No one has needed to go lesbian and gay riff-raff hunting the last few days.
Gangs of creatively dressed members of the Marching and Chowder We Are Victims Society, on permanent leave from their non-jobs, have been hanging out in Indiana, of all places.
The riff-raff heard an anti-gay law had been passed.
They haven’t read it.
They cannot divulge its contents.
They don’t know them.
“Just march and shout,” they were told.
By thunder, they are against the Indiana law because it discriminates against the constantly-discriminated-against LGBT community, as every schoolboy over age 3 is taught.
Now, pull up a chair, and let’s play a brief game this morning.
Inspect the 119-word summary below of Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law.
Highlight the objectionable terms and phrases.
The law is as pragmatic as Noah opening a sunglasses kiosk on the Ark.
I am guessing the Indiana law makes more sense to you than it does to me.Next may come a requirement for Indiana cows to be standing while producing milk for their owners.
I have two questions:
- Why was the law enacted? Gov. Mike Pence never has explained or justified.
- Does the inherently angry gay and lesbian riff-raff, the most influential lobby in Washington, ever sense a moral obligation to say thank-you to America for the unprecedented, unrivaled freedoms and exceptions they have been granted?
ENGROSSED SENATE BILL No. 101 _____ DIGEST OF SB 101 (Updated March 16, 2015 1:56 pm – DI 123) Citations Affected: IC 34-13. Synopsis: Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer.
In case you missed it, the last phrase taken in the most general sense might be taken to mean employers are immune to legal action even if for clearly arbitrary religious reasons they — as an employer — have fire, don’t hire, or punish someone who was, is, or might’ve been under they employ. That’s not usually a good thing. Q.E.D.
Thanks for the observation, Riffraff. I came across a blog post at Slate that further helped decrypt the legalese. It pointed out that the second to last sentence allows for claims between private entities (e.g. businesses) irrespective of the government’s involvement. So it would allow parties in a private transaction to spar over the provision of services in a civil rights context.
Comments are closed.