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

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

Can someone explain this to me? Are Catholic business owners going to ask couples if either has been married before? Of course not. Are Jewish florists going to ask if the couple intends to keep a Kosher home? Absurd. If businesses are really going to check to make sure ALL their customers are not sinners, they will close up shop for lack of customers.

That the authors could even claim this is not about legalizing discrimination shows that they either do not live in the real world or they are malicious. This is only - ONLY - being put out there to allow business owners to discriminate against the LGBT community.

ugh.

what is wrong with these people?

The US Supreme Court will shoot it down when it reaches them.

Would they have barred James Dean from his own state?

How can this be legal?

yahooyahoo said:

How can this be legal?

It's almost certainly (hopefully!) unconstitutional, but as long as the law was passed and signed, it is "legal" until the courts say otherwise.

I think the answer may be in this excerpt. Only thing christian right thinks is holier than they is $."

"Pence has been under intense pressure from opponents. In the past two days, two major Indianapolis conventions have threatened to look elsewhere if Pence signed the bill, and a group of technology executives, including the CEO of Salesforce, have written to the governor to oppose the measure."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/

I have a question . . . let's say that you own a cake shop and a client has requested that you put something on it that you offends you. Do you HAVE to do it?

Let's take the gay/race issue out of the equation and create a situation that most people would find offensive.
- For instance if someone wanted to put a picture of school shooting on a cake.

If it is ok to refuse to make that cake, would it also be ok to refuse to make a wedding cake for Bob and Bob?

*** These are just questions and do not reflect how I feel on the matter btw.

skadave said:

I have a question . . . let's say that you own a cake shop and a client has requested that you put something on it that you offends you. Do you HAVE to do it?

You can't refuse service to a whole class of people based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Certainly you can refuse to put a picture of a school shooting on a cake.

skadave said:

I have a question . . . let's say that you own a cake shop and a client has requested that you put something on it that you offends you. Do you HAVE to do it?

Let's take the gay/race issue out of the equation and create a situation that most people would find offensive.
- For instance if someone wanted to put a picture of school shooting on a cake.

If it is ok to refuse to make that cake, would it also be ok to refuse to make a wedding cake for Bob and Bob?

*** These are just questions and do not reflect how I feel on the matter btw.

From my point of view you are not "discriminating" against the individual who wants a picture of a school shooting as they are not in a protected class. But you are discriminating against a gay couple because they are a protected class. Maybe I am understanding it wrong, but that is how I see it.

Cross posted with @mjh.

Evidently in Indiana and Arizona you can...they aren't a protected class there. And that is truly unfortunate and a good reason not to live there or do business there.

I thought Jan Brewer vetoed a similar bill.

ParticleMan said:

I thought Jan Brewer vetoed a similar bill.

I think you're correct. She came under enormous pressure and found some silly excuse to veto that allowed her to "save face" ( she'd previously voiced support for the bill).

skadave said:

I have a question . . . let's say that you own a cake shop and a client has requested that you put something on it that you offends you. Do you HAVE to do it?

Let's take the gay/race issue out of the equation and create a situation that most people would find offensive.
- For instance if someone wanted to put a picture of school shooting on a cake.

If it is ok to refuse to make that cake, would it also be ok to refuse to make a wedding cake for Bob and Bob?

*** These are just questions and do not reflect how I feel on the matter btw.

This has been tested. Google it and see how these issues have been resolved.

I think it's about obscenity. Unsure.

mjh said:

ParticleMan said:

I thought Jan Brewer vetoed a similar bill.

I think you're correct. She came under enormous pressure and found some silly excuse to veto that allowed her to "save face" ( she'd previously voiced support for the bill).

I think she was actually quoted as saying it could allow for discrimination. Of course, I'm sure she was not concerned with discrimination against same sex couples, but some other kind.

Just wait until some "Christians" are refused service by someone for religious reasons.

I think that they could refuse based on what is written on a cake, perhaps, if that could be taken as offensive, but NOT if they would do the same cake for another couple who were not gay.

In Oklahoma there was a similar bill being considered and a smart Senator added the requirement for business to clearly post their discrimination policies.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/%E2%80%98religious-freedom%E2%80%99-bill-ditched-after-amendment-added-prevent-gay-couples-being-humiliated1

Other states should consider this approach. After all, if someone is going to be discriminated against, they should know up front. I betcha that a lot more business will reconsider their "discriminatory practices" in today's world of social media.

America's true religion should weigh in on this. The NFL should pull the combine from Indy and say no future Super Bowls either. This bill would be dropped in a heartbeat and "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood would become the state song.

A friend just emailed that he sent this to Eric Miller from Advance America, a lobbyist who helped drive forward this bill. http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?page_id=1521

Mr. Miller,

I wanted to write to express my support of your support of SB 101. It has been too long in coming, since Indianans have been forced by these "multiculturalists" to take these folks with loose morals into our businesses and allow them the courtesy of buying our products and services.

I'm hoping you'll take the next step and urge the Senate to pass, and Governor Pence to sign, a bill that allows us white folks to decide what color customers we want in our businesses. It's a great first step, allowing us to keep out the fags. But if we're going to restore this country to its White Christian roots, we need the ability to make it impossible for blacks, ragheads, and all those other foreigners to come into our shops, too. Maybe we can find a way to include the Muslims and Jews, too.

I hope you can get behind this next step in our state's political evolution (we both know that's the only real kind of evolution there is).

Your brother in solidarity,

JR

bettyd said:

America's true religion should weigh in on this. The NFL should pull the combine from Indy and say no future Super Bowls either. This bill would be dropped in a heartbeat and "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood would become the state song.

The NCAA, second only in popularity to the NBA in Indiana, weighed in (though rather tepidly):

Even the NCAA -- which is less than two weeks from hosting its men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis -- was critical, saying the organization is "committed to an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events" as it hinted the bill could damage the city's reputation as a host of major sporting events.

ParticleMan said:

The NCAA, second only in popularity to the NBA in Indiana, weighed in (though rather tepidly):

Even the NCAA -- which is less than two weeks from hosting its men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis -- was critical, saying the organization is "committed to an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events" as it hinted the bill could damage the city's reputation as a host of major sporting events.

As long as you have enough money to buy the tickets...........

Salesforce.com puts it's money where its mouth is.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/salesforce-cancels-all-travel-to-indiana-wont-subject-customers-or-employees-to-discrimination/

Indiana bill would unfortunately be legal if state (or U.S., obviously) doesn't already have laws outlawing anti-gay discrimination, similar to laws outlawing discrimination based on race, creed, . . . . etc. Anyone can discriminate for any reason that is not already outlawed.

Either way, a court battle will take a long time. First someone has to be discriminated against, then it has to climb to the Supreme Court.

I think economically punishing the state with high profile cancellations and pullouts will be more effective.

ParticleMan said:

I think economically punishing the state with high profile cancellations and pullouts will be more effective.

Yes. Money talks!

I am waiting for the backlash from LGBTQ community - I think we're relatively complacent that marriage equality will be the law of the land once SCOTUS rules. Once that happens, hopefully, I believe there will inevitably be further right wing attempts to circumvent equality. And then, I predict, the #gayagenda will roar onto the scene.

It won't be so much for me - it'll be for my kids, who should never hear or feel that their family, their Dad is less than others.

Amen^
Can't wait until judgement day when they are asked if they judged anyone on earth