We’re still working to get rid of the stain. Comparing that to this insults that struggle.”
Nonsense.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:53 pm
Saul Goodman and ChicagoR- thank you for pointing out the differences between Illinois law and the new Indiana law. Defenders of the Indiana law keep bringing up that 29(or how many ever) sates already have the same law. Allowing businesses to descriminate against individuals based on the owner’s personal religious beliefs is what makes makes the Indiana law different (again, thanks US supreme court for Citizens United), and why Indiana is being criticized for pushing this regressive law through. Why businesses would want to turn away customers because they don’t like who the customer sleeps with ( or because they have different cokor skin ,or worship another God) in this day and age is what amazes me.
Comment by Roadiepig Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:57 pm
Mr. MJM. Thank you for pointing that out.
Comment by Mad Brown Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 1:58 pm
The supporters in Indiana knew what they were doing. It was their intention to allow discrimination against certain classes.
Just like in Arizona last year (Gov. Brewer vetoed that bill), they were warned by businesses, convention planners, civil rights groups, national organizations, etc. of possible consequences. The GOP mayor publicly called on the governor to veto the bill.
Now, they have relegious freedom to reap what they’ve sown.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:09 pm
==Just like in Arizona==
Hey. Arizona has moved on now. Now they have a dopey state Senator that wants to mandate church attendance. Maybe Indiana can pick up that banner.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:20 pm
Roadiepig, that’s because the Indiana law comports with the most recent SCOTUS decision on this matter (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), which says that “closely-held, religious corporations” share First Amendment rights with their owners, shareholders and employees.
The cup runneth over with hyperbole and non-sequiturs here. This law is far from a license to discriminate. It provides the state of Indiana with the same legal basis for adjudicating religious Liberty cases that exists at the federal level and in 31 other states.
It applies a strict scrutiny standard to individual cases, providing protections for persons’ deeply held religious beliefs, but weighing that with compelling governmental interests. As Alito wrote for the majority in Burwell, that provides “no such shield” for blatant, unabated discrimination.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:32 pm
@Guy:
“The law being discussed doesn’t reference “black people”.
Nor does it prohibit a ‘religious’ racist from stopping blacks from receiving service at their location due to ‘religious objection’.
Remember when blacks were prohibited from marrying whites? Plenty of folks used the ‘abomination against religion’ argument to try and keep that institution going.
This is a bad law, written for bigots and racists. I hope Indiana reaps what it has sown. Welcome back the 1950’s indeed.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:33 pm
The law should obviously be repealed post haste. Immediately. Anyone reading this post and comments can see it like the nose on their face.
And while we’re at it, the discriminatory Illinois law, and the corresponding federal law. It’s a shame that Illinois had this blighted discriminatory law on the books for so long.
After all, isn’t the purpose of government to force people to do things they don’t want to do? And if they don’t do the things we want them to do, to take their money or lock them up, or both?
Comment by Buck I Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:39 pm
> I have no idea why someone wants to patronize a business that inherently opposes their lifestyle.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:47 pm
As to my post at 2;47, add: You might think otherwise if such a business was the only gas station or grocery store in town,
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:48 pm
A Guy: How does allowing a gay couple (or even a single person who is gay) to eat at your lunch counter restrict your religious rights?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:51 pm
TommyDanger, the market was highly accommodating to Jim Crow.
You can’t sit here, but you can sit over there. You can’t stay at this hotel, but you can at that one across the tracks. You can’t work here, but we’ll find you something else.
What’s the problem? Some people had sincere religious beliefs on the separation of the races.
They learned it at their whites-only Christian churches.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:58 pm
How a gas station attendant (who you can transact without these days) or a grocery clerk can discern who’s gay or not is beyond me. If the law protects these practices, it won’t be around long.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 2:58 pm
IMHO this really is not whether this “comports” with the Hobby Lobby case. It is really about what kind of state Indiana wants to be, who they are at their core and how they treat everyone.
I have only been to Indianapolis three times and have found it too be a nice place and have been to South Bend on occasion.
However, I have no desire to go back and believe that this truly plays into and reinforces every negative stereotype I have of the Hoosier state.
