![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is dithering in (and about) Indiana.
The reaction has been pretty much what you’d expect, though I don’t know if even Mike Pence and his supporters expected Gen Con, the NCAA, Salesforce.com AND the Disciples Of Christ to come together on this.
I have opinions, of course. And I am required by constitutional law to post them online. So:
1. I think a lot of the freakout is more over what the law represents rather than the actual consequences of its passage. Many people imagine something like this:
Honestly I have serious doubts this is going to happen (see below). But it’s interesting that opponents either believe it will, or equate the law to the mentality such signs of the past represented, then and now. It’s encouraging that so many people think that mentality has no place in the 21st Century. So while I think reactions like this are overblown as a prediction of consequences, they do represent a rejection of discrimination and bigotry in any form.
2. That said, a sense of perspective is always helpful. Indiana’s not the first state to pass this sort of law. Given the current political climate, it probably won’t be the last, even if Indiana does take a shellacking over it. Also – as I mentioned before with the Hobby Lobby ruling – the scenario depicted above has been legally possible since 1993 under federal law. If there’s been an epidemic of straights-only businesses launching across the Bible Belt, I’m unaware of it. And the Internet being what it is, I’m pretty sure we’d know if there was.
3. Consequently, my prediction is that very few business owners will actually take advantage of the new law. The ones that do will probably be niche businesses that deal in things like wedding-related products and services, and they’ll be very isolated from the rest of the business community. Some may end up failing, others not. But they’ll always be the exception to the rule and stand out as atavistic dinosaurs in a world that has largely moved on.
4. Even so, let’s admit it’s kind of a dumb law that even Mike Pence admits addresses a problem that doesn’t actually exist in his state. The only point of the law is to make some sort of symbolic political point about govt interference in freedom of religion.
Which, on its face, is fine. I get that people want to be able to adhere to their religious beliefs to the fullest extent, even at work.
The problem – apart from the point that a few people use religion to justify all kinds of horrible things – is that Pence et al have passed a broadly worded law with a very specific, limited scenario in mind: namely, Christians being forced to do business with gays. What they haven’t realized (or refuse to admit) is that the law itself applies to anyone with a religious belief. So if you want the freedom to deny LGBTs service for whatever reason, you have to accept that the same freedom applies to people who can use it to discriminate against you. As such, anyone who supported this law doesn’t really get to complain if they find themselves on the other end of the stick.
However, as I mentioned, such incidents will probably be few. But they may be instructive.
Or not.
5. The text of the bill is here if you want to read it. (I'm betting most people haven't.)
No service,
This is dF
The reaction has been pretty much what you’d expect, though I don’t know if even Mike Pence and his supporters expected Gen Con, the NCAA, Salesforce.com AND the Disciples Of Christ to come together on this.
I have opinions, of course. And I am required by constitutional law to post them online. So:
1. I think a lot of the freakout is more over what the law represents rather than the actual consequences of its passage. Many people imagine something like this:
Honestly I have serious doubts this is going to happen (see below). But it’s interesting that opponents either believe it will, or equate the law to the mentality such signs of the past represented, then and now. It’s encouraging that so many people think that mentality has no place in the 21st Century. So while I think reactions like this are overblown as a prediction of consequences, they do represent a rejection of discrimination and bigotry in any form.
2. That said, a sense of perspective is always helpful. Indiana’s not the first state to pass this sort of law. Given the current political climate, it probably won’t be the last, even if Indiana does take a shellacking over it. Also – as I mentioned before with the Hobby Lobby ruling – the scenario depicted above has been legally possible since 1993 under federal law. If there’s been an epidemic of straights-only businesses launching across the Bible Belt, I’m unaware of it. And the Internet being what it is, I’m pretty sure we’d know if there was.
3. Consequently, my prediction is that very few business owners will actually take advantage of the new law. The ones that do will probably be niche businesses that deal in things like wedding-related products and services, and they’ll be very isolated from the rest of the business community. Some may end up failing, others not. But they’ll always be the exception to the rule and stand out as atavistic dinosaurs in a world that has largely moved on.
4. Even so, let’s admit it’s kind of a dumb law that even Mike Pence admits addresses a problem that doesn’t actually exist in his state. The only point of the law is to make some sort of symbolic political point about govt interference in freedom of religion.
Which, on its face, is fine. I get that people want to be able to adhere to their religious beliefs to the fullest extent, even at work.
The problem – apart from the point that a few people use religion to justify all kinds of horrible things – is that Pence et al have passed a broadly worded law with a very specific, limited scenario in mind: namely, Christians being forced to do business with gays. What they haven’t realized (or refuse to admit) is that the law itself applies to anyone with a religious belief. So if you want the freedom to deny LGBTs service for whatever reason, you have to accept that the same freedom applies to people who can use it to discriminate against you. As such, anyone who supported this law doesn’t really get to complain if they find themselves on the other end of the stick.
However, as I mentioned, such incidents will probably be few. But they may be instructive.
Or not.
5. The text of the bill is here if you want to read it. (I'm betting most people haven't.)
No service,
This is dF
