Only a year has passed since Indiana put forward its controversial 'religious objections' law that essentially legitimized discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation within the state. But already, there's action within the Indiana's senate to suggest amends are attempting to be made between law makers and the LGBT community. With the new bill advancing thru the state's senate, all of the restrictions formerly stated would be rendered illegal, a significant move in the bitter relationship between Indiana and the LGBT community. However, with this taken into account, this bill would ultimately fail in outlawing discrimination based on gender identity, excluding much of the transgender community from protection under the law. In addition to this, the bill also saves accommodations for small businesses, religious groups as well as adoption agencies within the state. Surprising to some, the Republican-led committee is also motioning to make an amend to the bill that would repeal the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A bill that was widely criticized for too carefully protecting freedom of speech for religious groups.
Obviously there is much debate within the state of Indiana regarding the recent legislative actions. Curt Smith, president of the rather conservative India Family Institute, requested to the senate, "Please, please, please do not", in reference to passing the bill. On the other end of the spectrum, campaign manager for an LGBT advocacy group, Freedom Indiana, Chris Paulsen asserted that, "It's not right to leave the transgender community out. We're moving backwards... We need full protections. While both men do have the right to their own opinion, America is in fact the land of the free. And under the Constitution, it is essential that all citizens are to be equally protected under the law of the land. Morally righteous or not, it seems as if allowing the LGBT community to feel comfortable at home is the lawful and constitutionally just thing to do in this situation. It is rather hypocritical for a nation to refer to itself as the protector of freedom, but then not provide true freedom for all of its citizens. Of course this is much easier said than done. It's also fair to look at the perspective of the very conservative individual in this instance as well. Many feel that if they are in fact free, they should have the freedom to choose who and who they don't provide their services to.
The Indiana Congress still has to vote on the bill.
Is this bill advancing through the Indiana senate enough? Should disputes such as this be under the full jurisdiction of the national government? Should the state have even been able to pass the 'religious objections' to begin with?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/28/indiana-advances-bill-to-repeal-religious-objections-law.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Indiana-StateSeal.svg/2000px-Indiana-StateSeal.svg.png
9 comments:
In-State disputes of discrimination shall always be resolved in-state if it does not interfere with interstate commerce. Of course, this is the underlying problem with determining state jurisdiction of laws regarding discrimination. The Federal government must decide whether or not the Religious Objection Law has affects the surrounding states. I have no idea, in that aspect, of whether or not this case specifically should be dealt with on a Federal level. Under no circumstances, however, should the national government change Indiana State Law without proving that it has jurisdiction in the first place. There are rights reserved to Indiana and its people, regardless if it decides to perpetuate bigotry with its power. On the other hand, I do believe that it is the right of the Federal Government to protect the rights of minorities in all states, so I am all for a bill that prevents legislation similar to Indiana's from being passed. But right now, this dispute should be resolved by Indiana only.
Obviously the religious objections law was a step backwards for Indiana last year, and that this upcoming bill would start to be the end of that backwards progress, but I believe that the bill is still not enough in terms of protections for human rights. The idea that lawful discrimination still exists in the "land of the free" is just mind boggling to me, and as you said, hypocritical for the nation. The fact that religious objections law passed last year just shows how discrimination still exists in our nation, even today.
Even if we don't take these human rights for freedom into account, the religious objections law lost Indiana almost 60 million dollars last year after it was passed due to the fact that different venues hosted their conventions elsewhere, out of protest. So for the conservative Indiana residents, they need to take this into account as well. This is very much so interstate commerce, so contrary to what 2CHAINZ has said, this issue could be resolved by the national government instead of in-state.
