Say it ain't so, Jim Crow!

Indiana has just passed a bone-headed law--(signed by its bone-headed governor, Mike Pense, who I now refer to as "Dense Pense"). The loopy legislation is similar to a bill approved in 2014 by the Arizona state legislature (SB 1062)--which was then rightfully vetoed by Arizona’s often bone-headed governor, Jan Brewer. (Glory be).

Indiana's lunacy, like Arizona’s ill-fated version of same, would have institutionalized, legalized and sanctified overt discrimination against gays and lesbians in the name of “religious freedom.”

What's that I hear? Lordy, here comes the Squad for God:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNM5g2ARGyY
_____



My cartoon response to Indiana's officially offensive brand of Bible-brand bigotry:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1b19e62fd40d0b8dc81632c527f6ff50f2f5374e/c=17-0-3639-2723&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/03/31/Phoenix/Phoenix/635633962287161401-bensonCOLOR--Indiana-Gay-Bashing-03-31-15-copy.jpg
_____


Below is my introductory commentary to the above cartoon--which I write on a daily basis with the intent of hopefully “enlightening” the local readership (although it often doesn’t seem to work). Included are the opinions of readers from the attached commentary section :

“Déjà vu, 1062: 'Religious Freedom' Isn't Free: You Can't include ‘Freedom’ in the Name of a Law and Have It Do the Exact Opposite”

by Steve Benson,
"Arizona Republic"/azcentral.com
31 March 2015

“The Hoosier State finds itself battling a full court press from opponents of its newly passed "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," which prohibits state and local government from significantly impeding the ability of a person (along with religious associations, organizations and businesses, which apparently are also people), to practice their religious beliefs.

http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/30/70676890/

“Translated: If you're gay or lesbian and that personal reality violates someone else's personal religious views, then they don't have to afford you equal treatment under the law. Besides (so the argument goes), Indiana state law doesn't say its citizens can't discriminate against you because of your supposed anti-God gayness. Therefore, you lose; religion wins.

Holy moly.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/joannaallhands/2015/03/25/religious-discrimination-bill/70435926/

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-faces-uproar-veto-arizs-sb-avoided/70707346/

“As the outrage blossoms into a huge stink bomb, Indiana's Republican governor, Mike Pence, has repeatedly refused to give a straight answer to the direct question of whether the law permits discrimination against gays and lesbians. He's also vowed not to change the new law (although he's been hinting at maybe supporting passage of a second law that would be better-worded than the first).

“No deal.

“Convinced that, under the fluttering battle flag of religious faith, the law permits businesses to deny service to gays and lesbians in violation of their civil rights, gay activist groups are marshaling forces to get it repealed and, if that doesn't happen soon, to launch a full frontal assault of boycott bayonets.

"Time for Indiana to wake up and smell the desert roses. In 2014, Arizona faced a similar backlash when our illustrious state legislature passed SB 1062 and sent it to then-Republican governor Jan Brewer for her ballpoint blessing. In what some considered an act of God, she vetoed it— encouraged to do so by overwhelming resistance from state business organizations, the NFL and an array of civil rights groups.

“Fast forward to former Phoenix Suns forward, Charles Barkley, who, as usual, didn't pull any punches in driving the lane against Indiana's loopy law. ‘Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me,’ he said. ‘As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states' cities.’

“Like it or not, that's the unfolding playbook. So far, the NCAA has come out against the Indiana law, threatening to move future events elsewhere. The CEOs of Apple and Angie's List have denounced the law, with the latter suspending plans for a $40 million expansion of its Indianapolis headquarters. Seattle's mayor has banned the use of city funds for its employees to travel to Indiana. This ball is in danger of spinning out of control.

“If Indiana doesn't wise up and follow Arizona's example in sending this loser legislation to the lockers, think of the possibilities: For once, Arizona will be more progressive than at least one other state in the Union.

“That would indeed be a miracle."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/steve-benson/2015/03/31/1062-religious-freedom-isnt-free/70717042/
_____


Sidenote: I got a call today from an irate reader who said snarkily, “So, you haven’t read the [Indiana religious freedom] law, either.”

Actually, I have.

So has the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, which has “blasted” it, and is urging an immediate skinback for the sake of the state. (Can you say, “SB 1062, how do you do?”):

“Indiana Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Kevin Brinegar encourages state legislators to act swiftly and thoughtfully regarding national reaction to the state’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA):

“’Since late last week, we have urged state leaders that additional action is required. We communicated that a legislative fix must be significant and make it crystal clear that the law does not in any way open the door for discrimination of any kind toward any individual or group of individuals.Unfortunately, Indiana has taken a tremendous hit to its national identity as a welcoming and hospitable state. The business community is concerned about losing contracts and customers for a law that it did not support and did not want to see happen. Hoosier businesses want nothing more than to continue to serve their customers in the state, nationwide and beyond.”

