Confusion

So I read this this morning:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32136892

I am at once confused and deeply troubled.

The confusion comes from this - what exactly did the Governor think he was signing? Didn't he read it? Didn't he have his team of legal folks tell him that this law was fraught (FRAUGHT!) with issues? Didn't he understand that this a discriminatory, hateful thing which just should not be?

Apparently not.

So, I've written a few laws myself. A fair few. And I've read A LOT of laws. Where I work now has a land use ordinance that seems cobbled together like a Frankenstein of many different laws and iterations all over the State and Country. This is not unusual - plagiarism is alive and well in planning circles, because what is working well in one place just may be of benefit in others... But the problem comes when there are contradictory items in the code. And even more problematic is when the code does not reflect the intent of the governing body.

This does not seem to be the case in Indiana. The law clearly defines the parameters and restrictions that are to be enacted. And the honorable Governor MUST have known that. But he got caught. Apparently there were people watching this who noted that it was problematic, and brought it to light.

Specifically, the discriminatory language and effect of the law is damning. It demonstrates the nefarious nature and disposition of those who crafted, passed, and signed the law. And what is particularly damning is the idea that it so closely matches what was passed in Utah recently, where discrimination was categorically refuted/denied. But this is just another work-around to discriminate against LGBT folks in the name of "religious liberty", whatever that means.

There's another point that is troubling, however. It is in the language that defines a "person" as a business, religious organization, or association. Which reminded me of this:




Here's a recent article about the phenomenon:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/corporations-are-people-a_b_5543833.html

The idea of "corporate personhood" is an interesting one, initially designed to protect investors and business folks from prosecution in the event their business venture went south. But the rights extended to such entities has gone way beyond what was originally anticipated. Because, here's the thing - Mitt Romney is right: corporations ARE people - at least, they're made up of people and ultimately benefit their share holders, who are people (real, live, flesh and blood human beings). At some point, after you strip away all of the layers of LLCs and other corporate bureaucracy, there are people. And those people often have religious beliefs that put them at odds with a particular legal or moral stance. So the Court decided that a law cannot force some physical or corporate person to do something that goes against said religious beliefs.

This seems like a good idea, but is so very troubling that I almost don't know what to say about it. The laws we put in place are for the protection of all, but particularly the institutionally disenfranchised against said institution. It is to defend the rights of the few against the tyranny of the majority. And (as is relevant in this case) it is intended to help ensure the rights of the (relative) poor against the plutocracy.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

And it bothers me a lot. This law is awful.

It reminds me of the Hobby Lobby deal - you know, where the folks at Hobby Lobby were going to refuse to give health insurance to their employees because they might use it on things like contraceptives and "morning-after" pills... No one at Hobby Lobby or the insurance companies are condoning a certain course of action, and no one is forcing women to take contraceptives or "morning-after" pills. But by removing the possibility of a woman from accessing these drugs (for whatever reason, morally objectionable or not) is the tyranny of the religious plutocracy, artificially placing their corporate sense of religious/moral right on others who may not feel the same way. And because they have "corporate personhood", they can do this.

I'm glad they're revisiting it. The best idea would be to put it in File 13.