Indiana Officials Scramble To Contain Fallout From New Anti-Gay Bill

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The heat over Indiana's new religious objections law spread Friday across social media and to the White House as many local officials and business groups around the state tried to jump in and stem the fallout.

Use of the hashtag #boycottindiana spread across Twitter, spurred on by activists such as "Star Trek" actor George Takei, who argued that the measure opens the door to legalized discrimination against gay people. Apple CEO Tim Cook also tweeted his objections, saying he was "deeply disappointed" in the Indiana law.

Supporters of the bill that Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed Thursday say discrimination claims are overblown. They maintain courts haven't allowed that to happen under similar laws covering the federal government and in 19 other states. The measure, which takes effect in July, prohibits state and local laws that "substantially burden" the ability of people — including businesses and associations — to follow their religious beliefs.

Some national gay-rights groups say lawmakers in Indiana and about a dozen other states proposed such bills this year as a way to essentially grant a state-sanctioned waiver for discrimination as the nation's highest court prepares to mull the gay marriage question.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/indiana-religious-freedom-bill-fallout

[Faygo Kid]

1. Enjoy the Final Four next weekend, Indy. It will be your last absent repeal.

Also, I have no doubt the Big Ten will drop Indianapolis as the site of the Big Ten Football Championship if this stands. Apparently the Indiana legislature and governor are uninterested in the financial benefits of these events and more to the Hoosier State.

[LynneSin]

30. I would almost guarantee Pence waited until now to sign that bill

knowing full well the NCAA would have used a threat of pulling the tournament to pressure him to veto it. With the tournament in full swing it would have been a logistic nightmare to move the tournament. Even though most of the travel plans are last minute most of those hotels have the rooms blocked for accommodations to be made. Now I know that it is 'tough luck' the revenue lost for the hotels in Indiana but it would be very hard for the NCAA to find a city that could provide thousands of empty hotel rooms available at a weeks notice.

Trust me the GOP and Pence knew that which is why they waited to sign the bill to make it a near impossibility to move the tournament.

[tonybgood]

37. Time to petition the NFL and the NBA

Move the Colts to Los Angeles and the Pacers to Seattle and let the state of Indiana squeal about how "unfair" it is!!!

[NobodyHere]

45. Have fun breaking their leases

nt

[SoapBox]

2. Fuck the Haters.

I hope this costs the state trillions.

[tdb63]

3. The beginnings of Sharia Law brought to you by the GOP

Isn't this like the beginnings of a religious run state? I thought Repubs were passing laws against Sharia Law in this country. Next thing it will be legal to publicly stone people that don't meet their religious beliefs. Boycott Indiana and don't serve Christians, especially clergy.

[Scuba]

14. +1

[LynneSin]

31. it's the beginning of Xtian Isis

seriously

[stillwaiting]

41. In order for them to exercise their religious freedom it is important that LGBT people are properly

identified. The next step is for them to properly identify themselves.

Maybe an armband would work?

[cosmicone]

43. Or a tattoo

I won't put anything past these republican assholes who are pandering for evangelical votes.

The repurcussions of this idiotic law can be far and wide. As a Hindu physician, do I get to let a patient coming to the ER die without any treatment because he/she eats beef?

Or, can a Muslim/Jewish toll-booth employee not allow a truck hauling pork through his/her booth?

Stupid people. There is a reason why there is separation of religion and state.

[smirkymonkey]

44. Exactly! This has far reaching repercussions.

I can easily see it getting out of hand.

I fail to see how allowing anyone else be who they are presents a "substantial burden" to a religious person. If they don't believe in homosexuality, then don't' be homosexual. It is not your place to judge others who live differently than you.

Isn't there something in the Bible about not judging?

[RKP5637]

51. It really is, basically the same thing, except different names/locations/places, but in essence it

is the same, someones religion trumping other's rights. Can a movement like ISIS be far off.

[Downwinder]

4. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

[niyad]

6. gee, we just didn't think anyone would notice that nasty little bigotry thing. whahhhhhh,

we are being PERSECUTED because we are intolerant, hateful cretins.

[vkkv]

7. We all knew that conservatives stand for FREEDOM to DISCRIMINATE.

What else is new?