“Background: The Indiana Chamber testified in opposition to the RFRA law and believes that it’s unwarranted.”

(“Chamber Encourages Swift, Meaningful Action on RFRA Law,” Indiana Chamber Homepage, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indianachamber.com%2F&ei=NhcbVcSaBvDIsASIyoJw&usg=AFQjCNGuBYN3xgnGoVwKx6XEwGA2xh_rjw&bvm=bv.89744112%2Cd.bGg; and “Indiana voices: Who supports, denounces religious freedom law,” CNN, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F03%2F31%2Fus%2Findiana-religious-freedom-discrimination-opinions%2F&ei=1BYbVeDiK7SNsQTN0YGADQ&usg=AFQjCNGzx4mcg1cu2wYYYKdDSRqgnWUBSg&bvm=bv.89744112%2Cd.bGg)


The not-exactly liberal folks at NASCAR have also come out, four square, against this rolling disaster:

“NASCAR has joined the growing number of businesses to criticize a controversial Indiana law that critics say allows discrimination against gay people.

“The nation's leading stock car racing organization, which is set to hold a major race Indianapolis in July, said Tuesday it's disappointed by the so-called religious freedom law signed last week by Gov. Mike Pence.

"’We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance," said NASCAR, which is based in Florida and North Carolina. "We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race.’”


Here’s a working (and ever-growing) list of prominent groups, organizations and indivuals voicing their opposition to Indiana's stupefyingly stupid piece of governer-certified loony legislation (SPOILER ALERT: This law is toast):

-“Starbucks: The coffee chain was the latest big name brand to publicly condemn the law on Monday.
‘We join with others opposing any state or federal legislation that permits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and encourage policymakers everywhere to embrace equality,’ Starbucks said in a statement.

-”Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy: Malloy took the unusual step Monday of signing an executive order forbidding state-funded travel to Indiana, saying his administration is ‘sending a message that discrimination won't be tolerated.’

-”Apple Tim Cook: In an op-ed published Sunday, Cook said such laws are ‘very dangerous’ and contrary to America's founding principles. ‘On behalf of Apple, I'm standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation," wrote Cook, who came out as gay last year.

-“Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle: The proposed campus expansion project in Indianapolis is ‘on hold’ following the bill's passage.

-”PayPal co-founder Max Levchin: Opposing the law is ‘a basic human decency issue,’ Levchin told CNN.
‘I'm asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they're thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that's getting signed into law,’ he said.

-“Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman: Yelp will ‘make every effort’ to expand its corporate operations in states that do not have such laws on the books. ‘These laws set a terrible precedent that will likely harm the broader economic health of the states where they have been adopted.’

-“Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff: The law is an ‘outrage,’ he said, and that his company will "dramatically reduce" its investments in Indiana.

-“Eli Lilly: ‘We certainly understand the implications this legislation has on our ability to attract and retain employees. Simply put, we believe discriminatory legislation is bad for Indiana and for business.’
Eli Lilly employs more than 11,700 workers in Indiana, mostly in Indianapolis.

-“NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever: ‘The game of basketball is grounded in long established principles of inclusion and mutual respect. We will continue to ensure that all fans, players and employees feel welcome at all NBA and WNBA events in Indiana and elsewhere.’

-“NCAA: ‘We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees.’

-“Gen Con: The people that run the video game convention said the law would ‘factor into our decision making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.’ Gen Con brought 56,000 people to the state last year, according to CEO Adrian Swartout.”

("NASCAR joins backlash over Indiana religious freedom law” CNN, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2015%2F03%2F31%2Fnews%2Findiana-religious-freedom-law%2F&ei=-jAbVdLKGIqkNseQg6gC&usg=AFQjCNFurtatMSOa_YhNS6a91YMO0IWQAg&bvm=bv.89381419,d.eXY)
_____


Additional sources on this unholy mess:

--azcentral, “Ind. Governor Battles Backlash Over 'Religious Freedom' Bill” (video) http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/30/70676890/


--azcentral, “Indiana Plans Language to 'Clarify' Religious Objections Law” http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/politics/2015/03/30/indiana-religious-freedom-law/70673778/


--USA Today, “Pence: 'Not Going to Dhange' Religious Freedom Law” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-gays-indiana/70628300/


--Dan Nowicki, “Indiana Faces Uproar that Arizona Avoided with SB 1062 Veto” http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-faces-uproar-veto-arizs-sb-avoided/70707346/


--Ed Montini, “Thanks(?) Indiana, for Being More Small-Minded than Us” http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ejmontini/2015/03/30/indiana-lgbt-discrimination-mike-pence-arizona-sb-1070-sb-1062/70641748/


