But somehow just because this law passed, bakers will start refusing service all of the sudden? Ridiculous.
Funny, the rights of bakers not baking something was (and is) extremely important to everyone in Conservative World and was quite likely the catalyst for the thinking that drove this type of legislation. Were they being ridiculous when they were supporting refusal of service?
This is just another tool to keep people mad at each other. Republicans are meanies, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, there you have it.....
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
If this law in Indiana is so right and honorable, then why is the Governor saying it needs to be changed?
they were following their faith. Wait 'til the Muslims chime in...THEN people will listen because Obama told us to.
and the governor caved in, fairly simple. Dollars.
But somehow just because this law passed, bakers will start refusing service all of the sudden? Ridiculous.
Funny, the rights of bakers not baking something was (and is) extremely important to everyone in Conservative World and was quite likely the catalyst for the thinking that drove this type of legislation. Were they being ridiculous when they were supporting refusal of service?
This is just another tool to keep people mad at each other. Republicans are meanies, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, there you have it.....
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
If this law in Indiana is so right and honorable, then why is the Governor saying it needs to be changed?
they were following their faith. Wait 'til the Muslims chime in...THEN people will listen because Obama told us to.
and the governor caved in, fairly simple. Dollars.
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
-Justice Hugo Black, Everson v Board of Education
With all this talk of cookies and plumbers and strip clubs I can see how folks could think no real damage could come from legalized discrimination.
But what happens when Doctors refuse service? Who knows what the doctor on duty in the emergency room believes? Can a muslim doctor not take care of a christian heart attack victim?
I don't understand why folks sexual proclivities and the business of government or of anyone else.
Your a baker so bake and STFU.
Most everyone is assuming that the religion in question here is Christianity. The Indiana law is not even that specific.
Sharpton is probably wondering how HIS discrimination issue became someone else's discrimination issue.
"Those damn gays..."" 
😛
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
I don't understand why folks sexual proclivities and the business of government or of anyone else.
Couldn't agree more.
Your a baker so bake and STFU.
So they are not entitled to their first amendment rights?
Should a catholic priest have to marry a gay couple?
With all this talk of cookies and plumbers and strip clubs I can see how folks could think no real damage could come from legalized discrimination.
What precise language in the bill legalizes discrimination? Second request.
You can see how this kind of stuff gets out of hand, but isn't that the desired result?
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
Does anybody care how it makes Mike Pence look or care if he made a mistake?
I don't.
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
Does anybody care how it makes Mike Pence look or care if he made a mistake?
I don't.
Did he make a mistake signing this bill?
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
Does anybody care how it makes Mike Pence look or care if he made a mistake?
I don't.
Did he make a mistake signing this bill?
From a PR standpoint a terrible mistake. He lit a firecracker that exploded like an atomic bomb, and he should have known what would happen. Should have known.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
Exactly. It's Indiana that has taken sides. And it's the people who will make the change with their spending power. Funny how he sees it as the opposite.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
Exactly. It's Indiana that has taken sides. And it's the people who will make the change with their spending power. Funny how he sees it as the opposite.
How's that? The federal government will force you to do business as it sees fit. You are not free to serve who you want without punishment. And if you fail to do so the Supreme Court will side with the plaintiff, as has been proven. Backwards, my foot.
The way Republicans squirm and deflect when confronted with even the slightest notion that one of their own may have made a mistake is always entertaining.
Does anybody care how it makes Mike Pence look or care if he made a mistake?
I don't.
Did he make a mistake signing this bill?
From a PR standpoint a terrible mistake. He lit a firecracker that exploded like an atomic bomb, and he should have known what would happen. Should have known.
What exactly should he have known? The rightwingoverse has made it a mantra talking point that the Indiana law exactly mirrors the Federal RFCA (it doesn't) and all the other State RFCAs (it doesn't)...so, did Pence make a mistake by just signing the law, or by signing this particular law?
Are you saying that there is nothing at all wrong with the Indiana law in its current state?
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
You have researched this much deeper than others here. Please show us the language that legalizes discrimination.
Third request...
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
Exactly. It's Indiana that has taken sides. And it's the people who will make the change with their spending power. Funny how he sees it as the opposite.
How's that? The federal government will force you to do business as it sees fit. You are not free to serve who you want without punishment. And if you fail to do so the Supreme Court will side with the plaintiff, as has been proven. Backwards, my foot.
So, the matter of civil rights has been a mistake in your eyes? Should the Civil Rights Era end?
