(So, I know I've been rather lazy in updating this site over the last several months or so. That's finally about to change. And the next few articles to be posted here will probably come out of left field to all two of you used to me venting about the idiocy of our local sports teams. But I never exactly claimed this to be solely a sports blog, and honestly, I'm up in arms these days far more about issues like this than over who's going to round out the Tigers' bullpen or how many games it'll take the Wings to lose to Tampa in the first round of playoffs.)
Regardless of the intent, this can't be allowed to stand.
Within the last week, much controversy has swirled around Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and the law he signed into effect this week, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The stated goal is, as one would expect, to guarantee that nobody's religious rights are being trampled on. You'd think the constitutional amendment that guarantees such would be enough, but I digress. There's an entirely logical case to be made for such a law, however, much as there was for the one signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. This particular law, however, also allows for-profit businesses to deny service to customers if it infringes on the businesses' religious rights. And as such, the language of the law has been interpreted in such a way that for-profit businesses could potentially refuse service to gays and lesbians (the fact that Pence was seen signing the bill surrounded by anti-gay lobbyists, including the president of the Indiana chapter of the American Family Association, would indicate as much), and that has started a massive backlash against Indiana, with corporations threatening to take their business from the state, as they feel it reflects badly on the state, and gives the appearance that all are not welcome there.
So naturally, Pence is backpedaling like any reasonable person would after having been so publicly rebuked from nearly every corner, and insisting a resolution be passed that would amend the law to specifically exclude LGBT's from said discrimination, which would make the legislation entirely palatable to most of it's opponents while still the accomplishing the stated objective of said law. But that, of course, has set off a firestorm of it's own from the people who specifically support the right to deny gays service. And let me tell you, these people make some compelling arguments in favor of this law. These were the most popular ones taken from a Fox News Facebook page:
-So, can I sue a Muslim caterer when they refuse to cook pork for my functions? This seems to be the most recurring argument, one which religious conservatives seem to find most clever. This is because they apparently have no reading comprehension whatsoever. There is a major difference between demanding a business to offer you a service they don't offer to anybody else (i.e., the Muslim wouldn't cook pork for anybody across the board) and asking a business to provide the same service they provide to others (i.e., a catering company that will only cater heterosexual weddings). It baffles me how people fail to see the difference between these two things.
-Why is is that the rights of gays outweigh the rights of people of faith? Because gays aren't arguing that they should be allowed to exclude anybody from a place of business over their faith. It's really that simple. They've got as much of a right to not be excluded from society as you do, and as the religion that screams the loudest in this country about not constantly being front and center in the public square, I'd think you'd have a little sympathy. Sorry that you'd just like gay people to go back in the closet and pretend not to exist, but that just isn't how it works anymore. Besides, we all know that completely suppressing your sexual urges works every time. (Right, Catholicism?)
-How about the rights of those who like to have sex with animals in restaurants, they have rights too? The 'slippery slope' argument that somehow gay marriage will lead to bestiality and pedophilia is quite possibly the biggest strawman the 'traditional marriage' folks like to toss around. And it's also the most easily debunked. Two consenting adults, by law, can agree to a legally binding contract. Children cannot legally consent to a legal contract. Animals cannot consent to anything other than relieving themselves on your lawn. You'd think this wouldn't even need to be stated.
-So a religious Christian family, or Hasidic family, or Muslim family must be compelled to rent their top floor apartment of their 2-family house to a gay couple or suffer the legal consequences... that's why the Pence law is necessary. Yes, that is absolutely the case; housing discrimination against gays is illegal. But that has nothing to do with the Indiana law; that's federal law. And if you're legitimately suggesting that landlords should be allowed to deny people housing because of their sexual orientation, then there really is no reasoning with you.
The argument has also been made that discrimination is not the intent of the law, but rather that it would prevent, for example, a black-owned business from having to serve at a Klan rally, or a Jewish business from having to do business with skinheads. Which is an entirely reasonable thing to do, that most sane-minded people can agree on. Still others cite the Hobby Lobby case, where the business successfully fought to not be required to offer birth control as part of its employees' medical benefits. That's all well and good; then pass the amendment to clarify that this doesn't mean LGBT discrimination is acceptable, or add them to the existing nondiscrimination laws. As the Indianapolis Star points out, the city of Indianapolis has just such a law on their books, that only applies to for-profit businesses of six or more employees (non-profits and churches are exempt) and it coincides just fine with a version of the RFRA on the city level.
But no matter what the intention of this bill might be (or any similar bill that might be proposed in this state, as a resident of the district whose representative is most likely to try just that), it clearly sends a message that all are not welcome in any state that enacts such a law, which is why it's essential that Gov. Pence do the right thing and demand the law be amended, and why our own Gov. Snyder should take note when (not if) a bill of this sort finds its way to his desk.
No comments:
Post a Comment