Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

No. No. And no. Educate yourselves, people. This is NOT about discrimination.

That seems to be exactly what this is about. PP's hypothetical -- every service provider refusing service -- seems to be fairly likely under this law.

Few things are what they seem. This is nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

No. No. And no. Educate yourselves, people. This is NOT about discrimination.

That seems to be exactly what this is about. PP's hypothetical -- every service provider refusing service -- seems to be fairly likely under this law.

Anonymous wrote:Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

No. No. And no. Educate yourselves, people. This is NOT about discrimination.

Would this law enable a situation where practically every service provider in a town in Indiana could refuse to service a certain group of people, basically shutting that group of people out of town?

What if I take my family to a restaurant in Indiana to celebrate my child's Roman Catholic sacrament or Jewish ceremony, etc. Could my family be turned away because the restaurant owner says this is against his/her personal religion?

The state has put itself in a real bind. The governor's claims are all over the place, and now he's committed to "clarifying" the law.

As soon as they clarify it, the discrimination will be laid bare. If not, there will certainly be a test case soon. All it takes is one dumbass store owner to take things too far, and it will go up the court system until the law is reversed, severely curtailed, or it goes to SCOTUS.

I'm kind of a newcomer to this particular discussion, so can I please ask a maybe-dumb question?: Does this law really do anything to protect the Indiana baker? As I read that story, the baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple, and so there were some news stories and one protester who picketed the bakery. So lots of talking back and forth. But were there any legal repercussions for the bakery? Was the baker fined by some Indiana governmental agency? Was the bakery shut down? Were they forced to bake the cake? I've researched online and cannot find any indication of any penalty the baker suffered, other than lots of people criticizing it. Am I missing some legal penalty the baker suffered?

And if there was no penalty, than how does this RFRA law do anything to help the baker? Seems somewhat unrelated to me.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about any of you but I am eagerly awaiting the instance in which a business owner refuses service to a homosexual for religious reasons and the person(s) in question aren't even homosexual.

Two sisters go into a bakery to order the cake for their younger siblings wedding and are told to "please leave."
Two colleagues go into a restaurant to have a business dinner and are told "we don't serve your kind."
Unless people are clad in matching rainbow sweaters with gigantic "HOMO AND PROUD" buttons on them how the hell does Mr. Proud Business Owner determine who the hell is gay and who isn't?
I understand the law was implemented to protect companies and individuals who say providing some services to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs, but what means of protection is there for the average everyday Joe Schmo who just happens to be effeminate but is 100% heterosexual? What means of protection is there for the average Jane Doe who just happens to be tomboyish but is 100% heterosexual? Won't this law ultimately set these businesses up for MORE litigation from people who say they were unfairly discriminated against because they were perceived as being gay?

I'm eagerly awaiting some business to refuse to serve hunters because their use of guns violates the business owner's religious views on harm to other living things, or maybe a business refuses to serve Republicans because Republican views on a whole host of social issues violates the owner's views on respecting the rights of others. Perhaps some business owner stuck in a contract he dislikes now will use the law to try to break the contract. A whole host of problems.

IMHO, the problem with a law like this is that it permits the majority viewpoint (in this case Christian business owners) to discriminate with impunity against customers with minority viewpoints (e.g., gay couples or Muslims for example). And by their very nature, customers with minority viewpoints will have few alternate sources for the same services. For example, if all the anti-Muslim cake bakers refuse to sell cakes to Muslims, the Muslims will be left with few other options. But what the right-wing might not realize is that it also could be used by other majority groups (perhaps those with a more liberal interpretation of Christianity) to refuse to serve conservative minorities.

The law seems ripe for an equal protection challenge. I also wonder if atheists or agnostics get the same protection for their religious beliefs. Could a non-believer refuse to rent to evangelical Christians, citing this law?

I don't know about any of you but I am eagerly awaiting the instance in which a business owner refuses service to a homosexual for religious reasons and the person(s) in question aren't even homosexual.

Two sisters go into a bakery to order the cake for their younger siblings wedding and are told to "please leave."
Two colleagues go into a restaurant to have a business dinner and are told "we don't serve your kind."
Unless people are clad in matching rainbow sweaters with gigantic "HOMO AND PROUD" buttons on them how the hell does Mr. Proud Business Owner determine who the hell is gay and who isn't?
I understand the law was implemented to protect companies and individuals who say providing some services to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs, but what means of protection is there for the average everyday Joe Schmo who just happens to be effeminate but is 100% heterosexual? What means of protection is there for the average Jane Doe who just happens to be tomboyish but is 100% heterosexual? Won't this law ultimately set these businesses up for MORE litigation from people who say they were unfairly discriminated against because they were perceived as being gay?

Anonymous wrote:let's cut to the chase., It's homo fascism. - You will accept my lifestyle and cater to me or I will destroy you.

Who is the "you" and who is the "I"? It sounds like you are going to destroy gays unless they accept your definition of marriage.

Anonymous wrote:let's cut to the chase., It's homo fascism. - You will accept my lifestyle and cater to me or I will destroy you.

Naw, your twisted logic doesn't cut it. It's that in this country we strive to ensure civil rights to all. Angry white men are going down - one at a time.

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives thought they had a new angle with Obamacare and contraceptives. As usual they went for it. But they overplayed their hand, and now they have introduced social issues into the 2016 election cycle again.

Yes, based on an article I just read on the NBC news site it seems like Pence is now pivoting to this being about contraception and Obamacare. How could Indiana make such a simpleton their governor? This social issue is a golden ticket for Democrats. Yay.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pence-pins-need-indiana-religious-freedom-law-obamacare-n332926

Anonymous wrote:LOL It is awfully hard to remember that tolerance is a two-way street, isn't it? I agree with the governor on that one. If people can't get along, they should be allowed to hate and discriminate equally.

You wanted to excuse one group of people from following the rules. Who's to say another group is less worthy? Own it, bitches.

No, it isn't. I am not required to tolerate intolerance. I don't have to tolerate racism or sexism to be tolerant. If I support the rights of Jews to be allowed to shop without being subject to a curfew, for example, I'm not bound by my own logic to fight for the rights of KKK members to burn crosses. Business owners may really, really want to be able to discriminate against gay people through their businesses. That doesn't make it a "right," and prohibiting them from doing so is not "forcing" them to participate in anything, any more so than someone who joins a bowling league is forced to play with whoever else joins the league. Don't want to play with everyone? Don't join the league, or don't sell wedding cakes.

Seriously. Answer me this: if you don't want to ever participate in a gay wedding, why not just stop selling wedding cakes? There. Done and done.

It's cute that you think you found the "gotcha" argument, though.

LOL It is awfully hard to remember that tolerance is a two-way street, isn't it? I agree with the governor on that one. If people can't get along, they should be allowed to hate and discriminate equally.

You wanted to excuse one group of people from following the rules. Who's to say another group is less worthy? Own it, bitches.

Indiana shop signs.