Indiana is getting a well-deserved black eye for the passage of a law that makes it perfectly fine to discriminate against LGBT people if Jesus tells you to. (For the record, Jesus doesn’t.)
But a lot of the brouhaha over the new law fails to capture just how awful it really is. In fact, much of the coverage makes it seem as if the Indiana law is not very different than other religious liberty bills, except for the blowback the state is getting.
Not true.
Here are six reasons that Indiana’s full-frontal attack on equality is far worse than anyone could have imagined.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
1. It allows corporations to discriminate for religious reasons. There are a lot of existing state laws (and a federal law) meant to protect people exercising their religious belief. But as Garrett Epps at The Atlantic points out, Indiana’s law not only abandons the usual limits to religious expression, but it actually extends the right to discriminate to for-profit companies. If a major corporation in Indiana decides it wants to fire all of its LGBT employees on the grounds that the company’s faith requires those employees to be indigent, the law is on the company’s side. This isn’t a case of protecting elderly homophobic florists. This is a case of empowering major businesses to do as they please in the name of religion.
2. The law protects bigots facing civil suits. Epps also notes that the religious liberty defense must be accepted in civil suits. It’s one thing if the government decides to bring suit against someone for housing discrimination. It’s entirely another if a couple sues a landlord for the same reason. But under the Indiana law, the same defense can be used by the landlord in either case. Why is this a big deal? Because it’s meant to respond to a New Mexico court ruling involving a photographer who refused to take pictures of a same-sex ceremony. In that ruling, the court rejected the photographer’s claim that she was protected under that state’s religious liberty law on the grounds that the state was not a party in the lawsuit and therefore the law wasn’t applicable. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, which is something the Indiana law is explicitly trying to prevent from happening in that state.
3. Gov. Mike Pence is supposed to be a moderate. Yes, the man whose appearance on television Sunday was the type of natural disaster usually confined to the Weather Channel is not part of the GOP far right. In fact, he’s angered Tea Party types for being too much of a squish. Yet somehow this man of the middle thought it was perfectly okay to sign into law a bill that enshrines discrimination. It’s a sign of how far the Republican party has veered to the right (and how much he wants to be on the national ticket) that Pence would feel comfortable putting pen to paper in this case. (That’s also why supposedly moderate Jeb Bush has also endorsed the law.)
4. This is the bill that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last year. Jan Brewer was hardly the type of politician who would be carried aloft through adoring crowds at the Pride Parade. After all, this is a woman who ran a gay-baiting campaign against an opponent. But Brewer decided that the religious liberty bill passed by her state legislature went too far and did the right thing (for the wrong reasons) and vetoed the measure. A bill has to be pretty repulsive to be too strong for the likes of Brewer.
5. The Indiana law will become the rallying cry for the religious right in the 2016 campaign. Indiana will be the standard against which all the candidates will be measured. Every Republican candidate will have to genuflect before the Indiana law as the one that must be followed–or refuse to do so at his own peril. That means the antigay right will have a totem with which to charge back into battle, as it refights the culture war.
6. It’s a sign of the ongoing backlash against marriage equality. This may seem obvious, but the form that the backlash has taken was not a given. There were many different ways for opponents of marriage equality to respond, from resignation to protest. Instead, they chose to go a route where it became clear that they see discrimination as the only possible recourse and, even worse, as an acceptable option. For all the talk about knowing they are fighting a lost cause, religious conservatives are showing that they will pull out all the stops when it comes to opposing LGBT rights. If that means coming across as complete bigots, they don’t care. They have nothing left to lose. And under those circumstances, you can expect some pretty ugly fights to keep surfacing. Indiana is one example.
It won’t be the last.
Realitycheck
Considering the wide spread backlash I don’t see how this law will become the
rallying cry for the religious right in the 2016 campaign, if anything this might be a stern warning for all the state contemplating similar laws.
I am just surprised no federal judge has open his mouth yet about this law.
jpcheek2
@Realitycheck: I agree with you concerning judicial intercession. I, too, am surprised that a federal judge has not overturned such laws yet. It may be that the judiciary is waiting until someone actually challenges the law in a lawsuit or it could be that LGBT organizations are waiting until the Supreme Court rules in June. In any case, I really wish that these laws could be stopped before they spread even further!
