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

As I have stated before and am now seeing, the exploitation of this law is starting. Funny how it was done to discriminate and deny services to the LGBT community and it opened up a door that should have been left alone and nailed shut.
www.ifyouonlynews.com...

So now another religious group, namely Wiccans are going to fight to keep this law and exploit it to the point of breaking the system and force the issue into court, including forcing the state of Indiana, and Gov. Pence into a position that he does not want to be in, to decide if he wants to fight to save or repeal this law.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
You are right, it was a joke.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh no, no one will actually discriminate against gays and lesbians under IRFRA:

And while for the most part I have been arguing the in the positive. I hope they challenge the Law in the Courts. It was a stupid law to begin with, but no one has answered the questions I posed way back (if they did, I missed it and truly sorry).

The question is. What does this matter? Their public statement is idiotic but there are 3 other pizza joints that should be capitalizing on this. Let the FREE-MARKET drive out the bigots. Not Governmental heavy-handedness shaking its daddy-finger at us and smacking us on the bottom.

Since this company went so public, I would, if I were the other companies in the area, advertise "Open to All"...

But I am guessing you don't want that. You want the exact opposite of this law and want those who are stupid to be punished legally and criminally right?

a reply to: Annee
Some of us have to work.
I am sure there are a lot of things you are unsure of and I understand exactly what you are trying to do. Your antagonistic abusive language has little of an effect on me, however it does expose you for the troll you seem to be.
You are the one that came up with the nasty vile examples which proves where your mind is. I can copy and paste if you need reminded of your expressed thoughts.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

The question is. What does this matter? Their public statement is idiotic but there are 3 other pizza joints that should be capitalizing on this. Let the FREE-MARKET drive out the bigots. Not Governmental heavy-handedness shaking its daddy-finger at us and smacking us on the bottom.

Again as others and I have stated in this thread... that wouldn't work in some areas especially small bigoted towns and the Bible belts.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ownbestenemy

The question is. What does this matter? Their public statement is idiotic but there are 3 other pizza joints that should be capitalizing on this. Let the FREE-MARKET drive out the bigots. Not Governmental heavy-handedness shaking its daddy-finger at us and smacking us on the bottom.

Again as others and I have stated in this thread... that wouldn't work in some areas especially small bigoted towns and the Bible belts.

Agreed it won't. But with the advent of the Internet, one could find any service far and wide to get what they want. No need to force another to do their bidding.

While it was directed towards whom I replied to...what say you? How would you fix it? Impose a Governmental heavy-hand to force others to do what the Government wants them to do?

Even in remote places, it opens opportunity (if the demand is bigger than the small...and I state small percentage of persons) to cater and provide for that very niche of society. It is how nearly all businesses operate.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

No need to force another to do their bidding.

No need to force certain people to drive far just to get pizza when they're hungry for it.

Even in remote places, it opens opportunity (if the demand is bigger than the small...and I state small percentage of persons) to cater and provide for that very niche of society. It is how nearly all businesses operate.

That would be forcing them too and it would take a while and difficult in bigoted towns.

How would you fix it? Impose a Governmental heavy-hand to force others to do what the Government wants them to do?

Heavy-hand? No. This is about equality. The government is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is to ensure that people are treated equally.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Turkenstein

Thanks for the unsolicited debate advice there, coach!

I'll start listening when you say something relevant. Or on topic.

In the meantime, apparently you're going continue to try to compensate for the lack of content in your posts by making what I'm sure you think are cunning digs at me personally. Whatever. Enjoy it.

As to your last, you're interested in the intricacies of gay relationships because you live in Indiana?

Oooookay.

(You've received a "less than hospitable tone" from me because you came out of the gate trying to be snide. Your posts belie any ability to be sarcastic with anything faintly resembling panache. Your posts just come off ... flinty and crude. Frankly, your no-content posts are becoming boring. Have fun in the discussion! /shrug)

It is obvious that it is in your nature to try to twist peoples words to fit your self professed gay agenda. I have only replied to your direct statements. Once again you take a post and add your personal color to it to make it appear that you are victimized in some way and when that doesn't work you become dismissive. It must be hard living on the mountain top all alone looking down on everyone else. I didn't start sounding "snide" until I starting responding directly to your assertions. Look what you have done to me.
I am interested in the unproven assertions you make of an Indiana bill, not the intricacies of gay relationships (as you so kindly put it). Out of curiosity (not the curiosity in your accusations), can you show proof of where gays are mentioned in this bill?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Under the guise of equality -- you want the Government to step in and regulate a private business (go ahead with your public accommodation argument) to enter into a private contract and thus you want the State in this case, to prosecute for failing to do so....

So yes, heavy-hand. Explain how it wouldn't be.

Edit to add:
"Even in remote places, it opens opportunity (if the demand is bigger than the small...and I state small percentage of persons) to cater and provide for that very niche of society. It is how nearly all businesses operate."

"That would be forcing them too and it would take a while and difficult in bigoted towns."

How would it be forcing them to? They are "forced" to find those services regardless if they are available via the internet or via traditional brick and mortar...unless they themselves owned such an operation. What a silly argument you presented.

a reply to: Turkenstein

I didn't start sounding "snide"...

