TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

Incognito wrote: Well the situation would also apply for businesses (instead of just consumers) if you consider madams, brothels, and pimps and whether they should morally be allowed to discriminate based on physical appearance when hiring prostitutes for their place of business.

That's where the non-controvertial precedents of modeling, actors, etc. come in - basically you are allowed to discriminate against even protected classes when selecting for a "boni fide qualification" of the job:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

Modeling agencies for menswear can only hire male models, a religious school may require its teachers profess belief. There is legal precedent for this generally, and in the particular case of sex appeal:

"Customer preference can 'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided." - in the trial in question the issue was whether an airline could choose to hire only women as flight attendants, their defense was that it conformed to the preferences of their customers. The court found in their case that the alleged customer preference did not amount to a bona fide occupational qualification - however in the ruling clarified that sex appeal could be a BFOQ in some other domain - such as criterion for being a model at a Playboy Club.

The legal opinion makes for fascinating reading, if nothing else to show how bananas Southwest Airline's marketing was in the late 70s/early 80s:

casetext.com/case/wilson-v-southwest-airlines-co

Chip Bowles wrote:

bpsymington wrote: That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Very Happy after UK victory (over a certain team from Indiana ) and to quote the Gov:

I hope that dislike of this law in Indiana doesn't lead people to apply that dislike to all of Indiana, it's residents, and it's businesses and organizations. I'm a proud resident of Indiana, and I'd say that the vast majority of Businesses and Residents of Indiana do not support discrimination. I don't see the logic of letting the dislike (or even hatred) of this law lead someone to root against Indiana sports teams, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Law and almost certainly won't be discriminating against anyone as a result of the Law.

Not in response to this particular post, but I've seen an unfortunate tendency in numerous forums and articles to paint all of Indiana as Discriminatory and Bigots because of this law, which is not accurate or fair. If there is any actual discrimination as a result of this law, I think it will be much more the exception than the rule. And I hope there is follow-on Legislation to prevent any discrimination from happening, as Gov. Pence has indicated, as a result of the firestorm of criticism which he somehow seems not to have anticipated.

Regarding the Law itself, I do have some mixed feelings. In the case of someone like a Wedding planner, wedding cake producer, etc, I can see the case to allow them to decline to participate in a wedding that they do not approve of based on their religion, especially if there are other alternative sources available. I don't see any possible justification for someplace like a restaurant to deny service based on any criteria such as religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., and I'd have a hard time seeing a court supporting that even with this law. I'd be VERY surprised if there were any downtown Indianapolis restaurants, bars, theaters, etc. that deny any services to anyone based on this law.

And, of course, I could never root for Kentucky in basketball. I dearly hope that they are denied their undefeated season. I'll even root for Duke if it comes to that.

Mike Steele wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote:

bpsymington wrote: That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Very Happy after UK victory (over a certain team from Indiana ) and to quote the Gov:

I hope that dislike of this law in Indiana doesn't lead people to apply that dislike to all of Indiana, it's residents, and it's businesses and organizations. I'm a proud resident of Indiana, and I'd say that the vast majority of Businesses and Residents of Indiana do not support discrimination. I don't see the logic of letting the dislike (or even hatred) of this law lead someone to root against Indiana sports teams, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Law and almost certainly won't be discriminating against anyone as a result of the Law.

...

And, of course, I could never root for Kentucky in basketball. I dearly hope that they are denied their undefeated season. I'll even root for Duke if it comes to that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on not hating a fine state or its citizens because their Politicians pass stupid/evil laws. If everyone did that, everyone would hate everyone.

Also, 7 years at UK(under graduate and law school) as well as growing up in fanatical Wildcat makes me a follower of the Kats. ND played their best game of the year and only lost to a Iron wall of 3 stops at the end and clutch shot. Making fun of Digger's pre game remarks only. GO BIG BLUE!!!

Do not mind folks rooting against UK, but pleeaze, rooting for the dukkies!!!!, that is uncalled for sir Hashtag Iproudlyhatelatner

Chip Bowles wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote:

bpsymington wrote: That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Very Happy after UK victory (over a certain team from Indiana ) and to quote the Gov:

I hope that dislike of this law in Indiana doesn't lead people to apply that dislike to all of Indiana, it's residents, and it's businesses and organizations. I'm a proud resident of Indiana, and I'd say that the vast majority of Businesses and Residents of Indiana do not support discrimination. I don't see the logic of letting the dislike (or even hatred) of this law lead someone to root against Indiana sports teams, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Law and almost certainly won't be discriminating against anyone as a result of the Law.

...

