Friday, January 15, 2016

Bosma Says Pence's Words Makes Passage Of LGBT Rights Bill More Difficult

House Speaker Brian Bosma seemed to be laying the groundwork to blame Gov. Mike Pence if the General Assembly passes no LGBT rights bill this year after Pence expressed his view that any civil rights legislation passed by the legislature needed to respect people's religious rights and freedoms. "I think (Pence) was more clear than he has been on Tuesday night, so I think he set the ground rules," Bosma told the Indianapolis Star. "I think it does make passage more difficult because I’m not certain there is a solution on the table that meets the requirements that the governor indicated he is looking for."

I'm no apologist for Gov. Pence, but I'm more concerned right now what individual lawmakers like Bosma think about the pending legislative proposals. It was lawmakers who decided to draft, pass and send RFRA to Gov. Pence last year and then sit back and watch him twist in the wind and take the blame for the uproar it created. Why isn't anyone in the media pressing Bosma on what it is he proposes and supports? I have a sense that the more vocal proponents of the civil rights proposal don't want the legislature to pass anything so they can use it as an issue in the November election. If no legislation makes it to the governor's desk, don't the legislative leaders and their overwhelming majorities deserve the blame or credit, depending on your perspective?


Anonymous said...

The simple goal is to get lgbt added to the list of existing non discrimination law. That is all the business community is asking for. And that's all that the gay community and the University presidents are asking for. A one word inclusion.

We already have a religious freedom law. We don't need another.

We already have a First Amendment. We don't need to re-state it.

Everything else about this debate centers around Republican efforts to write exemptions into any new addition of the word lgbt to our non discrimination law. They want to weaken that inclusion. And they want to use it to strengthen what they call religious freedom.

They would use it to dismantle all the other nondiscrimination ordinances and laws in the State, like in Bloomington and South Bend and on University and corporation books.

They would use it to limit Court damages. And they would explicitly set forth a set of guidelines for small businesses to use to turn away gay people from their business.

Such exemptions are not codified for the other protected classes in State nondiscrimination laws, and it shouldn't be permitted as a weapon against gays, who are not second class citizens. If you operate a bed and breakfast, you can't tell a black couple that you don't serve their kind because your religion doesn't permit it. You can't tell them that because of nondiscrimination law. And you shouldn't be able to tell gay people that. Republicans want the right to do that, and they want to put that right into Indiana law, right into the nondiscrimination statute itself, and its wrong. Its a travesty against everything that nondiscrimination statutes stand for.

The Republicans should allow "lgbt" to be added to existing nondiscrimination law without clouding up the issue with all these religious freedom exemptions. That will make the issue go away. One word. That's all we want, and you won't hear from us again.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Mr Pence said in his state of the state that he wouldn't sign anything that didn't protect religious freedoms and we already have a religious freedom law. So how is the other side supposed to be happy with a nondiscrimination law that has all these religious freedom exemptions written into it. Pence should have just had the stones to come out and say he would never sign a bill to help the gays, because that's what he means.

Gary R. Welsh said...

What Pence does or doesn't think about the legislation should have nothing to do with what the legislature does. They can pass a bill they want and, if he votoes it, simply override it with the same lawmakers' votes that passed the original bill. Pence is not a roadblock if a majority of the lawmakers have their minds set on passing a bill in some form.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly with Gary. The federal and state legislative branches abrogate too many of their responsibilities to the chief executive. This is not at all what the Founders had in mind. While our branches of government are technically "equal," the legislative branch is "primus inter pares" because it is closest to the people.

It seems to me that the Speaker of the House - at the federal and state levels - should be the leaders of their respective parties - not the chief executives.

Anonymous said...

Better to pass something that would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny - more like a freedom from religion bill.

Pete Boggs said...

By appearance, you can't know someone is LGBT unless they tell you; vs immutable characteristics scripted in the Constitution (race). There is no legitimate business interest in the social engineering of statism; which is solely reliant on fraud for its advancement.

LamLawIndy said...

The exemptions are necessary BECAUSE of the First Amendment. The Guv and Gen'l Assembly - - correctly, for once - - do not want to leave the issue of exemptions to the judiciary.

Anonymous said...

