Based on the commentary from LGBT rights organizations, their biggest beef with the legislation is that it exempts religious organizations. In other words, they want to force churches which disapprove of same-sex marriages to solemnize the marriages anyway. They want to force churches and religious organizations to employ gay or transgender persons in clergy and other positions against the beliefs of their religious organization.
Another big complaint is that the legislation allows small business owners to discriminate. Indiana's civil rights law respecting employment discrimination applies only to employers with six or more employees. The same small employers which are exempt under the current law will be exempt under the proposed law. Additionally, it carves out an exception in public accommodations for employers with four or fewer employees to provide wedding-related services for same-sex couples. LGBT rights groups are also upset because the law will not permit enforcement actions against employers, schools and businesses compelling them to provide transgender-friendly restrooms.
LGBT rights groups are also upset that the state law would prohibit local governments from enacting civil rights ordinances that are more stringent than the state law. The bill also adds a provision allowing for the imposition of a $1,000 penalty against persons who file "frivolous" complaints. Just as an exercise, I would urge someone in the media to find ask Indianapolis EEO office how many complaints have been filed alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity since the City enacted its law 10 years ago. You would be shocked by how few complaints have been filed here or any other city in Indiana that has adopted a similar local ordinance.
Here's the Star's full summary of the proposed legislation:
- Housing: Most landlords and property owners could not refuse to sell or rent to someone because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The law would also apply to loans, appraisals, property showings and real estate marketing. As is currently the case with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin, violators could face a civil penalty of up to $50,000 for the first violation and $100,000 for the second violation.
- Employment: Most but not all employers would be prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The protection applies to hiring, firing and other employment matters. State contractors and subcontractors would also be banned from discriminating unless they are affiliated with a religious institution. As is currently the case with discrimination against other protected classes, violators could be required to stop discriminatory practices and pay victims any lost wages. Public accommodation: Most but not all shops, restaurants and other establishments offering goods and services to the general public could not refuse to serve gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people. A business that violates the law would be required to halt its discriminatory practice.
- Marriage licenses: County clerks would be required to issue marriage licenses regardless of the couple's sexual orientation or gender identity. State and local governments would also be banned from denying or suspending licenses or permits of any kind based solely on a person's lawful expression or activity regarding marriage, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Protections for religious groups and people
- Religious groups: Religious organizations, such as churches, associations or religiously affiliated nonprofits, would be exempt from all parts of the civil rights law regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. So, too, would be religious leaders, such as priests, pastors or rabbis, when involved in activities of their religious organizations. One question likely to arise from this is whether that could be interpreted by religious schools and day cares to refuse enrollment to children of same-sex or transgender parents, or expel a child who identifies as gay or with a different gender.
- Marriage ceremonies: Religious leaders, such as priests, pastors and rabbis, would not be required to solemnize any marriage that goes against their beliefs. Religious organizations would not be required to provide services or facilities for the celebration of a marriage that goes against its beliefs.
- Wedding businesses: Any business with fewer than four employees would not have to provide any marriage services for a same-sex couple or transgender person. This would include renting a facility, baking a cake, or taking photographs for a wedding rehearsal, reception, ceremony or anniversary. It would also include providing marriage counseling.
- Public bathrooms: Schools, employers and businesses would be able to set their own policies on who can use which restrooms or locker rooms. This would mean they could decide whether transgender people could use bathroom facilities based on their preferred gender, or whether transgender people could be required to use those facilities based on their birth sex. Schools and employers could also set dress code policies based on sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. This could mean making accommodations for transgender people to dress and present themselves as they prefer, but it appears it could be interpreted to require men, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people to conform to certain ways of dressing. And the law would provide for the state attorney general to defend the policies of any government agency or public school board. Other things you should know about SB 100
Other things you should know about SB 100
- Definition of transgender and sexual orientation: Before filing a complaint, transgender people would be required to live as their preferred gender for a year or produce evidence of medical history, care, or treatment of their gender-related identity. People do not have to “prove” their sexual orientation in order to be protected from discrimination — and an action could still be found to be illegal discrimination if a false assumption is made about someone’s sexual orientation. The bill covers “actual or perceived bisexuality, heterosexuality, or homosexuality.”
