Gertjan.s*els
31st March 2015, 19:15
Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana said Tuesday that he had asked lawmakers to change the state’s religious freedom law to make it clear that businesses cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Pence said he thought the clarification was needed because of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the legislation.
He said that while the intent of the bill was not to discriminate against gay people, state officials must confront the perception that the law would allow just that. He asked lawmakers to pass legislation that would be on his desk by the end of the week.
“I believe this is a clarification — but it’s also a fix,’ Mr. Pence said. “I’m determined to address this this week.”
Protesters turned out last week in Indianapolis against an Indiana measure that lets businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples.
Thousands gathered outside the Indiana Statehouse on Saturday to protest a law that opponents say allows for bias against gays.
The law has set off a firestorm, with both critics and some supporters saying it would allow businesses to deny service to lesbian and gay customers if it offended their religious beliefs. Businesses, organizations, politicians and many celebrities have spoken out against the law, some of them canceling events in the state.
“We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan but a way of life,” Mr. Pence said.
In an essay in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Mr. Pence, a Republican, offered a full-throated defense of the law he signed on Thursday, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he wrote “has been grossly misconstrued as a `license to discriminate.’ ”
Though Mr. Pence had said in recent days that he was open to amending the law to address concerns, he insisted in the essay that those concerns were unfounded, and said nothing about making changes. And in an interview on Fox News Tuesday morning, he did not give a direct answer to a question about how the law might be changed.
“Let me say first and foremost that, you know, I stand by this law, but I understand that the way that some on the left, and frankly some in the national media, have mischaracterized this law over the last week might make it necessary for us to clarify the law through legislation,” Mr. Pence said. “And we were working through the day and into the night last night with legislative leaders to consider ways to do that.”
The law states that government should not take any action infringing on people’s religious beliefs unless there is a compelling government interest to do so, and that it must use the least intrusive means to pursue that interest.
Defenders of the measure say they have been bewildered by the controversy, since it is patterned on a 1993 federal law of the same name, passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton, as well as on similar state laws.
But the Indiana law has some differences from the federal law, and most of the state laws, that critics say are significant, including a provision explicitly stating that it applies to the exercise of religious beliefs by businesses as well as individuals and religious groups. The idea that a for-profit business has religious rights, and can cite them in contesting government action, was not widely considered until recently. But last year the Supreme Court upheld that principle in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.
Another difference between Indiana’s law and most similar ones is that it says businesses can use religious freedom as a defense against lawsuits brought by individuals, not just those filed by the government.
Critics contend that the provisions amount to permission for business owners to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs. A flower shop owner, for instance, could refuse to serve a same-sex wedding. When asked how the law would work in such a case, on the ABC show “This Week”on Sunday, Mr. Pence declined to say.
On Tuesday, on Fox, he said, “I don’t think anyone should ever be mistreated because of who they are or who they love.” But he did not say whether that discrimination should be allowed by law.
In some states, concerns like those raised in Indiana have been addressed with laws that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Asked on Tuesday if he would take that step, Mr. Pence said, “That’s not been my position.”
Bron: www.nytimes.com
----
Mening: Amerika is aanzienlijk conservatiever dan het doorsnee Europees land, welbepaald het zuiden van Amerika. Bovendien ligt het zogenaamd inperken van vrijheden erg gevoelig, dit is merkbaar over de grote lijn en niet louter religie.
Iedereen hecht belang aan vrijheden denk ik dan, maar de doorsnee Amerikaan lijkt mij doorgaans nogal geobsedeerd door hun zogezegde constitutionele rechten.
Daarnaast hebben de Amerikanen (of althans sommige staten) een andere opvatting over de vrijheden inzake religie. Ikzelf vind dat de vrijheid op religiebeleving zeker en vast aanwezig moet zijn in elke civilisatie maar deze vrijheid mag de vrijheid van anderen niet inperken.
De scheiding van kerk en staat is niet even evident in Amerika (er is een beangstigend aantal religieuze fundamentalisten in Amerika die graag de 10 Geboden als grondwet voor het juridisch systeem willen) en dat uit zich hier weer geweldig ostentatief. Verbazingwekkend zelfs dat voorstanders van deze wet zo fel de nadruk leggen op het behouden van vrijheden en de ironie niet inzien van hoe ze hiermee de vrijheden van de Holebi-gemeenschap onderdrukken.
Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Pence said he thought the clarification was needed because of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the legislation.
He said that while the intent of the bill was not to discriminate against gay people, state officials must confront the perception that the law would allow just that. He asked lawmakers to pass legislation that would be on his desk by the end of the week.
“I believe this is a clarification — but it’s also a fix,’ Mr. Pence said. “I’m determined to address this this week.”
Protesters turned out last week in Indianapolis against an Indiana measure that lets businesses refuse to serve same-sex couples.
Thousands gathered outside the Indiana Statehouse on Saturday to protest a law that opponents say allows for bias against gays.
The law has set off a firestorm, with both critics and some supporters saying it would allow businesses to deny service to lesbian and gay customers if it offended their religious beliefs. Businesses, organizations, politicians and many celebrities have spoken out against the law, some of them canceling events in the state.
“We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan but a way of life,” Mr. Pence said.
In an essay in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Mr. Pence, a Republican, offered a full-throated defense of the law he signed on Thursday, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he wrote “has been grossly misconstrued as a `license to discriminate.’ ”
Though Mr. Pence had said in recent days that he was open to amending the law to address concerns, he insisted in the essay that those concerns were unfounded, and said nothing about making changes. And in an interview on Fox News Tuesday morning, he did not give a direct answer to a question about how the law might be changed.
“Let me say first and foremost that, you know, I stand by this law, but I understand that the way that some on the left, and frankly some in the national media, have mischaracterized this law over the last week might make it necessary for us to clarify the law through legislation,” Mr. Pence said. “And we were working through the day and into the night last night with legislative leaders to consider ways to do that.”
The law states that government should not take any action infringing on people’s religious beliefs unless there is a compelling government interest to do so, and that it must use the least intrusive means to pursue that interest.
Defenders of the measure say they have been bewildered by the controversy, since it is patterned on a 1993 federal law of the same name, passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton, as well as on similar state laws.
But the Indiana law has some differences from the federal law, and most of the state laws, that critics say are significant, including a provision explicitly stating that it applies to the exercise of religious beliefs by businesses as well as individuals and religious groups. The idea that a for-profit business has religious rights, and can cite them in contesting government action, was not widely considered until recently. But last year the Supreme Court upheld that principle in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.
Another difference between Indiana’s law and most similar ones is that it says businesses can use religious freedom as a defense against lawsuits brought by individuals, not just those filed by the government.
Critics contend that the provisions amount to permission for business owners to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs. A flower shop owner, for instance, could refuse to serve a same-sex wedding. When asked how the law would work in such a case, on the ABC show “This Week”on Sunday, Mr. Pence declined to say.
On Tuesday, on Fox, he said, “I don’t think anyone should ever be mistreated because of who they are or who they love.” But he did not say whether that discrimination should be allowed by law.
In some states, concerns like those raised in Indiana have been addressed with laws that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Asked on Tuesday if he would take that step, Mr. Pence said, “That’s not been my position.”
Bron: www.nytimes.com
----
Mening: Amerika is aanzienlijk conservatiever dan het doorsnee Europees land, welbepaald het zuiden van Amerika. Bovendien ligt het zogenaamd inperken van vrijheden erg gevoelig, dit is merkbaar over de grote lijn en niet louter religie.
Iedereen hecht belang aan vrijheden denk ik dan, maar de doorsnee Amerikaan lijkt mij doorgaans nogal geobsedeerd door hun zogezegde constitutionele rechten.
Daarnaast hebben de Amerikanen (of althans sommige staten) een andere opvatting over de vrijheden inzake religie. Ikzelf vind dat de vrijheid op religiebeleving zeker en vast aanwezig moet zijn in elke civilisatie maar deze vrijheid mag de vrijheid van anderen niet inperken.
De scheiding van kerk en staat is niet even evident in Amerika (er is een beangstigend aantal religieuze fundamentalisten in Amerika die graag de 10 Geboden als grondwet voor het juridisch systeem willen) en dat uit zich hier weer geweldig ostentatief. Verbazingwekkend zelfs dat voorstanders van deze wet zo fel de nadruk leggen op het behouden van vrijheden en de ironie niet inzien van hoe ze hiermee de vrijheden van de Holebi-gemeenschap onderdrukken.