Ironically, it's the only state with its own Broadway musical.
March 19, 2015 3:16 PM Subscribe
Speaking on behalf of HB 1371, "The Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act", State Senator Joseph Silk told the NYT: "[Gay people] don’t have a right to be served in every single store.... People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions." State Representative Emily Virgin proposed an amendment with a powerful message to business owners who would turn away gay couples: Own your bigotry. Publicly.
Language of the amendment:
Language of the amendment:
B. Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.
State Representative Emily Virgin is awesome.
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on March 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on March 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
The people behind these laws are nasty, dangerous thugs. Not really much else that can be said about them. Hopefully this pushes the US towards stronger enforcement of equal protection rights.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:29 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:29 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Here is more information about the bill and its history, from the OK legislature's web site.
It already passed 7-3 in committee. When do the bill and amendment go up for a vote from the whole legislature?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 3:30 PM on March 19, 2015
It already passed 7-3 in committee. When do the bill and amendment go up for a vote from the whole legislature?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 3:30 PM on March 19, 2015
Also, if I owned a business in OK, would I be allowed to post a notice saying that my religious beliefs require me to refuse service to anyone who believe their religion allows them to discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation?
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway?
posted by rtha at 3:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway?
posted by rtha at 3:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
A lite version of this passed our local legislature, as the fee for getting statewide LGBT non-discrimination protections in employment and housing passed. A broader exemption that would have applied to non-governmental employees was killed and this was the one that survived. I still hope it goes down in flames in the courts.
posted by msbutah at 3:37 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by msbutah at 3:37 PM on March 19, 2015
Why stop at gay people?
Mr Silk, when people like you die you won't be remembered as one of those who took a stand. You won't be remembered as those who were principled. You'll be remembered as a pathetic little hatemonger that stood in the way of progress and justice.
posted by Talez at 3:37 PM on March 19, 2015 [42 favorites]
Speaking on behalf of HB 1371, "The Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act", State Senator Joseph Silk told the NYT: "[Black people] don’t have a right to be served in every single store.... People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions." State Representative Emily Virgin proposed an amendment with a powerful message to business owners who would turn away interracial couples: Own your bigotry. Publicly.
Speaking on behalf of HB 1371, "The Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act", State Senator Joseph Silk told the NYT: "[Unaccompanied females] don’t have a right to be served in every single store.... People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions." State Representative Emily Virgin proposed an amendment with a powerful message to business owners who would turn away unaccompanied females: Own your bigotry. Publicly.Holding on to the last remains of a straight white male patriarchy while you get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Mr Silk, when people like you die you won't be remembered as one of those who took a stand. You won't be remembered as those who were principled. You'll be remembered as a pathetic little hatemonger that stood in the way of progress and justice.
posted by Talez at 3:37 PM on March 19, 2015 [42 favorites]
Well, the house leadership didn't take up the bill for this session, so it's stalled for now but could come back around later in the year.
Seems like maybe putting a sign in a window may be a bit too far for the legislature to want to uh, legislate.
posted by disclaimer at 3:40 PM on March 19, 2015
Seems like maybe putting a sign in a window may be a bit too far for the legislature to want to uh, legislate.
posted by disclaimer at 3:40 PM on March 19, 2015
[trying hard not to Godwinize this thread]
posted by adamrice at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by adamrice at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seems like maybe putting a sign in a window may be a bit too far for the legislature to want to uh, legislate.
WE CATER TO STRAIGHT RIGHTS ONLY
posted by Talez at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
WE CATER TO STRAIGHT RIGHTS ONLY
posted by Talez at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
people need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions
They need it? Why?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:42 PM on March 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
They need it? Why?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:42 PM on March 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I can see this backfiring in a Chik-Fil-A effect of all the conservatives closing ranks and seeking these businesses out, and being very loud about it.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:44 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 3:44 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
GODLESS DRINKING FOUNTAIN - NO CHURCHGOERS
posted by benzenedream at 3:46 PM on March 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 3:46 PM on March 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
They need it? Why?
Because otherwise they will be vexed! That's a mortal assault pretty much as bad as the martyred saints endured! It'sa witch hunt persecution!
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:47 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Because otherwise they will be vexed! That's a mortal assault pretty much as bad as the martyred saints endured! It's
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:47 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
with any luck I imagine a bunch of those businesses should still have "NO COLOREDS" signs sitting around in back they can repurpose and/or simply reuse
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
I can see this backfiring in a Chik-Fil-A effect of all the conservatives closing ranks and seeking these businesses out, and being very loud about it.
Indeed. Especially since businesses without the sign can be tarred as "not Christian enough." These sorts of public declarations of faith have a way of becoming one-upmanship races, and to me this proposal seems like a big starting pistol.
posted by Banknote of the year at 3:57 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Indeed. Especially since businesses without the sign can be tarred as "not Christian enough." These sorts of public declarations of faith have a way of becoming one-upmanship races, and to me this proposal seems like a big starting pistol.
posted by Banknote of the year at 3:57 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Please, DoctorFedora. Do you really think that we have a bunch of leftover NO COLOREDS signs? In Oklahoma? Really?
