Indiana has the distinction of becoming the first state this year to enact a "right to discriminate" law, otherwise known as a religious "freedom" law, after Republican Gov. Mike Pence
signed the legislation in a private ceremony Thursday.
It's only fitting that a chosen few people got to witness the signing because that's exactly who the law will benefit—a chosen few. Anyone who is a minority of any kind (e.g. religious, person of color, etc.) or marginalized in any way (e.g. poor, female, etc.) could be negatively impacted by this law, which seeks to elevate the rights of "religious" folks above all others.
As we noted before, this law will allow private businesses, individuals and organizations to discriminate anywhere at any time against any person they so choose based on religious grounds, so long as that discrimination is not prohibited by federal law. To be clear, state law cannot supersede protections provided by federal law, but any discrimination that remains uncovered (which certainly includes, but is not limited to, sexual orientation and gender identity) will be legal in Indiana.
Gov. Pence denied that the bill promoted discrimination.
"This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," he said.
Yet, here's how one Republican Indiana lawmaker
imagined it working during debate of the bill:
Rep. Bruce Borders, R-Jasonville, spoke about an anesthesiologist who didn't want to anesthetize a woman in preparation for an abortion. Borders said he believes the Bible's command to "do all things as unto the Lord" means religious believers need to be protected not just in church, but in their workplaces as well.
For more on the effects of this law, head below the fold.
Again, many minorities will continue to be protected by laws like the Civil Right Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the point is, holes do exist in federal law. And where there are holes, there will be mischief and it will not work to the advantage of marginalized groups.
Here's another potential example floated to me by a constitutional law scholar: federal law does not cover sex discrimination in places of public accommodation (i.e. businesses). So what if, as a matter of one's religion, some business owner decided they didn't like the commingling of the sexes. In Indiana, now, they could presumably say, women can't shop here, eat here, whatever, because it offends my religious beliefs. That would now seemingly be permissible by Indiana law and not covered by federal law.
I, and many others I know, are at a total loss for why there isn't a national strategy to combat this. (I wrote about this lack of leadership and a possible strategy—and am promoting it again in this post to spark conversation). As I said in that post, we need to start playing offense, not just defense.
The LGBTQ group GetEQUAL launched an offensive earlier this month with their call for a full federal LGBTQ bill of rights.
BUT...
• Why aren't there weekly phone calls to brief reporters on these bills, what they mean, and where they stand in different legislatures? There's a boatload of them progressing through the states now, and there should be regular briefings that make the information easily accessible to reporters.
• Why isn't there a unified coalition of progressive groups (not just LGBT groups), raising the alarm bells about these bills?
• And why isn't there a brawny call to arms with a national media campaign that demonstrates what LGBT discrimination looks like to the American people?
In my mind, this responsibility falls to the Human Rights Campaign—the most muscular and well-funded organization among the LGBT groups. It's time to step up.
