| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/26/15 5:05 pm ::: Re: NCAA upset with law that allows denial of service to gay |
Reply  |
|
I caught part of a news report that indicated several national organizations are threatening to pull out of commitments to hold big conventions in Indianapolis. I don't know enough about this law to make any sort of comment on it. Seems as though it is raising some concerns.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 5:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Good for them.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66903
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 5:10 pm ::: Re: NCAA upset with law that allows denial of service to gay |
Reply |
|
The NCAA's headquarters is in Indianapolis
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 5:14 pm ::: Re: NCAA upset with law that allows denial of service to gay |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
The NCAA's headquarters is in Indianapolis |
Whoa, did not know that!
_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 5:14 pm ::: Re: NCAA upset with law that allows denial of service to gay |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
I caught part of a news report that indicated several national organizations are threatening to pull out of commitments to hold big conventions in Indianapolis. I don't know enough about this law to make any sort of comment on it. Seems as though it is raising some concerns. |
Not surprised. I would expect that a number of organizations (including the NCAA, SEC and ACC) may treat it similarly to the way they treated for several years the display of the confederate flag on the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Because that precedent exists, it will be difficult for them to do any less.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 5:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This is interesting:
| Quote: |
This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it, Pence told reporters on Thursday. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than 20 years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.
Eighteen other states have passed similar laws. Driving the push for these religious freedom laws are the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed businesses to not provide insurance coverage for contraception, and the Supreme Court's expected ruling in June on whether same-sex marriage is constitutional.
A similar bill that was considered last year in Arizona faced harsh criticism from the NFL, Major League Baseball, NBA and WNBA. The NFL's Super Bowl committee flatly said adopting the legislation would run contrary to the NFL's goals of tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibiting discrimination. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill under pressure. |
If all those sports organizations were so active in fighting something similar in Arizona, why was there nothing in Indiana or the other states that have adopted similar legislation?
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7833
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/15 6:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I can just see what's going to happen the first time a Muslim shopkeeper refuses service to a Christian female because her head isn't covered....OOPSY! Big rethink there......
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 6:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media.
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 8:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
link to the law:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1696428-read-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act.html
(there may be a link in a post above, but I wasn't gonna spend more than 30 seconds waiting for the rebkell pg. to load. Why is this site so slow much of the time)?
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
There's a lot more background to this in Indiana, including who was behind it and why it was passed now, than simply the text of the bill. It's not nearly as simple as saying "just read it" or "this is the same as 1993". Most things aren't that simple. There's plenty of information available to read about it. Not sure this is the place to debate that.
|
|
rykhala
Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Posts: 286
Location: Temecula, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
Obviously many of us did read the law. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with discrimination or gays, that is your delusion.
|
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8859
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| rykhala wrote: |
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
Obviously many of us did read the law. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with discrimination or gays, that is your delusion. |
from an article i read, the Clinton-signed legislation has to do only when a government entity is involved. the indiana law does not have that stipulation.
|
|
ripleydc
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| rykhala wrote: |
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
Obviously many of us did read the law. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with discrimination or gays, that is your delusion. |
Yes, let's stipulate that BallState1984 is not a lawyer and doesn't understand what he/she is reading, or he/she is just a very bad lawyer.
If this law stands, I won't be making any trips to Indiana for the duration.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
First, it may not say anything about gays or discrimination, but it's quite evident that the intent of the sponsors was to permit discrimination against gays based on religious objections. That's what they said and I believe them. While that's bad enough, they managed to sweep every kind of behavior into the scope of the law, so if I were a shopkeeper who wanted to claim that my religion forbids me from serving blacks, I could invoke it.
Second, the federal and state laws are different. The federal law applies to government actions; this one also covers lawsuits between private parties. Relevant excerpts from the federal and state laws (lifted from Lawyers, Guns & Money, if nothing else the blog with one of the best names out there):
Indiana RFRA:
Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.
Federal RFRA:
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| rykhala wrote: |
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Obvious none of you read the law. It is the same law Bill Clinton signed in 1993. It say NOTHING about discrimination and NOTHING about gays.
Read the law and ignore the media. |
Obviously many of us did read the law. If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with discrimination or gays, that is your delusion. |
It's not a delusion, it's a purposeful strategy to try to cloak this as "this is an innocent piece of legislation just like Clinton signed 20 years ago." I don't think it's actually fooling too many people.
As others have pointed out, there are significant differences. But more importantly the landscape - legally and socially - has changed dramatically in 20 years. In reality this is the backup plan for an Indiana group that was unsuccessful last year in pushing through a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. And they have a governor who wants to run for president and wants to court a particular voting block he deems essential to his success in the GOP primaries.
|
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 11:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The reason I had misgivings about this law is apparently alreadu coming to pass. Some stoners are trying to use the law to create a "church".
You just knew some asshole was going to take advantage and create unintended consequences.
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11142
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 11:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| I can just see what's going to happen the first time a Muslim shopkeeper refuses service to a Christian female because her head isn't covered....OOPSY! Big rethink there...... |
Exactly ...
Political correctness has its limits, and though I am very much against any discrimination based on sexual preference (or pretty much anything else), it's a slippery slope.
Most people are in favor of freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing Mohammed (Charlie Hebdo) but what about when it comes to criticizing black people? Or gays?
And if the Koran specifically said images of people and animals were a sin, or that women must wear head scarves, do we then allow only some expressions of Islam and not others? And thus do Moslem-majority countries have the right to limit expressions of Christianity, Judaism and atheism?
That said, I do hope the NCAA responds to this Indiana statute, and other organizations do so as well, with some kind of sanctions. In other words, you can say what you want, or legislate what you want, but actions come at a cost.
I think the more freedom we have, the better, even to racist chants by SAE members. There is no perfect system, and I would rather err on the side of too much freedom than not enough -- and then let the natural consequences of abusive speech serve as the arbiter rather than laws.
_________________
Oį¹ TÄre TuttÄre Ture SvÄhÄ
|
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 11:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Oh, I see. Bill Clinton = Good
Mike Pence = Bad.
That is the difference in those laws.
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
kool-aide
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 11:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| BallState1984 wrote: |
Oh, I see. Bill Clinton = Good
Mike Pence = Bad.
That is the difference in those laws. |
Nope. Try again. This time with actual facts.
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/15 11:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As others have pointed out, the federal law and the new Indiana law are different in very important respects (apart from the anti-gay impetus behind the Indiana law). Here's one good explanation of why:
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/
Also, given the Supreme Court's ruling last year in the Hobby Lobby case, it's pretty clear that laws like this new one will be used to justify the refusal by a business to deny services to gay people and other disfavored minorities, even though the provision of the service would not actually "burden" the business owner's free exercise of religion.
Don't be fooled, folks, this is not about the free exercise of religion. It's about allowing religious conservatives who don't like gay people to discriminate. People of faith are not the victims here.
|
|
|
|