- Frivolous complaints: The measure establishes a $1,000 penalty for “frivolous” discrimination complaints. The penalty also extends to complaints filed “intended to harm the subject of the complaint.” Any penalties imposed by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission would be sent to the state general fund.
- Supersedes local ordinances: The proposal prohibits local governments from enacting stricter non-discrimination ordinances. That would likely have an impact on local city and county non-discrimination ordinances, some of which include larger fines and fewer carve outs for religious objections than the proposed state law.
Aren't religious colleges like Indiana Wesleyan exempt, meaning they can discriminate against anybody who doesn't abide by their faith statement? And, don't these institutions receive public dollars?
ReplyDeleteWhat I find disturbing is you use the term "extremists" to describe folks from the LGBT community, but don't use the same term to describe religious extremists who are hell bent on using their religion to discriminate against others - which completely defies Christian principles. I could quote countless biblical scriptures of Jesus Christ himself, but most of us learned to Golden Rule when we were very young.
I get the impression this blog post is slanted toward conservatism, so I'd like to hear from the author on why he's giving a pass to religious extremists, and why he is giving a pass to religious institutions who want to discriminate, yet receive public taxpayer dollars. If institutions like Indiana Wesleyan want to discriminate against students and employees, they should refrain from collecting dollars from taxpayers.
Special interests are driving wedges between and among us which erode the civil rights of us all. I go back to my initial query: "Where in the Constitution of The United State of America does is say that a man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman? Where is that prohibition?".
ReplyDeleteNohwere. That prohibition does NOT exist.
As we move toward gay rights, women's rights, Indian rights, "reproductive" rights (an "assholical" term if I ever heard one), etc., we move away from and we imply none of us has the full breadth of unalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution (something the US Congress and the Imperial Presidency headed by Valerie Jarrett no longer use).
I am all for living and let live and that Americans may pursue their bliss any way they desire. But to force others to believe or act in a certain way is completely against the grain of individual freedom and tolerance.
Freedom Indiana should change its name to Groupthink Indiana. There have been groups like this in the past and one of the places they sprang from was Nazi Germany. This is where we are headed... the totalitarian State Orwell inveighed against and warned us was coming. It Is Arrived. And for whatever it is worth, out LGBT here.
ReplyDeleteThought Police intolerance, pure and simply put.
I've taken religious extremists to task on many occasions in the past. There are many people within the LGBT community who are very troubled by the radicalization of the movement by extremists who basically won't be happy until it's clear they can walk into any church and take a dump in front of everyone or force them to watch a same-sex act to show their disapproval of their religious beliefs and be untouchable. If you don't agree with the views of a religious organization, then nobody is holding a gun to your head ordering you to join their services. By the same token, religious organizations don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the collective masses. There is a happy medium which extremes on both sides go to great lengths to avoid.
ReplyDeleteGary, Anon 8:54 here. Thank you for your comment reply at 9:02. Anyone who follows you with any regularity knows what you pen is accurate.
ReplyDeleteI know several people who had good long term jobs with church organizations as secretaries and maintenance and teachers who have been fired based on some directive from church hierarchy relating to sexual orientation. Churches and church organizations and schools and hospitals are full of gay people. They can't have protections for their jobs? I just think that if there are legal protections for black people or disabled people, to name a couple, then those are the same protections that should exist for gay people. I scheduled and planned a second wedding for my parents when they renewed their vows, and we had lots of gay people in the wedding party. Are you telling me the small wedding chapel and the photos and the florists and the bakers could all tell me no based on our homosexuality? That is completely unfair. What if the two getting married were gay? Same thing to me. If you're in business you shouldn't get to decide who you do business with. You're open to the public. You can't turn down blacks or disabled people and you can't turn down gays. This religious exemption stuff is just license to discriminate. They used to pull this nonsense on blacks when they wanted to get married or go to a white school and now its the gays. Take off your hoods. Your religion doesn't stop you from divorcing or having a million kids out of wedlock but you can insult me to my face. I don't think so bigot.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWe live in dangerous times when merely speaking the truth (exempli gratia: regarding proposed LBGT 'civil rights' legislation) is attacked.
