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

a reply to: flammadraco

This was a satirical story that went viral, and people started to believe it was reality, but it's not.

www.snopes.com...

But it sure would be funny if true, because Marcus is kinda soft and sweet!

a reply to: windword

Really.... Damn lol!

Shame it never happened for real as that would have been KARMA working like a treat!

a reply to: windword

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is a moron, now that the law was passed and can be challenged, he is feeling the back lash of it from all groups around the state, now he is running like a headless chicken to "clarified" what he mean when it comes to his religious freedom that is nothing but a discriminatory open door for certain groups to go rampant on percussion.

The law is not going to last long.

a reply to: marg6043

Yep. But what's going to happen is what HAS TO happen. The state will include LBGT in their state constitution as a protected class. That's the ONLY way that Indiana can come out of this fiasco.

If Pence would have left well enough alone, it could have taken years! God DOES work in mysterious ways! LOL

a reply to: windword

Is one lesson to learn from all this, we do have morons for leaders this days in our nation.

I don't think a black caterer should be forced to cater to the KKK. I don't think a Jewish deli should be forced to serve ham, or forced to have their dairy in the same fridge as their meat. I don't think a Catholic dr. should be forced to perform an abortion, and I don't think a baker whose belief is so against gay/lesbian marriage should have to bake them a wedding cake.

I think, the most important issue is freedom. The freedom to say no especially. No one should be made to do something that will go against their beliefs. We should have the freedom to maintain a clear conscious.

a reply to: mrsdudara

People already have that right to say no, but when it becomes law, the abuses will be far greater than the good.

Passing a law to stop senseless suing will have been enough.

a reply to: marg6043

I have seen many scenarios where businesses were sued because they said no, especially for reasons like these. I don't care so much about the ruling, because the fact they were allowed to sue them for that reason says they were not allowed to say no, because they were in turn allowed to be punished for it. Legal fees, and court fees out of a small business owners pocket is the quickest way to close their business. This law makes it so they are not allow them to sue a business for saying no.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yes, the law is stupid and unnecessary, however, why did the voters of Indiana feel compelled to do it? Is it because there is a perception of increasingly overbearing federal mandates and regulations and this is in part backlash on that?

No, I think the average voter couldn't give a rat's arse either way, but he who pays the piper...

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: mrsdudara
Passing a law to stop senseless suing will have been enough.

That is not a law that can be passed, because you have to define senseless. What is senseless to you may not be senseless to me. This, my understanding, is a law that defines one point of a senseless law suit.

I have not read the entire bill so there is no doubt I am not qualified to critique it.

Just stating my opinion.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

This was not a referendum by Indiana voters ... this was passed by the State Legislature, right?

Why wouldn't the Governor identify the lobbyists? That makes him look like he's hiding something.

(I learned that in a Hillary-bashing thread here.)

The RFRA and every law based on it will be repealed in time. It is an unnecessary and inequitable law. Congress does not have the right to interpret the Constitution nor add to it without formal amendment.

In determining that the First Amendment was not "sufficient" Congress with the passage of RFRA was outside its purvey.

The law will not stand against the right challenge; it's a BS law.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The RFRA and every law based on it will be repealed in time. It is an unnecessary and inequitable law. Congress does not have the right to interpret the Constitution nor add to it without formal amendment.
The law will not stand against the right challenge; it's a BS law.

. The whole process is a common political trick...pander to the paymasters knowing that, if the law doesn't stand up, they can always say they tried. It would be nice if somebody would quantify the amount of time and money thrown into these regressive measures that end up being thrown out. A little accountability for the pi$$ing away of tax dollars might get the public's attention.

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I don't think a black caterer should be forced to cater to the KKK.

The KKK is not a religious belief, not a gender, not a sexual orientation.
The KKK is not a fundamental part of a persons existence.

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I don't think a Jewish deli should be forced to serve ham, or forced to have their dairy in the same fridge as their meat.

No Jewish Deli is being forced to serve anything, they would however be forced to serve EVERYONE, regardless of their own specific ignorances and bigotries. This notion that businesses are going to be told what they can sell or how they can sell it is utter BS and a desperate argument from someone who has no argument to make.

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I don't think a Catholic dr. should be forced to perform an abortion,

I think a Doctor should be FORCED to abide by their Hippocratic Oath to serve all patients, regardless of belief. Your religious belief SHOULD NEVER TRUMP another persons right to treatment, the suggestion of this is abhorrent.
Any doctor who would rather follow their religious beliefs than treat those who need treating should be struck off instantly. You do not get to pick and choose which citizens deserve treatment.

Would you also suggest that ER doctors should be able to allow a gay person to die on a table because of their "religious beliefs"?

originally posted by: mrsdudara
and I don't think a baker whose belief is so against gay/lesbian marriage should have to bake them a wedding cake.

I actually think they should be able to refuse based on their religious beliefs too, but only if they can then prove in court that they also refuse to serve divorced people

No more picking and choosing how "religious" you are, you either follow Leviticus to the letter or you can shove that bigotry up your behind and have your case thrown out.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: mrsdudara

People already have that right to say no, but when it becomes law, the abuses will be far greater than the good.

Passing a law to stop senseless suing will have been enough.

OTOH, history has shown us that when we create protected classes, the abuse on the other side--discrimination lawsuits as a cottage industry--abound. This is where people like Jessie Jackson make their millions.


A free society should not have "protected classes." All citizens should be equal.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I wonder how the law would handle this situation: Muslim comes into Christian bakery and wants a cake that reads "Allah alone is God and Muhammad is His Prophet."

Whose religious beliefs trumps whose at that point? Is the court going to be forced to rule on which religion is right?

Yet another reason why church and state were to be kept SEPARATE.

RFRA and all its many children ALL set up special classes of citizens, that can choose which laws to follow based on their "religious beliefs."

This is actually one of the prime cases in American history for the encoded-in-law advancement of one group of citizens over another.

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???

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.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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???

Mind you, it gets better...

Whoops: Indiana’s anti-gay ‘religious freedom’ act opens the door for the First Church of Cannabis
In a classic case of “unintended consequences,” the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.

While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State’s office... Raw Story

Would it be glib to note that 'The Devil is in the details'?

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!