Giancarlo85
There is no such thing as moderate Republicans. The moderate Republicans left the party years ago. The so called moderate Republicans don’t exist. However, Pence confuses me… Why would he do this to his own state? Even Jan Brewer out of all people vetoed a similar bill. And she is closer to being a tea party Republican. She maybe thought she didn’t want to drag her state through a bunch of failed lawsuits.
jpcheek2
Believe it or not, there are moderate Republicans, some are even liberal, but they are overshadowed by the ultra-right flank of the party. (Note: I’m devoutly Democrat, but my husband is a liberal Republican – don’t worry, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that sometimes, too.) You’re right, Pence should have taken a clue from Brewer & refused to sign the bill. Pence has opened his state up to ridicule & to a flurry of lawsuits – all of which Indiana will ultimately lose. On a side-note, I was heartened this morning to read that my own governor, Pat McCrory of NC (a Republican) has said that he will not sign our Legislature’s proposed RFRA. Maybe he’s seen the writing on the wall.
Bauhaus
@jpcheek2:
As long as the republican platform remains anti-gay, there’s no such thing as a “liberal republican” for LGBT.
Until the Republican Party abandons all anti-gay sentiment, laws, and those obscene religious freedom laws, your husband deserves a good kick in the ass. Good grief, your dinner conversation must be a gas.
SpunkyBunks
Wall Street will get the job done and repeal this law. No major corporation listed on the stock exchange will risk its global reputation operating in a high-risk state like Indiana. Can you imagine the national boycotts and brand damage that will occur the minute a manager/employee commits legalized discrimination against a gay person for being gay? No corporation can risk that. Money talks, BS walks!
If it happens, it will be cheaper for a corporation to pull out of Indiana and to fire all of its employees (mostly straight) than to risk operating in a homophobic environment. This will increase their legal expenses and cause great harm to their global reputation and stock price! That’s why big corporations will chose NOT to expand in Indiana. They may even shrink. All because of the hate towards a small segment of the population. The Rethuglicans didn’t consider the big money involved with their stupid decision making.
Giancarlo85
@jpcheek2: Incorrect. There are no moderate republicans and there are no liberal republicans. The party is socially conservative. There is no “liberal republican”. There is that one guy from Ohio, but he isn’t even popular in his own party and he’ll probably leave his own party soon enough.
Cam
They wanted the gay marriage issue settled so it wasn’t an issue for the GOP during the 2016 election. And then all of their crazy state legislatures keep coming up with bills like these.
Their viewpoint is, how many ways can I hurt you and excuse it by claiming to be religious?
Julian
Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBT organization?
Giancarlo85
@Julian: Oh yes, the organization of backstabbers and liars? The organization that has done next to nothing for the LGBT community. What about them?
Cam, I’m just waiting for republicans to come up with more rape comments. They seem to love talking about rape too. That would be great so they piss off women. It’s like they don’t want to win in 2016.
Julian
@Cam: Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Julian
@Giancarlo85: I think you & I may wish to agree to disagree on this point. As a gay Democrat, I’ve been battering away at the walls of ignorance & hate for a couple of decades. My friends who are LGBT Republicans are struggling to change the party from the inside. While I disagree with them on some issues, I support them on their attempts at social change.
Giancarlo85
@Julian: They are struggling to “change” the party from the inside? Why even bother? In California, the republican party went crazy. What did people do? Abandon it for good. No sense in trying to change something that is broken.
I don’t care for gay republicans. I think they are wrong on so many levels and I think they need to stop voting for candidates that hate them.
There are very few LGBT republicans anyways.
Cam
@Julian:
The problem is, gay republicans no longer are trying to influence the party, now the ones that are left seem to see their job as protecting and shilling for the GOP.
The old Log Cabin when Patrick Guarino was head of LCR actually spoke out and refused to endorse Bush because of the anti-gay tone of his campaign.
The current Log Cabin actually endorsed the non-gay friendly opponent of the politician who INTRODUCED the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, AND released statements lying claiming other GOP members were not opposed to certain gay rights bills even though they were.
Julian
@Cam: Wow, thanks for setting me straight on this. I checked out their website & found that you were correct.
Theonewhoismany
It truly is a testimony to the saturation of right-wing dogma in politics that there could be considered centrist republicans or even more laughable “leftist” democrats. Your political system has a right of centre party (the democrats) and a far right party (republicans). I have never, with the exception of Noam Chomsky, heard anything even close to leftist discourse coming from a serious candidate, or elected official in American politics. The biggest laugh of all are these republicans who become apoplectic when they hear the word ‘liberal’. It is somehow I guess lost on them, that their entire beliefs are neoliberalism taken to an extreme that would shock Reagan and Thatcher.
RAZ0905
There is one thing people are missing. Yes, it is aimed as antigay, but people will be allowed to discriminate against anyone. If someone of a different faith walked into a Christian business, they will be allowed to deny service to them. For example Hindus or Muslims. The business owners can use an excuse saying the bible doesn’t teach or recognize those religions or what ever excuse they can make up.
This bill was written in the eyes of Christians, but they don’t realize there are many religions in this Country. This can backfire, of course. If a Christian enters a non Christian business, that business owner can refuse service to them with the same response as they don’t recognize Christianity. Once/If that ever happens, I guarantee there will be protests against that business and threats made against the business owner by “loving” Christians.
