Category: sexual orientation

Full Text of Amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom and Restoration Act Being Debated Today

Today, the Indiana Legislature is debating an amendment which would provide significant protections to sexual minorities in Indiana. It would be ironic if the passage of the RFRA led to the achievement of a legislative goal pursued by GLBT activists for a long time.
You can click the link to go to the Indiana legislature’s website to read the amendment, and it is provided here below.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
DIGEST FOR ESB 50
Citations Affected: IC 34-13-9.
Synopsis: Antidiscrimination safeguards. Indicates that the law related to adjudicating a claim or defense that a state or local law, ordinance, or other action substantially burdens the exercise of religion of a person: (1) does not authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public; (2) does not establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public; and (3) does not negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Defines the term provider. (This conference committee report deletes the provisions concerning elections in SB 50, as amended by the house, and inserts provisions related to the law governing adjudicating a claim or defense that a state or local law, ordinance, or other action substantially burdens the exercise of religion of a person.)
Effective: July 1, 2015.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
MR. SPEAKER:
Your Conference Committee appointed to confer with a like committee from the Senate upon Engrossed House Amendments to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 50 respectfully reports that
said two committees have conferred and agreed as follows to wit: that the Senate recede from its dissent from all House amendments and that the Senate now concur in all House amendments to the bill and that the bill be further amended as follows:
1 Delete the title and insert the following:
2 A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning
3 judicial and administrative proceedings.
4 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:
5 SECTION 1. IC 34-13-9-0.7 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE
6 AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY
7 1, 2015]: Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:
8 (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services,
9 facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment,
10 or housing to any member or members of the general public
11 on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national
12 origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
13 United States military service;
14 (2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution
15 for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities,
16 use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing
17 to any member or members of the general public on the basis
18 of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin,
19 disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United
20 States military service; or
21 (3) negate any rights available under the Constitution of the
CC005005/DI 51 2015
2
1 State of Indiana.
2 SECTION 2. IC 34-13-9-7.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE
3 AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY
4 1, 2015]: Sec. 7.5. As used in this chapter, “provider” means one (1)
5 or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations,
6 limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized
7 groups of persons. The term does not include:
8 (1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or
9 society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from
10 federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended
11 (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business
12 taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)).
13 (2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of
14 a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society
15 when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated
16 educational function of the church or other nonprofit
17 religious organization or society.
(Reference is to ESB 50 as reprinted March 17, 2015.)
CC005005/DI 51 2015
Conference Committee Report
on
Engrossed Senate Bill 50
Signed by:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senator Young R Michael Representative Frizzell
Chairperson
____________________________ ____________________________
Senator Broden Representative Lawson L
Senate Conferees House Conferees
CC005005/DI 51 2015

This amendment makes sexual orientation and gender identity categories on par with race and religion. However, the facts of an alleged incident of discrimination would still be a matter for a court to decide. Because, the RFRA requires the government to show a compelling state interest to compel a person to take the pictures, it isn’t clear to me that a photographer who doesn’t believe gay marriage is right would have to provide services. However, I will say that the existence of a civil rights law that includes sexual orientation will make it more likely that a compelling state interest would win in court to require all public businesses to serve all clients.
For an article that I believe accurately describes the situation, see Dale Carpenter at the Volokh Conspiracy. Carpenter’s take on the amendment is generally favorable.
UPDATE: Legislators in Indiana have agreed to vote on the proposed amendment with the expectation that it will pass.
 

Ben Carson Apologizes for Saying Being Gay is a Choice (Full Statement)

On his Facebook page, probable GOP presidential contender Ben Carson apologized for his comments that being gay is a choice.

In a recent interview on CNN, I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues.

I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended.

I’m a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine, who was blessed to work at perhaps the finest institution of medical knowledge in the world. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, and up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality. We do know, however, that we are always born male and female. And I know that we are all made in God’s image, which means we are all deserving of respect and dignity.