[Iliyah]

8. Come the eff on, these assholes did not weigh in on any and all possible potential "fallouts"?

These are Indiana's legislators? Lord have mercy, dumb and dumber, and may God have mercy on us the sane because these same narrow minded bigots are in every facets of the USA government.

[liberalhistorian]

21. They are so stupid and blinded

by their hatred and ignorance that they didn't even listen to the only groups they are usually tight with, the business lobbies. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce and numerous other business groups, trade reps, and business owners pleaded with them during the deliberation of the bill to not pass it, telling them what a financial blow, if not outright disaster, it would be for businesses in the state and also telling them that it would hamper their ability to attract, recruit and retain quality employees. They did try to stop it at every turn, but the legislators who usually do their bidding unquestioned simply refused to listen. And they're going to pay for that now, as these business groups are pissed royally. And they are NOT going to go away quietly.

They tried that shit here in South Dakota during last year's legislative session, and business and health lobbies, among many others, shut it down quickly and will do so again when (not if) our Neanderthal caveman legislature introduces it yet again.

[AngryOldDem]

26. The Democrats DID. They TRIED.

But they are in such a minority that they are nonentities in both Indiana houses. The Democrats introduced amendments to this bill that would have explicitly prohibited discrimination by businesses. But they were shot down. They spoke up both in committee meetings and on the floor denouncing this bill, and in very strong terms. Everything was dismissed out of hand and things proceeded just as planned.

But I really want to make it clear that the Democratic minority DID do all it could to fight this. But, no matter what, they get steamrolled, which is why this state is going in the direction that it is. There is no opposition anymore. Please don't lump the Democrats in with the rest of the jackhat lawmakers in this state. They are much better than that and they do their damndest to stand up to the insanity.

[Skittles]

47. they live in a red bubble of bigotry and stupidity

[RKP5637]

52. They are the garbage and stench that have invaded the political system of the US bringing

with them their trash, baggage and stench.

[global1]

9. Was This A Bill Drafted And Put Out By ALEC?.....nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. That's what I wondered when I read "similar laws... in 19 other states." Smells like ALEC.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Similar does not mean identical.

The ones that I did view indicated there were differences.

Here is the law. One of the things it does is void all of the laws and ordinances in Indiana. Meaning the religious defense is possible.
The government does not need to be a party to any challenge. Anyone can use the religious defense even businesses except for any potential, current, or past employee against an employer.

SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.
(2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.
(c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:
(1) State government.
(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).
(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:
(1) An individual.
(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.
(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that:
(1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and
(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity.
(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following:
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter.
(2) Compensatory damages.
(c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

[NuclearDem]

49. Those 19 other states passed theirs as the result of City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997.

The Supreme Court decided the federal RFRA only applied to the federal government, not the states, and a bunch of states subsequently adopted their own version. In most cases they're just copies of the federal RFRA.

[lancer78]

10. It is interesting

that towards the end of the article, it is mentioned that 19 other states have religious exception laws. Including Illinois. And that Mississippi has had a similar law on the books for a year, but yet nothing in the news about discrimination in MS? Maybe we need to take a step back for a second, and really see what this law does.

[Lochloosa]

12. I disagree. Maybe it's time to step up.

[riderinthestorm]

16. I believe this is just a step too far. Public anger is finally catching up

to political actions like this.

Other states that have passed this will be forced to re-consider as history demonstrates GLTB acceptance is becoming more universal.

Furthermore, I know in IL, they countered the RFRA law with another law explicitly banning discrimination of any kind. Indiana hasn't taken that second step AFAIK.

[yardwork]

33. This law is different. See down thread.

[Fred Sanders]

13. The NCAA needs to step up to the line and sink a three pointer at the buzzer for the Constitution.

Because 19 other States have discriminatory laws is not a defence to another one, and the wording of the Indiana law is also so incredibly vague it invites mass discrimation on an industrial scale.

The federal Constitution is the supreme law, another other law in conflict is illegal...it is not that hard to get.

