Dana Loesch's atrocious excuse-making for defending Indiana's license to discriminate law

Anti-LGBTQ demagogue Dana Loesch defense another state's horrible anti-LGBTQ "religious freedom" (aka license to discriminate) law, and this time, it's Indiana's idiotic SB101 that was recently signed into law by Indiana Governor and potential 2016 GOP Presidential candidate Mike Pence.

Just a side note: Indianapolis is where KFTK and WIBC's corporate owner Emmis Communications is based at, and The Dana Show aired on those two stations prior to going nationally syndicated with Radio America in 2014.

She has attacked Angie's List, Wilco, and others who dared to boycott Indiana over the passage of SB101.

Angie's List:


Last night on TheBlazeTV's Dana, Loesch and her panel slammed and mocked celebrities' tweets opposing Indiana SB101 and Pence.
From the 03.30.2015 edition TheBlazeTV's Dana:

More proof that Loesch is lying through her teeth about the RFRA's impacts.

Judd Legum at Think Progress LGBT on the truth about the difference between Indiana's RFRA law and the other 19 states and federal's version:
The Indiana law differs substantially from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, and all other state RFRAs.

There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense… regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”

Every other Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to disputes between a person or entity and a government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.* This means it could be used as a cudgel by corporations to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law. Indiana trial lawyer Matt Anderson, discussing this difference, writes that the Indiana law is “more broadly written than its federal and state predecessors” and opens up “the path of least resistance among its species to have a court adjudicate it in a manner that could ultimately be used to discriminate…”Click to enlarge CREDIT: DYLAN PETROHILOS/THINKPROGRESS

This is not a trivial distinction. Arizona enacted an RFRA that applied to actions involving the government in 2012. When the state legislature tried to expand it to purely private disputes in 2014, nationwide protests erupted and Jan Brewer, Arizona’s Republican governor, vetoed the measure.

Senator (and soon-to-be likely Senate Majority/Minority Leader when Harry Reid retires at the end of the 114th Congress) Chuck Schumer (D) on the difference between Indiana and the other RFRAs:

In the uproar over the recently passed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), defenders of the bill like...
Posted by Senator Chuck Schumer on Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Remember that the Indiana RFRA is VASTLY DIFFERENT than the other 19 states that have such laws and the federal one.

It's not just Indiana that's proposing and/or passing RFRA bills in the vein of the now-vetoed Arizona SB1062 and recently passed and signed into law Indiana SB101: Georgia, North Carolina, and Arkansas-- to name a few, are considering such bills.

More on Loesch's attacks on LGBTQ rights:

No comments :

Post a Comment

Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr