"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
Any business that hangs a "we don't serve homosexuals" sign in Indiana, deserves to be protested and run out of business, and I will gladly take part in the protest. I currently live in Indianapolis, but I am not from here.
Side note: What is the current status of gay marriage in Indiana? I know Pence has been fighting against gay marriage, and they were briefly legal. I am not sure where the issue stands now.
Well, I don't think that makes any sense. If I fail to save some guy that fell overboard I didn't kill him and more likely no one else did. The guy just fell off the boat. No one is responsible for that.2) I don't agree that there is any moral distinction between deliberately allowing a preventable death and being the cause of a death. I know libertarians like to use the example of the drowning man - do I have an obligation to risk my life to save his? OK, difficult. But if I'm in a boat and all it takes is me throwing out a life preserver and a rope to save a life, and I choose not do, I've caused that death as much as if I threw him overboard.
But the federal RFRA, the basis for the decision in Hobby Lobby, complicates things by restoring the wider view of free exercise the Court took before it drastically narrowed it in Employment Div. v. Smith in 1990. States began passing their own RFRA's after 1997, when the Court struck down a part of the federal RFRA that applied it to states in City of Boerne v. Flores. It's not completely clear yet how far these state RFRA's can reach.
And at some level I have serious reservations about using the RFRA as a basis to discriminate in business. If we're talking about what we support, I'd much rather we be straightforward about it and either allow discrimination for any reason, perhaps against only some disfavored minorities (not OK for blacks and Jews, OK for gays and Muslims...), or prohibit it - obviously my preference. The fact that some individuals base their bigotry on religion doesn't change anything meaningful in my view. Does it make sense for a straight up f*g hating homophobe to be required to serve someone but another business that claims a religious basis for essentially the same sentiment get a pass? That doesn't make any sense.
And I'm quite sure Chuck Shumer didn't support or propose the RFRA so that businesses could use religion as a means to discriminate in commerce, so I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. I can't imagine they anticipated that the inability to refuse service to homosexuals was a substantial burden for Christians engaged in a business open to the public.
I didn't say otherwise.
What I said was that a for-profit business calling themselves a "private club" does not automatically exempt themselves from Pubic Accommodation laws - which is different from what you said.
* Selective membership and admission policies, such policies cannot intended to evade Public Accommodation laws
* Bylaws and adherence to bylaws
* Membership control over governance, non-membership control will disqualify an entity from being exempt from Public Accommodation laws.
* A clear non-business statement of purpose, commercial or business directed purposes don't qualify for exemption from Public Accommodation laws
* Operation as a "non-profit" entity, "for-profit" activities will typically disqualify an entity from being exempt from Public Accommodation laws
* Advertisement and use of facilities, advertising availablity of resources typically will disqualify an entity from Pubic Accommodation laws
Private club legal definition of Private club
Of course you wouldn't be - you know it, we know it - if you're a normal human being, you're likely to rip his head off if given half a chance, so why make this pretense that it's morally neutral? Literally no one would conclude that if it was their loved one who wasn't saved.
Last edited by JasperL; 03-26-15 at 07:07 PM.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062, controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com
Wed February 26, 2014
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.