NoCagada
@Julian: And? Other than you are an idiot…
Giancarlo85
@Theonewhoismany: Oh I totally agree with this. The last real leftist the US had was Eugene Debs. And that was in the 1920s. There hasn’t quite been anyone like Debs ever again. I said maybe Ralph Nader… but he never had substantial influence. The democrats are definitely right of center and the republicans are extreme right.
By the way, todays republicans would criticize Reagan for being too “liberal”. I hate the misuse of that word anyways… in other countries the liberal party is right wing.
Julian
@NoCagada: Hey, I’m trying to be respectful of others on this site. You?
AtticusBennett
@Cam: YUp.
the LCR, like GOProud before them, have a pathetic track record of changing hearts and minds. They’re too busy trying to convince their families that they’re “not like those awful leftist gays” that they’ve never truly been successful in getting members of the GOP to promote LGBT Equality.
Giancarlo85
@AtticusBennett: If there is a group I cannot stand more than LCR it would be GOProud. Those idiots even go out their way to endorse far right wing candidates… more than LCR.
tricky ricky
pence IS NOT a moderate republican. he is a right wing evangelical playing the moderate. he had with him at the private signing of this atrocity, along with the monks and nuns, 3 of the rightest of the right wing anti gay organization heads. this is the reason he wouldn’t answer the question if this was meant to deny rights to gays and why he says gay rights protections are not on his agenda. this law was meant from the very beginning to enable people to refuse service to gay couples.
Cam
@Giancarlo85: said… “@AtticusBennett: If there is a group I cannot stand more than LCR it would be GOProud. ”
___________________________
Practically all of GOProud’s entire board was straight. They were created so the GOP would have their own in house group to defend them against accusations of anti-gay bigotry. Log Cabin had been embarrassed over the debacle of the ad they ran in the NYTimes, and so the GOP wanted another group they could pretend was actually gay.
Problem was, they got SO anti-gay that even the paid shill they had as the face of the group finally couldn’t do it anymore and quit. When you get so bad, that even a paid political whore quits on you…….
onthemark
Believe it or not, the original religious protection act in 1993 – the one at the federal level – was a way to allow traditional, non-Christian Native Americans to use PEYOTE legally in their ceremonies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/religious-protection-laws-once-called-shields-are-now-seen-as-cudgels.html
The original intent was to protect obscure, minority religions from oppressive government actions. Now the laws have mutated into weapons for the majority religion to oppress everybody else.
AtticusBennett
@Cam: GOProud LOVED Breitbart, too. May he rest in Hell. and his site, which they loved, continues to be anti-gay. of course they love anti-gay things. they remind them of their parents.
the LCR are wimps, to be sure. GOProud was the sh*t under those wimps boots.
GG
7. It turns our system on it’s ear. Most, if not all, states mirror the federal government and have three SEPARATE branches of government: Executive, legislative and judicial. With this law, the Indiana legislature and executive branch are attempting to control the judicial branch by passing a law which tells the judicial branch what constitutes a valid defense, and what level of scrutiny is to be applied. Those things are the exclusive purview of the judicial branch. Example: A state legislature passes legislation that instructs its governor to sign into law a particular bill. Overreaching and dangerous.
8. It codifies not only discrimination, but puts ANY action beyond the reach of ANY law as long as “religious beliefs” is cited as the reason.
9. Since “religious beliefs” now trump everything else, we no longer have a functional constitution or laws that must be obeyed. We will instead have groups of differing religious beliefs unable to agree on anything because of their differing religious beliefs. This will, as history has proven time after time, inevitably lead to conflict between the religious factions. We will become just like the Middle East.
tdx3fan
@Realitycheck: I think it will become the rallying cry in the primary. That is part of the reason that any Republican candidate has such an uphill battle for the presidency. By the time they go far enough to the right to get the nomination they have no chance in hell of appealing to the middle.
tdx3fan
@Bauhaus: That is like saying that as long as the Democratic party continues to endorse pro-death for unborn babies that no Democrat can think for themselves regarding abortion.
tdx3fan
@SpunkyBunks: If you look at the list of sponsors for that bill, one of them was part of State Farm insurance, and yet State Farm has stayed silent. If you want to start looking at a national boycott, we need to demand State Farm break its silence and take action against their employee who sponsored this bill.
tdx3fan
This whole argument about Republicans versus Democrats and how gays can only be Democrat is bunk to me. Anyone following it must believe that you have to be a single issue voter. I am not a single issue voter on any issue (including where I put my dick). I want to have an actual job and an actual income to go along with where I put my dick and on very few exceptions (this being one of them), Republicans at the state and local level almost always do a better job of creating jobs and balancing the budget.
onthemark
@tdx3fan: How long do you think a woman should go to prison for having an abortion?