(They actually say NO INDIANS.)
posted by suckerpunch at 4:01 PM on March 19, 2015 [27 favorites]
(They actually say NO INDIANS.)
posted by suckerpunch at 4:01 PM on March 19, 2015 [27 favorites]
> They need it? Why?
After Burwell v.Hobby Lobby, I'm sure companies felt unsatisfied, being able to establish discriminatory policies against their employees but not their customers.
posted by at by at 4:03 PM on March 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
After Burwell v.Hobby Lobby, I'm sure companies felt unsatisfied, being able to establish discriminatory policies against their employees but not their customers.
posted by at by at 4:03 PM on March 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
(Hobby Lobby's corporate HQ being in Oklahoma City, incidentally.)
posted by at by at 4:04 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by at by at 4:04 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've yet to understand why anyone would want to support a business that doesn't voluntarily serve them.
If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money - not to sue the business in order to give the business money.
posted by saeculorum at 4:26 PM on March 19, 2015
If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money - not to sue the business in order to give the business money.
posted by saeculorum at 4:26 PM on March 19, 2015
I've yet to understand why anyone would want to support a business that doesn't voluntarily serve them.
Maybe it's the only pharmacy in town. Or the only grocery. Being able to go to the next town over to give money to a business that doesn't hate you is a luxury, not a given.
posted by dorque at 4:32 PM on March 19, 2015 [67 favorites]
Maybe it's the only pharmacy in town. Or the only grocery. Being able to go to the next town over to give money to a business that doesn't hate you is a luxury, not a given.
posted by dorque at 4:32 PM on March 19, 2015 [67 favorites]
Some questions come to mind.
1. Can't businesses refuse service without giving a reason already?
2. Wouldn't this law lead to business owners asking people if they are gay?
2a. If the business owner thinks someone is gay but that person denies it, does that mean that they cannot refuse service?
3. Would this apply to bisexual people, or would they only get half-service?
posted by clockzero at 4:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
1. Can't businesses refuse service without giving a reason already?
2. Wouldn't this law lead to business owners asking people if they are gay?
2a. If the business owner thinks someone is gay but that person denies it, does that mean that they cannot refuse service?
3. Would this apply to bisexual people, or would they only get half-service?
posted by clockzero at 4:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
The comedy potential for counter-signs is huge, though.
NO CLOSETED SELF-HATING REPUBLICANS
NO GUN FETISHISTS
NO GOD BOTHERERS
posted by emjaybee at 4:46 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
NO CLOSETED SELF-HATING REPUBLICANS
NO GUN FETISHISTS
NO GOD BOTHERERS
posted by emjaybee at 4:46 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money - not to sue the business in order to give the business money.
We fucking tried that already. All that happened was that the black minority was basically dropped from polite society as a society-wide racist conspiracy worked against them.
posted by Talez at 4:48 PM on March 19, 2015 [48 favorites]
We fucking tried that already. All that happened was that the black minority was basically dropped from polite society as a society-wide racist conspiracy worked against them.
posted by Talez at 4:48 PM on March 19, 2015 [48 favorites]
> I've yet to understand why anyone would want to support a business that doesn't voluntarily serve them.
I have yet to understand why anyone would voluntarily start a business that serves the public if they don't really want to serve the public. There's no law requiring anyone to start such a business.
posted by rtha at 4:50 PM on March 19, 2015 [33 favorites]
I have yet to understand why anyone would voluntarily start a business that serves the public if they don't really want to serve the public. There's no law requiring anyone to start such a business.
posted by rtha at 4:50 PM on March 19, 2015 [33 favorites]
Didn't Indiana just pass the same bill?
This makes me beyond angry. Fuck these people and the people who voted for them.
posted by futz at 4:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
This makes me beyond angry. Fuck these people and the people who voted for them.
posted by futz at 4:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Incidentally, Oklahoma towns have been suffering from major demographic drain, as young professionals flee the Sooner State to work anywhere else. This should help, though.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:56 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 4:56 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money
Really? If I found out that a business refused to serve me because I'm a Jew my response would be to burn them so hard with bad publicity and litigation that the ground around it would be turned to glass.
posted by 1adam12 at 5:03 PM on March 19, 2015 [51 favorites]
Really? If I found out that a business refused to serve me because I'm a Jew my response would be to burn them so hard with bad publicity and litigation that the ground around it would be turned to glass.
posted by 1adam12 at 5:03 PM on March 19, 2015 [51 favorites]
Really?
Yes, because the alternative is that I give money to someone knowing they hated me and are only serving me because the law requires them to.
Your lawsuits won't make them like you - merely tolerate you because the law requires them to. My preference is not to help bigots at all, even if the law requires them to serve me. In other words, even if the law was that bigots had to serve me, I still wouldn't give money to bigots - because they're bigots.
posted by saeculorum at 5:06 PM on March 19, 2015
Yes, because the alternative is that I give money to someone knowing they hated me and are only serving me because the law requires them to.
