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

a reply to: NavyDoc

The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Decent legislation protecting the rights of all citizens to practice their faith exists in different forms and has for a while

This is not that. There's a reason why people are so angry about this - it's not arbitrary

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.

Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?

No.

The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
As the story of Maurice Bessinger shows us, even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.

Emphasis mine. Worth reading the whole thing. It's up to all of us to work together towards a government that supports individuals as part of a community. What kind of a world do we want to live in?

Jesus never said to exclude or be mean to anyone anyhow :-)

I know it seems like the nasty secularists just want to make life rough on the Christians - but what we're actually after is a society that doesn't take us back to Jim Crow one tiny little step at a time. We want to move forward - and live in a country where we're at least artificially polite towards each other as opposed to openly hostile

if I operated a business and decided that I didn't want to serve killers and well since those in the military are in the service of killing should I be able to deny members and former members of the military my services?

The other states all have a form of anti discrimination laws against LGBT, Indiana is the exception and affords no protections, so yes you are correct, the law isn't the 'same as 20 other states'
The governor was interviewed and actually answered "no" to if he thought LGBT should be protected by anti discrimination laws. That bill is not on his agenda.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Even though this was a political cluster**** It was promoted and instigated by far Right Christians.

Now the blowback has infact eroded credibility in Christian institutions across the board imo; All Pence did was pander
to his voter base. Now they are playing the victim because they aren't free to exercise their bigotry.

Politics is hard...it's harder when you're stupid! Now this will be Pence's defining moment and promote questions the GOP doesn't want to answer.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Olaru12 makes his living making films. Do you think he should be forced to make an anti-gay marriage film since he makes films for other people? I'd rather he be able to make his own decision on what sort of films he is willing to make.

That's another tangential, unrelated and unreasonable question! Does he make ANTI-GAY films for other people? There's your answer.

There's no difference between a wedding cake for a straight wedding or a gay wedding. (If they ask for something special, like two grooms, they can be refused. No problem.)
There's no difference between flowers for a straight wedding or a gay wedding.
There's no difference between clothes for straight people and gay people.

Only if the customer is asking for A PRODUCT the business DOES NOT provide for others, should he be refused. The PRODUCT doesn't change. The CUSTOMER does.

Sorry for all the stress, but you are clearly not getting it. If a business provides a product, it should be provided to every group (straight, gay, black, white, male, female). If a business does NOT provide a product, they shouldn't be forced to.

What's so hard to understand???

Nonsense. He makes films. He provides a product. He makes a lot of different films of different types. He would have a moral objection for making a film of a certain type and he has every right to refuse to do so. A person should have the right to not do something he finds abhorrent. How hard is that to understand? In this case, the customer would change.

Again, discrimination is fine, apparently, as long as you agree with the discrimination.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

The governor was interviewed and actually answered "no" to if he thought LGBT should be protected by anti discrimination laws. That bill is not on his agenda.

OMG Zazz - is this guy for real?

Honestly - how is he in charge of anything? :-)

For your amusement:
Indiana Governor Stunned By How Many People Seem to Have Gay Friends

“You could be walking down the street, and without you knowing it, this person is friends with gays and that person is, too,” he said. “It really seems to be pretty widespread.”

originally posted by: dawnstar

if I operated a business and decided that I didn't want to serve killers and well since those in the military are in the service of killing should I be able to deny members and former members of the military my services?

Sure. If you have a moral objection to serving me, I will gladly take my business elsewhere. And yes, I have been refused service because I was military and this refusal was coupled with a "we don't serve killers" comment very like your own.

Yeah, I'm done with these side-stepping arguments that have NOTHING to do with the subject.

Anyway, Pence just gave a press conference.

Source

Indiana Governor Mike Pence said on Tuesday he will "correct" this week the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act to make it clear that businesses cannot use it to deny services to same-sex couples.

Watch the interview you will cringe how immensely stupid he really is. Can't imagine sitting to a cup of coffee in a coffee house with him, trying to maintain a intelligent conversation. I imagine they would refuse service to him for bigotry against moronism. So maybe the bill can be a good thing?
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

originally posted by: dawnstar

if I operated a business and decided that I didn't want to serve killers and well since those in the military are in the service of killing should I be able to deny members and former members of the military my services?

There have been businesses that refuse service to military in uniform.

There are states that specifically include military in their non-discriminate list.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Logical Question:
If we move this along and start applying discrimination to say, income or "class status". Would it not follow that we should force businesses that provide "public accommodation" to accept those who cannot pay as customers?

That's a silly question. Businesses aren't be asked to provide services that they don't already provide (like free services). They are being asked to treat their customers EQUALLY.

It's like you and several others have gotten together and conspired to change the subject (to Muslims being forced to serve pork, businesses being forced to provide free services). It's an obvious attempt at obfuscation. It shows how weak your argument actually is.

