Seriously? Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

@notupset :
I don't think you fully grasp the level of cluelessness in your statements, which, only from a position of privilege, could possibly make some type of crazy sense.

(And may provide illumination for anyone who didn't understand why someone would start the @dearwhitechs ... )

Did you see him on George Stephanopolous this morning? George asked him about five or six times to answer yes or no: Is this law legalizing discrimination against gays? He refused to answer!

notupset said:

Catholics shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Fundamentalist ministers shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages. Religious schools shouldn't be forced to hire atheists to teach theology classes.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. I am not aware that ANY of the opponents of the recent crop of 'religious freedom' laws would advocate any of these things. And, honestly, I can't imagine ANYONE who would want to be a 'customer' of any of the above.

notupset said:

How about this: You asked for bids from 5 baker's for your wedding cake and you asked them what their opinion is of same sex marriage. The one that made the tastiest, cheapest cake believes same sex marriage is wrong but agrees to do the cake anyway. Of course you would hire them?

Of course, the issue is not the baker's right to have an opinion but his right to refuse service. But carry on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-9vsSi9RkY

POS

Comparison to "other states with similar laws" breaks down when we realize "other states" have other protections against discriminated-against groups which Pence refuses to address or consider.

Well, someone already took advantage of the new law to proudly discriminate.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/28/3640221/indiana-business-owner-admits-discriminating-lgbt-people/

I sure hope his business receives the appropriate dose of Karma.

And for every action, there is an equal reaction...(Or I hope it is at least equal if not greater. Time will tell).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-open-for-service-profile-st-0327-20150327-story.html

GL2 said:

Comparison to "other states with similar laws" breaks down when we realize "other states" have other protections against discriminated-against groups which Pence refuses to address or consider.

Other states with similar laws also do not include companies or corporations to have religious beliefs, as they were pre-Hobby Lobby laws.

Some good news, though. Georgia has just postponed their version of the law coming back to the table.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/29/ga-house-cancels-religious-freedom-bill-meeting/70652168/

As I understand it, the Indiana law allows businesses to make sh*t up and call them religious belief. It then gives this sh*t the same privilege that real religious belief has. That alone should scare us.

@Woot, I happen to have an intelligent friend in Indiana. This has her very distraught. She is white and married a black man, and they have been the subject of a lot of discrimination. It turns out that Indiana is now the epicenter of discrimination, not some place in the deep south as we might expect.

For what it's worth George Stephanapoulos might know something about religion since his father was a Greek Orthodox Priest.

From Wikipedia:

His father is a Greek Orthodox priest and Dean Emeritus of the Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in New York City,[2] and his mother was for many years director of the national news service of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.[2] Young George also became a follower of his parents' faith and long considered entering the priesthood himself.

Indianapolis Star front-page editorial today: "FIX THIS NOW"

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_display=list&tfp_id=IN_IS

I really wonder about the claim that they 1 - didn't intend this to be anti-gay, and 2- didn't expect this reaction.

IMHO, they're either lying, too stupid to hold office, or so out of touch that they cannot possibly represent anyone living in this century.

How can you not anticipate backlash? Now Pence wants to "fix" the law. What a *****ing dumbass.

Watching Indiana do this is like going back in time and watching the conservative christians *thinking* slavery is ok and defending it. Same with denying people of color the right to vote.

Oops! My my bad, they DID try to suppress the vote in the last presidential election.

SMH. What's next?

FFB said:

I'm tired of this notion there are "good Republicans." There are only evil ones, and dumb ones. If you are intelligent and a Republican, then you are evil. You are using your political life to advance an agenda of oppression.

Nice to see you are so tolerant of opposing views!

#-O

notupset said:

There seems to be a lot of hair on fire stuff here. Catholics shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Fundamentalist ministers shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages. Religious schools shouldn't be forced to hire atheists to teach theology classes. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had been passed by the Senate 97-3. Now over half the state have these protections for state laws. This Indiana thing is not a big deal at all.

+1

Tom_Reingold said:

It turns out that Indiana is now the epicenter of discrimination, not some place in the deep south as we might expect.

The South has not held a corner on racism and discrimination for many years and, in many places, is better than a lot of places 'up North' on these issues. But, frankly, there is racism and discrimination everywhere (even in our bubble around here) and those who would try to proclaim otherwise - that we are now a post-racial society with no more need for anti-discrimination or voting rights or other such laws - are just wrong.

Irvington_Pirate said:

notupset said:

There seems to be a lot of hair on fire stuff here. Catholics shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Fundamentalist ministers shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages. Religious schools shouldn't be forced to hire atheists to teach theology classes. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had been passed by the Senate 97-3. Now over half the state have these protections for state laws. This Indiana thing is not a big deal at all.

+1

Most, if not all, of those other states have less broad definitions of "persons" and other more limited terms in their RF laws. And a number of them (including Illinois, which gets cited a lot due to Obama's involvement there) also have anti-discrimination legislation which keeps these RF laws from being used as tools of discrimination.

See http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/

It IS a big deal. (And it's a big deal in some other states, but this is the MOST egregious example yet.)

FFB said:

The Republican Party is barely two steps removed from the KKK. And the media ownership are overwhelmingly Republican and have little to no journalistic integrity.