Your lawsuits won't make them like you - merely tolerate you because the law requires them to. My preference is not to help bigots at all, even if the law requires them to serve me. In other words, even if the law was that bigots had to serve me, I still wouldn't give money to bigots - because they're bigots.
posted by saeculorum at 5:06 PM on March 19, 2015
Man, I don't care if they like me. I would very much like it to not be legal to discriminate against me; I grew up in that world, and it was not especially great.
posted by rtha at 5:09 PM on March 19, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by rtha at 5:09 PM on March 19, 2015 [33 favorites]
Semi-seriously: I mean don't businesses have this already? Just call yourself a 'club' and keep membership limited on a hand-wavey referral basis and you're golden. Hell, in certain counties in AL that's the only places that can sell alcohol on certain days of the week, legal perks in other words.
... I know, I know, it probably wouldn't scale nicely until it was challenged legally or simply collapsed into it's own red-tape like a dying, racist star but still, a thought to chew upon.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
... I know, I know, it probably wouldn't scale nicely until it was challenged legally or simply collapsed into it's own red-tape like a dying, racist star but still, a thought to chew upon.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would very much like it to not be legal to discriminate against me
And that's cool - and reasonable - but I also don't understand it. In a world where all discrimination you dislike is illegal, do you want to support people that would otherwise discriminate against you if the law allowed it? It seems to me you're either advocating for an academic right that doesn't matter to you (the right to be served by bigots, but then not to purchase service from bigots) or else a right that is disadvantageous to you (the right to be served by bigots, and then enabling them with your money).
I don't understand your continual desire to help out bigots. Why not condemn bigotry rather than monetarily supporting it?
(this is all excluding the case of food/medicine, which nobody here in Metafilter is arguing should be subject to the proprietor's beliefs - these legal cases in the news deal with flowers and cake; not exactly services vital to human life)
posted by saeculorum at 5:12 PM on March 19, 2015
And that's cool - and reasonable - but I also don't understand it. In a world where all discrimination you dislike is illegal, do you want to support people that would otherwise discriminate against you if the law allowed it? It seems to me you're either advocating for an academic right that doesn't matter to you (the right to be served by bigots, but then not to purchase service from bigots) or else a right that is disadvantageous to you (the right to be served by bigots, and then enabling them with your money).
I don't understand your continual desire to help out bigots. Why not condemn bigotry rather than monetarily supporting it?
(this is all excluding the case of food/medicine, which nobody here in Metafilter is arguing should be subject to the proprietor's beliefs - these legal cases in the news deal with flowers and cake; not exactly services vital to human life)
posted by saeculorum at 5:12 PM on March 19, 2015
Didn't Indiana just pass the same bill?
Utah's Mormons did, evilly using another law as a trojan horse or fig leaf to get it passed.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:14 PM on March 19, 2015
Utah's Mormons did, evilly using another law as a trojan horse or fig leaf to get it passed.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:14 PM on March 19, 2015
If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money - not to sue the business in order to give the business money.
Lucky you to have that privilege. Are you familiar with the history of segregation in the USA? Been there, done that, burnt that fucking tshirt.
You open a business, you are obligated to serve the public. Don't want to do that? Don't open a fucking business. These assclowns think they get to decide who is 'okay' and who isn't. And, sure, queer kids can run away to the big cities and be okay, and they shouldn't have to.
..and on preview, your most recent comment, seriously, please check your privilege here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:15 PM on March 19, 2015 [29 favorites]
Lucky you to have that privilege. Are you familiar with the history of segregation in the USA? Been there, done that, burnt that fucking tshirt.
You open a business, you are obligated to serve the public. Don't want to do that? Don't open a fucking business. These assclowns think they get to decide who is 'okay' and who isn't. And, sure, queer kids can run away to the big cities and be okay, and they shouldn't have to.
..and on preview, your most recent comment, seriously, please check your privilege here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:15 PM on March 19, 2015 [29 favorites]
(this is all excluding the case of food/medicine, which nobody here in Metafilter is arguing should be subject to the proprietor's beliefs - these legal cases in the news deal with flowers and cake; not exactly services vital to human life)
The law in Oklahoma does not propose such an "except if you sell food you have to cater to everyone" clause, firstly.
Secondly, everyone also has the right to shop for luxuries as well if they fucking want to.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:20 PM on March 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
The law in Oklahoma does not propose such an "except if you sell food you have to cater to everyone" clause, firstly.
Secondly, everyone also has the right to shop for luxuries as well if they fucking want to.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:20 PM on March 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
saeculorum: "If I was refused service by a business, my response would be to not give that business money - not to sue the business in order to give the business money."
