adamsouza wrote:
George Takei is awesome.

Saw this pic and it reminded me of this thread

Washington (CNN)Indiana's social conservatives wanted a law that insulated them from the gay rights movement. Instead, the state has now enacted protections based on sexual orientation for the first time in its history.

Top Indiana Republican lawmakers overhauled their week-old religious freedom law Thursday with a follow-up measure intended to ease concerns driven by businesses that it could lead to discrimination. Gov. Mike Pence then signed it into law.

The changes appear to have tamped down some of the criticism -- but in doing so Pence and lawmakers infuriated social conservative activists and set the stage for a bigger fight next year over expanding Indiana's anti-discrimination law to cover gays and lesbians.

Republican legislative leaders unveiled their series of changes Thursday morning to the law that triggered intense backlash from businesses, sports associations, pro-LGBT groups and even fiscally-focused conservatives when Pence signed it last week.

The GOP-dominated House and Senate approved a legislative fix, which was added into an unrelated bill, on Thursday, sending it to Pence's desk almost immediately.

Despite last-minute lobbying from conservative groups like Indiana Right to Life to get Pence to veto the fix, the governor signed it Thursday evening.

"In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful," Pence said in a statement.

"There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, 'What is best for Indiana?'" he said. "I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana."
2016ers step into Indiana debate

2016ers step into Indiana debate 04:15
PLAY VIDEO

The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing "to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."

It doesn't accomplish what the law's critics wanted most: Adding sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by Indiana's anti-discrimination law.

But that debate, GOP legislators acknowledged, is coming soon. House Speaker Brian Bosma said the backlash against the religious freedom law has "opened many perspectives" and that the anti-discrimination law "needs to be discussed."

Indiana's rapid rush to change its controversial law comes as Republican governors in states like North Carolina and Georgia back away from similar proposals in their states.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who just days ago said he was rejecting the first version of a religious freedom bill that landed on his desk, got the changes he wanted, signing into law Thursday afternoon a religious freedom measure that lawmakers there had revamped this week so that it's identical to the federal law.

The religious freedom debate has touched a particularly raw nerve in Indiana, where a GOP push to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions was defeated last year -- exposing tensions within Republican caucuses that already have more than two-thirds super majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate.

Several Indiana cities already have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, but the legislative fix to the religious freedom law will be the first time protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity are recognized statewide.

RELATED: Is the GOP losing Walmart?

Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.

Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"

Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."

Still, lawmakers said they had to do something.

"What was intended as a message of inclusion was interpreted as a message of exclusion, especially for the LGBT community," Bosma said Thursday morning. "Nothing could have been further from the truth, but it was clear the perception had to be addressed."

The Indiana law and a similar bill that Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has asked lawmakers there to change had drawn criticism from major companies like Apple, Walmart and Salesforce, as well as sports associations like the NCAA, NBA and NFL.

Katie Blair, the head of Freedom Indiana, a group that lobbies against anti-LGBT measures and is funded by several of Indiana's largest businesses, said the changes announced Thursday "represent a step in the right direction."

"Today, the harm has been lessened, but we have not reached the day when LGBT Hoosiers can be assured that they can live their lives with freedom from discrimination," Blair said.

Even as they moved to fix the law they'd passed, though, Indiana Republicans maintained that nothing had really been wrong with it in the first place.

"It was misinterpreted," Bosma said. "But all we can say is we are sorry that misinterpretation hurt so many people."

 Stonebeard wrote:


Of course it's a massive straw man, but sure.

 daedalus wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:


Of course it's a massive straw man, but sure.

Why?

 Stonebeard wrote:

The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.

 daedalus wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.

Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?

 Stonebeard wrote:
The ritual it's made for, though, possibly.

 Stonebeard wrote:

Other than being delicious and infinity better than the abomination that is pie?

 daedalus wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

The baker example isn't a case of refusal of service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the clients, rather a refusal of service on the grounds of the ritual the baker is being asked to cater for and the restrictions placed on said baker by his/her faith with regards to such rituals.

Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

article wrote:Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.

Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"

Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."

 daedalus wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

Other than being delicious and infinity better than the abomination that is pie?

*eyes narrow*

Get out. Now.

The only purpose of the “religious freedom” laws in Indiana and other states is to assert that discrimination against gay people is acceptable. The only way to “fix” such measures is to repeal them.

As events this week have shown, the nation is becoming intolerant of intolerance. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) insisted that the absurdly titled “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was not meant to enable discrimination. But no sooner had the ink dried on the new law than a local pizzeria announced it was just raring to discriminate.