And, of course, I could never root for Kentucky in basketball. I dearly hope that they are denied their undefeated season. I'll even root for Duke if it comes to that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on not hating a fine state or its citizens because their Politicians pass stupid/evil laws. If everyone did that, everyone would hate everyone.

Also, 7 years at UK(under graduate and law school) as well as growing up in fanatical Wildcat makes me a follower of the Kats. ND played their best game of the year and only lost to a Iron wall of 3 stops at the end and clutch shot. Making fun of Digger's pre game remarks only. GO BIG BLUE!!!

Do not mind folks rooting against UK, but pleeaze, rooting for the dukkies!!!!, that is uncalled for sir Hashtag Iproudlyhatelatner

I remember watching the movie 2010 in a theater in Bloomington. There was a line mentioning Kentucky basketball. I'd say about half the audience booed.

Just too much history to not root against UK.

That and having to listen to my uncle, the UK grad...

I agree with Mike (again!)

Here's a scenario: imagine you work at a clothing store. A man walks in with his crying daughter.

He calmly says she's been bad, and threw his belt away, among other things. He needs you to help him to buy another so he can spank her with it. As far as you know, his intended use fits within your local laws as you understand them. She looks into your eyes and whispers, "please, don't."

So, what do you do?

And let's get this out of the way: wanting to marry someone is certainly not the same as wanting to beat someone. Please don't go down that path, because I'm sure I'll agree with everything you'd say on that point. That isn't the question. It's simple: Do you have a right to discriminate against him based on your differing opinions on child rearing? SHOULD you have that right? Either way, should you sell the belt? Note, these are all simple yes-or-no questions.

Do you want more info on the kid or the "bad things" she did? You don't get any, because just asking the question is admission that sometimes you would discriminate and sometimes you wouldn't, based in the degree to which you disagree. So, if you want more data or you want to say "maybe," you're really saying "yes-yes-no." Just assume the worst case where all answers you get assure you that the planned beating will be legal, but you still don't agree with it at all.

Druegar wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the folks complaining about "the horrible gays trampling on their religious freedom" suddenly sour to the idea when the tables are turned on them. E.g., they think it's fine for a Christian to not provide flowers for a lesbian couple's wedding because their particular faith thinks homosexuality is a horrific sin, but if a Muslim tailor refused to make a woman an "immodest" dress, something must be done to prevent this horrible injustice from happening!

"Strongly held personal beliefs" is a two-edged sword, not an axe that can only be used against LGBTs.

100% agree with you here, I do find that most people's beliefs on these matters are biased towards their own morality. Obviously it is a natural thing for people to do, but when one starts telling others how to live or proposing laws I personally would expect them to look at it from all angles, not just their own.

I think I said it already on this thread, but I think the best way to shut down this law (for those who want to) would be to get a coalition of non-Christian businesses to start refusing to serve Christians. It would make for good entertainment at the least (sorry, these are the kinds of things that entertain me, besides True Dungeon!).

Incognito wrote: At the end of the day, I think it comes down to "majority privilege" (which can equally apply when a minority group has dominant political power).

I think this is the common phrase: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Incognito wrote: Similar criticisms can be levied against Islamic hypocrisies in Muslim countries, or Judaism in Israel, etc.

I think one of the most interesting countries I have visited is Malaysia. It is a Muslim country but only about 60% of the people are Muslim, the rest are Hindu, Christian, Athiest, etc. In that country the Muslim laws only apply to Muslims. So I can totally bang a woman on the street legally, but if I was Muslim I'd be in deep trouble.

It does have a restriction on free speech designed to stop their history of intense internal religious conflict: it is illegal to disparage another religion. Obviously the pros and cons of such a rule would lead to a bigger thread than this one

Incognito wrote: One of the things that always amused me by all the anti-same-sex marriage efforts (bans, voiding valid instances, not recognizing those from other states) is that it sets a dangerous precedent in that one day, if the demographics shift and you have a homosexual majority population, then they would have an "equal right" to ban, void, and not recognize heterosexual marriages. Of course, many religious extremists can't even fathom such a scenario so they don't truly understand the implications (or they use cognitive dissonance to try to explain things away because they are such a really special snowflake!).

I agree. Part of me wishes that "professionals" like lawyers (who make up the bulk of the politicians) have the training and logical ability to think things like this through, but instead I think they just focus on the short term. I am, by nature, a very long-term thinker, so before I could even support a law I have to think about it much more than just how it affects me in the short term. The question to me is: how does it affect everybody in the country now and indefinitely into the future. When the government has the right and power to control romantic relationships it is plausible that such power could one day swing in a direction you don't agree with.