I mean, I basically agree on the micro scale, but on the macro scale, that turned out to be 90 years of Jim Crow laws. The invisible hand of the market doesn't always solve these problems the way you'd hope.
clockzero: "1. Can't businesses refuse service without giving a reason already? "
Yes, but if a business is refusing service in such a way that it systematically is refusing to serve a particular group, even if they have valid reasoning that is not discriminatory, but the outcome of the non-discriminatory reasoning is that it actually in practice discriminates, it can still be a Civil Rights violation and they can still be sued. (The one that jumps to mind, which is not a great example but it's all I can think of off the top of my head, is night club dress codes that end up coding for fashion that only white patrons wear, and so black patrons are excluded.)
Secondly, incorporating a business (for legal limitation of liability and to take advantage of various corporate benefits) and operating a public business are both privileges regulated by the government, not natural rights, as businesses are NOT natural persons (even if they are legal persons). It is well within the government's power to say that the good of the state requires that all citizens be able to get service from a business operating in its state, and to refuse to allow businesses to operate that don't serve all citizens.
Thirdly, there's an enormous body of Civil Rights law already relating to places of public accommodation which basically says "look, dudes, it's not okay for American businesses to discriminate; if you're serving the public you don't really get to pick and choose." It's only the LAW if you're in a protected class (race, gender), which is why there's such a push to make other groups protected classes at the state level (sexuality, breastfeeding mothers), but it is really the spirit of the law that businesses don't get to discriminate about their customers.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:21 PM on March 19, 2015 [26 favorites]
I mean, I basically agree on the micro scale, but on the macro scale, that turned out to be 90 years of Jim Crow laws. The invisible hand of the market doesn't always solve these problems the way you'd hope.
clockzero: "1. Can't businesses refuse service without giving a reason already? "
Yes, but if a business is refusing service in such a way that it systematically is refusing to serve a particular group, even if they have valid reasoning that is not discriminatory, but the outcome of the non-discriminatory reasoning is that it actually in practice discriminates, it can still be a Civil Rights violation and they can still be sued. (The one that jumps to mind, which is not a great example but it's all I can think of off the top of my head, is night club dress codes that end up coding for fashion that only white patrons wear, and so black patrons are excluded.)
Secondly, incorporating a business (for legal limitation of liability and to take advantage of various corporate benefits) and operating a public business are both privileges regulated by the government, not natural rights, as businesses are NOT natural persons (even if they are legal persons). It is well within the government's power to say that the good of the state requires that all citizens be able to get service from a business operating in its state, and to refuse to allow businesses to operate that don't serve all citizens.
Thirdly, there's an enormous body of Civil Rights law already relating to places of public accommodation which basically says "look, dudes, it's not okay for American businesses to discriminate; if you're serving the public you don't really get to pick and choose." It's only the LAW if you're in a protected class (race, gender), which is why there's such a push to make other groups protected classes at the state level (sexuality, breastfeeding mothers), but it is really the spirit of the law that businesses don't get to discriminate about their customers.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:21 PM on March 19, 2015 [26 favorites]
I don't understand your continual desire to help out bigots. Why not condemn bigotry rather than monetarily supporting it?
Perhaps because beliefs and behavior are interconnected in how they change.
Change one and the other is also shifted. There certainly are variations in degree and some of these effects are situational.
But forcing bigots to interact with the people they are prejudiced (and discriminate) against, does sometimes encourage/cause bigots (or just by proximity, other customers, the bigots' children, neighboring businesses that were on the fence) to rethink their bullshit attitudes.
We'll take change however we can get it. And if that change is as minor as getting my gay friends married without them hearing "faggot" muttered under the breath of the florist, then I'll take it. I'd like more, but in the meantime, allowing people to whine that they "don't wanna because God said not to" is just...I'll make them a nice shrimp salad.
posted by bilabial at 5:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Perhaps because beliefs and behavior are interconnected in how they change.
Change one and the other is also shifted. There certainly are variations in degree and some of these effects are situational.
But forcing bigots to interact with the people they are prejudiced (and discriminate) against, does sometimes encourage/cause bigots (or just by proximity, other customers, the bigots' children, neighboring businesses that were on the fence) to rethink their bullshit attitudes.
We'll take change however we can get it. And if that change is as minor as getting my gay friends married without them hearing "faggot" muttered under the breath of the florist, then I'll take it. I'd like more, but in the meantime, allowing people to whine that they "don't wanna because God said not to" is just...I'll make them a nice shrimp salad.
posted by bilabial at 5:33 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
And if you're getting married... no, cake and flowers don't make a marriage, or a wedding - you can totally get married without cake or flowers or any other trappings. But dammit, cake and flowers sure helped my wedding feel more real and symbolic to me, and celebratory, because dammit, weddings have cake and flowers. And it underscored the point a little bit to my relatives who at least showed up and seemed happy to be there that day (never mind that they're acting 100% more enthusiastic about my sister's wedding this summer, but that's another thread for another day).
posted by joycehealy at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by joycehealy at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
...90 years of Jim Crow laws. The invisible hand of the market...
