EDITORIAL

Editorial: Objections answered — why Indiana needs to expand LGBT rights

This editorial was originally published December 4, 2015.

For many Hoosiers the need to expand Indiana’s civil rights law to better protect LGBT citizens is clear. Polls this year have consistently found a strong majority of Indiana residents support adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. Hundreds of community, academic and religious leaders have stepped forward to voice support for expanding the law. And scores of Indiana-based businesses have banded together to push for changes in the law that would deter discrimination.

Yet, pockets of opposition remain, and the upcoming debate in the Statehouse is far from settled. Arguments against adding civil rights protections for LGBT citizens, in general, center on four objections, which The Star Editorial Board addresses here.

The law already protects Hoosiers’ civil rights. Why should LGBT people receive special protections?

Under existing law, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals do not have legal recourse if they are discriminated against on the job, in buying or renting a place to live, or if they are denied service in a business that is open to the public.

State law does bar discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age and national origin. But a gay man fired in Indiana for being gay is left with no way to legally fight back against such discrimination.

State lawmakers need to address that injustice, not with “special protections” but by providing LGBT citizens with the same legal tools available to others who face discrimination.

If the controversy over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really did hurt Indiana’s economy, why have so many businesses announced further investments in the state this year?

Just because the state has added businesses since RFRA doesn’t mean we are without risk of losing business investments or being shunned by companies or convention organizers if we fail to act.

The NCAA, as one example, would be forced to reconsider its relationship with Indy if we fail to expand civil rights laws in our state or if Indy’s local human rights law was stripped. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the organization to stage championship events here without full civil rights protections, because athletes and universities would not be comfortable participating in an environment where equal rights are not secured.

Convention business could likewise be at risk. Cities that compete with Indy for tourism and convention business pounce on opportunities to tout themselves as being better, friendlier, more welcoming destinations than other cities. Let’s not leave that door open.

Beyond that, let’s not lose sight of the important thing. The issue is not merely whether Indiana could survive economically without expanding our civil rights law. The issue, instead, rests squarely on one fundamental principle: doing the right thing. That means respecting human rights for all and stating, without equivocation, that Indiana is a great place to visit and to call home, regardless of your background.

The proposed changes could subject employers and others to a wave of frivilous lawsuits. Isn’t that bad for business?

That’s not been the experience in Indianapolis and other cities in the state that have had non-discrimination laws in place for years. The evidence doesn’t show that businesses have been unduly burdened by lawsuits asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

It’s telling that the Indy Chamber of Commerce, the Indiana Chamber and other organizations representing businesses have voiced strong support for expanding the civil rights law. They understand that sending the message that Indiana won’t tolerate discrimination is both the right thing to do and good for business.

People with deeply held religious convictions will be forced to compromise their faith for the sake of LGBT rights. Why should the state choose one group over another?

It’s not about elevating one group of citizens over another group. It’s about ensuring that all Hoosiers are treated equally under the law.

People of faith in Indiana already have strong legal protections against discrimination. They also have clear protections in the state and federal constitutions that ensure their ability to practice their faith not only within their homes and congregations but also in public. Those protections will not and should not be eroded.

But religious beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not provide an unchecked license to discriminate against fellow citizens. In those infrequent instances when religious liberty and civil rights concerns have clashed, courts have been called on to strike a balance between competing values. It’s not a perfect system, of course, but it’s one that has served our state and nation well.

We’ve also been served well throughout our history by the continued expansion of civil rights. Racial and ethnic minorities, women and people of faith have benefitted immeasurably because at points in our history legal protections against discrimination were extended to them.

We’ve now reached another such point in history.

It’s time to ensure that our LGBT family members, friends and neighbors are no longer treated as second-class citizens. It’s time to ensure rights for all.