I support human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people, and I have done so for many years. I support civil unions for gay couples, and I have done so for many years. I support the right of individual states to sanction gay marriage, and I support the right of individual states to deny gay marriage in their respective jurisdictions.
I also think that marriage is a religious institution. Religious marriage is an oath before God and congregation. Religious marriage must only be governed by the church. Judges and government must not be allowed to restrict religious beliefs.
I am not a politician and I answered a question without really thinking about it thoroughly. No excuses. I deeply regret my statement and I promise you, on this journey, I may err again, but unlike politicians when I make an error I will take full responsibility and never hide or parse words. As a human being my obligation is to learn from my mistakes and to treat all people with respect and dignity.

He pretended to know that being gay was “absolutely” a choice earlier today. Now he doesn’t pretend to know how it happens. What a difference less than a day makes.
Just a bit ago, Alan Chambers contested Carson’s remarks on this blog.
Bryan Fischer’s wish didn’t last a day:


I’d say he retreated more than an inch.
Carson had a hard time choosing (see what I did there) what message to go with. First, he confidently said being gay was a choice. Then he told Sean Hannity in the afternoon that the “liberal media” wasn’t treating him fairly. Carson even said he wasn’t going to talk about gay issues anymore. At that point, with Hannity, there was no apology. Then later, as I noted in this post, he was talking about gay issues again with his apology.

Former President of Exodus International Says Being Gay is Not a Choice

Exodus International was once the largest ex-gay evangelical organization in the nation. However, after rejecting reparative therapy, Exodus closed operations in 2013. I asked former president of Exodus Alan Chambers about his reaction to Ben Carson’s comments that being gay is a choice. His reply:

Any behavior is a choice. Sexual orientation, however, is not a choice. In 20+ years of working w/ gay and lesbian people I’ve never met one person who chose to be gay. At 43 years old, though faithfully and happily married to my wife for over 17 years and completely attracted to her, my own same-sex attractions have not diminished. Claiming orientation is a choice is archaic and causes great shame for the beautiful men, women, youth, and families who live this reality. 

Over the years, I have met many same-sex attracted people, but none of them said they chose their feelings, even those who said they had changed those feelings to some degree.

Ben Carson: Being Gay is Choice Because Some People Do Gay Things After Prison

Dr. Carson, this isn’t brain surgery. Being attracted to the same or opposite sex isn’t chosen like you chose to speak outside of your area of expertise today.
On CNN, Carson told Chris Cuomo that being gay is choice and he knows this because of prison. Carson said:

Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.

Some people do make a shift in prison but probably not “a lot.” One study I consulted found that about 17% of prisoners said they had shifted orientation from before prison to the time of the survey. Those prisoners were still incarcerated. Most of the switchers said they became bisexual. They should be surveyed when they leave prison; most will likely revert to pre-prison identifications.
More disturbing is Carson’s reliance on a clearly exceptional population. He should know better than to draw conclusions about all gays because of the exceptions in prison. He surely did not choose surgery techniques or medicines that way.

New Jersey Judge Says Gay Cure Claim is Fraud

Recognizing the position of all mental health organizations, a New Jersey judge said yesterday it is consumer fraud to claim homosexuality is a disease which can be cured.
Judge Peter Barsio, Jr. wrote:

It is a misrepresentation in violation of the CFA (Consumer Fraud Act), in advertising or selling conversion therapy services to describe homosexuality, not as being a normal variation of human sexuality, but as being a mental illness, disease, disorder, or equivalent.

Reparative therapists hold that attractions to the same sex represent a disordered state due to deficits in parenting. These theories have been discredited long ago but reparative therapists have held on to them. Given that therapists offer a service to consumers, consumer protection law has been used in the New Jersey case against JONAH to address the fraudulent claims.
JONAH claims not to offer therapy but I suspect testimony will establish that they do (or at least did). I know that JONAH historically has promoted reparative therapy which has parental fault at the center of the causal narrative. I have seen many families torn up over the reparative theory.