The fact that they were "Jim Crow Laws" and not "Jim Crow Prevailing But Voluntary Social Norms" should tell you that you can't really lay this one at the feet of "the market".
posted by Hatashran at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2015
The fact that they were "Jim Crow Laws" and not "Jim Crow Prevailing But Voluntary Social Norms" should tell you that you can't really lay this one at the feet of "the market".
posted by Hatashran at 5:38 PM on March 19, 2015
It's not like those laws came about in opposition to social norms of the time.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:41 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:41 PM on March 19, 2015
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway
Er..
No shoes, no pants, no service?
posted by BlueHorse at 5:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Er..
No shoes, no pants, no service?
posted by BlueHorse at 5:41 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
gay men are more likely to be shirtless than pantless, on average
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:43 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:43 PM on March 19, 2015
Your lawsuits won't make them like you - merely tolerate you because the law requires them to.
you say that as if it's a bad thing
they'll get over it, they'll get used to it and they'll realize it wasn't such a big deal after all
posted by pyramid termite at 5:45 PM on March 19, 2015 [12 favorites]
you say that as if it's a bad thing
they'll get over it, they'll get used to it and they'll realize it wasn't such a big deal after all
posted by pyramid termite at 5:45 PM on March 19, 2015 [12 favorites]
also, i have to wonder what kind of "religious faith" allows the typical business ethics we have in this society
posted by pyramid termite at 5:48 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:48 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Didn't Indiana just pass the same bill?
The state senate has passed it. It's gone to the house now, which is most certainly going to pass it, too. It's time like this that I start to wish Jesus really would return right now, just so he could give these bigoted chuckleheads a true come-to-Jesus meeting.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:05 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
The state senate has passed it. It's gone to the house now, which is most certainly going to pass it, too. It's time like this that I start to wish Jesus really would return right now, just so he could give these bigoted chuckleheads a true come-to-Jesus meeting.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:05 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I strongly support the requirement that businesses exercising their "religious freedom" be required to announce this loudly and clearly.
I can't imagine being able to get too upset if Bigot Signs resulted in a rash of the sort of incidents that will make Commercial Religious Freedom prohibitively expensive, insurance-wise.
(Specifically, God gets righteously pissed off about this type of ostensibly religiously-motivated bigotry; any Oklahoman establishment that displays this sort of Religious Freedom openly has no chance at all in the next tornado.)
posted by busted_crayons at 6:09 PM on March 19, 2015
I can't imagine being able to get too upset if Bigot Signs resulted in a rash of the sort of incidents that will make Commercial Religious Freedom prohibitively expensive, insurance-wise.
(Specifically, God gets righteously pissed off about this type of ostensibly religiously-motivated bigotry; any Oklahoman establishment that displays this sort of Religious Freedom openly has no chance at all in the next tornado.)
posted by busted_crayons at 6:09 PM on March 19, 2015
More adventures in unconstitutionality from Oklahoma
posted by Navelgazer at 6:09 PM on March 19, 2015
posted by Navelgazer at 6:09 PM on March 19, 2015
Ms. Virgin, I would so like to shake your hand.
posted by kinnakeet at 6:11 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kinnakeet at 6:11 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Navelgazer: "More adventures in unconstitutionality from Oklahoma"
In related news, 200 UU ministers move to Oklahoma, begin signing marriage certificates indiscriminately.
(This is always the dumbest possible attempt at a law because not only will it be struck down as unconstitutional but it won't even a little bit achieve the goal of preventing gay marriage (or atheist marriage) while waiting for the lawsuit.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:34 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
In related news, 200 UU ministers move to Oklahoma, begin signing marriage certificates indiscriminately.
(This is always the dumbest possible attempt at a law because not only will it be struck down as unconstitutional but it won't even a little bit achieve the goal of preventing gay marriage (or atheist marriage) while waiting for the lawsuit.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:34 PM on March 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Couldn't a gay person walk into one of these businesses, acting all straight-like (talking with a deep voice and wearing khakis) and then once they're served, break character and say "HA! I'm gay and you served me! You're going to HELL!" and then sashay the fuck out of there? Because I would pay to see that.
posted by fungible at 6:35 PM on March 19, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by fungible at 6:35 PM on March 19, 2015 [25 favorites]
Since they lost the right to post "Whites Only" signs...
posted by kjs3 at 7:00 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kjs3 at 7:00 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know that you probably meant well fungible but your comment was chock full of stereotypes.
posted by futz at 7:12 PM on March 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:12 PM on March 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
If you give the weight of law to discrimination, you normalize hate. If you give the weight of law to equality, you normalize tolerance. And when the following generations are raised in those environments, it's what they internalize. So it's not just about who you choose to give your money to. It's who your children see being publicly othered.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:20 PM on March 19, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:20 PM on March 19, 2015 [29 favorites]
Incidentally, Oklahoma towns have been suffering from major demographic drain, as young professionals flee the Sooner State to work anywhere else.
