[nfb-talk] Text from Arkansas Times Blog

[John Heim]

Josh, do you really, really believe that business owners shouldn't have 
to go against their religious beliefs? Suppose a business owner says 
it's against his religious beliefs to hire a blind person, is that okay? 
Suppose a business owner says it's against his religious beliefs to 
serve blind people in his restaurant, is that okay?

The point here is that when you say business owners shouldn't have to go 
against their religious beliefs, what you really mean is that they 
shouldn't have to hire gays, right? The problem is that your 
rationalization for your anti-homosexual beliefs provides a 
justification for discrimination in general. You're so busy 
discriminating against gays that you are ignoring the fact that your 
justification for it would justify all kinds of discrimination.

Is it impossible to conceive of a conservative court deciding that it's 
okay to deny access to a person with a guide dog if the owner of the 
business claims it's against his religious beliefs? Suppose some 
restaurant owner kicks a person with a guide dog out of his restaurant.  
The next day, he finds out he shouldn't have done that because he's 
opened himself up for an ADA lawsuit. But he says, "Aha! There's this 
law that says I'm allowed to discriminate based on my religious beliefs. 
I'll just claim dogs are unclean." The case makes its way all the way up 
to the US Supreme Court. The guy now has a lawyer who claims the ADA is 
unconstitutional because it denies his client the right to practice his 
religious beliefs.

The lawyers on this list may say the above scenario is completely 
unrealistic. That's not really my point. My point is that Josh's 
rationalization for justifying discrimination is illogical and 
dangerous. The NFB should come out against justifying discrimination 
based on religious beliefs. It's important.

On 04/01/2015 08:43 PM, josh lester via nfb-talk wrote:
> I'm all in favor of the bill remaining as is.
> I don't think it's on topic because it doesn't relate to blindness,
> but this is up to the moderators to decide.
> As a conservative, I believe b usiness owners shouldn't have to go
> against their religious convictions when going to hire someone.
> The government needs to stay out of religious issues, and let the
> church handle them.
> I'm in agreement with the Family Council on this one.
>
>
> On 3/31/15, Dick and Donna Walker via nfb-talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, don'
>>
>>
>> t know why the blog link didn't work: did here. The other link to the bill
>> text should work fine.  Otherwise, just Google the bill number and you can
>> get the full text.
>>
>>
>> /  <http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/human-rights/> Human
>> rights Governor exploring possibility of compromise on HB 1228
>>
>>
>> Posted By David Ramsey
>> <http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?author=861944>  on Tue,
>> Mar 31, 2015 at 1:20 PM
>>
>>
>> click to enlarge
>> <http://www.arktimes.com/imager/willing-to-compromise-hester-and-ballinge/b/
>> original/3781708/9788/ballingerhester.jpg> WILLING TO COMPROMISE? Hester
>> and
>> Ballinger have been resistant thus far. - BRIAN CHILSON
>>
>> .         Brian Chilson
>>
>> .         WILLING TO COMPROMISE? Hester and Ballinger have been resistant
>> thus far.
>>
>>
>> Could a compromise be brewing on HB 1228, the so-called "religious
>> conscience" bill that opponents argue would offer additional legal
>> protection for discrimination against gay people? The following is what we
>> can report based on multiple sources at the Capitol speaking on background:
>>
>>
>> Gov. Asa Hutchinson appears to be looking for a way out of the current
>> controversy. Particularly with the increasing volume of media coverage and
>> corporate backlash around the similar law in Indiana, the governor has real
>> concerns about the law's impact on economic development, sources say.
>>
>> In separate meetings this morning, the governor and his chief of staff,
>> Michael Lamoureux, met with two backers of the bill - Sen. Bart Hester and
>> Rep. Bob Ballinger - and two opponents of the bill - Rep. Warwick Sabin and
>> Sen. Joyce Elliott.
>>
>> The governor is potentially interested in the concept, also floated by Gov.
>> Mike Pence in Indiana, of adding a "clarification" amendment to the bill
>> that would expressly state that the law does not authorize discrimination
>> or
>> make it lawful to discriminate. The amendment would expressly list various
>> categories - race, religion, old age, etc. - and would include sexual
>> orientation and gender identity.
>>
>> Given that Ballinger and the bill's proponents have said over and over that
>> the bill is not intended to protect discrimination - indeed, he claims it's
>> only about preventing discrimination - this would appear to be a change in
>> line with their stated purpose, but sources say they are still resistant to
>> such an amendment (Ballinger rejected the idea yesterday in committee and
>> thus far today has given every indication that he plans to proceed with the
>> bill as is). Hutchinson is reportedly making the pitch around the effort to
>> recruit business to the state, but it's unclear at this stage whether the
>> governor's muscle can push a compromise through.
>>
>> Ballinger may be reluctant to back down and cave after so strongly
>> rejecting
>> the idea of an amendment. More cynically, it's possible that the groups
>> like
>> the Family Council pushing the bill would prefer that it offer additional
>> protections to Christians discriminating against gay people, in which case
>> the clarifying amendment would defeat one of their purposes. Again,
>> Ballinger has insisted that's not the case; read between the lines as you
>> like. Of course, with such an amendment, Ballinger would probably be
>> particularly unhappy about a law that he sponsored including explicit
>> protections for gay and transgender people found nowhere else in the
>> Arkansas code.
>>
>>
>> HB 1228 opponents who are now backing a compromise argue that this is the
>> best way forward given the limited time left in the session. They also
>> project that Pence in Indiana is likely to pursue a similar strategy based
>> on his press conference this morning. One argument they made to Hutchinson
>> for compromise is that HB 1228 was dissimilar to other "Religious Freedom
>> Restoration Act" laws in other states because Arkansas has no protection in
>> the law for discrimination against LGBT people (unlike, for example, a
>> state
>> like Illinois) so this amendment was necessary for clarification.
>>
>>
>

-- 
John Heim
john at johnheim.com