Three Republican presidential candidates spoke at a forum in Des Moines this month hosted by a pastor who preaches passionately and frequently from the pulpit for the extermination or genocide of gays; who states unequivocally that the Bible justifies the killing of gay people, “and I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Senator Ted Cruz, Gov Bobby Jindal and Gov Mike Huckabee all attended and spoke at this year’s program hosted by Kevin Swanson, who is only one of three nationally renowned pastors who say aloud that the killing of gays is permitted by the Bible. This particular program had a long, illustrious list of conservative sponsors. I bring up this extreme event to highlight that protection of gay people from extreme religious organizations, and sometimes from vitriolic politicians, is necessary. Were it not for a very timely ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, extreme right General Assembly supermajorities in Indiana were going to proceed with a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. And every gay person in Indiana can tell horror stories about firings, lost housing, refusal of health care and more, often at the hands of Christians. So take all this nonsense about Christians feeling persecuted with a grain of salt. Gays are only about 3% of the population while Christians are about 95%. Christians are the goliath here and they throw their weight around quite effectively. It seems sad to me that Hoosiers only permit gays to be equal to the extent that the Supreme Court orders their inclusion. Left alone, Indiana is quite willing to squash gays into second class status with little protection from those who disapprove of us. This is our chance, as a State, to join the 21st century and fix something that is very wrong. Why is the church so afraid of that.
ReplyDeleteTodd, Also the federal laws on tax-exempt status and grant monies will always trump anything written in state law unless the U.S. Constitution is interpreted to trump the federal statute.
ReplyDeleteAnon, 9:12, There are plenty of churches which embrace same-sex marriages if being married in a church is so important to you. The extremists don't want that. They want to say I'm going to be married in that mosque, temple or Catholic Church and you will accommodate me whether your religion accepts same-sex marriages. That's not religious freedom. That's tyranny to force your beliefs on other religious organizations within their houses of worship. On the photography bit, why would you want someone to take marriages of your photos who has a problem with your sexual orientation? That's counter-intuitive.
ReplyDeleteWhen are these brave LGBT thought control police going to BOLDLY challenge Islamic Mosques- a religion that advocates DEATH to anyone who deviates from its dictates and which treats gays and women like shit??? I will not hold my breath.
No Gary, nobody is demanding a church perform weddings against its mandate, although their are calls within church hierarchies for change, and that change has come to many denominations. But wedding chapels are just businesses for hire, like photos and flowers. We shouldn't have to call around and ask if they do photos for gay weddings or not. Black people don't have to call around and ask if bakeries bake cakes for black weddings or not. Business shouldn't be allowed to discriminate; even small business. And even though we wouldn't ask the Catholic church to marry us, we do ask that they stop firing us from their schools, hospitals and colleges. That's not extremism. I shouldn't have to ask at Cracker barrel if they'll seat us or not and I shouldn't have to ask the baker if he'll deign to approve of our wedding party. If he doesn't want to be open to the public then he shouldn't be. Instead of us having to ask if a business is willing to serve us, maybe they should have to advertise that they are unwilling to serve homosexual patrons, up front. Then we won't have to be insulted to our faces. When my father went in a memory care unit for his Alzheimer's they had a minister on staff and professed a Christian level of care. Do you think that man ought tell me that he won't minister to my father or speak to me at all because he doesn't approve of me? At what point am I allowed to say I'm offended by the Christian. Will I receive a $1,000 fine?
ReplyDeleteRemember how the left was so up in arms about the Voter I.D. requirement? "Why do we need this?" they said. "Are there examples of systemic voter fraud" was another common retort. My guess is that the same ones who were most vehemently against Voter I.D. are the most supportive of this new legislation. So, I ask them....based on what? Where's the evidence?