You spout a lot of nonsense Boggs, particularly since you're the statist living in the fifties and determined to keep us there, but I believe one thing you say for sure. Like Pence, I am certain that you Boggs can't tell a transexual from a real woman, and probably can't tell if a person's gay by watching them, while most of us have developed a pretty good sense of it, whether we call it gaydar or not. And those immutable characteristics you love to talk about, we were born with them.

Anonymous said...

Again, Gary, you are one hundred percent correct. Career politicians and corrupt attorneys like Bosma count on the public having short term memory deficit. "It was lawmakers who decided to draft, pass and send RFRA to Gov. Pence last year and then sit back and watch him twist in the wind and take the blame for the uproar it created. Why isn't anyone in the media pressing Bosma on what it is he proposes and supports?

I sat through years of Marion County GOP torture listening to the megalomaniac Brain Bosma spout his nonsense and bluster. Pat Bauer made a Big Bird fool of Brian Bosma and the LGBT community RFRA activists roll over that goose Bosma with ease. IMHO a HUGE reason the Indiana RINO GOP's are in the mess they are with RFRA and the LGBT community can be summed up in one word and that word is BOSMA.

More than "Pence Must Go", I'd like to see Kevin Warren begin another effective political campaign touting the true fact that "BRIAN BOSMA MUST GO!"

Pete Boggs said...

Anon 1:07: The mission creep of statism is destructive to values which have made the country great. Those obsessed with the hyper-relevance of current times & related fashion or ephemera, are destined for the cover of Anachronism Today. Some things were better in the 50's- some things were not; as true of any decade. However witting, your game show assertions of "Guess my Orientation," make the point as to distinction; mutable vs. immutable. The inorganic & oxymoronic notion of "special rights," is based on the arbitrary & therefore designed to abuse those who don't agree or make the "wrong guess." In a real world of proportion; we're losing time to things that matter, are wider in scope and / or are an existential threat to the well being of all Americans.

Anonymous said...

First, lgbt is not a "word". It is an acronym.

Second, you make the choice to live an immoral lifestyle, don't be surprised when some don't approve of your choice. If my business doesn't want to participate in your immoral CHOICES, move on and find someone else who will.

There, I said it. It is a choice to be lgbt.

Anonymous said...

Uhm, gay people don't choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight. And the "gay lifestyle" is not an immoral lifestyle. And your "business" doesn't get to choose its customers.

You don't get to be stupid here. Except Boggs. And he's slow.

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't a business get to choose its customers? Where is the business owner's freedom?

Anonymous said...

Try choosing not to serve blacks or asians and see what kind of lawsuit you get.

leon dixon said...

The Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A&P) used to have a meat market policy that they would always display the worst side of a cut of meat. So, unlike today's markets, back then if you bought a piece of meat there were no suprises when you flipped it over. Which policy would you now prefer? In similar fashion, disregarding labels, we have a small group of disordered people wishing to alter matters and a newspaper fully in that tank. However, what the latter has been doing parallels the fallacy of instituting comparison with the worst side of one position with the best side of the other. The disordered are portrayed as having no "worst" side, they only have a best side. Science knows better even if the newspaper does not. The disordered have considerable downsides and even outsized costs to society. All social issues have social costs and when the costs are neglected they tend to increase rapidly.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I get a kick out of people like anon 9:19 who insist a law isn't needed because something is already in the Constitution. It doesn't matter what the words are in the Constitution if the Courts ignore those words or not give them effect. That's why RFRAs have been Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme Court gutted the free exercise clause.

Linda said...

Too bad some chosen to meltdown Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln's moral compass to worship the golden cow. Their Grand Old Party would not have signed RFRA. Jim Crow laws were once considered a form of sincerely held religious beliefs; The Mark of Cain was considered black skin.
I am surprised more attention wasn't given to the legislators who sponsored RFRA and not just Pence.

Anonymous said...

These terrible religious freedom exemptions, which legislatures are also trying to enact in other states, are just an invitation to the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and invalidate them.

States that enshrined those horrible one man one woman laws in various State Constitutions are trying to figure out how to take them back out of their Constitutions, and it isn't always easy. But putting those laws there didn't stop gay marriage, because its a fundamental right. And Indiana narrowly missed that problem because it was at the top of the list of things this General Assembly wanted to take up again when the U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter.

