Women’s College Basketball Could Change Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law

[Canicken]

http://www.newsweek.com/womens-college-basketball-could-change-indianas-religious-freedom-law-319861

 

[EricLA]

I imagine the law will be repealed or amended prior to the 2016 FF, but it will be interesting to follow the progress...

 

[Canicken]

I agree that it will likely, and rightfully change before then.

When it does, it will set an interesting precedent for future host sites.

 

[UcMiami]

This is of course not unique - any state that chooses to pass laws that become significant outliers face similar issues - NJ with college sports books took themselves out of any NCAA sanctioned tournament hosting, AZ with their immigration legislation suffered significant loss of corporate event hosting, Arkansas governor vetoed the first version of their RF law because of the backlash from business interests relative to their own and Indiana's law.

On a personal level - I find things like an actor's affiliation with a wacko religion to affect my willingness to watch their movies - two male stars now fall into that category.

I think the Indiana law will be modified to bring it in line with other states that do already have versions of RF laws (FL being one) and if that does happen, the NCAA action will be just a small part of the reason - more importantly are corporate interests that are pulling business from the state or have threatened to as well as states that have banned employee travel.

It is interesting that strong 'moral' stands are often soften by financial considerations.

 

[Icebear]

The law already underwent major additions and limitations over the weekend.

"The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It goes much further than a "preamble" that was proposed earlier in the week, and, if it stands, would be the first time any protections against discrimination have been extended to gays and lesbians in state law. But it doesn't go as far as establishing gays and lesbians as a protected class of citizens statewide or repealing the law outright, both things that Republican leaders have said they could not support."

 

[DobbsRover2]

Hopefully the amendments and passage of a revised RFA means that there will not be any attempts to undermine the stipulations. I'm guessing that Stanford, UTenn, Maryland and possibly even Notre Dame would have joined a move of next year's FF if the law had not been revised, and that the NCAA would have complied. There is still a lot of questions hovering around the RFA in Indiana, however, especially when you have perhaps the main proponent of the original version of the RFA justifying his push for discriminatory actions with this "equal opportunity discrimination" position"

​

 

[brooke84z]

Gov. Malloy lifted the ban Saturday.

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-hartford-malloy-lifts-indiana-travel-ban-20150404-story.html

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The law already underwent major additions and limitations over the weekend.

"The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It goes much further than a "preamble" that was proposed earlier in the week, and, if it stands, would be the first time any protections against discrimination have been extended to gays and lesbians in state law. But it doesn't go as far as establishing gays and lesbians as a protected class of citizens statewide or repealing the law outright, both things that Republican leaders have said they could not support."

That's the solution that I wanted. As things stand, if I go to the Final Four next year I think I'll stay in Cincinnati and not spend any money in Indiana and encourage my friends to do the same.

 

[mysticmajor]

It definitely changed how I view Indiana. Very unfortunate.

 

[uconnfan68]

The law already underwent major additions and limitations over the weekend.

"The compromise legislation specifies that the new religious freedom law cannot be used as a legal defense to discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It goes much further than a "preamble" that was proposed earlier in the week, and, if it stands, would be the first time any protections against discrimination have been extended to gays and lesbians in state law. But it doesn't go as far as establishing gays and lesbians as a protected class of citizens statewide or repealing the law outright, both things that Republican leaders have said they could not support."

They (and no one else) would need to be a protected class if we had 1 law saying no discrimination at all, for any reason. Humanity before religion and politics.

 

[stamfordhusky]

As the Washington Post and others have pointed out, 19 other states plus the federal government have laws similar to the Indiana law. The federal one was signed by Bill Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

 

[JS]

As the Washington Post and others have pointed out, 19 other states plus the federal government have laws similar to the Indiana law. The federal one was signed by Bill Clinton.

That article and other claims of "similarity" to existing laws have been debunked by numerous legal authorities.

The law was amended a few days ago, and an Arkansas version withdrawn, because of the backlash against a crucial difference: the ability of a business to use the law as a shield against a private discrimination lawsuit, rather than against government action.

Since these resolutions have occurred, can we please refrain from debating the merits of the (former) law? We're trying mightily to keep the discussion of this topic focused on the basketball connection.

 

[bruinbball]

Article was written April 6th, while the amendment to 'fix' the issue was passed and signed on April 2nd. I still don't like that Indiana has refused to make sexual orientation a protected class, but in a state that is still fighting against the ability for two adults of the same sex to get married despite several court ruling allowing just that, I am not surprised.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...l-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/

Selfishly, I was hoping this would not bar me from seeing UConn here in the Final Four next year. I'm not sure the amendment was enough, but with a super-majority in Indiana, I doubt it is altered any further.

 

[ndmb]

They (and no one else) would need to be a protected class if we had 1 law saying no discrimination at all, for any reason. Humanity before religion and politics.

I don't know that the word discrimination there works as a catch-all, which is why we have a historical practice of defining protected classes. Geno has a long history of discriminating against prospects that are short and unathletic, and I don't think most people have a problem with restaurants discriminating against patrons who are loud and unruly. There are always going to be moral gray areas in between those cases and Indiana, which is why it's important to codify specific protections.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I don't know that the word discrimination there works as a catch-all, which is why we have a historical practice of defining protected classes. Geno has a long history of discriminating against prospects that are short and unathletic, and I don't think most people have a problem with restaurants discriminating against patrons who are loud and unruly. There are always going to be moral gray areas in between those cases and Indiana, which is why it's important to codify specific protections.

Indeed, and the Indiana pro-unrestricted-RFA have been pushing the idea that discrimination on one's professed religious beliefs is not really discrimination but just religious freedom. And that is why the amendments were needed, so this kind of "we're just practicing our kind of religion that sees LBGT as morally objectionable" does not find a legal protection in one's ability to refuse basic commercial and social services to others. Back in the 1950s there was a group of religious leaders who used the same tactics down south to defend Jim Crow actions which they said could be justified from their readings of their holy texts. Just doesn't wash anymore.

And as to the "short and unathletic" (or slow) charge against Geno, I'm going to sic Maria on you and make you see the error of your ways.

 

[meyers7]

Gov. Malloy lifted the ban Saturday.

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-hartford-malloy-lifts-indiana-travel-ban-20150404-story.html

Good, he finally came to his senses.

 

[JS]

Seems the thread has reached the inevitable point.

Oh well, I think there's a game on the schedule tonight.