ReplyDeleteTo the people asking "where's the evidence we need this?" There is no evidence because there is no recourse. When a warehouse fires a lesbian because the Christian foreman doesn't approve of her, she can't sue, or complain, or do anything. Its over. There is no evidence. If her landlord catches a woman coming out of her apartment and tells her we don't permit that, you'll have to move. There is no evidence. Even if she complains to the Judge in her eviction hearing, it isn't illegal to throw out a gay. So there is no legal defense, and thus, no evidence. And when I go into a florist and ask for a quote for my wedding flowers and they laugh at me and tell me they don't serve (f)ags, there's no evidence that I've been insulted. So stop telling me I don't need legislation or have the right to legislation "because there's no evidence" anyone's ever been discriminated against. If you aren't part of the solution you might be part of the problem. I was a bit shocked to hear Mike Pence say he'd never known a homosexual, had never had a homosexual friend or even had a conversation with a homosexual. I forgive him if he thinks its ok to fire me, or throw me out of my house, or refuse me service at his business because he thinks I'm different and somehow unacceptable. But I still believe its wrong, and that it ought not be allowed. Most modern people would never do these things. But all Hoosiers are not modern people. And churches preach against gay people. And terrible abuses follow. What's the harm in protecting gay people for a while. They suffer terribly, especially in small towns where the Christian mandate is so very strong. We still protect blacks, almost 200 years since they were slaves. But no protections for gays. It is, after all, the religious people who are doing the discriminating. Exempting them seems to defeat the purpose.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIndiana is an at-will state, means that anyone can be fired for almost any reason at any time except for those protected class already in law, show some proof of wide-spread homophobia before putting this into law. I think that there have been cases where gay people have been fired, it is just that it is hard to separate those that have gotten fired due to job performance for those that have been outright discriminated against.
The thing that I do not like about ordinances that require churches to marry anyone, or bakeries to provide cakes, cupcakes whatever, is when these ordinances amount to requiring a church or a bakery to passively endorse something that they believe is wrong. This is a first amendment issue in that it is compelling speech. There are other churches and other bakeries that would be happy to provide those services, just not every business/church.
"Based on the commentary from LGBT rights organizations, their biggest beef with the legislation is that it exempts religious organizations. In other words, they want to force churches which disapprove of same-sex marriages to solemnize the marriages anyway. They want to force churches and religious organizations to employ gay or transgender persons in clergy and other positions against the beliefs of their religious organization."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure this law does not and cannot supercede the 1st amendment. You're a lawyer, right?
No, what that means is LGBT activists thinks its ridiculous that their children could be denied child-care at a church-affiliated child care place, or denied health care at a Catholic hospital, or be denied adoption rights through a religious adoption agencies.
I'm pretty sure this law does not and cannot supercede the 1st amendment.
DeleteLikewise, I'm pretty sure the supporters of a similarly-themed Houston ordinance believed the same...until the Mayor of Houston issued subpoenas to pastors for their sermons & notes, using the sipposed violation of said ordinance as justification.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt would seem that those refusing to abide by non-discrimination laws, for some religious belief, be classified as conscientious objectors. Those making a claim for this classification should be required to appear before the local tribunals that are to be formed by passage of SB 100. The applicant could then attest to his beliefs; how he arrived at his beliefs; and the influence his beliefs have has on how he lives his life. The applicant should provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people who can verify his claims. Of course, all pertinent beliefs under consideration, would have to have been held for at least one year. Upon approval, the applicant would receive a state ID card and, if it is a business open to the public, a plaque required to be prominently displayed at the place of business. In the event the applicant is denied his right to discriminate there will be a $1,000 charge for wasting the tribunal's time.
ReplyDeleteIf the above mentioned procedure is added to SB 100 it would clarify the situation as to who may discriminate without having the necessity of going to court. For those not wanting to be discriminated against, they would know the identities of those who are in a protected class. In other words, if you have the problem of being a bigot then you can jump through hoops, too.
