Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[miguel]

Mike is a Dependable guy

Gosh dang it, what is going on with all the Depends references this morning!!!!!

p.s. That is the first time in 6+ years on INGO I have used the red "mad" face.

p.p.s. I am not really mad, just feeling left out. Can I sue someone?

 

[chipbennett]

Most of these would be considered hate speech which is not protected so therefore can be refused. Are you really comparing two men or two women wanting to say "I do" to "kill a cracker" or God hates fags"?

Under what law can "hate speech" be refused?

All they need to do it include Homosexuality as a protected class and this will all go away. If its not about denying service to gays then it should be an easy fix.

Homosexuality as a protected class has absolutely nothing to do with the Indiana RFRA. Classes protected against discrimination are defined elsewhere. If people want such an amendment to that statute, then they should argue for it. It has nothing to do with the RFRA.

 

[chipbennett]

Indiana small business owners are being forced to hang signs in their windows stating "We Welcome Everyone" the week of an event larger than the Super Bowl. Just saw on the news that stores from Zionsville to Greenwood are already receiving calls asking whether or not all are welcome.

Forced? Really? Who is forcing them to do so?

So sad. So much misery being wrought by the GOP.

The GOP is forcing them? If a rhetorical gun is being held to the heads of small business owners, that gun is being held by the media and militant LGBTs.

Send a mesage of mercy and love Mike Pence, step down. He would want you to do what is right for those you lead.

How far back in the archives should I scroll to find your admonishment for Obama to step down after signing ObamaCare into law?

 

[chipbennett]

Do we not have enough Law's.

I don't think that's really the crux of the matter. Do we need more laws that restrict what free people can do in a free society? No. But laws that restrict what the government can do to infringe upon the freedoms of the people? Yeah, actually; we probably could use more of those.

The Indiana RFRA is one such law of the latter type.

 

[chipbennett]

Jesus just came to me and told me that you are to give me $5000. Do you deny your Lord? I'm kidding of course but I hope you get my point.
He sells cakes dude. He sells food.

So, you are appointing yourself to be arbiter of someone else's freedom of conscience?

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think that's really the crux of the matter. Do we need more laws that restrict what free people can do in a free society? No. But laws that restrict what the government can do to infringe upon the freedoms of the people? Yeah, actually; we probably could use more of those.

The Indiana RFRA is one such law of the latter type.

I agree.

 

[chipbennett]

The purpose, as put forth by the bills crafters (as quoted upthread) was to allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers. The RFRA is not like other states, it deliberately protects those who would discriminate. It was totally unnecessary here in Indiana, as the LGBT community was already denied any legal recourse for discrimination, (as we saw last year). That wasn't the case in other states, but was here.

This is complete bovine excrement.

What part of the Indiana RFRA specifically allows for discrimination against LGBT? More precisely: what difference in the Indiana RFRA specifically allows for discrimination against LGBT?

Please cite from the actual law.

 

[churchmouse]

This is complete bovine excrement.

What part of the Indiana RFRA specifically allows for discrimination against LGBT? More precisely: what difference in the Indiana RFRA specifically allows for discrimination against LGBT?

Please cite from the actual law.

Pinning them in the corner with facts may not work.

 

[chipbennett]

What is the significance of Jesus eating with sinners?

So the owner of the cake store is not trying to be like Jesus. How ironic.

Freedom of religion, not freedom of religion as defind by kiddchaos.

Why do you think you get to decide for someone else?

 

[chipbennett]

Pinning them in the corner with facts may not work.

Given that I'm at least the fourth person to call him out on his blatant lie, and he has yet to respond, I can only assume that you are correct.

 

[chipbennett]

Who knew social statism tasted like chicken?

Wait: are you claiming that a law that restricts government action is statism?

 

[chipbennett]

...I personally think that this bill is a death sentence to any business that wishes to use it...

How, pray tell, would a business "use" the Indiana RFRA? Can you describe a scenario where that would play out?

 

[1775usmarine]

So a restaurant serve people of all walks of life. The owner is approached by some of the patrons to cater a pro abortion meeting in their establishment. Should they be forced to participate in this event even if their religious beliefs are for right to life? Should a person who owns a business that sells items to everyone and does custom work be forced to make a custom item in support of gay marriage even when based on their religion they do not believe in it? There are laws against putting signs up naming a particular group from entering your business, but where do we draw the line when it comes to holding an event, or making custom orders and what they want goes against the owners religious beliefs? Should an owner of a restaurant or shop be forced to put a sign up in the window advertising soemthing that goes against their religious beliefs when asked by someone? Where do we draw the line and say enough is enough because you want me to have my 1st amendment right but it must be done this way.

 

[MisterChester]

Wait: are you claiming that a law that restricts government action is statism?

I have no clue where you got that from. Mike Pence and Ted Cruz are leaders of the social statism movement.

 

[chipbennett]

I have no clue where you got that from. Mike Pence and Ted Cruz are leaders of the social statism movement.

And the law being discussed has nothing to do with social statism.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Wait: are you claiming that a law that restricts government action is statism?

I have no clue where you got that from.

It comes from here:

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. 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.

 

[chipbennett]

It comes from here:

Yes. And a law that says, "...a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..." is the exact opposite of statism. It restricts what the state may do to interfere in the life of the individual.

 

[miguel]

Can we change this thread from "Mike Pence should step down" to "Mike Pence should be impeached"?

 

[chipbennett]

Can we change this thread from "Mike Pence should step down" to "Mike Pence should be impeached"?

How about "Stompy Feet Gonna Stomp Feet"?

 

[findingZzero]

Pence's answers were technically correct if not disingenuous. RFRA doesn't change the ability to discriminate against the LGBT community. You could do that before RFRA. Repealing it would make no difference. Adding an anti-discrimination rider would. Theoretically, a separate issue. Like MS answers, technically correct, but totally useless. I apologize if someone else has already said this as I didn't read through the whole thread. And now back to Interstellar to see what I slept thru. Something about Relativity.