Really?

a reply to: ownbestenemy

Under the guise of equality -- you want the Government to step in and regulate a private business

I must be missing something? How did "private business" come into this discussion?

What a silly argument you presented.

How is it silly? If you were of different race or whatever and wanted a pizza but the only pizza joint in town will not serve your kind. But you really want pizza badly. The nearest pizza joint is 20 miles away. So you are "forced" to drive there.

Also starting a business is hard and will fail in most cases.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The issue with laws of this stripe, based on the Federal RFRA or superseding it, as does the law in Indiana, is not really limited to discrimination against gays, lesbians, bifolk, trifolk, trans* etc.

The issue is that these laws arbitrarily elevate one group over another. There is no clear-cut, objective measure of what a person's religious beliefs impact or don't impact, or how they are impacted nor not impacted, while living in society with everyone else.

What has worked for 200 + years is that government stays out of religion. In most traditions, for many years up until the 1980's everyone had a reasonable understanding of what "free exercise" meant. You can pray, sing, light candles, attend services, listen to your ministers, talk to others about your faith, etc. Free exercise did not mean (except in some places in the ultra-racist South) that normal folks used their religions to exclude other people from their businesses, or tried to suggest that God wants you to vote a certain way or for a certain party, or that we should cross contaminate our governmental systems with our religious systems and vice-versa.

Classical Americans were more interested in doing business than in making religious statements.

Every motion, every law, every court decision that does anything to further erode the distinct and intentional barriers between religion and government set up by the Founders are one step closer to a loss of liberty for someone somewhere.

If you don't believe that, you really need to study the history of Western Civilization 300 - 1800 CE again.

This is a post above the rest. I have to say I agree with you about keeping religion and government separate. This was well said and not meant to sell one groups agenda. There are more people than just gays that could be affected by this law.
Did you know that there is a group that is already trying to take advantage of this law by proclaiming marihuana as a necessary part of their religion. I am thinking they have to be safe from prosecution, if this law is what they say it is. I am also interested to see how it turns out for this group. I feel like I should also say, "no I don't," before you ask. It would jeopardize my engineering career and I can't have that.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The very nature of the large portions of businesses are, by their very structure...private. So that is how it has played into it.

You are dancing around the question I posed to you then. Do you think it is in the Governments' interest to impose actionable sanctions and possibly criminal charges against someone who doesn't want to engage in a contract?

a reply to: ownbestenemy

The very nature of the large portions of businesses are, by their very structure...private. So that is how it has played into it.

OK. And? Your point?

You are dancing around the question I posed to you then. Do you think it is in the Governments' interest to impose actionable sanctions and possibly criminal charges against someone who doesn't want to engage in a contract?

How am I dancing around? It has always been the law. It's quite simple. A business offers a product. Certain people should not be denied that product that others are able to buy and enjoy.

I don't agree with criminal charges (where did you get that? Maybe I missed it.) but yes fine them if they refuse service to certain kinds of people.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why should fines be imposed? We are obviously coming from different spectrum in regards to the reach of governmental action in regards to business.

I do not believe, that if a business does not wish to engage in business should not be punished by the State. You on the other hand do.

Is that simple enough?

a reply to: ownbestenemy

OK so you are OK with businesses refusing services to black people for example? Is that what you are telling me?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

I do know that Jesus spoke out against divorce, and stated that in heaven, humans are like angels not cast in male and female forms ... and I know that He never mentioned homosexuals overtly.

I don't know the scorecard though.

Good point, maybe divorcees should stop being served. Wait. A lot of self proclaimed Christian hypocrites would suffer (insert sarcasm). They seem to forget the "for better or worse part of vows.
Have you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and why the cities were destroyed? I am pretty sure there is even a modern word associated with that story.
As to your point about angels, I think you are right about angels not being male or female.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

If I did, I wouldn't be asking the question.

You seem confused and jilted.

No she is not confused.

You brought up a hypothetical question about Muslims which have nothing to do with this topic. Muslims have and will not ever do such thing.

It does have to do with this topic of religious freedom. Also, Muslims have proven when they are in the majority they will do anything to anyone under the guise of alla. Just ask the families of beheading victims.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ownbestenemy

OK so you are OK with businesses refusing services to black people for example? Is that what you are telling me?

I am okay with businesses operating without the hand of government telling them otherwise. Morally and as a free-market disciple, I think denying anyone service, is just plain stupid. On that note, I don't believe my views should be forced upon anyone -- just as much as I don't believe yours should either.

We aren't in the 60's anymore. Businesses will die if we just allow them to -- but giving them legal credence (as I have stated here in this thread all along) will give them opportunity legally to remain. Take that away and let them die by their own sword.

To return fire...so you are OK with forcing businesses to engage in a contract they wish not to?

a reply to: ownbestenemy

so you are OK with forcing businesses to engage in a contract they wish not to?

Not quiet understanding what you mean by that? This is about businesses selling PRODUCTS for everyone. What you see in store's windows you should be able to buy regardless of who you are.

We aren't in the 60's anymore.

But that what you are trying to support!

Again letting businesses do what they want and let them go out of businesses will not work.