[appalachiablue]

15. Nuremberg Laws 1935 Nazi Germany, Germanic Race Laws to Eliminate Jews and Other Groups

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

RISE OF FASCISM IN THE US, SEE:

-The Business Plot to overthrow President Roosevelt, 1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

-Sinclair Lewis' political novel "It Can't Happen Here", 1935. Fictional story of the rise of fascism and a demagogue US President during the 1930s period of economic and political instability in the US and Europe with governments headed by Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here

[caraher]

17. The states with "similar laws" don't have the same law, and that matters

The other states basically copied the federal law. Indiana's goes farther, including making it clear that businesses can claim religious objections. This is a point the governor and friends are being dishonest about when they say other states have "essentially" the same law.

More telling, they rejected proposed amendments along the way that would have said the law can NOT be used to discriminate over sexual orientation. Had they bundled that in with the package Indiana might not be the pariah it has become.

[handmade34]

20. your explanation is accurate and important...

this is the actual bill… no protection for LGBT (or others)…

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#document-f6915f8f

[jwirr]

28. Thank you. I had wondered about that.

[City Lights]

18. Silly officials.

Did they seriously think their bigoted legislation would be embraced by those outside their bubble?

What fools. I hope their blunder costs the state tons of money in lost tourism revenue.

[AngryOldDem]

25. They don't care what "those outside their bubble" think.

In fact, they're PROUD of the fact they don't care.

Such is the leadership in this state.

[JanT]

19. In the wonderful wacky world of capitalism

Everyone is free to shop where they want. Every business that disagrees with these Neanderthal laws, should place a sign in their window "Everyone welcome" with a great big rainbow.
No sign, no shop there. People, stand up to this crap by not spending your money there.

[handmade34]

22. Not really...

"Everyone is free to shop where they want"…

we need to be more proactive than boycotting… everyone is "not" free to shop where they want, if there are laws keeping them from shopping where they want

[Myrina]

46. openforservice.org does just that.

[PatrynXX]

23. best idea right now go after the advertisers have them pull the ads!!!

want the NCAA to pull out of the state make it rather expensive to stay..

[PumpkinAle]

24. Remember Jan Brewer had to veto

AZ's hate law .............. and yes this is a hate law thinly disguised, because it was going to hurt AZ's economy.

Pocket books talk and that, sadly, is the only way Pence and his cohorts will understand that their ideas are not wanted.

[CincyDem]

27. Apple Effect

Wasn't there some in AZ related to an Apple facility that was either being considered or in the early stages of development. I have some vague recollection about Cook saying they would have to "reevaluate their commitment" to AZ should the bill become law. I couldn't find a reference to it so it might be an urban myth.

Anyone know ?

[elleng]

29. 'Supporters of the bill that Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed Thursday say discrimination claims

are overblown.'

Right, like, We didn't REALLY mean it???!!!

[riversedge]

34. Petition-->NCAA, Move the Big 10 Football Championship out of Indianapolis

Petition-->NCAA, Move the Big 10 Football Championship out of Indianapolis https://www.change.org/p/ncaa-to-move-the-big-ten-football-championship-out-of-indianapolis #BoycottIndiana #LGTB

[Lifelong Protester]

35. Even though I love that WI's Badgers will be playing in the

Final Four, who are the advertisers so we can get on with writing to them???

[tonybgood]

36. How is it a "substantial burden" to make a cake?

What an utter and completely inept law. This will cost Indiana dearly. #Colts to LA #Pacers to Seattle

[Hugin]

38. Welcome to the new dark ages, the same as the old dark ages.

Thanks Uncle Ronnie.

[Hugin]

39. Oh, never mind... Indiana isn't trending on Facebook anymore.

On to the next pulp.

[Monk06]

48. Indiana wants me, I'm runnin from a shithole now yeah.............

[stillwaiting]

40. Republicans need to explain what the real-world applications of the law entail then!

Give a few examples of how this law empowers people with religious beliefs to act or behave. Real world examples please!

Because as it's written it is WIDE OPEN to allow for discrimination based on religious beliefs.

Social conservatives understand this and RELISH this. Social conservatives certainly belief it will give them a license to discriminate. It was their very reason for pushing for it in the first place! What possible other reason is there for the passage of this law?!

[Aristus]

42. OR...

...you could scramble to repeal it, fuckwads!...

[Zorra]

50. K&R nt