Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[SassyIrishLass]

Meh, maybe it's just me, but I just look at gay people as human beings. I don't really care what they do in their bedroom with one another. Now, if they came into my business and made themselves into some kind of spectacle, that would be another story entirely.

There are gays at my husband's firm and I don't have any issues with them. The issues I have is the ones making a fuss about every little thing.

Well it seems to me that it is the religious folks that are making a big deal out of it by refusing to do a menial task just because a couple happens to be gay. In my personal opinion, that is just stupid and childish. I can understand if you don't want to be in the wedding party, okay? But to refuse to bake a cake?? It seems like they are just TRYING to be mean, IMO.

They have their beliefs and they have rights also I suppose

 

[ChrisL]

Boycott Indiana? Move the NCAA Finals? I've never seen such hysteria over so little. The bill actually protects freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to work a gay wedding, he can't be forced to by the government. I don't have a problem with that. And if you're getting gay married, why would you want an anti-gay photographer working it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather hire Bruce's Gleeful Photo?

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

 

[orogenicman]

That is my response.

That did not answer my question. What is it with you and not wanting to answer questions?

What is it with you and not wanting to accept my answers?

And yet you seem to support a law that gives Christian business owners license to be hateful, uncompassionate assholes.

Funny, why aren't you outraged at the other 19 states who passed this kind of law? Why is it just Indiana? Why don't you get angry at Arkansas? How hypocritical.

So you claim to read minds?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Boycott Indiana? Move the NCAA Finals? I've never seen such hysteria over so little. The bill actually protects freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to work a gay wedding, he can't be forced to by the government. I don't have a problem with that. And if you're getting gay married, why would you want an anti-gay photographer working it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather hire Bruce's Gleeful Photo?

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah so, when is a business a "state?" A business cannot pass laws.

How has the baker, or any other purveyor of goods or services, denied a gay couple equal protection under the law by not serving them? There are plenty of other places for them to go. The one thing they still have is a choice, even after being denied. If nobody wanted to serve them, that would change things, wouldn't it?

Dude, we are talking about the State of Indiana passing a law telling Christian business owners that if they discriminate against gays, they are protected at the expense of gays. It is a violation of the equal protection clause.

Dude...nowhere does the law say that. You simply made that up.

What the law says:

"Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees."

Cute. Now read the entire law:


SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you claim to read minds?

No, I don't. What I claim is your selective outrage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now read Section 8 of that law. Have a seat, and quit yer bitchin'

 

[ChrisL]

Boycott Indiana? Move the NCAA Finals? I've never seen such hysteria over so little. The bill actually protects freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to work a gay wedding, he can't be forced to by the government. I don't have a problem with that. And if you're getting gay married, why would you want an anti-gay photographer working it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather hire Bruce's Gleeful Photo?

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

Sorry, but that does not prove your claim at all. Those businesses could have very well gone OUT of business for posting such signs, and that looks VERY old, back from a time when people were a lot more ignorant than we are today.

 

[Geaux4it]

The entitled white male has doubts has fears he wants to be protected from "the gay" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Gays want protection by the government wa

Christians founded this nation on Christian principles.

No, Sweetheart, they didn't, and the founding document doesn't mention God, or Jesus, and forbids making this into a Christian Nation, by law. There's nothing Christian about founding a secular nation.

In God We Trust

Works for me

-Geaux

 

[Treeshepherd]

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

I'm not familiar with what goes on in Indiana. Are gays really having difficulty finding someone to take pictures and bake cakes to the point where they have no other choice than to hire a 7th Day Adventist?

As far as hiring practices go, do we really want to force Joe Hickseed's Radiator Repair Shop to hire a gay man? I don't see that advancing any cause.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

I'm not familiar with what goes on in Indiana. Are gays really having difficulty finding someone to take pictures and bake cakes to the point where they have no other choice than to hire a 7th Day Adventist?

As far as hiring practices go, do we really want to force Joe Hickseed's Radiator Repair Shop to hire a gay man? I don't see that advancing any cause.

You've hit the nail on the head, there were no problems and this bill wouldn't be necessary if the homos hadn't started their targeting and suing. Now it bit them in the ass as states look at ways to prevent it

 

[ChrisL]

The entitled white male has doubts has fears he wants to be protected from "the gay" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Gays want protection by the government wa

Christians founded this nation on Christian principles.

No, Sweetheart, they didn't, and the founding document doesn't mention God, or Jesus, and forbids making this into a Christian Nation, by law. There's nothing Christian about founding a secular nation.

