Indiana governor signs bills that legalizes discrimination against LGBT people

Mary Wisniewsk
Raw Story
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:28 UTC

Indiana Governor Mike Pence

Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds.

Supporters of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature, say it will keep the government from forcing business owners to act in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Opponents say it is discriminatory.

"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," said Pence, in a statement after signing the bill.

Legal experts say the Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a standard that will allow people of all faiths to bring religious freedom claims.

Gay rights groups worry it will be used by businesses that do not want to provide services for gay weddings, although those cases would probably end up being fought out in court. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appeals court ruling.

Source: Reuters

Reader Comments

ge0m0 · 2015-03-30T22:49:08Z

Test Case

A hungry man walks into a restaurant. He happens to be gay. The restaurant staff and/or owners know he is gay and refuse to serve him. In that instance, what religious beliefs were being violated? That the man happens to be gay is irrelevant. What if he is also celibate? Would that make any difference? In this case, none of it makes a difference. As far as the case is concerned, he is a hungry man. He's not performing gay acts in the restaurant. Is there a religious belief against serving food to a hungry man?

Mac · 2015-03-30T23:59:51Z

the bill

This is a more complex issue than is currently being reported--simply because all discussion is being shut out by the extreme polarization of both sides.
Obviously, it is wrong to refuse service to someone who is hungry. He/she has human rights--and human rights are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. They don't actually exist in the same way in any other religious tradition and they are not likely to survive in a world that has been cleansed of those traditions--as the current discussion demonstrates.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake is another matter. For a Christian it is about being required to participate in something you believe is wrong. (And why wouldn't they want to force the issue instead of going to another baker?) If you want to require this then you can also require Muslims and Jews to eat pork, or pacifists to carry guns or you can require a holocaust as took place in Nazi Germany and Croatia and Armenia etc and deny the Nuremburg ruling that an individual is responsible for his actions.
In point of fact, none of this controversy has been about refusing service. It has been about trying to force Christians to participate in gay weddings. And it is tyrannical.
There was a case here in Indianapolis last March where a Christian business owner who had been serving gays all along with no complaint or for that matter, doubt about who she was serving. SAhe was serving her neighbors. When she refused to do a wedding cake she was vilified publically on every forum . The opposition even chose to picket her on Good Friday, when she was closed--tactics fully worthy of a Westboro Baptist. The business is gone. She is still being vilified. Was justice done?