The Indiana law is unconstitutional

In arguing with a right wing twit who doesn’t understand the Constitution I came across these facts.
The last clause in Indiana law says:
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
The twit thinks that only business owners should be covered by the law and deserve to have their “religious rights” trump all other rights and obligations, but not lowly employees.
The clause creates two classes of people only one of which is provided this right, which is unconstitutional on its face. The Indiana legislators had no intention of providing these religious “rights” to anyone but business owners, and employees under this travesty of a “law” are to have no religious rights it. (After all, they can’t allow lowly employees to use their religious rights if they might interfere with the employer’s profits, can they?)
This clause, if not the whole law will be thrown out of court in a heartbeat because it defies the Equal Protection clause. If it is rewritten to include everyone and manages to pass Constitutional muster, it will cover employees as well as business-owners–which will cause business owners a lot if grief because they would then have to offer the same religious accommodation to their employees that they take for themselves, including allowing them to refuse to serve certain customers and to take time off for religious holidays and prayer sessions whenever their religion tells them they should.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Lois

One of these laws will end up in front SCOTUS in the next year or two, and then it will be settled. The right to practice religion does not include declining to do your job or serve someone you think is sinful.

One of these laws will end up in front SCOTUS in the next year or two, and then it will be settled. The right to practice religion does not include declining to do your job or serve someone you think is sinful.
That's right but the people behind the Indiana law and similar laws think they can do an end run around the Constitution by passing a state law allowing discrimination. It won't work but it will raise havoc and waste taxpayer money for a few years until it's settled by the Supreme Court. Even then there will be additional attempts to do end runs around the Constitution. Right-wing zealots never learn.

On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Dunham, Gary wrote:
Dear colleagues,
As you may well imagine, the passage of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been both challenging and mortifying for us at Indiana University Press. Professionally, it goes against all that we stand and work for as a publisher; personally, it is repugnant. Such an absolute shame that this legislation threatens to tarnish perceptions of such a wonderfully diverse and complex state, a place I have come to love.
I am happy to share that the support from our authors, at home and outside of the land of Hoosier, remains unwavering and enthusiastic. Inspired by our university’s president, we have publicly affirmed our commitment to diversity and fair treatment:
http://iupress.typepad.com/blog/2015/04/books-for-understanding-diversity.html
I have lived in red states and blue states, and normally refrain as a Director from commenting on political matters but this….this needed to be said.
Thanks,
Gary Dunham
Director, Indiana University Press and Digital Publishing

One of these laws will end up in front SCOTUS in the next year or two, and then it will be settled. The right to practice religion does not include declining to do your job or serve someone you think is sinful.
Not necessarily. Rachel Maddow prior to her take on the Indiana thing trotted out the Terry Shiavo case, which went all the way to the SCOTUS, failed there, SO then Gov Jeb Bush took it to his brother and the Congress, who played some tricks and went against scotus. Bottom line is this - evil finds a way.