In God We Trust

Works for me

-Geaux

This is absolutely pointless and absurd as much as Paint's pictures. Trust in your God. That doesn't mean you are going to hell for baking a damn cake or would it harm you in any way. If you would just mind your business, it wouldn't have to be an issue at all.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7.1-3

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Boycott Indiana? Move the NCAA Finals? I've never seen such hysteria over so little. The bill actually protects freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to work a gay wedding, he can't be forced to by the government. I don't have a problem with that. And if you're getting gay married, why would you want an anti-gay photographer working it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather hire Bruce's Gleeful Photo?

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

Sorry, but that does not prove your claim at all. Those businesses could have very well gone OUT of business for posting such signs, and that looks VERY old, back from a time when people were a lot more ignorant than we are today.

The reason why you don't see many of those signs today is because in a normal routine that is banned, by law. The reason for that is because of what was done in the past, like that.

 

[ChrisL]

Boycott Indiana? Move the NCAA Finals? I've never seen such hysteria over so little. The bill actually protects freedom of choice. If a photographer doesn't want to work a gay wedding, he can't be forced to by the government. I don't have a problem with that. And if you're getting gay married, why would you want an anti-gay photographer working it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather hire Bruce's Gleeful Photo?

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

Sorry, but that does not prove your claim at all. Those businesses could have very well gone OUT of business for posting such signs, and that looks VERY old, back from a time when people were a lot more ignorant than we are today.

The reason why you don't see many of those signs today is because in a normal routine that is banned, by law. The reason for that is because of what was done in the past, like that.

I believe in letting capitalism take care of them. They will lose business, and their businesses will suffer. Other businesses that are willing to do business with homosexuals will make more money and be more successful in the long term. No need for government to interfere in how a person decides to run a business.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

I'm not familiar with what goes on in Indiana. Are gays really having difficulty finding someone to take pictures and bake cakes to the point where they have no other choice than to hire a 7th Day Adventist?

As far as hiring practices go, do we really want to force Joe Hickseed's Radiator Repair Shop to hire a gay man? I don't see that advancing any cause.

You've hit the nail on the head, there were no problems and this bill wouldn't be necessary if the homos hadn't started their targeting and suing. Now it bit them in the ass as states look at ways to prevent it

It's hardly biting them in the ass, it's drawing the bigots out into the daylight, that hurts their eyes. That place is about to make CA look like they don't have any rainbow flags flying.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

Examples?

Sorry, but that does not prove your claim at all. Those businesses could have very well gone OUT of business for posting such signs, and that looks VERY old, back from a time when people were a lot more ignorant than we are today.

The reason why you don't see many of those signs today is because in a normal routine that is banned, by law. The reason for that is because of what was done in the past, like that.

I believe in letting capitalism take care of them. They will lose business, and their businesses will suffer. Other businesses that are willing to do business with homosexuals will make more money and be more successful in the long term. No need for government to interfere in how a person decides to run a business.

What you believe isn't the law, and hasn't been for a very long time.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If you accept services from a gay surgeon Jesus gets whipped...better find out the sexual orientation of everyone you deal with or its eternal damnation...signed Loving God

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The entitled white male has doubts has fears he wants to be protected from "the gay" waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Gays want protection by the government wa

Christians founded this nation on Christian principles.

No, Sweetheart, they didn't, and the founding document doesn't mention God, or Jesus, and forbids making this into a Christian Nation, by law. There's nothing Christian about founding a secular nation.

In God We Trust

Works for me

-Geaux

The Founders would not have allowed such a thing, but don't let that bother you.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The reason why you don't see many of those signs today is because in a normal routine that is banned, by law. The reason for that is because of what was done in the past, like that.

My theory is that laws tend to ride in on the coat tails of public opinion. There are some exceptions. But usually, public opinion changes and thereafter a law is passed. You see that with Obama who refused to publicly support gay marriage until a tipping point in public opinion was reached in 2012.

Years later in history class we learn that the law was the thing that changed society.

 

[ChrisL]

We've already tried letting the market work this out. It didn't do so well.

I'm not familiar with what goes on in Indiana. Are gays really having difficulty finding someone to take pictures and bake cakes to the point where they have no other choice than to hire a 7th Day Adventist?

As far as hiring practices go, do we really want to force Joe Hickseed's Radiator Repair Shop to hire a gay man? I don't see that advancing any cause.

You've hit the nail on the head, there were no problems and this bill wouldn't be necessary if the homos hadn't started their targeting and suing. Now it bit them in the ass as states look at ways to prevent it

It's hardly biting them in the ass, it's drawing the bigots out into the daylight, that hurts their eyes. That place is about to make CA look like they don't have any rainbow flags flying.

What better way to do that than to allow them to hang their signs? That way, you know EXACTLY who you are doing business with. Forcing people never has worked and never will work, obviously.