--USA Today, “Charles Barkley comes out strongly against Indiana's 'religious freedom' law” http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/charles-barkley-indiana-religious-freedom-restoration-act


--USA Today, “Thousands Protest 'Religious Freedom' Law in Indiana” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/28/thousands-protest-religious-freedom-law-indy/70596032/


--NBC News, “Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law Sparks Protests, Boycotts” http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/indianas-religious-freedom-law-sparks-protests-boycotts-n331921



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2015 08:27PM by steve benson.

with a similar law?

the other laws prohibit the governments from prosecuting individuals for their religious beliefs.

this IN law protects businesses from being prosecuted for the owners imposing their religious beliefs on others.

the original intent of the bipartisan bill signed in 1993 was to prohibit state, federal and local governments from prosecuting Native Americans for using peyote, etc. in the practice of their religions.

"'Is the Controversial Indiana Law ‘the Same’ as a Law Backed by Obama?'

by Glenn Kessler
"Washington Post"
31 March 2015

"[Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on ABC’s 'This Week,' March 29, 2015 said]: 'After last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state Senator Barack Obama voted for in Illinois before our legislature. . . . Bill Clinton signed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Then-state Senator Barack Obama voted for it when he was in the state senate of Illinois. The very same language.'

"Numerous readers tweeted and e-mailed The Fact Checker asking for a ruling on whether the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in Indiana was the same as a bill supported by then-state-Sen. Barack Obama in 1998.

"Pence used this talking point twice while refusing four times to answer a direct question from host George Stephanopoulos about whether the law would permit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"As a practical matter, the two laws have similar titles but are not word for word the same. (Here are links to the Indiana version and the Illinois version.) Pence’s office did not respond to a query, but we will assume that Pence was arguing the laws were broadly similar with the same desired impact. Does he have a case?

"The Facts

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, was spurred by a Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man who sought unemployment benefits after losing his job because he had ingested peyote as part of a religious ceremony. The federal law was broadly supported in Congress, with then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) introducing the bill in the House.

"In 1997, the Supreme Court said the federal law did not apply to state laws, prompting many states such as Illinois to pass a state version. Before passage of the Indiana law, 19 states passed such laws while 11 more interpreted that their state constitutions already provide such protections. We checked the news clips on passage of the Illinois law and there was little controversy about it, though the governor objected to these rights being extended to prisoners; his partial veto was overridden.

"Since then, numerous plaintiffs have used the laws (generally known as RFRAs) to challenge government actions or activities that threaten their beliefs. Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at the Federalist who says the media has misrepresented the Indiana law, has compiled an interesting list of various plaintiffs who relied on RFRAs, including an Apache feather dancer permitted to keep eagle feathers and 40 churches in Chicago who unsuccessfully fought a zoning law that required a special permit for a church in business and commercial areas.

"In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences, and whether those are important can depend on the legal expert you consult.

"First, there is a section in the Indiana that clarifies that a 'person. can include a partnership, company, joint-stock company and other for-profit businesses. This language appears to be related to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the court ruled 5 to 4 that the federal RFRA protected family-owned companies from complying with the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

"Pence mentioned the Supreme Court case in his remarks, but it’s worth noting that generally such definitions of a 'person' are already in the U.S. Code under what is known as the Dictionary Act. So the practical effect may be minimal.

"Second, and potentially more important, the Indiana law has this section:

“'A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.'

"By contrast, the Illinois law says this:

"'If a person’s exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this Act, that person may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief against a government.'

"There are two important distinctions--the language saying the government does not need to be a party and the addition of 'likely' to be burdened.

"With one exception (Texas), the language regarding the government not needing to be a party does not appear in any other RFRA. But as Shruti Chaganti noted in an interesting 2013 article in the 'Virginia Law Review,' federal appeals courts have been split on whether the RFRA could be used in a private suit.

"The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 8th, 9th and D.C. Circuits have supported that right, but others have not. So Indiana, which is in the 7th Circuit, is making the right explicit, resolving that disputed issue expressly in favor of religious claimants. (The Illinois law only makes reference to being able to able to recover attorney’s fees and costs if a claim is upheld against a government, suggesting the possibility that law applied to suits between private parties.)

"Even so, there also are potentially important differences between Indiana and Texas. This is the Texas language:

“'A person whose free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of Section 110.003 may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.'

"The Indiana law has a potentially lower threshold--'likely to be substantially burdened'--while the Texas law also made clear that the RFRA does not trump existing civil rights law: 'Except as provided in Subsection (b), this chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or state civil rights law.'

"The Indiana law does not have such language on civil rights--and during debate over the bill, lawmakers voted down amendments to make clear that the law was not intended to foster discrimination.