http://mashable.com/2016/01/26/indianas-religious-objection-tourism/#_0BJKh9aX8qd
It is most definitely good to hear that this ridiculous law is likely to be repealed. As "King Pash" said, it is hypocritical that America, which is a nation that prides itself in freedom, would allow for such blatant discrimination. I find it very difficult to see the issue from the conservative point of view who say that it violates their own freedoms for not being able to decide who they provide their services to. Providing services to one group and not another is discrimination. Here is an interesting quote from one of these conservatives: "If you vote for these bills, you will be sending a message to the citizens of Indiana that share my beliefs about marriage that they will not be tolerated," said Barronelle Stutzman. I do find it concerning that the transgender community is excluded from the repeal; however, slightly devaluing its significance. I think it's important to note that the bill's repeal is far from certain. Indiana's Governor Mike Pence (R) said that he will do everything to prioritize religious freedom over LGBT rights. In addition to violating human rights, the law has caused a hard hit to the economy of $60 million last year due to a decline in tourism. I am not sure, but I think that this is a state issue since it is regarding a specific state law. However, if the federal government were to pass a law that essentially negated this law, per the Supremacy Clause, the federal law would go into effect over the Indiana law.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/indiana-senate-poised-lgbt-rights-bills-36541017
http://fusion.net/story/261222/indiana-religious-freedom-law-60-million/
2Chainz stated that this dispute should be resolved by Indiana only, however, I disagree. These discriminatory laws are directly undermining the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages. The reasons the Supreme Court stated for allowing same-sex couples apply to these laws and therefore make it illegal for the states to commit these acts. The Supreme Court argued that "the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children". By allowing discrimination against transgenders, housing authority is denying these transgender families their right to build a home. The Supreme Court has decided that the LGBT community is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Denying transgenders these rights is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause. "The Court also held that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry on the same terms as those for opposite-sex couples". By allowing religious institutions to discriminate against the LGBT community, the laws are ignoring the principle and essence of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court does not reject religions from having their beliefs, they are simply not allowed to deny same-sex couples their rights. By allowing religious institutions to be discriminatory, the state is allowing these religious groups to deny the LGBT community their rights.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
I agree with 2CHAINZ in that this definitely should be solved within state. Although it may be easier for the Federal government to step in and tell them to stop, the bill should go through due process of law in order to preserve the integrity of the law system. I do think that the bill is unconstitutional, infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, but it should go through the court system until it gets struck down. Hopefully it will get struck down sooner rather than later, but who knows. The perpetuation of hate caused by bills like this is awful, and I think the country would be a better place if everybody realized that a person's religion of sexual identification does not effect their ability to be a happy and helpful person.
The notion of this bill even being presented to the Indiana senate is a step backwards. Gay marriage was legalized within the last year and the LGBT community has made enormous strides in terms of gaining equality in recent years. I think that this jurisdiction should be under the state’s control just as gay marriage is. The Federal Government legalized it but the individual states are the ones upholding the notions. This should be up to the digression of the state of Indiana to decide. While it is absurd to take these counter-productive steps away from equality; the state of Indiana is reserved that right. I would have to agree with the idea that people should have the freedom to choose who and who they don’t provide their services to. I agree with this because there are varied levels of acceptances for different social situations in different states and across the nation. States should hold the right to have freedom of interpretation of religious rules passed previously by Congress.
It pains me to know that this "Religious Objections" law, like any other discrimination law, was ever passed. As "King Pash" and "Ally" said, for America to deserve the title "Land of the Free" such discrimination must be outlawed. I do not think that the state should have been allowed to pass this law in the first place, but it is good that they are so quickly realizing their mistake. This law should stay within state jurisdiction until someone appeals to the Supreme Court. This is because this law just concerns the people of the state of Indiana; federal involvement would only be appropriate if an additional state was involved. Of course, if the new bill is not passed at the state level I would sincerely hope and encourage the LGBTQ community to appeal to the Supreme Court because their constitutional right are absolutely being violated. The argument that conservatives are making, that if they were free they would be allowed to choose who they provide their services to, is invalid because their "speech" would be violating that constitutional rights of another person. Technically, one is allowed to do as he/she wishes so long as the freedoms and rights of another are not impaired. Therefore, the Indiana state government should pass this new bill as quickly as possible as well as add to bill the protection of the transgender community because, until they do so, they are violating the rights of many of the state's citizens.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/indiana-senate-poised-lgbt-rights-bills-36541017
It seems that no matter how hard you work to convince people that everyone deserves freedoms, even after all this country has gone through, we still have issues of individuals who assume others are less than them. No person should be denied their right to anything, and this is no exception. Indiana made a mistake in passing the original bill, and it's good that they are trying to reverse some of the effects. I don't think it is enough in the end, though, and that more needs to be done. I think this issue should just be settled in the state, though, because if others on the outside of the state get involved, things might get messy and it might not turn out well. In fact, it might make the situation even worse. I think that they should continue to undo the harmful effects that they put forth before and send a message to the other states that they made a mistake and that no one else should try anything similar.
I agree with Ally and King Pash that this bill is moving backwards rather than forwards and creating a country where the civil rights movements and great social justice laws that have been passed over the past few decades suddenly become null in one state because of some people's personal beliefs. This reminds of the Fed Ten papers written by Madison regarding factions and their rise in a nation. He said that while they cannot be completely annihilated they can at least be controlled. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is in my eyes an example of a faction rising and imposing its will on a majority. The government is separate from religion and while it guarantees that religious views will not be attacked it is equally unfair to impose these views upon other groups. Commerce falls under the rule of the federal government and even private businesses must adhere to some federal laws. To me there has become a strange tendency recently where people feel a need to label. Trump wanted Muslims to be in a database and for those in Indiana they somehow want to be able to turn away customers by judging their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a private matter as are religious views and many other freedoms that are protected by the constitution. The bill passed last year was an example of not even a country failing to prevent discrimination, but promoting it. I believe the new bill is necessary and a good step forward but it is not enough. I find the whole idea repulsive that government can encourage discrimination as if we are going back to the 1960s. This shouldn't be a debate because it never should have happened in the first place and I think we'll look back at this piece of history and feel shame.
Post a Comment