Hey, I resemble that remark. And I'll never move back, precisely because of BS like this. Bless my friends who stay and fight, though. They are better people than I.
posted by ThatSomething at 7:32 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hey, I resemble that remark. And I'll never move back, precisely because of BS like this. Bless my friends who stay and fight, though. They are better people than I.
posted by ThatSomething at 7:32 PM on March 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway?
Ah, well that will come up in the next legislative session. One thing at a time.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:56 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Ah, well that will come up in the next legislative session. One thing at a time.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:56 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't understand this "helping out bigots by forcing them to take my custom" framing. It's really weird... it's like you think an anti-discrimination lawsuit is adjudicated in such a way that the parties suing the merchant are somehow contractually obligated to use that merchant for their services if they win their lawsuit. When what really happens, simplified because IANAL, is that the suit is brought in order to establish the precedent that merchants do not have a legal right to discriminate based on characteristics like gender or race or sexual orientation. It's like you've never heard of a civil rights lawsuit or something.
posted by palomar at 7:58 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by palomar at 7:58 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway?
Here's the thing--people who discriminate against gays and lesbians because of religious beliefs invariably say that homosexuality is a choice, not an innate characteristic. So, by their reasoning, there is no such thing as a gay person, just people who sometimes choose to engage in homosexual acts. So unless you are currently having gay sex in their business, there is no reason to deny you service. You aren't a gay person. They don't believe gay people exist.
Not that logical consistency is the strongest gift of Oklahoma Republicans.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:06 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Here's the thing--people who discriminate against gays and lesbians because of religious beliefs invariably say that homosexuality is a choice, not an innate characteristic. So, by their reasoning, there is no such thing as a gay person, just people who sometimes choose to engage in homosexual acts. So unless you are currently having gay sex in their business, there is no reason to deny you service. You aren't a gay person. They don't believe gay people exist.
Not that logical consistency is the strongest gift of Oklahoma Republicans.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:06 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
> So unless you are currently having gay sex in their business,
Hey guys you remember all those kiss-ins at places like Cracker Barrel that Queer Nation did in the 90s? I have an idea!
posted by rtha at 8:08 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Hey guys you remember all those kiss-ins at places like Cracker Barrel that Queer Nation did in the 90s? I have an idea!
posted by rtha at 8:08 PM on March 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
people who discriminate against gays and lesbians
And us unicorns. :)
posted by joycehealy at 8:10 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
And us unicorns. :)
posted by joycehealy at 8:10 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
How are they going to prove I'm gay, anyway?
Hobby Lobby makes nice pink triangle swatches that go on your shoulder.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:24 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Hobby Lobby makes nice pink triangle swatches that go on your shoulder.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:24 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
My mom has been texting me a "Welcome to Oklahoma" sign that has "0 days without a nationwide embarrassment" photoshopped to the bottom about twice a week over the last month.
I get that unconstitutional discrimination and open letters to Iran and making fun of high school history teachers probably makes the extreme right base that shows up to primaries in Sapulpa feel really warm on the inside, but is it really worth the embarrassment? At what point do state legislators start to feel silly? Right now the Oklahoma response to the tide turning on gay marriage reminds me a three year who was just told he can't have any cookies before dinner asking if he can just skip dinner and go right to ice cream.
This post is more an emotional reaction on my part than a real appeal to reason...but... Oklahoma, I love you, but you're ranked in the bottom quarter of just about every health and education metric around. Perhaps now's the time to think to yourself "hey, if we have a new idea, and we're the only one's in the country doing it... maybe it's not such a good idea."
posted by midmarch snowman at 10:29 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I get that unconstitutional discrimination and open letters to Iran and making fun of high school history teachers probably makes the extreme right base that shows up to primaries in Sapulpa feel really warm on the inside, but is it really worth the embarrassment? At what point do state legislators start to feel silly? Right now the Oklahoma response to the tide turning on gay marriage reminds me a three year who was just told he can't have any cookies before dinner asking if he can just skip dinner and go right to ice cream.
This post is more an emotional reaction on my part than a real appeal to reason...but... Oklahoma, I love you, but you're ranked in the bottom quarter of just about every health and education metric around. Perhaps now's the time to think to yourself "hey, if we have a new idea, and we're the only one's in the country doing it... maybe it's not such a good idea."
posted by midmarch snowman at 10:29 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Right now the Oklahoma response to the tide turning on gay marriage reminds me a three year who was just told he can't have any cookies before dinner asking if he can just skip dinner and go right to ice cream.
Because that is exactly what it is. Except dinner is actually respecting the basic goddamn human rights of other human beings.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:40 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Because that is exactly what it is. Except dinner is actually respecting the basic goddamn human rights of other human beings.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:40 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I know that you probably meant well fungible but your comment was chock full of stereotypes.
Camping it up to humiliate them is tame compared to the firebombing they're likely to receive. Humor can be a weapon. Stereotypes paint the ridiculousness of their world in bold colors. Let us laugh at them with confidence.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Camping it up to humiliate them is tame compared to the firebombing they're likely to receive. Humor can be a weapon. Stereotypes paint the ridiculousness of their world in bold colors. Let us laugh at them with confidence.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 PM on March 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I know that you probably meant well fungible but your comment was chock full of stereotypes.
