Gay Marriage (and other Rights) in the U.S: Don't weary about it

[Obiron]

Apparently there are 19 or 20 other states with the same* law, yet no one is throwing a bitch fit. I feel like this is just media over sensationalizing things as per usual.

*is slightly different in some wording, but apparently it's nothing that makes a difference.

Slightly different is debated by some.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ferent/388997/

[Yuri-G]

from what I hear it's not "slightly" different at all. but I'm at work and most websites don't do well here (thank you, IE8) so I haven't done any real reading on the subject yet.

[Tyche]

The law effectively grants them religious considerations, something businesses still have to defend in court. They have to show, in court, how and why providing this service to this consumer provides X burden. This law establishes a "compelling interest" test. Courts have ruled, pretty unequivocally, that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination that would preclude religious exemptions. I doubt using religious exemptions to discriminate would hold up in court. But some of the text in the bill open the door to that happening. I still doubt it happens. I think it's both a bit over sensationalized and, at the same time, I have no doubt that a lot of terrible fucking people lobbied very hard for this for the wrong reasons, so the backlash is deserved.

[Kuya]

I don't think that anyone who's not a homophobe thinks that these laws aren't meant as a last fuck you to LGBT people after marriage is effectively equal. They won't leave their favorite punching bag without leaving one last scar.

[Aksannyi]

That's what concerns me about full marriage equality. A lot of people will think, "Well, pack it up, we're done here, gays have equal rights and will be treated equally now." That's simply not true, not by a far stretch.

[Rooney]

Apparently there are 19 or 20 other states with the same* law, yet no one is throwing a bitch fit. I feel like this is just media over sensationalizing things as per usual.

*is slightly different in some wording, but apparently it's nothing that makes a difference.

Just to clarify, the law allows *any* business to assert religious views, and also allows religion as a defense in disputes between two private parties. Other states' laws require the government to be a party to the dispute and/or exclude for-profit businesses. That may be only a slight change in wording, but the effect is quite large.

Since Indiana has no state level protections for LGBT people, it is currently entirely legal to refuse service and cite religion as a defense. Race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, etc do not fall under this law because they already have state/federal protections. Unless sexual orientation and gender identity are added to non-discrimination statutes (which the governor is against doing), then LGBT people are pretty much the only class that this law can be used against. Hence the backlash over it being "anti-gay".

[TummieGaruda]

Haven't read the past few pages, but doesn't this law stem from the case in New Mexico a few years back where a photography studio ran by a Christian couple was sued because they refused to photograph a lesbian wedding ceremony on the grounds that it was contrary to their religious beliefs? If I remember correctly the photographers lost and had to pay $5,000 in damages.

[Kuya]

There was also a case of a florist and a baker who also refused services to gay couples. In those cases, the florists and bakers lost because the states they were in already banned that kind of discrimination.

[Yuri-G]

on the one hand, the libertarian in me wants to say "private business, private rules."

on the other hand, I think back to when "colored water fountain" was a thing and I'm like "yeah... no, we're not doing that again."

[Galkaeater]

on the one hand, the libertarian in me wants to say "private business, private rules."

on the other hand, I think back to when "colored water fountain" was a thing and I'm like "yeah... no, we're not doing that again."

you must be pretty old

[Yuri-G]

just call me Jim Crow

[Tyche]

There was also a case of a florist and a baker who also refused services to gay couples. In those cases, the florists and bakers lost because the states they were in already banned that kind of discrimination.

I don't think there's ever been a case where a court has ruled that the state doesn't have compelling interest to prevent same sex discrimination. I mean, the closest I can think of where a private business has exercised religious rights to impose rules would be hobby lobby, but that's still different than the type of case we have here. If a business did attempt to exercise this right, they'll still have to prove that providing this service burdens their religion and they'd have to fight that out in court. This law isn't a free for all. There will still be court battles. Businesses still have to prove the burden. They can't just exercise it at will. And to this date, I don't think any court has ruled that the state doesn't have a compelling interest that prevents this type of discrimination.

I think many people think that business can just throw up signs that say "we don't serve gays" and it be OK. As soon as one does, and one already did, they open themselves up to a legislative battle. And one I think they'll lose, as no court has ever, to my knowledge, ruled in their favor.

[Waraji]

This Pizza Parlor Is Indiana's First Business to Deny Service to LGBT Customers

"I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?"

I lol'ed so hard at that line.

[Kuya]

And no court to date ever will rule you can refuse service to gay people. What they are trying to latch unto is the argument that they don't believe in gay marriage and it's not a anti gay thing per se.

But we both know what an opposition to gay marriage is really a subterfuge for but they will deny it up and down.

[TummieGaruda]

This Pizza Parlor Is Indiana's First Business to Deny Service to LGBT Customers


I lol'ed so hard at that line.

They are getting hammered (no pun intended) on yelp right now:

warning there are some NSFW images from yelp posters on the page
http://www.yelp.com/biz/memories-piz...t_by=date_desc

[Tyrath]

Wonder what their rating was before this.

[Waraji]

They are getting hammered (no pun intended) on yelp right now:

warning there are some NSFW images from yelp posters on the page
http://www.yelp.com/biz/memories-piz...t_by=date_desc

ROFL Link directly to the image section.

http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/memor...Ste855PVLedi5A

Sample:

Spoiler: show

http://s3-media4.fl.yelpassets.com/b...xoHImMxg/l.jpg

[Yuri-G]

yes, I'd like to order one slice of peckeroni please

[Galkaeater]

http://weedlydaily.com/2015/03/30/in...h-of-cannabis/

I don't care what anyone says this law is good

[Koul]

I'm glad people see threats of violence and rampant internet trolling justified in this situation. It's almost as if people can pick and choose what's/who's okay to troll and/or threat on the internet or via phone. Curious.