Comment by Annon3 Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:03 pm
Gee Sling, all Christians, most of them, just the white ones? I was never taught that.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:09 pm
A guy - I agree with you that it is very unlikely that someone will have trouble buying gas. But I bet I would have problems in some places asking to share a hotel room with my boyfriend if the room only has a queen/king size bed. And if it is a bed and breakfast in small town Indiana, I would double the odds of trouble.
Comment by Chicago Guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:19 pm
The UC is available on the days to host the final 4, they would eat some crow & revenue for the loss of seats, but you could easily blame indiana or some bylaw of the ncaa prohibiting discrimination. Get on it Rahm, tell Delany to get those guys on the phone, Reinsdorf & Wirtz would be in.
Comment by its worth a shot Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:21 pm
One way for businesses to counter this new law supporting religious bigotry is to post signs saying “We Serve Everyone”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-open-for-service-profile-st-0327-20150327-story.html
I suggest the stores seeking to discriminate post signs saying “Straights Only” and see how much business they attract going forward.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:28 pm
CHI GUY, I do think we’re a ways away from that situation in Indiana, perhaps places in Illinois and a number of other places. You shouldn’t have this concern and I truly wish you didn’t. Every day gets better. This law may be a bump, but it’s not going to turn back the progress that has been made. To the rubes who wouldn’t rent you the room; If they weren’t too bright, they might rent it to you before renting it to an unmarried hetero couple. There is some sweet revenge in the world sometimes! Best to you.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:30 pm
Guy, Some of my cousins are from Columbia SC. The white church is in the front, and the black church in the back. The Indiana KKK hated Catholics even more than Jews and Blacks. I guess it they are sincere and religious, it’s all good. You seem deaf to the parallel.
Arizona backed off (Gov veto) a similar bill. But since then the Hobby Lobby case has emboldened the oppressed Christians to try this route again. I hope Illinois benefits but even more I hope Indiana changes course.
One more for Guy, to be neutral you shouldn’t say ’sexual preference’. That implies that sexuality is a choice. It’s not. It’s a key distinction on why sexual orientation shouldn’t be treated any differently in civil rights protections than race or gender.
Comment by Midway Gardens Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:33 pm
Guy, really? Your position now is that you cant read, understand or process? That works for you?
The word I used was “some” (look it up), and it was in context of Jim Crow (those were discriminatory laws in the American South).
So, if you put it all together, a thinking person who absorbed a rudimentary education would understand I was talking about some people in the American South who were taught in their all-white churches (meaning that they excluded blacks) that Jim Crow was in accord with their religious beliefs.
That’s a lot of steps, I know.
It might be a good exercise for you to go back to the beginning, read the original post, then read all of your posts. That is, if you’re sincere in your beliefs.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 3:42 pm
Sling, I read you right. Got it.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 4:17 pm
Guy, I think if you were to agree that, optically, for a Governor and state legislature to basically legalize discrimination against the LGBT community, is a pretty horrible thing to do, people may back off your previous statements somewhat.
My goodness the NCAA all but said that after Gov Pence signed this cuckoo legislation, they might consider moving the Final 4 and their offices down the road. Indiana colleges and universities may see their enrollments drop off next fall, current students may decide to transfer, some people, god forbid, may even move to a “higher tax” but a more enlightened Illinois.
Convention business may shift to more accepting cities. Heck maybe even a major airline will decide that diverting their flights and shifting its employees elsewhere is a good idea. All for the sake of religious progress.
Comment by PoolGuy Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 4:57 pm
One more reason why Rauner is so off base when he wants to make Illinois more like Indiana. Something is wrong with that guy.
Comment by DuPage Dave Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 5:55 pm
Lest anyone think this is somehow a pro-business stance in Indiana– Lilly, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and all the big corporations in their analogue to our Commercial Club, were opposed to this bill. The supporters were entirely Christian Groups who hold themselves victims to recent social changes in the greater society, and of course their mouthpieces like Peter Breen. It is not about liberty, except in the sense of personal avoidance of what the majority have accepted as legal civil rights both in the marketplace and the workplace.
We tend to see the public marketplace as the arena at issue, but the allowed defense against suits for discrimination against employees is new here, and possibly the greater danger.
Comment by walker Friday, Mar 27, 15 @ 8:38 pm