Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Indiana Passes RFRA, Sky Is Falling

I'm not advocating for the passage of a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") modeled on a similar federal law enacted with bipartisan support in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, which has been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, but does its passage really mean really bad, horrible things will happen if Gov. Mike Pence signs legislation passed by the General Assembly into law? Call me skeptical, but the sky is falling meme is reigning supreme as the media stirs up a lot of Hoosier hysteria over that very prospect. WTHR's Bob Kravitz jumped into the fray today, sounding the alarm bells.

What's next? Boycotts of Indiana, and Indianapolis in particular, when it comes to hosting sporting events (like the Final Four) and conventions?
The "religious freedom bill'' is this close to getting passed, and not only does it leave me queasy on a personal level, it makes me wonder if events and other conventions will look differently at one of the best sports/convention towns in the country.
Jason Collins, the openly gay basketball player, tweeted this the other day: "@GovPenceIN, is it going to be legal for someone to discriminate against me and others when we come to the Final Four?''
Um, yes, Jason, it will be. Once it's signed into law – and there's every reason to believe this controversial and wrong-headed law will make it to Pence's desk in short order – the answer is, yes, businesses will have the right to discriminate. The only thing that will be missing with be a Jim Crow-like "No LGBT Allowed'' sign over businesses, even if it's implied . . . 
Do we really want to become Arizona? The state that refused to recognize the Martin Luther King, Jr. national holiday, and ended up losing its 1993 Super Bowl bid and the estimated $200 million that would have come with it? The same Arizona that has just dealt with this same religious freedom bill the past year and has cost itself concerts and conventions? Or how about 2010, when Arizona's immigration laws once again left Arizona in the dust regarding conventions and other events?
So to answer Jason Collins' question, the answer is, yes, businesses will have the right – the “religious freedom'' – to deny you service . . . 
The Indianapolis Star followed quickly with a warning that the city's largest convention, Gen Con, might move its annual convention elsewhere if Gov. Pence signs the legislation into law.
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 . . .
It looks pretty bleak. Right? Until you consider all of the other states which will have to be boycotted, and that's a pretty lengthy list. Nineteen states have RFRA laws to be precise, including a number of states with notable convention and sports destination venues, such as Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. Now you know the rest of the story.

14 comments:

Don Sherfick said...

I've not seen an analysis of how the other state RFRA statutes might differ from Indiana's. I see that "person" is defined to include corporations, which would seem to be much broader than I think the original federal statute defined the term.

Anonymous said...

If it will get the NFL to go milk some other groups of hapless taxpayers by taking their "super bowl" somewhere else, I suppose that would be a happy unintended consequence.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to see teenagers posting their outrage against this. There's a generation in IN with a broader sense of open mindness and more in this state. They are as upset about this as they are with their high school superintendants telling them and their families via emails directly to vote on referendums and taxing neighborhoods for schools and for contacting legislators and more to vote for spending efforts. And the GOP wants smaller Gov. Stay out our lives and homes and businesses with your beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Look at it this way,if conventions diminish because of this law, the PTB will draft/pass legislation giving DT business affected taxpayer dollars to cover their losses.

Anonymous said...

Gannett's ruined Indianapolis Star's warnings on the supposed fall-out of RFRA passage are meaningless to anyone who can actually think.

I was never in favor of the foolish moves by the critically out of touch and ethics-challenged (ethics-bankrupt?) Brian Bosma on his anti-gay stances in the Legislature... pure folly and a waste of the time taxpayers pay him... but opponents of RFRA and especially the Freedom Indiana gaggle have been less than honest and less than honorable with their allegations that seem to promote the idea human life and economic activity as we know it will cease with the RFRA passage.

As an out gay male, I observe much of the contrived angst and the sometimes hysterical reaction thereto with a George Orwell statement in mind... "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it".

Thank you, Gary, for always having the courage to speak the truth.

TableTopJoe said...

I'm interested in a few aspects of this:
1. I notice that IN RFRA's defenders never bring up the recent Hobby Lobby decision, which stated that a corporation can tailor the compensation it pays its employees (health insurance) to suit the corporation's owner's religious preferences (no birth control). Why do they never mention this controversial decision, which was directly based on the federal RFRA? Is it that they are trying to hide something about the state decision? Is it something else?

2. I also notice that this appears to be aimed at the owners of businesses. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it seems that this bill grants extra religious freedoms only to the "bosses" and not to the rank and file. Say you own a restaurant and prefer not to serve gay couples for religious reasons, does this bill give you the right to refuse service? Similarly, say you work in a restaurant and prefer not to serve couples for religious reasons, does this bill give YOU the right to refuse such service? Does it also give you the right to keep your job?

My point of bringing this up is it seems to be one of about a million examples of the IN state legislature giving preferential treatment to enterprise owners while not for one moment considering the worker bees within such enterprise.

Anonymous said...

Anon@9:42 said "Stay out our lives and homes and businesses with your beliefs.

I don't get it. Should a man who happens to prefer sex w/ men stay out of the lives of a florist w/ religious convictions proscribing such behavior, who declines to do flowers for a gay "marriage? Or should the florist be forced to "get in" the lives of someone they would otherwise decide not to?

To me, it is pretty clear who is attempting to force their beliefs on whom.

Josh said...

13 "Gay" Bakeries Deny Christian's Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service/#9f7ug84t6PFS4iD8.99


Cough

Anonymous said...

Poeple are upset because it's an active vote for bigotry. Don't pretend it's anything else, or that people are overreacting. Whatever effects fall out of this, it's nothing more than spite and ugliness.

I've worked my entire career trying to convince technology companies to invest here, and I just had my fucking nuts cut off by this.

If Pence signs this I probably lose my staff increase, and with good reason. Who the fuck would move or invest someplace that values bigotry so clearly?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 2:16...
Get over it you damn baby. In the big scheme of things, this legislation is completely inconsequential.

If this "cuts you f'ing nuts off" in relation to your life's work, it must have been pretty mediocre to begin with.

Stop with the histrionics already.

Anonymous said...

Anon: 752: Don't go into business if you so proscribe bigotry to some.

Anonymous said...

You all do realize that the RFRA was introduced by Chuck Schumer, supported by the ACLU, passed the house unanimously in 1993 and the Senate 97-3. Signed by Clinton.

Reason for the RFRA was in part to protect Native American ceremonial rights (including the right to use peyote and hold ceremonies on gov't land).

Anonymous said...

I was always told that pride is a sin. Isn't it ironic how "gay pride" is a slogan for homosexuals? I could give a hoot about anyone's sex life, preference, whatever. I wish people would be more classy and not discuss their sexuality like everyone wants to hear about it. Why do the rights of the few have to weigh so much against the rights of so many? The media "blows" all this way out of proportion. (pardon the pun)

Anonymous said...

As an at will employer anyone refusing service to my customers will be out the door and can live with their new job reference.