How Indiana's religious freedom bill came to be - A theory

I've seen a great deal about this in the past few hours. Mostly talking about the evil, malicious nature of the law, and praise for the various organizations who are aiming financial punishment at the state for their participation in this act of discrimination.

It took a fair amount of hunting to find the actual text of the law, here.

It is true legalese, Mind numbing, vague, sterile... But after a few reads through, I really didn't see the malice or intent to discriminate that the opinion-sters are buzzing about. It looks more like they are trying to protect against discrimination against religious groups to me, such as the well-worn photographer case. (Just a thought, since photography is a form of personal expression, arguably, falling under free speech - that was the argument Larry Flint made and won years ago - Isn't compelling someone to photograph something they don't believe in, in essence a violation of their right to free speech?)



Last night an alternate theory came to me, as to how this all went down. Let me start by establishing the straight-gay continuum. The distribution numbers are purely guesses, but I expect this is approximately what the population distribution looks like.

Now, 4L and 4R, though the smallest groups, are the ones who get the most attention; make the most noise. If you hear something in the news, it is most likely coming from 4L, 3L, 3R or 4R.


Now I won't speculate as to how it all really began, that is lost somewhere in the past, and the fallibility of human memory virtually guarantees it isn't coming to light. But more recently, I suspect someone in 4L did something to irritate 4R - most probably launched an attack against a 2R. so 4R, and probably some 3R went storming off to the legislature to do something about it. I imagine 2R got involved as well, as they were the group who got attacked.

2R then produced a general idea for a law that would provide protection. 4R wasn't happy with it, and tried to push the law to be more aggressive in nature. 2R favored something more precise, less vague, but as 3R pointed out, 4L would not be happy with the law regardless, and would actively seek to invalidate the law. 2R conceded and thus relented to requests for greater vagary as a proactive defense against these inevitable attacks.

And thus the baby was born, with plenty of crying, screaming and pooping to go around.

I believe this model fits rather well, conforms to the wisdom of Hanlan's razor, and likely fits just as well with most every controversial bit of legislation.

A few other points it brings out:

• 2L, 1L, 1R and 2R make up the majority, yet they get the least say, and are usually the cannon fodder in these issues. They seriously get taken advantage of.

• Politicians don't really like 2L - 2R. These people tend to be reasonable, rational, which means they could vote either way, given solid, accurate, informed, unemotional information. Politicians need to stay in office, so while they may not really like the Jihadist nature of 4L and 4R, they nonetheless try to push the respect 2's toward the 4 position through crowd manipulation, to help secure their votes.

• 4L and 4R are where Terrorists come from. They are black/white thinkers. They aren't willing to compromise - a necessary feature of living in large groups(unless of course you think absolute homogeneity is a good idea [read up on the history of bananas]). I read a rather compelling quote recently - dealing with engineering, but it applies well here - "There is no one right answer, just different flavors of wrong."