As a card-carrying sameosexual, I am totally behind what fungible said. To you it may be full of stereotypes; to me it is about throwing those stereotypes in the stupid fucking faces of these stupid fucking assclowns and showing them how fucking stupid their fucking stupid shit is.
Fucking stupid. Maybe if their parents hadn't fucked stupid we wouldn't have so many of these hateful shitlords.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
As a card-carrying sameosexual, I am totally behind what fungible said. To you it may be full of stereotypes; to me it is about throwing those stereotypes in the stupid fucking faces of these stupid fucking assclowns and showing them how fucking stupid their fucking stupid shit is.
Fucking stupid. Maybe if their parents hadn't fucked stupid we wouldn't have so many of these hateful shitlords.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 PM on March 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
I don't give a damn about florists or cafes or CPAs discriminating. I care much more about hospitals and attorneys and school principals. Queer folks have died and will die isolated from their legal partners or from lack of medical care just because multiple someones didn't want to treat queer people, their families, and/or their relationships equally to assumed straight ones. I do not want to be one of those dead queers. I do not want anyone I know to be one of those dead queers.
These laws guarantee unnecessarily dead or traumatized or mourning queers.
posted by Dreidl at 12:02 AM on March 20, 2015 [21 favorites]
These laws guarantee unnecessarily dead or traumatized or mourning queers.
posted by Dreidl at 12:02 AM on March 20, 2015 [21 favorites]
I don't give a damn about florists or cafes or CPAs discriminating. I care much more about hospitals and attorneys and school principals.
This. We already have pharmacists legally refusing to fill prescriptions because the medication in-question "violates" their religious principles, which can be highly problematic in smaller communities. How soon before you have, say, nurses or EMTs refusing to touch a gay man because his homosexuality violates their "religious principles"? That would be easy to get around in a large, city hospital, but what about at some small, rural emergency room?
posted by Thorzdad at 6:00 AM on March 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
This. We already have pharmacists legally refusing to fill prescriptions because the medication in-question "violates" their religious principles, which can be highly problematic in smaller communities. How soon before you have, say, nurses or EMTs refusing to touch a gay man because his homosexuality violates their "religious principles"? That would be easy to get around in a large, city hospital, but what about at some small, rural emergency room?
posted by Thorzdad at 6:00 AM on March 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
The [Indiana] state senate has passed it. It's gone to the house now, which is most certainly going to pass it, too.
And Indiana Republicans have even less shame than Oklahoma Republicans, apparently. At least in Oklahoma they had the decency to let the bill die in committee when the signage amendment exposed the hypocrisy of the bill's supporters. In Indiana, when similar amendments were proposed - by State Sen. Karen Tallian, last month, and State Rep. John Bartlett, just yesterday, the amendments were simply voted down, 10-40 and 31-60, respectively. (Info on the Indiana bill here.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:21 AM on March 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
And Indiana Republicans have even less shame than Oklahoma Republicans, apparently. At least in Oklahoma they had the decency to let the bill die in committee when the signage amendment exposed the hypocrisy of the bill's supporters. In Indiana, when similar amendments were proposed - by State Sen. Karen Tallian, last month, and State Rep. John Bartlett, just yesterday, the amendments were simply voted down, 10-40 and 31-60, respectively. (Info on the Indiana bill here.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:21 AM on March 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
From Bearwife's link regarding the Washington State case, I love this little tidbit:
"Ingersoll and Freed [the couple denied service, who won their case], who have since married, had sued for $7.91 (the cost of driving to find a new florist)."
No money grab, no "emotional distress", a simple straightforward 'no, you don't get to be a bigot' application of principles.
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 7:37 AM on March 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
"Ingersoll and Freed [the couple denied service, who won their case], who have since married, had sued for $7.91 (the cost of driving to find a new florist)."
No money grab, no "emotional distress", a simple straightforward 'no, you don't get to be a bigot' application of principles.
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 7:37 AM on March 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
Not OK.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:10 AM on March 20, 2015
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:10 AM on March 20, 2015
On the Indiana front, the RFRA passed the House, disappointingly but not unexpectedly, on Monday by a 60-31 vote, with all Democrats but also five Republicans voting against it. Gov. Pence signed the bill this morning, despite the fact that GenCon — which brings over $50 million to Indianapolis annually — sent an open letter to Gov. Pence stating they would reconsider Indianapolis as the site for their conference if the bill became law. Likewise, the Disciples of Christ is reconsidering their decision to hold their 2017 general assembly in Indianapolis.
Republican Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard also opposed the law: "Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents. We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here." Indianapolis is one of at least a dozen cities and counties in Indiana that have ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; ordinances which are likely rendered toothless by the RFRA.
