jasper76 wrote:
It's not my line of thinking per se, it is Governor Pence's.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.

Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.

There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.

It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.

And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.

Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.

There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.

It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.

And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.

Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.

There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.

It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.

And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.

What? It's just a private enterprise doing business with whomever they want. Are you saying that's not moral, you pinko commie?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.

There's some many facets to this... lemme ask you some questions.

Do you have issues with RFRA like laws? If so, why?

Be very specific.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Could you explain this to me? I'm not seeing fascism.

There's some many facets to this... lemme ask you some questions.

Do you have issues with RFRA like laws? If so, why?

Be very specific.

I have some reservations. The idea that people can use religion to ignore laws is an odd one for me, and I can see the reasoning, but I think it is written to loosely.

I also think that the law it'self is unneeded and will just further complicate the legal system and confuse people. The 1st amendment works just fine for actual attacks on religious freedom IMO

 jasper76 wrote:
One of the scarier things about these types of laws IMO, and I thought and stated such with the whole birth control thing, is it places a judge in a position to determine which religions are valid or invalid (the judge will just refer to IRS exemption status here), and whether the person's religious convictions are sincere.

Let that sink in for a moment....a judge is placed in a position to determine if your religious convictions are sincere, insincere, or not sincere enough.

Is this the kind of business we want a judiciary involved in?

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm not inclined to use the baker example...wedding cakes in my mind trivialize the gravity of these kind of laws.

Landlords, then.

A landlord turns down a qualified homosexual couple because his religion says he can't contribute to homosexuality.

But people need places to live. Shelter is a basic human necessity. So the rights of the homosexual couple trump the religious freedoms of the landlord, because if one landlord can do this, all landlords can do this.

Probably not a problem in Indianapolis or Bloomington, but I assume Indiana has some backwater counties and towns where religious attitudes are homogenous.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., — Despite intensifying criticism from business leaders both within and outside of Arkansas, the state legislature on Tuesday passed its version of a measure billed as a religious freedom law, joining Indiana in a swirl of controversy that shows little sign of calming.

The Arkansas bill, passed when the General Assembly concurred on three amendments from the State Senate, now goes to the state’s Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier bill but more recently said he would sign the measure if it “reaches my desk in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states.” The Arkansas Senate passed the measure last week.

While there were several attempts up until the last minute to add a clause to the bill that would explicitly bar discrimination of gays and lesbians, a measure that Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana pledged to push through his Legislature, the sponsors of the bill in the Arkansas General Assembly rejected such moves.

”If you start shaving out exemptions in laws, next thing you know, you’ll gut the law because everyone will want an exemption,” said State Senator Bart Hester, an Arkansas Republican and one of the bill’s lead supporters.

The attention turns to Governor Hutchinson, a moderate Republican who ran on a jobs platform and managed to extend a tailored form of Medicaid expansion in this Republican-controlled state.

Earlier in Indiana, Mr. Pence said that he wanted the state’s measure changed by week’s end, even as he stepped up a vigorous defense of the law, rejecting the argument that it would allow business to deny services to gays and lesbians.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to discriminate against anyone,” Mr. Pence, a Republican, said at a news conference in Indianapolis.

He acknowledged that the law, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, had become a threat to Indiana’s reputation and economy, with companies and organizations signaling that they would avoid the state in response to it. Mr. Pence said he had been on the phone with business leaders from around the country, adding, “We want to make it clear that Indiana’s open for business.”

But the governor, clearly exasperated and sighing audibly in response to questions, seemed concerned mostly with defending the law and the intent behind it, saying, “We’ve got a perception problem,” not one of substance. He referred to “gross mischaracterizations,” “reckless reporting by some in the media,” “completely false and baseless” accounts of the law, and “the smear that’s been leveled against this law and against the people of Indiana.”

Like the Republican legislative leaders who said on Monday that they intended to clarify the law, the governor said he could not say what form that clarification might take. “The language is still being worked out,” he said.

The law has set off a firestorm, with both critics and some supporters saying it would allow businesses to deny service to lesbian and gay customers if doing so would offend their religious beliefs.

Days before the N.C.A.A. is to hold the men’s basketball Final Four in Indianapolis, the group’s president, Mark Emmert, said Tuesday that the new law “strikes at the core values of what higher education in America is all about.” The city’s mayor, Greg Ballard, a Republican, and the state Chamber of Commerce have called on lawmakers to change the statute.

Business resistance in both states continued to grow, with Gap and Levi Strauss joining Walmart, Apple, Yelp and other major corporations in expressing disapproval. On Monday, the chief executive of Acxiom, a marketing technology company based in Little Rock that employs nearly 1,600 statewide, urged the Arkansas governor to veto a bill that was “a deliberate vehicle for enabling discrimination.”

Angie’s List cited the Indiana law in canceling plans to expand its facilities in Indianapolis. Celebrities have ridiculed the law, entertainers have canceled tour dates in the state because of it, a gaming convention is considering going elsewhere, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York on Tuesday became the latest governor to impose a ban on state-funded travel to Indiana, joining his counterparts in Connecticut and Washington.

Several Republican presidential contenders have spoken out in favor of Indiana’s law, which could affect the presidential hopes of Mr. Pence, himself. The law risks alienating centrists who favor gay rights, but backing away from it could anger Christians conservatives.

The uproar in Arkansas and Indiana has drawn attention — and the same kind of fire — to similar bills working their way through other legislatures. The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, a Republican, said he would veto a bill there.

