Connecticut is the first state to boycott Indiana, after that state’s new, discriminatory “Religious Freedom” law, which is uniquely bad.
Why “uniquely?” From that ThinkProgress piece:
Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”
Need a visual?
So atta boy, Dannel. On Monday, Our Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed an executive order banning state-funded travel to the Hoosier State, until the Hoosiers get their heads on right. He also suggested that the NCAA move the Final Four out of that state, and he’s not the only one encouraging that. And he’s not the only entity following up on that (go, Wilco!).
Nor is he the only elected official boycotting the state.
Of course, there is some blowback from boycotting, but sometimes, you’ve just got to take your marbles and play elsewhere. I understand this will hurt some good people in Indiana who don’t feel this law makes any kind of moral sense, but maybe then those good people will put pressure on the Indianans for whom this is perfectly acceptable. But we stand with the Indianapolis Star, which showed major guts when it printed this front page today:
Thanks, Mike the Heathen, for that link.
Baby Jesus is crying, Indiana.
I’m not generally a fan of ThinkProgress analyses, but I have to admit they do a pretty good job in that piece.
As for blowback, it is unfortunate, but considering Pence and Indiana RFRA misinformed the public as to the nature of the law, (they stated, among other things, that it “mirrored the federal RFRA”, which is a lie), I think the blowback could help spur some token response to assuage most concerns related to LGBT legal status.
Such token response, as discussed in the IndyStar editorial this morning, does nothing to address the most egregious bastardization of the federal RFRA, (and the Hobby Lobby ruling): the definition of “exercise of religion.” Without amending that to align with the federal RFRA definition, you still have a law that allows each conscience to be a law unto itself. You still have a uniquely bad law.
You’re right. I’ve read next-to-nothing about that.
That’s because the LGBT issues are sensational. They’re hot-button. They draw a lot of media attention, especially in social network, business and sports circles. But expanding suspect classification to “any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief” would have ramifications beyond the LGBT community.
Camille Beredjick at The Friendly Atheist lines up a few:
And providing some token protection of LGBT legal status in certain areas might not protect it in others.
Then there’s the reverse reaction…as illustrated here.
Federal RFRA protection against discrimination based on religion is meager as is. The exercise of religion as defined in the Indiana RFRA and some others is a Pandora’s Box of entropy.
“–Childcare ministries could revise protections for children in their care, potentially even altering the requirement of childcare workers to undergo background checks.”
Check this out:
Brodeur, the guy who proposed the doctors’-can’t-ask-about-guns-in-the-house bill, “has created legislation that will allow taxpayer-funded private agencies to deny kids parents for practically any reason. I give you PCB HHSC 15-03, the Conscience Protection for Private Child-Placing Agencies:
” …adoption services conscience protection within s. 409.175, F.S., to allow private child-placing agencies to object to performing, assisting in, recommending, consenting to, or participating in the placement of a child if a placement violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.
“The bill also protects the licensure, grants, contracts, and ability to participate in government programs for those agencies that object to performing adoption services required for the placement of a child if that placement violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”
Not at all surprising, really.
“I Am A Christian Business Owner in Indiana”
(not really, but check it out):
Also: Audra McDonald has a thing or two to say, as well:
Leave a comment