Nobody is requiring a church to marry anyone. People who start out their position "against" with arguments bemoaning "requiring a church to marry anyone" are spreading disinformation. This is about small business exemptions. And fines against lgbt for complaining about discrimination. And the superseding of all other nondiscrimination statutes in the State, even if they are better ones by this crappy nondiscrimination statute. And the codification of the state's preference of balancing these disputes in favor of the religious freedom argument. And so on, and so on. But nowhere is anybody asking churches to marry gays. And even their schools, hospitals and administrative offices etc are all exempt. The Christian protections are huge already. Now they want to protect all small businesses from having to do business with gays if it offends their religious beliefs. Sniff. Its like getting Augusta to accept a woman golfer. "If only we could find a worthy applicant." Even Condoleeza Rice couldn't make the grade. I can remember when nice neighborhoods still had covenants agains selling your house to Jewish people. "After all, they're not our kind." I love the blatant hypocrisy of it. They preach love but aren't really very loving. Like county clerk Kim Davis. Married four times. One of her children a bastard by another man. Only a Christian given over to Christ a few years. But she's suddenly so offended by two guys together 30 years that she can look them in the face and tell them her God would send them to hell before she would give them a marriage license. We face these hypocrites every single day. This law just gives them what they need to do their nasty business legally. Its a license to discriminate, no doubt about it. And remember, the Bible is interpreted by dozens of Christian denominations to permit gay marriage. I believe the Presbyterians were the last ones to embrace it. Only some Christians believe gay marriage is not possible in the church, not all Christians. Even the Southern Baptists and Mennonites are having internal discussions about it. The argument that every hilljack Hoosier's religion is opposed to gay relationships is simply not true anymore. I think these mean businesses should have to post their policies up front if they won't serve gays, and prove that their church denomination has it codified in church law or canon. These evangelicals, they handle snakes, they talk in tongues, they won't let their women cut their hair, they take multiple wives; they offend me as much as I offend them, but I still serve them in business. They have their constitutional protection, after all. I can't fire crazy Mary, who talks in tongues. But she gets to preach damnation against me in the break room.
ReplyDeleteHeterophobes projecting their perceived discrimination upon any and all who don't condone their thinking. Let's face it, this is about forcing people to participate in other people's sin, nothing about rights. Everyone has the same rights.... save for the protected classes who have extra rights.
ReplyDeleteThe gaystapo preach tolerance and open mindedness yet are tolerant only of what they will tolerate, open minded only to their way of thinking, in a word, hypocrisy... defines their agenda. Like nazis that they decry, willing to use the force of law to make others participate in their choices.
Anon 10:06 - Why would you want to work for an entity you despise? If you're going to cash checks from the Catholic church, at least have the integrity to respect what they believe. And please spare us the pious lectures. You care about no one but yourself.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:04 demonstrates that people can be incredibly intolerant when claiming you want tolerance.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, Ogden, remind us what injustice you've gone out on a limb to rectify lately, or do you just flip off the gay community with a one liner these days?
ReplyDeleteAnon422, I'll remind everyone: Ogden v. Marendt, 264 F. Supp. 2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003). He went out on a limb to rectify a rather blatant infringement of the First Amendment.
DeleteMany people refuse to admit that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. That choice is repugnant to many people who do not want to accept, acknowledge or facilitate that lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteIf you make a choice in life that many people do not accept you have to live with the consequences. YOU MADE THE CHOICE!
Idiot. Nobody believes being gay is a choice. Nobody. Do you live under a rock? Little children years away from understanding sexuality come to understand the reality of the existence of same sex attraction, and very early on they realize they are different from other little boys and girls because of it. You obviously didn't "choose" to be straight, unless you consider your heterosexuality to be optional. Of course you don't. You were born with your preference. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than they choose their eye color. Some beg God to be relieved of the curse and spend years working toward acceptance.
ReplyDelete