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” said Crystal O’Connor, whose family owns and operates Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind.

As a practical matter, I’m betting that few couples, gay or straight, would be devastated to go without pizza at their wedding reception. But that’s not the point. O’Connor correctly understood that the law was intended to let her discriminate against gay couples. Her family’s Christian beliefs, she said, lead her to disapprove of same-sex marriage.

It is her right to believe whatever she wants. Religious liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution. But in a pluralistic society, freedom of worship cannot mean a business that serves the general public can discriminate. When I was growing up in the South, there were business owners who believed the Lord didn’t intend for different races to mix, much less marry. Federal civil rights legislation barred these businesses from acting on that belief. The proprietors got over it.

At Pence’s urging, the Indiana legislature quickly came up with a proposal to amend the law to prohibit discrimination based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” Pence signed it into law on Thursday. In other words: Never mind the whole thing, and we’re sorry we bothered everyone.

Read that list and contemplate the supreme irony: Indiana has ended up with an anti-discrimination law protecting the LGBT community that is among the toughest in the nation. Apparently, there will be pizza for everyone.

Doubtless with an eye toward Pence’s travails, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he will not sign the religious-freedom law his legislature just handed him without significant changes, probably along the lines of those done in Indiana.

Pence was a big supporter of the original law, so why the rapid moonwalk in the opposite direction? Because the business community, both locally and nationally, announced its opposition and activists began talking about a boycott of the state. Because the NCAA, which is holding the Final Four tournament in Indianapolis this weekend, announced its urgent concern. Because Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who heads the most valuable company in the universe, wrote a Post op-ed denouncing the Indiana law as discriminatory.

In Arkansas, Hutchinson heard expressions of concern from Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer — which happens to be headquartered in Bentonville, Ark. When Wal-Mart calls, and you’re governor of Arkansas, you pick up the phone.

About 20 states already have these religious-freedom laws on the books, although most are not as far-reaching as Indiana’s. There is no indication that rampant discrimination is taking place — but that’s not the point. The clear target is same-sex marriage, and the intention is to reassure citizens that discrimination against same-sex couples is at least theoretically permissible.

The fact that we don’t hear of these laws actually being used proves a truth about same-sex marriage that should be blindingly obvious: Whether two men or two women decide to marry has not the slightest impact on anyone else.

Just a decade ago, most gay activists considered same-sex marriage a bridge too far. Today, it’s the law in 37 states and the District. The world has not come to an end. “Traditional” marriage has not been threatened. Opponents cannot cite one negative impact on society, unless you count the deprivation felt by citizens who need somebody, anybody, to discriminate against.

With a few exceptions, such as Hobby Lobby, the business community has decided that bigotry is bad for the bottom line. Politicians can fight the likes of Apple, Wal-Mart and the NCAA if they want. It’s just not a high-percentage move.

Which brings me to the wrenching struggle the Republican Party is having with itself over the issue. It’s time for the GOP to get on the right side of history. The next time you order an extra-large pepperoni, tell them to hold the hate.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
George Takei is awesome.

Saw this pic and it reminded me of this thread

Of course it's a massive straw man, but sure.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

And yet atheists are one of the least trusted groups in America, even ranking below rapists in some studies.../

At Pence’s urging, the Indiana legislature quickly came up with a proposal to amend the law to prohibit discrimination based on “race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” Pence signed it into law on Thursday. In other words: Never mind the whole thing, and we’re sorry we bothered everyone.

 Peregrine wrote:

article wrote:Social conservatives lambasted lawmakers for walking away from what they saw as a crucial protection for Christian businesses that did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians -- particularly for same-sex weddings.

Eric Miller, the head of Advance America and a powerful lobbyist who stood behind Pence at last week's private bill signing ceremony, said on his website: "Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government! That's not right!"

Nationally, social conservatives expressed similar objections. Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: "This Indiana "compromise" is a train wreck. It should be voted down."

And yeah, let's just keep pretending that this had nothing to do with discrimination and the people saying "if we add a 'no discrimination' rule the law is worthless" in other states had nothing to do with the Indiana law.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Still trying to pretend that statements made by a legislator in Georgia are relevant to Indiana legislation?