That's why I find my politics don't line up well with 99% of people: I realize that using the legal system and government can seem great as long as it is done exactly how you want it... but the reality is (with politics) that it never will happen that way.

Matthew Hayward wrote: That's where the non-controvertial precedents of modeling, actors, etc. come in - basically you are allowed to discriminate against even protected classes when selecting for a "boni fide qualification" of the job:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

And the interesting thing is that there is literally an infinite supply of possible exceptions, and to each hiring person/company that exception could seem totally reasonable.

Some other corner cases where many would think it is reasonable to discriminate on hiring: only hiring a woman for a nanny, only hiring white people to staff your KKK memoribilia store, only hiring straight people to staff your anti-homosexual political action group.

Personally I also find interesting the dramatic legal implications of "hiring" somebody. For example, if you knock on the door of my house I can not let you in for any reason at all. If I call a plumbing company out and I don't like something about the plumber (e.g. race) I could still not let him/her in. But (I think) if I was looking to hire a live-in house cleaner then I could be sued for discrimination for those same reasons.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I agree with Mike (again!)

Here's a scenario: imagine you work at a clothing store. A man walks in with his crying daughter.

He calmly says she's been bad, and threw his belt away, among other things. He needs you to help him to buy another so he can spank her with it. As far as you know, his intended use fits within your local laws as you understand them. She looks into your eyes and whispers, "please, don't."

So, what do you do?

And let's get this out of the way: wanting to marry someone is certainly not the same as wanting to beat someone. Please don't go down that path, because I'm sure I'll agree with everything you'd say on that point. That isn't the question. It's simple: Do you have a right to discriminate against him based on your differing opinions on child rearing? SHOULD you have that right? Either way, should you sell the belt? Note, these are all simple yes-or-no questions.

Do you want more info on the kid or the "bad things" she did? You don't get any, because just asking the question is admission that sometimes you would discriminate and sometimes you wouldn't, based in the degree to which you disagree. So, if you want more data or you want to say "maybe," you're really saying "yes-yes-no." Just assume the worst case where all answers you get assure you that the planned beating will be legal, but you still don't agree with it at all.

That's a very good analogy Brad. Let's take it one step further. For the Christian baker that sees same sex marriage as a sin, forcing them to bake a cake for such a celebration would be like forcing them to participate in beating the child in your example.

Even supporting what they believe to be a sin is the same as committing the sin in the eyes of many Christians.

Chip Bowles wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote:

bpsymington wrote: That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Very Happy after UK victory (over a certain team from Indiana ) and to quote the Gov:

I hope that dislike of this law in Indiana doesn't lead people to apply that dislike to all of Indiana, it's residents, and it's businesses and organizations. I'm a proud resident of Indiana, and I'd say that the vast majority of Businesses and Residents of Indiana do not support discrimination. I don't see the logic of letting the dislike (or even hatred) of this law lead someone to root against Indiana sports teams, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Law and almost certainly won't be discriminating against anyone as a result of the Law.

...

And, of course, I could never root for Kentucky in basketball. I dearly hope that they are denied their undefeated season. I'll even root for Duke if it comes to that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on not hating a fine state or its citizens because their Politicians pass stupid/evil laws. If everyone did that, everyone would hate everyone.

Also, 7 years at UK(under graduate and law school) as well as growing up in fanatical Wildcat makes me a follower of the Kats. ND played their best game of the year and only lost to a Iron wall of 3 stops at the end and clutch shot. Making fun of Digger's pre game remarks only. GO BIG BLUE!!!

Do not mind folks rooting against UK, but pleeaze, rooting for the dukkies!!!!, that is uncalled for sir Hashtag Iproudlyhatelatner

Chip, ordinarily I'd never root for Duke, they are the "Patriots" of college basketball to me. But I'll root for them for one day only to keep Kentucky from a perfect season.

[/quote]

Chip, ordinarily I'd never root for Duke, they are the "Patriots" of college basketball to me. But I'll root for them for one day only to keep Kentucky from a perfect season. [/quote]


On other news, the Governor is "shocked" that anyone would see this bill as "encouraging discrimination" and wants it amended to reflect its "true intent". I have an Easy fix: SB101 is repealed

Chip Bowles wrote:

On other news, the Governor is "shocked" that anyone would see this bill as "encouraging discrimination" and wants it amended to reflect its "true intent". I have an Easy fix: SB101 is repealed

Given that the General Assembly passed a bill in 2014 intended to facilitate a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and given some of the rhetoric from proponents of this bill, I'm shocked that he finds it shocking.