[nfb-talk] Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Tue Mar 31 23:35:25 UTC 2015

Yeah, what he said. *Should* being the operative word. If someone is denied access, even if done wrongly, the wheels of justice spin slowly. Very slowly. What in the meantime? By the way Paup, while you are correct that official doctrine says guide dogs are an exception, the fact that someone misinterprets doesn't make it any less a religious issue for *that* person, wrong as it may be, and as I read the law and interpretations of it, this would be a valid application. To say that "this law doesn't apply to us, so we can do nothing" is, I believe, hiding our heads in the sand. It very well *could* apply to us, and the circumstances of that application aren't so far fetched.

...and then, they came for me.

--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: 814-860-3194 
Mobile: 814-431-0962
Email: buddy at brannan.name

> On Mar 31, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Michael Hingson via nfb-talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Chris should be correct, but I think the law opens a door that should not be
> opened. 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Michael Hingson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Freeman [mailto:k7uij at panix.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:44 PM
> To: info at michaelhingson.com; 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: [nfb-talk] Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act
> 
> Federal law trumps state law and the ADA still applies in the situation of
> people using guide dogs being refused cab rides.
> 
> In other words, I think Chris is correct.
> 
> Mike Freeman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Hingson via nfb-talk
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:24 PM
> To: 'Chris Nusbaum'; 'NFB Talk Mailing List'; 'John Heim'
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I respectively disagree. What about the many Islamic oriented taxi drivers
> who deny the rights of blind persons with guide dogs to ride in their cabs?
> I believe that under this law blind guide dog users can be prevented from
> equal and total access.
> 
> The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" does effect blind people directly.
> The law isn't just about gays and lesbians. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris
> Nusbaum via nfb-talk
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:35 PM
> To: 'John Heim'; 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act
> 
> John,
> 
> Regardless of our individual feelings on this legislation, I don't think it
> would be appropriate for the NFB to add our collective voice to the already
> strong chorus of opposition to this bill.  Throughout our history we have
> had a policy which states that we do not officially get involved in
> political controversies which do not directly effect the blind. If we were
> to justify our opposition to this legislation by asserting that blind people
> could be effected because there are blind people who are also gay, we could
> use the same logic to justify our collective support of or opposition to
> virtually every issue with which a federal or state legislature concerns
> itself. In adopting this line of reasoning, we would begin to lose our focus
> and eventually the very purpose for which our organization is founded. We
> are an organization which deals specifically with issues which directly
> effect the blind on account of our blindness. Other matters, however
> important they might be to an individual blind person, would not fall under
> our jurisdiction and would be contrary to the organizational purposes
> established in our Constitution.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Heim
> via nfb-talk
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: [nfb-talk] Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act
> 
> 
> The NFB should issue a statement condemning Indiana's religious freedom act.
> 
> I've been discriminated against in my life. I once was  turned down for a
> job because the person who did the interview literally would not believe
> that a blind person could use a computer. I'd been working as a programmer
> and systems administrator for 15 years at that point. Another time, I
> actually diagnosed a network problem during the job interview. I plugged my
> laptop into the network, ran some diagnostics, and explained what the
> problem was right there during the interview. But I didn't get that job
> either because they said part of the job was drawing images for their web
> site. Admittedly, It's debatable whether that second example is
> discrimination. In fact, I personally would not call it discrimination but
> people I've mentioned it to have felt otherwise. The point is that I know
> what it's like being turned down for a job because of something you can't
> control.  I know what it's like when that happens to you when you're worried
> about having health insurance for your family and making the house payment.
> 
> I remember coming home from the job interview where I diagnosed the network
> problem, dancing around and telling my wife I'd nailed it. I remember the
> feeling I got a few days later when she read me the rejection letter that
> said they really needed someone who could see. I said it was their loss and
> tried to believe it. But we really needed our health insurance.
> 
> Now you have a bunch of lawmakers in Indiana telling us it's okay for
> someone to turn a person down for a job because they're in a gay marriage.
> Most of those lawmakers in Indiana have probably never been discriminated
> against in their lives. They don't know what it's like.
> 
> What they are doing is just wrong. And even if you don't agree, we in the
> NFB need to stand  up against discrimination in all of it's forms. 
> This law is intended for use against gays but there's no reason it can't be
> used against racial minorities or even disabled people.
> 
> We have to add our voices to those who have come out against this law. 
> It's the right thing to do.
> 
> 
> --
> John Heim
> john at johnheim.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/cnusbaumnfb%40gmail.co
> m
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/info%40michaelhingson.
> com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/buddy%40brannan.name