The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hillary's joined the fray! Looks like irony is another concept Ms. Clinton doesn't grasp.

George Takei, others call for boycott of Indiana over religious - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

ETA: Don't know what's up with the link...

 

[chipbennett]

I was not aware that was an issue here with our current laws.

I don't know. Maybe ask the cupcake baker who got dragged into court.

(And as most people paying attention know: it's not always the *conviction* that is the most devastating. The legal process itself is punitive, and can be financially and personally devastating, regardless of the verdict.)

 

[chipbennett]

I don't see how the bill changed that, but "at will" doesn't cover protected classes. Women and minority races can still use the threat of a protected class lawsuit against an employer.

I bet there will now be a push here to include homosexuals as a protected class. They currently are not and changing their status would "void" most of the law. If I was a betting man.

Equal protection under the law? What equal protection? We don't need no stinkin' fourth amendment!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It seems to me that you have no understanding of the purpose of the law

The main purpose of this law is much the same as the purpose of Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon ban, which is to fight the good fight in support of a certain block of important votors/donors. In both cases, win or loose, votes, support, and dollars come rolling in.

The other purpose is to give us all something to fuss and argue about so that we're less likely to worry about such boring subjects as: Exactly HOW are you spending our tax dollars?


Win, Win, Win.

 

[chipbennett]

It only protects business owners who don't want to serve social entities because of religious reasons. It does not protect everyone's right to choose associations for any reason.

I don't think the law does any such thing.

 

[chipbennett]

The main purpose of this law is much the same as the purpose of Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon ban, which is to fight the good fight in support of a certain block of important votors/donors. In both cases, win or loose, votes, support, and dollars come rolling in.

The other purpose is to give us all something to fuss and argue about so that we're less likely to worry about such boring subjects as: Exactly HOW are you spending our tax dollars?


Win, Win, Win.

Well, that's certainly a verbose way to double down on the ignorant, hyperbolic nonsense approach.

 

[Denny347]

I don't know. Maybe ask the cupcake baker who got dragged into court.

(And as most people paying attention know: it's not always the *conviction* that is the most devastating. The legal process itself is punitive, and can be financially and personally devastating, regardless of the verdict.)

That was in CO based on CO laws at the time that we do not have here. No one has been sued here and there were chances to do so. Why, because there was no legal basis for a suite based on our laws. Now I do not think this law will likely be harmful to anyone, time will tell, but I am amused that the premise for the law was an irrational fear. We never get well thought out laws from them.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I don't think the law does any such thing.

Well, if it saves just one business from a gay person, then it will have been worth it.

 

[MisterChester]

We often like to speculate on all kinds of nefarious purposes for why people do things we don't like. Politicians are self concerned. If you don't want to accept the reason they gave, I'd start there.

The reason a politician gives for something is rarely the real one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch. We'd all better hope we never do anything to cause them to place us in their cross-hairs...and their sycophant followers--geez, they try to tear down everything in their path.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

 

[dusty88]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

I'm not religious. I think gays should be treated the same as everyone else. And I agree with you.

 

[yepthatsme]

Because it isn't about a cake. It isn't about catering a wedding reception. It's about power and control. They have had victim status for so long, but are recently waxing, so now they are playing the role of vengeful conquerors...typical human behavior. They're doing it because they can.

That's human nature, "Hey, we don't want to be in charge, we just want equality." Next thing you know...

I have the same thoughts on this and I can see their control eventually leading to forcing a business to perform a task even when it may be a situation where it isn't profitable for the business.

 

[cobber]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch. We'd all better hope we never do anything to cause them to place us in their cross-hairs...and their sycophant followers--geez, they try to tear down everything in their path.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

Why have a rational civil discussion when you can instead demonize your opponent and drive him into figurative exile. Because it's not like we share any values in common, or that this one issue isn't the end-all and be-all of our miserable short time on the Earth.

 

[Lowe0]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch. We'd all better hope we never do anything to cause them to place us in their cross-hairs...and their sycophant followers--geez, they try to tear down everything in their path.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

The governor is screwing with the industry I make my living in purely for his own political gain. I think being angry is a pretty reasonable response to that.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, if it saves just one business from a gay person, then it will have been worth it.

The Rhetoric is strong with this one.

 

[rhino]

For those who still have not yet read the law: Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

 

[miguel]

Out of all of this, it's not so much me having to defend something I wasn't sure if I supported or not, it's having to support and defend it against the insane, misguided, shrill, out of control, mob rule style tactics that were used to try to defeat it.

My goodness, people! This scorched-earth approach by the LGBT supporters is scary to watch. We'd all better hope we never do anything to cause them to place us in their cross-hairs...and their sycophant followers--geez, they try to tear down everything in their path.

If you're a religious person, join me and pray for a return to Constitutional rule.

I prayed this morning before I got out of bed. But brother, we ARE in their cross-hairs! If we weren't on Monday morning, we sure are as of Friday night. The second thing I did this morning was write my Indiana Rep and Sen and thanked them for the job they did and asked them to hold the line against the pressure sure to come their way to revoke or change the new law.

I love the tone the Salesforce CEO is taking, "We're going to limit our investment in Indiana because of this!" Yo man, maybe limit your investment in Indiana because your company has lost scores of millions of dollars year after year despite your huge market share. Oh, but his stock price is going up, so he's doing a "good job" and is pocketing large coin personally.

And, dare I mention this "Band of Brothers" from GenCon who will likely be canoeing down the Wabash from their safe house to distribute stickers to the freedom fighters on Talbot Street?

 

[jamil]

I don't think the law does any such thing.

Hypothetically, if an atheist opposed the gay lifestyle for philosophical but not religious reasons, and refused to make an Adam & Steve wedding cake, would the law allow him to defend his choice of associations?

 

[jamil]

The reason a politician gives for something is rarely the real one.

And it is that way in all points in the political spectrum, and it's not just politicians. The source telling you all those nasty things about Scot Walker is likely embellishing. A lot. Not that there's no truth to it, or that Walker hasn't made some serious mistakes. He has. Point is, the complete truth is always somewhere between the pro and the con.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

And it is that way in all points in the political spectrum, and it's not just politicians. The source telling you all those nasty things about Scot Walker is likely embellishing. A lot. Not that there's no truth to it, or that Walker hasn't made some serious mistakes. He has. Point is, the complete truth is always somewhere between the pro and the con.

It's pervasive in our society to answer questions in a "pragmatically correct" way.

Honey does this outfit make me look fat?

Is it true that your team is losing on purpose to get the first draft pick?