Olaru12 makes his living making films. Do you think he should be forced to make an anti-gay marriage film since he makes films for other people? I'd rather he be able to make his own decision on what sort of films he is willing to make.

Is that a public service business?

I don't think so.

Yes it is by the broad definition that people seem to use around here. I love all the mental gymnastics that people go through to justify their own desires to discriminate. "But this is different" seems the most common cry.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
but we can't just keep writing laws to protect different groups of people. and there will be other groups that will be thought up since it seems that some people just need to hate someone or something and have to express that somehow. and the religions does seem to leave the door open to justify so much!

There are plenty of people who hate me. I guess I need to become a protected class.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Logical Question:
If we move this along and start applying discrimination to say, income or "class status". Would it not follow that we should force businesses that provide "public accommodation" to accept those who cannot pay as customers?

That's a silly question. Businesses aren't be asked to provide services that they don't already provide (like free services). They are being asked to treat their customers EQUALLY.

It's like you and several others have gotten together and conspired to change the subject (to Muslims being forced to serve pork, businesses being forced to provide free services). It's an obvious attempt at obfuscation. It shows how weak your argument actually is.

Olaru12 makes his living making films. Do you think he should be forced to make an anti-gay marriage film since he makes films for other people? I'd rather he be able to make his own decision on what sort of films he is willing to make.

Is that a public service business?

I don't think so.

Yes it is by the broad definition that people seem to use around here. I love all the mental gymnastics that people go through to justify their own desires to discriminate. "But this is different" seems the most common cry.

No mental gymnastics. My kid works in film production. It was an honest question.

Her company bids on films. They've never had anyone come to them and demand their service.

A crew member would be required to film the subject matter.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Indiana Governor Mike Pence said on Tuesday he will "correct" this week the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act to make it clear that businesses cannot use it to deny services to same-sex couples.

LOL bravo for his constituents and the corporations that stuck it to him. I haven't seen more back peddling since the 1890 world fair PennyFarthing exhibition.

I dare say unless he introduces a anti discrimination law supporting LGBT, they will find a way to deny service. Otherwise why pass the religious bill? and why not protect your LGBT community from discrimination via a anti discrimination law? He seems to have made a whole lotta work for himself. Loser.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
but we can't just keep writing laws to protect different groups of people. and there will be other groups that will be thought up since it seems that some people just need to hate someone or something and have to express that somehow. and the religions does seem to leave the door open to justify so much!

There are plenty of people who hate me. I guess I need to become a protected class.

Playing the victim doesn't become you...are you a closet "people like you"

I live in Indiana and this is embarrassing. Hey lets step back 200 years and start discriminating against people exercising their rights. I guess the christians "God" loves all his children, except the gay ones...what a joke! Maybe we should start denying them rights to establish a church on our land, because we don't like bigots. Makes me wanna punch a jesus freak in the face.

a reply to: mrsdudara

Actually Remember Bush 2000 anti Frivolous law sues law under civil justice reform? When he was a governor in Texas? this law was able to benefit businesses from stupid law sues.

Even when the critics (Mostly the Lawyers complained that it would be unfair to the consumer).

Then in 2005 Bush signed into law when president, sadly the law was more into helping big corporations and specially the medical community like big pharma stay away from consumers that were not happy with their products.

So actually it is law already established to protect businesses against stupid law sues or like the law say against frivolous law sues.

Many States added more to the law in order to expand the definition of frivolous law sues.

But I don't seem to find any state that would pass a completely different bill like "Religious Freedom" when religious freedom is already guarantee under the constitution, but what is not guarantee under the constitution is how to used it for discrimination.

Like I say this bill will be challenged.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
but we can't just keep writing laws to protect different groups of people. and there will be other groups that will be thought up since it seems that some people just need to hate someone or something and have to express that somehow. and the religions does seem to leave the door open to justify so much!

There are plenty of people who hate me. I guess I need to become a protected class.

Playing the victim doesn't become you...are you a closet "people like you"

I was being a bit sarcastic. OTOH, mixed race Asians are not a protected class, so I better get working!

Here's my point--I support your right to make your own choices in life and business without government coercion. I do not think that an abhorrent philosophy. I also want to make choices for myself without government coercion and I believe that I would be a hypocrite if I wanted that for myself but would deny that to others. Again, I do not think that an abhorrent philosophy either.

Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how much we want them to.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The governor was interviewed and actually answered "no" to if he thought LGBT should be protected by anti discrimination laws. That bill is not on his agenda.

OMG Zazz - is this guy for real?

Honestly - how is he in charge of anything? :-)

For your amusement:
Indiana Governor Stunned By How Many People Seem to Have Gay Friends

You had me at "Indiana Governor Stunned"

Now the big question is Is Indiana Gov. Mike Pence a homophobic, so bad that he needed a law to get back to homosexuals and the gay community?