“'This language is unusual and could mean that someone could file a lawsuit even if their religious exercise isn’t currently burdened or burdened in a significant manner,' said Eunice Rho of the American Civil Liberties Union, who said the language was 'curious.' She said the Texas law, by contrast, was drafted so that 'it cannot be used in a way that could jeopardize existing civil rights laws.'

In particular, some advocates of gay rights fear that the language in the Indiana law was crafted because of a New Mexico case in which a Christian photographer was fined after refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. The photography company tried to raise an RFRA defense, but the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected it on the grounds that it was a private dispute.

"This brings us to final distinction --the context in which the laws were crafted. We noted that the Illinois law was not especially controversial--but the Indiana law has been attacked as being anti-gay. One reason is that some advocates of the law have expressly said that it would allow businesses to refuse to support same-sex marriages. When Pence signed the law, the right-leaning group Advance America gave “three examples” of how the law would change Indiana:

“'Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!'

“'A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom!'

“'A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding!'

"Moreover, Indiana (unlike many other states, including Illinois) does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, though there are gay rights laws in the cities of Indianapolis, Bloomington and South Bend. The fact that lawmakers rejected anti-discrimination clauses added to the anxiety of gay-rights advocates. (In Georgia, when an anti-discrimination clause was successfully added to a proposed RFRA, advocates of the legislation pulled the bill entirely.)

"Yet in response to the outcry over the law, Indiana lawmakers on Monday pledged to alter it so it could not be used to discriminate against gays.

"Douglas Laycock is a University of Virginia Law School professor who supports a federal right to same-sex marriage and yet believes the controversy over the Indiana law has been overblown. He said Indiana should enact a gay rights law; he notes that the absence of one means it is currently not illegal in Indiana to refuse to serve gays. At the same time, he said, 'a state RFRA cannot exempt anyone from a Supreme Court decision requiring same-sex marriage as a matter of constitutional law.'

"Ultimately, the actual impact and meaning of the Indiana law will be determined by the courts. It is important to remember that RFRAs do not change existing laws; they only give plaintiffs a potential legal tool with which to make their case. But there are no guarantees they will be successful. Pence made this point in a Wall Street Journal opinion article that appeared Monday evening: 'RFRA only provides a mechanism to address claims, not a license for private parties to deny services.'

"The Pinocchio Test

"Pence might be on more solid ground to argue the similarity of the Illinois and Indiana laws if he had not repeatedly ducked questions about whether the law will permit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"If a governor is going to appear on national television, he needs to come prepared with an answer to an expected question. Advocates of the law have said the law will give new rights to Christian businesses that oppose same-sex marriage, and Pence should be able to explain whether he believes they are right or wrong. (In the Wall Street Journal, Pence still skirted the issue but personally was more forceful, saying, 'I abhor discrimination. . . . If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore.')

"Pence claimed the Indiana law was 'same version' and the 'very same language' as the Illinois version and, on a broad level, one can make a case that the two laws are roughly similar. But there are certainly some differences--which might become important as cases based on the law make their way through the courts. We wavered between One and Two Pinocchios, but lean toward One, given the uncertainty of the impact of these textual differences."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Ffact-checker%2Fwp%2F2015%2F03%2F31%2Fis-the-controversial-indiana-law-the-same-as-a-law-backed-by-obama%2F&ei=ynAbVaC9DIuXNpesgMAM&usg=AFQjCNHna4NgAbCxlV0hPsbc7prxxKR4kQ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2015 12:31AM by steve benson.

Hey Steve, the guy talking looks like a Bush and the first guy looks like Obama.

. . . you are familiar with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2015 07:47PM by steve benson.

What are they so afraid of? More revenue? Progress?

Right, having their calling and reelection made sure...

And we thought Evan Mecham was dum.

Your cartoon is so right on that it hurts.

I live very close to the Indiana state line. I work for a firm with many Indiana customers. When they call, usually bitching, I hafta bite my tongue to keep from yelling into the phone, "Okay, fine, our service stinks. But your guv'mint's a buncha walking rectums!"

Don't forget Arkansas. In a backhanded way, Asa Hutchinson has allowed anti-gay bill to become law by not signing it within a certain time frame. However, there is still a petition to try and get him to veto it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/23/that-anti-gay-bill-in-arkansas-actually-became-law-today-why-couldnt-activists-stop-it/

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/governor-asa-hutchinson.fb50?source=s.fb&r_by=1789354

Unbelievable:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1549959

Isn't that from a song dedicated to Joseph Smith?

Oh wait, nevermind.....
I'm thinking of "Missouri Wants Me, Lord I can't go back there".
Or is it, "Ohio Wants Me"?