Good lord! #-O

sac said:

Irvington_Pirate said:

notupset said:

There seems to be a lot of hair on fire stuff here. Catholics shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Fundamentalist ministers shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages. Religious schools shouldn't be forced to hire atheists to teach theology classes. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had been passed by the Senate 97-3. Now over half the state have these protections for state laws. This Indiana thing is not a big deal at all.

+1

Most, if not all, of those other states have less broad definitions of "persons" and other more limited terms in their RF laws. And a number of them (including Illinois, which gets cited a lot due to Obama's involvement there) also have anti-discrimination legislation which keeps these RF laws from being used as tools of discrimination.

See http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/

It IS a big deal. (And it's a big deal in some other states, but this is the MOST egregious example yet.)

Exactly. The Indiana law is described as "basically" similar to other RFRA laws, but the devil is in the details.

The details being in "basically" - it extends rights to discriminate to private citizens, and their behavior towards others under a claim of "religious freedom". It's almost a "reverse RFRA".

Pundits and politicians who tell you otherwise are giving you a false narrative.

It's revolting to see the Republican candidates for POTUS defending this law. What a bunch of lilly-livered hypocrites. Ugh.

sac said:

Irvington_Pirate said:

notupset said:

There seems to be a lot of hair on fire stuff here. Catholics shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Fundamentalist ministers shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages. Religious schools shouldn't be forced to hire atheists to teach theology classes. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had been passed by the Senate 97-3. Now over half the state have these protections for state laws. This Indiana thing is not a big deal at all.

+1

Most, if not all, of those other states have less broad definitions of "persons" and other more limited terms in their RF laws. And a number of them (including Illinois, which gets cited a lot due to Obama's involvement there) also have anti-discrimination legislation which keeps these RF laws from being used as tools of discrimination.

See http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/

It IS a big deal. (And it's a big deal in some other states, but this is the MOST egregious example yet.)

I admit I have not read the Indiana law. No one should be discriminated against and it goes both ways. No one should be discriminated against for being gay and no one should be discriminated against for believing and upholding Christan beliefs.

I am curious and honestly do not know, aside from the possibility of discrimination against gays what other group out there might face discrimination because of this law? I'm thinking there have to be others though their numbers may not be as large. If there isn't then this law needs to go or be drastically changed. That said, no one should be forced to do something they are uncomfortable with and truly believe is against their religion, that isn't right either. I'm not sure what the answer is but there has to be something that is fair to everyone.

IP, in the 50s people believed their religion allowed them to have signs that said "No Negroes."

Should a restaurant owner be forced to serve gay couples? What about interracial ones? How about black couples? Should a restaurant owner be forced to serve a couple he knows is each divorced from their first spouse? How about a couple he suspects is having an illicit affair?

This can go on and on...

Irvington_Pirate said:

FFB said:

I'm tired of this notion there are "good Republicans." There are only evil ones, and dumb ones. If you are intelligent and a Republican, then you are evil. You are using your political life to advance an agenda of oppression.

Nice to see you are so tolerant of opposing views!

#-O

I'd say that among national republicans there are only evil ones and cowardly ones who won't speak up for sanity for fear of the evil ones.

Irvington_Pirate said:

I admit I have not read the Indiana law. No one should be discriminated against and it goes both ways. No one should be discriminated against for being gay and no one should be discriminated against for believing and upholding Christan beliefs.

I have not read the law either but from the news reports it would appear to allow a merchant to discriminate against Christians if his religion taught that Christianity was wrong.

GL2 said:

Irvington_Pirate said:

FFB said:

I'm tired of this notion there are "good Republicans." There are only evil ones, and dumb ones. If you are intelligent and a Republican, then you are evil. You are using your political life to advance an agenda of oppression.

Nice to see you are so tolerant of opposing views!

#-O

I'd say that among national republicans there are only evil ones and cowardly ones who won't speak up for sanity for fear of the evil ones.

There are those Republicans who have beliefs which I consider narrow-minded, bigoted or ignorant and those Republicans who agree with me in their heads or hearts but will not say so out of cowardice or misguided "Party loyalty". Now the question is which of those two are "evil"?

FFB said:

For those of you who don't believe a major city newspaper would baldly lie to you, the Indianapolis Star has at least 3 feature articles today taking the tack the RFRA does not have its origins in discrimination against gays and that this is a hypothetical being sensationalized by outsiders.

Here is IN State Senator Schneider explaining last month *in the same paper* the *specific reason* for the bill was to legalize discrimination against gays:

"SB 568 will help protect individuals. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!"

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/07/indiana-religious-freedom-bills-fraught-rhetoric/23042389/

The Republican Party is barely two steps removed from the KKK. And the media ownership are overwhelmingly Republican and have little to no journalistic integrity.

This Indianapolis Star?

Lest we start thinking the northeast is so enlightened and open-minded -- Did anyone see the episode of What Would You Do where the server in a restaurant made nasty comments to gay couples in Texas and New York to see how fellow diners would respond? in Texas, 24 out of 53 fellow diners came to the defense of the couple, while in New York only 12 out of 100 did. And this was in Farmers Branch, TX, a suburb of Dallas, not exactly a hotbed of gay rights activity.

https://youtu.be/4QE_K-VIhd8

When I first saw that I chalked it up to New Yorkers not getting involved. But we're hardly special here in the Northeast.