I have been saying, in this blog, that my actual dealing with the public as an out and proud feminine male that public opinion has changed. This is just additional proof.
I do not need a poll to prove it. If you do, here is one.
OVERVIEW
The new Indiana law allows businesses and individuals in which the government is not a party to the lawsuit, to use religious freed in court as a defense against a discrimination lawsuit. This is different from the law passed by President Clinton and 19 states. In the federal and state laws, it prohibits businesses and individuals from using religious freedom as a defense in lawsuits where a government entity is not party to the suit.
Despite what Governor Pence says, this law not only allows discrimination against the LGBT community, but any minority group, as long as the defendant can prove his/her religious beliefs are against that person, group or issue.
For me, it not only against me as a T-person but there are still "religious-based" beliefs against worshipers of Jewish and Muslim faiths, African -Americans, interracial marriages and living together and not married. This law provides a legal loophole in which discrimination against these group can now become legal.
Here is a link to a article that discuses Biblical passages used to condemn interracial marriages.
Here is a link to an article that discuses how religious liberty was used to support Jim Crow laws.
Here is a link to an article that discusses Biblical passages in support of antisemitism.
Some will argue that Indiana's Civil Rights Law will protect people from discrimination based on religion, race, sex and color. But this new law provides a possible loophole that will have to be tested in court.
THE GOOD NEWS
Condemnation against this discrimination law has been swift from all reasonable corners of society. Democrats, Republicans, LGBT community, non-LGBT "straight" community, Business community and parts of the religious community.
In the business community, I have noticed all of the tech, internet and web-based companies coming out against this law and putting their money to work against it. These are the growing companies that are creating the jobs of the future. It tells me that a LGBT person does have some safe environments in which to work and grow. As this segment of the economy will continue to lead economic growth and job creation, a young LGBT person would do well to study and earn degrees required for employment within these firms.
But it does not stop there, other cities and states have joined to condemn this law.
And maybe best of all, it stopped such bills in Georgia and North Carolina. In both cases, the linked articles state that the bills were stalled after the Indiana uproar.
SUMMARY
I am upset about this Indiana law but heartened by the broad outrage against it. Today is a Femboy day for me and I am going to walk a little taller and prouder as I believe we are being accepted into the general community.
So to everyone reading this blog, I say put on your prettiest heels and walk tall, proud and confident knowing that you can present as who you really are, knowing that most people will support your right to do so.
The comments of Bill Clinton when he signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration legislation that was put forward by Liberal Senaton Chuck Shumer of NY explains the purpose of the legislation.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I do not think we need federal or local legislation on the subject but all the legislation seems to do is provide a defendant an ability to try to establish an affirmative defense if he is sued. This is consistent with legislation at the federal level, as enacted into law in 19 other states and as adopted into law by the courts in about a dozen other states.
It would seem to preclude the government from getting involved as an enforcement agent to put people out of business but it does not prevent private suits. All it does in the context of private suits is give the defendant the right to try to prove a sincere religious conviction. This is the case in the other states and in case after state the business owner who has been found to discriminate has lost the case.
I am not a lawyer, but it was my understanding that the Federal Law and other 19 state laws are to protect religious freedom from being stepped on by the government. That the government most be a party in the lawsuit.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/
THe Indiana Legislation does not call for governmental action. It is not a requirement. If I claim that a person or business in Indiana has discriminated against me and treated me different than others I have a right to bring anction against. I cannot compel the government to back me or to levy sanctions or fines against the offending party. A court will decide if there has been discrimination. If I go into a bakery to buy a cupcake I would be served on every day. If I tried to have the baker make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage and the baker refused I could still sue but the baker would have the burden to prove that he had a legitimate, deeply held religious belief that would preclude him servicing my request.
ReplyDeleteThese statutes have been around for a long time and them tend to amount to a lot of nothing. It provides air for those who are willing to live in a hypothetical universe where they can portray themselves as victims. It is really much ado about nothing
The federal law and the other 19 states would not allow the baker to use his religious liberty as a reason to not serve. Because the law state that the civil rights laws supersede this law. This language needs to be added to the Indiana law. And since Indiana does not have LGBT as a class in their civil rights law, our group needs to added to either this law or the Indiana civil rights law. Then it would be fixed.
DeleteI think you are on the right path. The real issue that some folks may have is that LGBT is not a protected class in Indiana such as race. Even as written, however, the Indiana legislation would not give anyone the right to discriminate. It would merely provide an affirmative defense if they stood behind a religious belief. There would be no issues if you and I wanted baked goods. If, on the other hand, we wanted a baker to create a wedding cake with two T folks on top for our wedding we could be asking him to violate his religious beliefs. The legislation provides that the government cannot get involved in compeling someone to violate their honest beliefs. In 22 years the RFRA legislation has never been used as a weapon to discriminate. It has provided a shield to those of sincerely held beliefs.
ReplyDeleteOn the federal level Sikhs and orthodox Jews can now keep their hair and beards in our military. The NY legislation lets them do so and serve on the NYPD. In prison religious beliefs can be protected in a similar fashion.
What you are seeing in Indiana is the Indignation class using this opportunity to bash those with religious beliefs...not the other way around as has been protrayed in the media. It is sad that the left only tolerates beliefs that they like and that they feel free to stomp on the rights of any with whom they disagree. The left would be happy with mob rule and the repeal of the freedoms provided under out Constitution.
Pat