Mr. Pence said Tuesday: “If this law had been about discrimination, I would have vetoed it. I don’t believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to create a license to discriminate, or a right to deny services to gays, lesbians or anyone else in this state, and that was not my intent, but I appreciate that that’s become the perception.”

But some of Indiana’s and the nation’s most prominent anti-gay rights groups have been among the most prominent supporters of the bill, including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Indiana Family Institute and Advance America. And some advocates of the law have disagreed with Mr. Pence, saying that it could be used to defend a business’s right to deny service to gay people.

Fellow Republicans have said the governor added fuel to the fire on Sunday, when he did not directly answer some questions about the law in an interview on the ABC program “This Week,” in particular a question about whether a florist could deny service to a gay couple on religious grounds.

“I could have handled that better,” he said Tuesday. “But going into that interview this weekend, I was just determined to set the record straight.”

Asked again about the hypothetical florist, Mr. Pence said, “This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.”

Defenders of the measure say they have been bewildered by the controversy, since it is patterned on a 1993 federal law of the same name, passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton, as well as on similar state laws.

“Was I expecting this kind of backlash?” Mr. Pence said. “Heavens, no.”

But the Indiana law has some differences from the federal law, and most of the state laws, that critics say are significant, including a provision explicitly stating that it applies to the exercise of religious beliefs by businesses as well as individuals and religious groups. The idea that a for-profit business has religious rights, and can cite them in contesting government action, was not widely considered until recently. But last year the Supreme Court upheld that principle in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

Another difference between Indiana’s law and most similar ones is that it says businesses can use religious freedom as a defense against lawsuits brought by individuals, not just those filed by the government.

In Washington, a White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, took issue with Mr. Pence’s claim that Indiana’s law was rooted in a 1993 federal law. The Indiana measure, Mr. Earnest said, was a “significant expansion” over the 1993 law because it applied to private transactions beyond those involving the federal government.

In some states, concerns like those raised in Indiana have been addressed with laws that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Mr. Pence was asked on Tuesday if he would consider taking that step.

“I’ve never supported that, and I want to be clear, it’s not on my agenda,” he said. “I think it’s a completely separate question.”

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.

Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.

There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.

It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.

And these line of thinkings is that path to facism.

What? It's just a private enterprise doing business with whomever they want. Are you saying that's not moral, you pinko commie?

No.

Take the whole Baker scenario that's popular in this thread.

It's the idea that bakers should be forced to *make a wedding cake* against their will, regardless of their reasons.

 Crablezworth wrote:

I think a big part of this is there's a massive gulf between what ones religion has to say vs what their pastor tells them.

At the same time, if I were religious and I honestly thought I was going to hell for making a cake for a gay couple, it's a valid concern because I believe that hell is a very real place that god actively sends people to for defying him.

 jasper76 wrote:

I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).

 d-usa wrote:


Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).

My thought:

Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.

This goes double if a person or group of persons made the decision to file the official paperwork with the state declaring "I am not this business, and this business isn't me".

 jasper76 wrote:


I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).

But do we want to be a society, let alone an economy, that distributes "denial of service" warrants on the basis of expressions of the human genome?

 DarkLink wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

I disagree with this law because of its broadest and most base implications. However, I do not agree that the state should have the power to come down on a wedding cake business and force them to make wedding cakes they don't want to make. I suppose one solution to this dilemma is to legally define what types of services constitute basic human necessities (like shelter, food, healthcare, communications, transportation, utilities, etc), and what constitute luxuries (like wedding cakes, or party arrangements, or cable TV or whatever).

My thought:

Does the business require licensing by the state for safe operation? (Such as testing, inspection, safety regulations) If so then it shouldn't be allowed to treat individual groups differently.

This goes double if a person or group of persons made the decision to file the official paperwork with the state declaring "I am not this business, and this business isn't me".

Literally all businesses are required to be licensed and abide by various state laws.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. The state already "forces" the baker of our example to abide by health and safety rules. How would this be any different?

 jasper76 wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Btw, just saw that Kentucky (where I'm at) has almost the same RF law as Indiana.

Amongst other things, Amish, etc. then don't need reflectors on their buggies, etc.

There's actually ~20 states with similar laws on the books. This go-round seems to have been somewhat of a tipping point in public opinion. The governor has basically been forced by economic threats to make sure the bill is amended to explicitly say that it can't be used as justification to discriminate, which will remove whatever teeth the bill had. Hell, a conservative Republican governor stated in reference to homosexuals that they should not be mistreated for "who they love." This seems to me like new language on this issue from the right...the Governor is suddenly using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement.

It will be interesting to see once the Indiana bill is amended, repealed, or replaced, if the same kind of pressure is then applied to the the other states.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Sadly, even though the bible does denounce homosexuality, The Christian religion does have a reason to provide services to homosexuals. It IS in the Bible, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Matthew 7:12 I believe.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Lots of folks keep getting stuck on the premise of 'choice' for a business owner. The business owner does, of course, retain choice, it's the choice whether to be in a business where they may find themselves exposed to people and beliefs, presented as customers, that they might find offensive and if so, can they swallow their prejudice or make the choice to get out of that business.

You are free to serve customers equally and attend to your own morals in your own house and church, or leave the business if you simply cannot separate the two. You have that choice.

And I do, given the 'wedding cake' scenario, wonder how many wedding cakes had already been made for shellfish eaters, the divorced remarrying, nonvirgins, pig eaters, people who cut the hair at the temples of their heads, the partially sighted and everyone else that part of the book lists as 'off the party list'... ?

But let's not let the Bible get in the way of vocal 'Christians' telling the rest of us all about how persecuted they are and how they need a law to protect them and enable them to safely exclude people from equal service.