When I ask that question of “pro-lifers” the responses are all over the place, from “only the abortionist should go to prison” all the way to they want the death penalty for the woman!
Just curious.
Giancarlo85
@tdx3fan: Who said gays can only be democrats? I’m not a democrat. Certainly not a republican (not in a trillion years lol). I’m unaffiliated with either political party. You don’t seem to have many brain cells do you?
There is no real middle in American political parties. Democrats are right of center and republicans are extremist.
“I am not a single issue voter on any issue”
Neither am I.
“I want to have an actual job and an actual income to go along with where I put my dick and on very few exceptions”
Oh sure, I think many of us want to that to.
“Republicans at the state and local level almost always do a better job of creating jobs and balancing the budget.”
Absolutely wrong. Republicans at the state level have almost mismanaged budgets. Take for example… oh… the biggest state in the country. California. We had a series of disgustingly awful republican governors. Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t balance shit. Republicans are incapable of creating jobs and have done that very poorly on the state and local level.
And on the federal level, republicans are even worse. I think you should recall the last administration.
So no… not “almost always”. And why is it democrat blue states always have better and bigger economies, better job markets, and better infrastructure? It isn’t because of the non-existent republican party in these states. California hasn’t had a viable republican party in years.
So yea, you can keep your falsehoods about how republicans are. They couldn’t balance shit if they tried. That’s why states like Alabama and Texas always have monstrous deficits.
Giancarlo85
But yea, let me just say… if you were so CONCERNED about job creation, republicans would be the last people you wouldwant in office. And as one who resides in California, this great state was taught serious lessons about voting in republicans. They didn’t give us jobs… they give us shit results and huge budget deficits that we are still paying off.
Why is it more jobs are created under democrats than republicans in the whole picture? More jobs have beend under Jerry Brown than any republican in this state’s history.
Giancarlo85
@Giancarlo85: *Have been created under Jerry Brown.
Sorry for a couple of typos in the past two posts… I am in a bit of a hurry.
Again, republicans = shit results for everyone. If you want jobs, they don’t have any answers.
PARKAVMAN
This law could not be challenged on Constitutionality because Indiana does not include LGBT in it’s protected classes with rights. If the state added those rights now, it might be challenged. The ACLU tried to find a way to challenge it, but can’t yet. Maybe they can on consequences it causes. Some businesses have admitted they already use Religion to bar groups they don’t like, not just gays.
Saint Law
@tdx3fan: “Pro deaths of unborn babies”
That actually made me laugh out loud.
Saint Law
@tdx3fan: That you should consider your sexual and romantic life a matter of ‘wear you put your dick’ speaks volumes.
And the idea that Republicans balance the books and create jobs is lolarious.
Bush increased the deficit by billions. The red states are always heavily subsidised by the blue.
Is there anything you post that isn’t a lie?
Giancarlo85
Bush increased the debt by trillions actually. Some Republican drone will probably say so did Obama. Not exactly. Bush wrote off a lot of spending and kept it off the books. Obama has had to deal with this. Hundreds of billions spent on war were left off the books by Bush. Obama has had actually balanced the budget better.
Republicans have a horrendous record on the economy.
I Support Same Sex Marriage in Missouri
This is so tragic for a whole state to do this to it’s own citizens!
Chad Jason
It is amazing that 6 years ago the Republicans operated by stating ‘social issues don’t win elections’. They might not, but they certainly ensure your u don’t stand a chance at ever running for the White House.
jsmu
The fascist Rethugs have fucked up big time with these particular laws, because the brand name damage and the boycotts/rotten publicity are going to reach around the world–and then some. Rethugs seem to forget that gays have money, spend money, and–unlike the cretinous bigots–have brains as well.
Luis H. Lopez
This law was created by antigay bigots it will be used to openly discriminate against gays in business employment housing and health care strips you of rights ! We need to protest and continue the boycott!
1EqualityUSA
“This is so tragic for a whole state to do this to it’s own citizens!”
The “citizens” voted for these creeps.
NJjoe
@Cam:
Bingo!
Jeff Scott
What happened to separation of church and state??????????
Pro-Life
@onthemark: Just curious. Since you seem to be a pro-choice democrat, would it be acceptable for a Christian couple to abort a gay baby since many gays claim being gay is genetic? In the future, we might be able to diagnose homosexuality in utero & test for the supposed “gay gene.”
Brian
I hope Trump wins. He has an inclusive message. Hillary believes in dividing the people into fragments and then pandering to each fragment.
I also think that Hillary is bad for the cause of male homosexual desire.