Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Unread postby Will » 4 April 2015, 23:25

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Nickr wrote:Businesses should be able to serve (or refuse to serve) whomever they want, regardless of justification.

Why's that?

Because any form of Capitalism but laissez-faire Capitalism is just half-assed.
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 538
+1s received: 3
Joined: 8 January 2014, 06:28

Re: Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Unread postby Derek » 5 April 2015, 06:01

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Apparently NASCAR has come out in support of the LGBT community on this. When NASCAR is decrying something as unacceptable and homophobic, it must be a fucking lot more homophobic than I realised.

I think companies are just jumping on the PR bandwagon.

But Nascar is notoriously redneck.

That makes the bandwagon all the more opportune.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5200
+1s received: 1409
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Unread postby Bro » 5 April 2015, 06:02

Descuff wrote:There probably should be an update here. A few days again lawmakers in Indiana sign a "fix" to make it clear that the law could not discriminate against the LGBT community.


I searched in Google but I couldn't find any other updates, the last update was from 3rd April :l
Bro
 
Posts: 160
+1s received: 1
Joined: 30 October 2014, 09:51

Re: Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Unread postby furiousgeorge » 5 April 2015, 20:55

I grew up in Indiana. The public backlash against this law has been swift and severe. For once, I've just been able to sit back and pick daisies, lol. It's been kinda nice.

I'm more sympathetic to the supposed intent of the law than most. Following the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, I believe the intent was to codify on the state level the right of a private business to run its affairs in accordance with the owner's personal beliefs. That includes both the kind of business it chooses to accept, and the benefits offered to employees. Chick Fil-A, for example, famously is not open on Sundays. The law is supposed to give defendants legal support in the event they are sued for adhering to their value system.

The intent as I've described it is reasonable enough, but obviously there is incredible room for abuse. Particularly, in this case, even though several other states have similar laws, the language in the Indiana law is so vague as to be malleable enough to justify almost any kind of discrimination. Here's an excellent legal analysis of the law:

https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com/20 ... ntroversy/

Of course, the most extreme hypotheticals would never hold up in court, but it's disturbing that a law could be so poorly written as to not make that explicit. And because sexual orientation is not a protected identity like race or gender, the lack of clarifying language speaks volumes.

So the proponents are upset because they think their religion is under attack, and gay people are upset because they think this law will get them turned away at restaurants. In reality, there are very few cases of either injustice, and I think all of the outrage has been a little overblown. Part of me had hoped that a business had actually tried to turn away gays at the door, just to watch the ensuing shitshow, but that's a luxury made possible only by the remarkable, sweeping shift in public opinion toward gay rights. The law seems quite unnecessary and useless both as a protector of religious freedom and as a basis for discrimination. So this has all been a bit of ideological theater.

I also think there's been a lack of appreciation for nuance in this debate. I don't want to force any business to cater to any activity it finds objectionable. That includes gay weddings, Wiccan orgies, Mormon shame-athons ... whatever. But gay people are not activities or actions, they're people. And I don't think any business should be able to turn away whole groups of people whose requests for service fall within the usual range of business. So in a funny way, the "identity vs. choice" debate over homosexuality has resurfaced subtextually in this controversy.

And yes, if you haven't heard the update, new language has been included as an amendment specifically to exclude the notion that gay people can be reflexively turned away at the door. Now watch the controversy evaporate; it's comical to think the governor didn't have the sense as a leader to have this simple discussion before igniting the media firestorm. It also speaks to the power of the gay rights movement that the turnover for this amendment was just a little over a week.
User avatar
furiousgeorge
 
Posts: 614
+1s received: 5
Joined: 26 February 2013, 04:21
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Indiana's New Legalized Homophobic Law.

Unread postby Bro » 6 April 2015, 18:02

Bro
 
Posts: 160
+1s received: 1
Joined: 30 October 2014, 09:51

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot], Facebook [Bot] and 6 guests