Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial 'religious freedom' bill

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

Seems that the law is clearly not targeting any group or subset of individuals, . . .

Yeah, that's the "sneaky" intent.

And I am here honestly, not trying to claim "get the gays!" or any other nonsense other than what the legislation/law actually entails -- which is all conjecture until it is actually applied in court no?

20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we would need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

Therein lies the issue though Beez -- you have both sides of the coin seeking that respect no? One side wants the respect of their religion, to not act against their conscious; the other respect for themselves, to not be denied based on themselves.

Its something the Government shouldn't have to engage in at all in my opinion.

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

If this Indiana bill goes thru; you could very well suffer the brunt of this discrimination...I't won't be limited to Gay people!

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

If this Indiana bill goes thru; you could very well be the brunt of the discrimination...I't won't be limited to Gay people!

Already has become law and isn't some new piece of law -- other states (19 of them) have a manifestation of it, along with the Federal Government itself.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

Seems that the law is clearly not targeting any group or subset of individuals, . . .

Yeah, that's the "sneaky" intent.

And I am here honestly, not trying to claim "get the gays!" or any other nonsense other than what the legislation/law actually entails -- which is all conjecture until it is actually applied in court no?

I've been following the "Family Values" people for a long time.

Someone, a while back, got hold of an internal memo that discussed "New Strategy". How to word speeches, legislature, etc - - - without using descriptives, words directly relating to LGBT. Basically, how to be sneaky and work around it, but still discriminate against LGBT. These people aren't fooling anyone.

Applied in court? This law is directly related to the "wedding cake" incident. It is designed so the "cake baker" can not lose in court if sued. That she will win by her religious defense.

Same incident - - - different outcome - - - religion wins over equality.

It will win in court if its allowed to succeed (as intended).

a reply to: ownbestenemy
How many times have we heard, "You can't legislate morality".
As much as I would agree to this "law", I see it failing for that reason alone.

You cannot legislate respect.

You either have it or you don't. If anything, this is an indictment towards our amoral society.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

If this Indiana bill goes thru; you could very well suffer the brunt of this discrimination...I't won't be limited to Gay people!

Therein lies the crux.

if people weren't going to respect me before the law, why would it change?

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

Religious convictions which bizarrely allow them to be cnuts to random people, in contradiction to what their religion actually demands?
There is NOTHING in the Bible about not serving cake to LGBT people, but there is plenty in the Bible about divorce, shellfish, cutting hair, selling daughters, stoning women...

It's funny how the religious seem to be so able to selectively pick and choose what parts of their Bible they adhere to, the bits that give them an imagined authority to abuse other people.

No one is threatening anyones "religious convictions", and if your convictions are all about refusing to treat others with basic Human decency, then your convictions are not worth sh*t.

a reply to: Annee

Legislation ex post facto still doesn't address the issue it actually was written for. It may have been born of an issue; but its actual application will have to be tested against established litmus tests set via precedent. These issues will be challenged in court as they should -- that is the way of our system.

The problem it seems is when the court doesn't go in one groups favor...

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

You keep it in your world and out of mine - - no prob.

A public business is as much my world as the owner. I do not want to know their religion.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

If this Indiana bill goes thru; you could very well suffer the brunt of this discrimination...I't won't be limited to Gay people!

Therein lies the crux.

if people weren't going to respect me before the law, why would it change?

Does that mean you are ok with discriminating against LGBT folks using religion as the reason; that's the real crux of the matter.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Whatever happened to respect?

I may not agree with your ideology or beliefs, but I can still respect your wishes.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: Annee

Legislation ex post facto still doesn't address the issue it actually was written for. It may have been born of an issue; but its actual application will have to be tested against established litmus tests set via precedent. These issues will be challenged in court as they should -- that is the way of our system.

The problem it seems is when the court doesn't go in one groups favor...

If this law is allowed to stand as intended - - - there is no question the outcome.

Fact is: it is being challenged. What if no one challenged it?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: beezzer
20 pages.

Hmmph.

You know, we wouldn't need laws like this if people simply respected others religious convictions.

If this Indiana bill goes thru; you could very well suffer the brunt of this discrimination...I't won't be limited to Gay people!

Therein lies the crux.

if people weren't going to respect me before the law, why would it change?

Does that mean you are ok with discriminating against LGBT folks using religion as the reason; that's the real crux of the matter.

Lets turn it around.

Are you okay with LGBT people disrespecting people's religious beliefs?

a reply to: Annee

Why not respect someone's religious beliefs?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Rocker2013

Whatever happened to respect?

I may not agree with your ideology or beliefs, but I can still respect your wishes.

The wishes of the gay couple just wanting a wedding cake was not respected.

a reply to: beezzer

Agreed -- why I said the State shouldn't even have to be stepping in -- an individual should have the right to determine who they engage in contract with; regardless if they are a "public accommodation" -- just as much as an individual has the right to determine they don't wish to engage in a contract with such people.

I always saw these as interesting -- a market niche to serve exclusively to the LGBT crowd. Seems like a good business right now no?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Annee

Why not respect someone's religious beliefs?

Religion is a personal choice.

Keep it personal.

a reply to: Annee

If no one challenged it (which is there an actual legal challenge in the works? Or just public opinion?), then the People really have no leg to stand on regarding the outcome (intended or unintended).