We have people weighing in on these matters who don't even own small businesses but use it anyway as an opportunity to express dislike of homosexuality. But this isn't about that. Its about whether businesses have to serve everyone, or whether of all the people in the world, they get to slam their doors in the faces of gays. I don't think the Supreme Court will let these "religious freedom" exemptions stand. And States that enshrine them in their law books will be forever tainted with the embarrassment of their bigotry.

It doesn't matter if you dislike blacks. It doesn't matter if you dislike gays. Or Muslims. If they walk into your store, you have to serve them, the same as white, heater Christians. People who get hysterical and wail and cry that its against their religion are odd birds, way too worried about homosexuals, and if they don't actually own a small business with gay customers, ought to shut up and stop embarrassing Indiana.

And Ogden, you ought to know better. Maybe nobody cared enough about the original rfras to overturn them, they were fairly benign, but you know these new ones will rise thru the Courts. The majority can't codify this kind of discrimination against the minority.

Anonymous said...

A pizzeria in North Carolina is making waves because of an eloquently written note posted in the bathroom explaining its gender-neutral bathroom policy.

We have a UniSex bathroom because sometimes gender specific toilets put others into uncomfortable situations.
And since we have a lot of our friends coming to see us, we wanted to provide a place for our friends who are:
-Single dads with daughters
-Single moms with sons
-Parents with disabled children
-Those in the lgbtq community
-Adults with aging parents who may be mentally/physically disabled.
Thank you for helping us to provide a safe environment for everyone.

Contrast this with this national news nugget:

Republican lawmakers in Virginia seem intent on one-upping Indiana in their quest to publicly shame trans people.
Earlier this week, lawmakers in the Hoosier State introduced a bill that would fine transgender adults $5000 for using public restrooms.
Now, lawmakers in Virginia want to create a similar law that applies to trans children, $50 for using the “wrong” bathroom, and if it is unclear the child’s sex, authorizes teachers to inspect the genitals.

Pete Boggs said...

Anon 5:50 & iterations thereof: Your denial of truth & insistence on cultural card check is toxic; inorganic & unenlightened. All, try reading the word "all," as in all selection is an inescapable matter of discrimination; at the exclusion of other options. The LGBT push for an oxymoronic category of "special" rights is an elitist scheme of "fashionable" discrimination; ignoring the truth of immutable vs. mutable. Logic escapes those overrun or impaired by emotions; unfortunately of hate, for people of faith and / or those who disagree.

Anonymous said...

Take the word gay out of the discussion.

Should a florist be forced to provide flowers for a satanic wedding ceremony? Should a baker be required to provide cupcakes with swastikas for a pro-Nazi event? Should a Jewish accountant be required to do work for a Palestinian support group?

Why should YOUR freedom override MY freedom? If it is my business, I can work for whomever I please and NOT work for whomever. That is MY right.

Anonymous said...

Well look, your “satanic wedding” is already protected because existing Indiana law shields residents from discrimination in religion, so Wiccans and satanists can not be turned away by a florist for wedding flowers under current Indiana law. And in most states national origin and ancestry are protected classes, meaning your Jewish accountant would be required to provide services to a Palestinian. Adding gays to the statute won’t affect these.

But it cuts both ways. Under the RFRA muslim businesses may be able to turn away Christian women for dressing immodestly. And your business will someday probably have to respect the muslim practice of stopping for prayer 5 times a day.

Kansas is also going thru all this right now. Current law shields Kansas residents from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on race, religion, color, sex, disability, family status, national origin or ancestry.

The new measure, which was the subject of a legislative hearing Thursday, would also make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay or transgender.

We probably have more to fear from RFRA when Muslims begin immigrating here in larger numbers than from anti discrimination laws relating to gays. If Switzerland and other Western European nations laws are any guide, Muslims will use religious freedom laws to force zoning approvals of mosques with enormous minarets that blare the call to prayer 5 times a day, across every city, and thru every factory and business, and we are powerless to stop their “freedom of religion.”

Pete Boggs said...

Anon 4:18: The "religion" you cite has an unfortunate connection with Sharia which is unConstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Sharia law is not unconstitutional. It is being enforced in many neighborhoods in Europe and is treated with great deference in enclaves in Michigan. It will be afforded protections under rfra laws. You reap what you sow.

Pete Boggs said...

Sharia is patently unConstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Actually, bans on Sharia law have been held unconstitutional. Mr. Boggs is wrong.

Pete Boggs said...

Anon 2:29: Source your claim.