A positive note has come out of this, however, as over a thousand businesses have stepped up to declare themselves Open For Service to all.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:23 AM on March 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Republican Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard also opposed the law: "Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents. We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here." Indianapolis is one of at least a dozen cities and counties in Indiana that have ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; ordinances which are likely rendered toothless by the RFRA.
A positive note has come out of this, however, as over a thousand businesses have stepped up to declare themselves Open For Service to all.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:23 AM on March 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
German Lopez: Indiana's latest bill shows the new frontier in the battle over LGBT rights
In recent years, lawmakers have introduced various bills and laws that restrict LGBT rights. Here are some of the most popular proposals, as outlined by the LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign:posted by zombieflanders at 8:40 AM on March 26, 2015A March report by HRC found that lawmakers in at least 26 states have proposed a wave of these anti-LGBT bills. Most are unlikely to pass — state legislators often introduce proposals that never see the light of the day.
- Religious freedom: These laws and bills, including Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, give more latitude to residents, including government officials, to discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds. The proposals differ from state to state, but they could protect businesses' legal right to refuse service to LGBT people based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity, let state employees deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and narrow adoption services for prospective gay, lesbian, and transgender parents.
- Nullifying local civil rights protections: These measures prevent municipalities from passing laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, in housing, and in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the general public).
- Anti-transgender: These proposals restrict transgender people's access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other public venues, as well as to school sports, by restricting them to facilities and programs associated with the sex they were assigned at birth, instead of recognizing their gender identity.
- Promoting "conversion therapy": This legislation legally protects therapists who attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
These states have passed anti-LGBT laws since the beginning of 2015:
- Indiana: On March 23, state legislators passed a bill that could protect discrimination against LGBT people on religious grounds. Gov. Mike Pence (R) plans to sign the legislation.
- Arkansas: On February 25, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) allowed a law to take effect that prohibits local governments from establishing their own nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.
Paul Waldman: How a new ‘religious freedom’ law could intensify the 2016 battle over religious right voters
The bill in Indiana doesn’t mention words like “gay” at all. It merely says that the government can’t “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” And a key element of the conservative Christian argument about religious freedom is that “exercise” of religion isn’t just about rituals and prayer and worship; t extends to everything, including commerce.posted by zombieflanders at 9:30 AM on March 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The implications are therefore enormous. Forget about the baker — what if you own a restaurant and think homosexuality is an abomination, and therefore you want to hang a “No gays allowed” sign in your window? Under this law, you’d be able to. Or what if you’re a Muslim who owns an auto repair shop, and you want to refuse to serve women, because you say your religion tells you that women shouldn’t drive?
Those kinds of concerns are what led former governor Jan Brewer to veto a similar bill in Arizona, after she got all kinds of pressure from the state’s business community, which feared boycotts of the state. That same pressure has been building in Indiana, though it doesn’t seem to have moved Governor Pence.
The more news this Indiana law gets, the more likely it is that it will become an issue in the presidential primaries. And it fits neatly within the key divide among Republicans: on one side you could have business groups that are nervous about negative economic impacts and strategists who don’t want the GOP to be known as the party of discrimination, while on the other side you have candidates eager for the votes of religious right primary voters.
I have no doubt that candidates like Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, or Mike Huckabee will rush to support the Indiana law. The real question is what happens with the candidates who want to get as much support as they can from conservative Christians, but also want to appeal to the more moderate voters (and funders) who may not be so pleased with these kinds of laws. Those candidates also surely know that general election voters will be much less favorably inclined toward this law, and that it could well fit into a broad theme of Republicans as intolerant, not only on issues affecting gay people but on immigration as well. If you’re Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush, this could be a very tricky issue to confront.
It's hazy to look forward too much right now, but it might be an opportunity for Walker if he comes out against it. Recent polls put him in a strong position with all but moderate Republicans. Sacrifice a little evangelical and extreme conservative cred and he could put himself in a good position across the board. Being at least acceptable to all wings of the party is how you win the Republican nomination.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:58 PM on March 26, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 1:58 PM on March 26, 2015
My religion dictates that I'm not required to serve religious bigots at my business.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:35 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:35 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah but that doesn't matter because the federal courts have some weird test that determines what is a real religion and what isn't and makes sure atheist moral views don't have the same recognition.
That DEFINITELY is not an establishment of religion though.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
That DEFINITELY is not an establishment of religion though.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
clockzero: Some questions come to mind.No, not really. "Open for business to the public" means just that. You can refuse service to someone who doesn't observe reasonable dress codes that are clearly posted, or eject people who are causing disturbances, but aside from that: if a customer asks to buy a snowcone, and you just served a snowcone, and have more snowcone makings, you are required to sell a snowcone to them.
1. Can't businesses refuse service without giving a reason already?
posted by IAmBroom at 10:05 AM on March 29, 2015
« Older Once upon a time, there was a building full of... | "Restaurants look, taste, sound, and smell more... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rebent at 3:20 PM on March 19, 2015 [4 favorites]