If you can't stand the heat, turn off the Bible

It seems the "Religious" Freidom Fighters cannot contain their self-righteous indignation at the boycotts their discrimination doubtlessly inspire. The potential GenCon boycott was just too much for one gaming granny:
  • You know, after thinking about this for a day, and listening to all the misinformed bumper sticker mentality from one sided people, I have made a decision. I have four grandsons. I love my Zelda games and I have some fond memories of playing Zelda with my son, and my husband playing Mario with him. This has continued with my grandsons. They have ALL the skylanders. One set for each. We just got a 3ds for my one grandson and a Wii U for the other, and my older grandson and I just worked our way through Majora's Mask and were looking forward to Hyrule Warriors next. But guess what? We're going to find something else fun to do, like go out bike riding, because no one pushes their one sided political opinions down our throats doing that, and no one tries to force us to believe what they do bike riding. So enjoy your convention Gen Con. You just lost a lot of money from this household because of your intolerance of ALL people's rights, not just the ones you happen to agree with. You attacked my home and you attacked my people. I will not give your industry another penny.
    ~So Mad I Could Ride a Bicycle in Greenville

    [For those of you who are not from the Midwest, so mad you could ride a bicycle is like the most forserious! If it can't be done by car, it cannot be done. If you want to borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbor, you drive next door. Except maybe if Armageddon happened, like the real one, not the armagayddon we connipt over; no Hoosier is going to lynch a gay with a bicycle. Unless he's is the one on the bicycle... Riding a bicycle in Indiana is, in a word, queer.]
  • You could read the Bible instead; that would show em real good like! Maybe spend some time to reflect on your thoughts too. Like how is it that one person can believe that,

    ALL AT THE SAME TIME

    1) it is perfectly justified for businesses to refuse service from customers who they disagree with, but

    2) it is an outrageous attack on your race and fatherland if customers refuse businesses they disagree with, unless

    3) it is you who is the customer who is refusing business on ideological grounds?

    If you do read the Bible in protest, you will find numerous passages where Jesus says "Hypocrites burn in Hell" and "Burn in Hell, Hypocrites" (more or less). You will also find a couple of passages where Jesus says "If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them" and "But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you...I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city"... Scratch that.


    You, your family and your fatherland should start playing The Floor is Lava! It could come in handy real soon. 
    ~If You Can't Take The Heat, Turn off the Bible, Hoosier Abroad
They want to protect their right to discriminate against groups of people without a real religious motivation, but then they feel unjustly targeted as a group when they people they don't want to do business with do business elsewhere for legitimate Biblical reason, not to mention social and personal?

what

I so confuse. Do they want our business or not? Do they want us to try to give them our money so they can rub it in our nose if we refuse it, and if we don't, then they're just go all sour grapes on acid: "I didn't want to refuse your business anyway because I already refused it because you're queer and now I do because you're a meanie who hurts my feels." Perhaps it does make some sense: they simply want control.

And, that should be obvious as the law, as repugnant as it is, is utterly vacuous. Unlike women and racial minorities, queer people are not guaranteed civil rights at a state level in Indiana. Even if Indiana recognized equality for all, civil rights protections are generally limited to the more public domains, like voting, housing, employment and "public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce" -- private clubs are explicitly exempted, and religious objection exemptions feature into the most sacrosanct areas of civil rights. The Catholic Church for example is free to permit and higher only male priests. If civil rights protections prevented discrimination in the selling of goods and services to a particular group of people, the law would be inapplicable in defending discrimination against that group. As it stands, a suit filed by LGBT people (in most circumstance, by any minority) for discrimination in commerce cannot prevail, and if someone is foolish enough to file a suit with no valid case, they will have to pay restitution to the person they wrongfully sued for any legal fees and any losses that resulted from the suit. That is how it works; this is why most people don't go around suing people just because we disagree with their ideology.

Of course, there are a few who file frivolous civil suits. This law however would excuse only people who claim to be religious from the legal process and provide only them with a defense. That is discrimination (favoritism) based on creed, which most likely is unconstitutional and would most certainly be costly to the state if only there were such suits to begin with. The State of Indiana wants its citizens to assume the legal responsibilities of someone who claims they are religious if they are faced with a frivolous suit from people they chose to (legally) discriminate against, but not assume the legal responsibilities of, for example, an atheist who is taken to court for not carrying the Bible in her bookstore or refusing to allow a Christian ritual take place in her private club. The new law is discriminatory in who it allows to discriminate and protects. If religious people want to be excused from the responsibilities that come with living in a society with civil courts that hear cases regarding business practices, they should recognize that their religious calling is incompatible with having a business and/or participating in greater society. The Amish reject such social responsibilities and have a religious exemption for paying Social Security taxes because they refuse to claim that (particular) benefit of greater society. If religious people instead wish to be a part of society, then, if ever faced with a frivolous law suit, they should have to spend the 10 minutes to fill out and submit a demurer to the court and request for dismissal -- just like everyone else.

The Religious Fascism Restoration law could only be non-trivially relevant at some future point if, by some magic, new laws are passed in the distant future that forbid allegedly religiously motivated discrimination; its relevance would be that it has become unconstitutional (for a different reason than above). The legal non-issue the law explicitly addresses is not its purpose at all.

The law would pervert legal protections into a tool of discrimination for people who pervert their religion into a tool of recrimination. What people do to their religion is their own concern. Laws that protect and promote discrimination have no place in society. If someone is committing a crime, then by all means call the police; if someone is minding their own business, then let them be. I'm pretty sure that is in the Bible, and it is what we all want, whether religious or not.

[interrupted]

If you're going to be a bigot, try to be a consistent bigot. And, if you're going to use the Bible, be prepared to burn.

No comments:

Post a Comment