As I’ve mentioned before, I see this RFRA debate as mostly divorced from reality. There is a proxy war aspect to this whole thing. At some level, the dynamics at play reminded me of the Simpsons episode where, after a random bear sighting, Springfield panics and invests heavily in defenses against bears.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
RFRA was sold as the rock that keeps the non-existent gay danger away. Now that gay people and supporters of gay people are demanding that Indiana get rid of the rock, lawmakers are trying to say, “what’s the big deal, it’s just a rock?” But, no dice. Supporters and opponents don’t believe it’s just a rock anymore. Opponents see it as an affliction, supporters see it as protection. It doesn’t matter if the tiger-protection salesmen ever believed in the power of the rock to start with. And it doesn’t matter how many other states have rocks of their own.
Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.
It reminds me more of Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes because he’s too proud to look down.
http://youtu.be/h6blEjab9wU
I think the Star said it best – this is a time for statesmen – to fix this- repeal it, whatever. But most of all, the perception is worse than the reality on BOTH sides. There are real consequences for sloppy legislating and bad voting rates. Our state works best when we keep each other on our toes.
Well said!
As a Hoosier, I feel so betrayed by our elected leaders. I didn’t vote for these representatives, and I have railed at their gates for two sessions now.
It feels like we can’t overcome blind partisan voting even as these non-representative representatives dismantle our state.
Where do we go from here?
I have a question, Mr. Masson: If this law goes into effect as written, will human rights ordinances in the cities that have adopted them remain in effect, and can other municipalities enact them after July 1? If cities are creatures of the state, as I’ve always understood, how could a city legally deny the validity of the state law within its boundaries?
Thank you for your reply.
The human rights ordinances remain in effect (and new ones could be passed) and remain enforceable as before, except potentially in the case of people who claim that their violations were religiously motivated. That subset of violators could allege that to act in a nondiscriminatory fashion would substantially burden their exercise of religion. At that point, the governmental entity trying to enforce its human rights ordinance would probably have to show that it had a compelling interest and was advancing that interest by the least restrictive means. I expect preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would be seen as a compelling interest. The wildcard would be the “least restrictive means” aspect.
Thank you!!
So, if I’m correct that RFRA is not a significant (or at least not significantly new) threat to gay people, this reaction ought to scare the hell out of social conservatives. It signifies that being even notionally discriminatory toward gay people will trigger a fire storm. It’s not the public weighing things carefully and saying, “you’ve gone too far on this particular occasion” so much as it’s the public losing patience with any of it and saying, “knock it off, already.”
Doug, these postings have been a significant help. The day I began reading this blog was the start of good days, and I’m glad I’ve continued. Very unlike with the legislature, where any day they don’t meet is a good day.
Not do deliberately miss your meaning, but I’d say that this is a significantly new threat because it’s like a steroid shot for bigots. Gay people will take the punches first, but it’s got a punch that goes beyond just gay people.
“specious reasoning” favorite term of day. Love the articles keep them coming.
Step aside from LGBT issues for a moment. Do you think RFRA could serve the same purpose as the “pharmacist conscience” legislation that has been repeatedly introduced and allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a birth control prescription on the basis of religious objections to birth control (or belief that birth control is a form of abortion)?
Yes. I absolutely do.
Over a decade ago a Muncie pharmacist (pharmacy went out of business) always gave me a hard time about filling my birth control prescription. Although I was a married adult professional, he didn’t think I should be able to use contraception, so he made me wait forever and even gave me the wrong Rx once (heart medication).
This was the neighborhood pharmacy, so I insanely wanted to support it rather than have an empty shopfront. I sent my husband in to get the Rx. My husband asked him point blank what was the problem with the prescription after waiting over 30 minutes in an empty shop. The guy told him that my birth control violated his religious beliefs. My husband told him that he was killing his own business and proceeded to tell everyone in our neighborhood about the denial of service. In a few months the shop was closed.
I don’t think people with objections to birth control who have chosen pharmacy as a profession deserve any say in my family planning. We were lucky enough to have a pharmacy in every grocery store, but that easy access might not be the case for rural Hoosiers or people with limited transportation or mobility.
I know there’s at least one male pharmacist in Indiana who didn’t want to give married, straight adult women legally prescribed birth control. I don’t think his beliefs should infringe on my family’s health decisions. I would hate to think how he would treat an unmarried woman or gay customer seeking any medication.
Many states have so-called “conscience clauses” that allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense reproductive related drugs if they violate their “conscience.” These laws also apply to certain other categories of providers. I agree with you, AJ, if you are not willing to meet the needs of pharmacy customers, then get the hell out of the business.
I see that Abdul-Hakim Shabazz has opined that the “religious freedom” law may allow members of the Church of Cannabis to smoke pot. Ah, the implications of the new law and the creativity of Indiana residents is at work! This law is going to end up with more “fixes” and amendments than a Microsoft operating system.
See https://news.vice.com/article/indiana-lawmakers-may-have-set-off-a-chain-of-unintended-consequences-including-legalizing-weed?utm_source=vicenewsemail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=News_EN&utm_campaign=VICE%20News
test [b]bold[/b] bold