 Peregrine wrote:
I guess you missed the point that I just quoted Indiana lobbyists who supported the law talking about the Indiana law in the exact same way that the legislator in Georgia talked about the Georgia law? You claimed the comments about the Georgia law didn't apply, and now we have the same "if we ban discrimination the law is worthless" comments about the Indiana law. So I guess the Indiana law was about discrimination after all.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With this new clause the law is still more than viable, and still gives protection from "substantial burden" to regions. So which social conservatives said that (absent gay weddings) they "did not want to provide services to gays and lesbians"? I note that the quote provided from Mr. Miller specified weddings, while it was the article's text that made the point of a blanket refusal of service (which religious businesses could not get away with under the unamended SB101)

 Stonebeard wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
George Takei is awesome.

Saw this pic and it reminded me of this thread

Of course it's a massive straw man, but sure.

 Hordini wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

"One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs," he said.

Oh, goodie.

They already have Team Red and Team Blue. Do they really need another party?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I thought Red and Blue were already the CEO parties.

 daedalus wrote:

Does cake have some religious connotation that I'm unaware of? If not, how would an atheist wedding cake be different than a gay wedding cake?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
George Takei is awesome.

Saw this pic and it reminded me of this thread

Of course it's a massive straw man, but sure.

And yet atheists are one of the least trusted groups in America, even ranking below rapists in some studies...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

God will drown them in a vat of their own buttermilk frosting.

 Frazzled wrote:

God will drown them in a vat of their own buttermilk frosting.

Am I the only one who thinks that sounds like a really awesome way to go?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

And yet atheists are one of the least trusted groups in America, even ranking below rapists in some studies...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

 daedalus wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

Other than being delicious and infinity better than the abomination that is pie?

*eyes narrow*

Get out. Now.

I’m for marriage equality — having filed many briefs supporting challenges to restrictive state laws — but I have no problem with Indiana’s new religious-freedom law. And neither should progressives.

The Supreme Court said in 1990 that the First Amendment doesn’t grant exemptions from generally applicable laws, so religious objectors have to seek relief from the legislature. Accordingly, a near-unanimous Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that laws and other government actions only burden religious exercise where absolutely necessary to achieve a compelling goal.

Twenty states have followed suit — including Illinois, with the support of state Senator Barack Obama — plus courts in 11 other states interpreted state constitutions to provide similar protections. So mark me unimpressed by Hillary Clinton’s tweeted disappointment that “this new Indiana law can happen in America today.”

Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union and other progressive groups long supported these laws, which have been used to protect religious practices involving hallucinogenic substances, animal sacrifices, eagle feathers, and symbolic daggers — but not discrimination in hiring employees or serving customers.

None of these laws, at either the federal or state levels, have ever allowed exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. Indiana isn’t even one of the 21 states that prohibit employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation, so there’s no exemption to be granted here.

Some who protest the new law point to its explicit application to disputes between private parties. But most courts — including the most progressive federal appellate court in the nation, the California-based Ninth Circuit — have interpreted the federal RFRA in this manner too. And that makes sense: If someone invokes a law to force you to do something, your objection would be to that law, without which there would be no burden on your religious exercise.

But again, never has a RFRA allowed a private party to discriminate against gays (or anyone else) in employment, service, housing, or any other scenario in the parade of horribles raised by opponents of Indiana’s law.

But really this debate is all a misunderstanding — by both sides — of the difference between government and private action.

Progressives are right that states must extend official recognition to same-sex couples — though I don’t see a need for government involvement in marriage in the first place — but egregiously seek to bend the will of private citizens who have religious differences from the prevailing viewpoint. Conservatives are wrong to oppose giving state marriage licenses to same-sex couples but correctly argue that people should be free to live their lives according to their consciences.

We’re all born free and equal under the law. That means that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us, and also to decline to associate. While governments must treat everyone equally, individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how — on religious grounds or otherwise. Those who disagree with those choices can take their custom elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.

The prototypical scenario that the Indiana law is meant to prevent is the case of that New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. Note however that she lost despite New Mexico’s RFRA, and her stronger argument was based on her First Amendment freedom of expression (which the Supreme Court alas refused to hear).

For that matter, gay photographers shouldn’t be forced to work fundamentalist celebrations, blacks shouldn’t be forced to work KKK rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities. This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding vendors who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws.

Moreover, I don’t know why you’d want to have someone who can’t in good faith (literally) support your wedding work it. It must be the desire to narrow the rules of the game such that private institutions are allowed to continue operating only as long as they follow a prescribed list of mores.

Doesn’t that strike you as reactionary and illiberal? If progressives support tolerance and respect for diversity, they should support Indiana’s law.