Hi. I wish I had the time to just comprehensively research. I am somewhat piecemeal figuring items out.
I noted in another diary that with the Pence "we are being misunderstood" line someone might do well to find the discussion and legislative history.
Usually in Law School it does not come forth as of great import because in cases discussing legislation Courts don't look often past the plain language. It is very rare the actual floor discussion in any way mater.
However, I think here it matters to see the history of the bill to decimate the idea that it is not about descrimination.
I have not found the discussion in looking but I have found the Amendments (ones that failed). I don't know if they are from the super crazy or ones who want to make the parallels of no blacks and the like obvious. Update: They were from democrats trying to show this "non-discrimination" misunderstood bill, was by the Amendments, I guess Mike didn't know.
I do think the Amendments (even without seeing the discussion).
It obviously is a joke that it is not a discrimination bill. I wish I could find the floor discussions. Like someone asking "why do we need this".
So far what I find telling are the Amendments. The non-discrimination lie is more ridiculous.
I note I do not know if this was as someone trying to make the discrimination obvious, or well they don't get it.
I see Amendments that failed.
1. Amendments that would have required a "No Gay" sign to be able to use the bill as a defense:
From a Senate Amendment (Failed) and a House Bill Amendment:
Sec. 11. (a) Before a person who operates a business may: 3 (1) claim in any judicial or administrative proceeding that the 4 person's exercise of religion is substantially burdened
They must post a sign:
(1) The sign must be posted and maintained in a conspicuous 26 place that is visible to customers of the person's business before the customers enter the premises of the business.
(2) The sign must state that the person believes a governmental entity substantially burdens the person's 2 exercise of religion by requiring the person's business to serve individuals who are members of certain groups or classes of individuals within the general population.
(3) The sign must specifically identify the certain groups or classes of individuals within the general population described in subdivision (2) that the person's business may not serve because the person believes doing so would substantially burden the person's exercise of religion. (4) The sign must be posted before serving or denying service 11 to an individual who is a member of one (1) of the certain 12 groups or classes of individuals specifically identified under 13 subdivision (3). ". (Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)
So there was an Amendment that would've required saying you hate gays in a sign before claiming they impinged on your religion.
And I am sure Mike Pence knew this, and didn't think of "White's Only"?
I note that this was a Democrat (Senator Tallion) in the Senate. I assume it was to attempt some critical thinking.
Now reading it was definitely to make the Bigotry and Racism clear. The Internet Amendment Similarly:
If a person described in subsection (a) operates an Internet web site for the person's business, the person must post the following on the Internet web site: (1) The web site must state that the person believes a governmental entity substantially burdens the person's exercise of religion by requiring the person's business to serve individuals who are members of certain groups or classes of individuals within the general population. (2) The web site must specifically identify the certain groups or classes of individuals within the general population described in subdivision (1) that the person's business may not serve because the person believes doing so would substantially burden the person's exercise of religion. (3) The information described in subdivisions (1) and (2) must 35 be posted on the web site before serving or denying service to 36 an individual who is a member of one (1) of the certain groups 37 or classes of individuals specifically identified under 38 subdivision (2). "
This also didn't pass. I suppose it would've quickly allowed bloggers and the like to find who was a bigot. But if not about discrimination, why have to keep your religion secret and let someone find out.
Hope there starts to be a sight as this would've. So not only was it about Discrimination it is about letting the Bigots not say until they decide that they want to be bigots.
Also an Amendment not adopted because I assume it made it too obvious:
MADAM PRESIDENT: This chapter does not apply to: 4 (1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or 5 (2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits 6 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ". (Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)
So looks like the dems even in Amendments let alone floor debate made clear well if you want to pass a discrimination bill. You might as well be honest about it.
But, well, no Mike Pence had no idea, even as these amendments made it clear and made bigots own their bigotry (because it would've hurt their busienss), or that's not the intent? I missed his sunday appearances.
Again in re-read I think this worth showing as it is not like there was no discussion of bigotry, or even sexual orientation. That's a lie. They want to be Bigots in quiet. I don't think we "misunderstood" mike.
We'll probably see these signs anyways.
More I want to write but a bit limited I just thought well probably no one is bothering how this Bill well did not evolve.