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
Exactly. It's Indiana that has taken sides. And it's the people who will make the change with their spending power. Funny how he sees it as the opposite.
How's that? The federal government will force you to do business as it sees fit. You are not free to serve who you want without punishment. And if you fail to do so the Supreme Court will side with the plaintiff, as has been proven. Backwards, my foot.
So, the matter of civil rights has been a mistake in your eyes? Should the Civil Rights Era end?
What content of my post inferred that I thought Civil Rights as a whole are a mistake?
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
You have researched this much deeper than others here. Please show us the language that legalizes discrimination.
Third request...
Pence knew he couldn't really answer the questions posed to him Sunday, even though the face of the statute didn't explicitly allow discrimination.
The recently passed bill doesn't do that. The new bill was, in large part, created over the last six months in reaction to the overwhelming anger of the far right (I still draw the distinction between Far Right and Republican, although there isn't much of a leadership difference these days) to Federal rulings across the country that "Defense of Marriage" acts were unconstitutional. If you want to see the types of arguments Indiana (and Wisconsin) tried to use to support the defense of traditional marriage, here you go:
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7th%20Circuit%20same%20sex%20marriage.pdf
By the way, Judge Posner, who wrote the opinion, is a Reagan appointee.
The Indiana bill was "marketed" as a measure to mitigate the 7th Circuit case; it doesn't explicitly allow discrimination. The prior statue that explicitly did so by disallowing same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional.
Both parties are making a mess of this, in my opinion. These issues have become stupid pissing contests between party leaders, and the media is doing a good job to fan the flames.
There is nothing wrong with creating a legislative balancing test to review religious issues. Claims that these sort of bills should be repealed is a silly move. People should be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. These protective statues just shouldn't be used as a tool to support discrimination.
Personally, I'd make the cookies and I'm a Christian. my faith tells me homosexuality is not only a sin, it's living in sin
I've never understood this. I'm a Christian too, and I always interpreted God's teachings that we should love everyone and treat them equally, as everyone is one of God's creatures. Love thy neighbor. I guess the Bible is like a Rorsach test...you see what you want to see.
I do applaud you though for doing business with them. I appreciate that you can separate the two.
I certainly respect your openess. Wish more were as insightful and have as broad based a mindset as you in this area.
Maybe I'm a bit naive to think that the world & especiallly the USA would be better off without discrimination. There is no other way to put it. To me this is no different than the plight of Rosa Parks, the 19th Ammendment, the right for gay people to marry, etc. The common elements are equal treatment versus discrimination.
I am convinced that 100 years from now that the next generations will look back and see how unaccepting & narrow minded the preceding generations were in the acceptance of their fellow man.
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
You have researched this much deeper than others here. Please show us the language that legalizes discrimination.
Third request...
This is about the extent of the research I've done on it...
[url] http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality /law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf [/url]
and...
Elected officials who are attorneys draft laws and send to other attorneys, who then share it with other attorneys who give it to other attorneys and paralegals to do research on case precedent, then the attorneys circle back around and one of the attorneys writes a summary which the other attorneys sign and send back to the attorney who helped other attorneys draft the law in the first place.
I'm not an attorney, but I can read what attorneys write. Maybe you can try it too? Maybe you can get past "the liberals are getting everyone ginned-up against us!" meme and check it out yourself? Would you at least agree that a bad law is a bad law regardless of who writes it?
Even though I've never once claimed that the Indiana law "legalizes discrimination," it would be prudent to point out that LGBT discrimination in Indiana is already legal. LGBT is not a protected class and Governor Pence has made it explicitly clear that he will not extend that protection.
Heck, the thing that jumps out at me more than "legalized discrimination" is that the courts in Indiana are now going to get to decide what a "religion" is.
Is THAT what conservatives really want? I'm shocked if that's true.
Should "religious liberty" be a protected class? How is that defined?
Starting off looking at the text of the bill, how about in Section 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.”
Let's unpack that before going any further. Read it a few times.
The people who deny them business need to look in a mirror and the people who want the cookies should too. Where is their compassion and understanding for someone else's beliefs? Why do they knowingly force their will upon someone who they know doesn't approve of their lifestyle? It's as if they're being antagonists.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
You have researched this much deeper than others here. Please show us the language that legalizes discrimination.
Third request...
This is about the extent of the research I've done on it...
[url] http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality /law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf [/url]
and...
Elected officials who are attorneys draft laws and send to other attorneys, who then share it with other attorneys who give it to other attorneys and paralegals to do research on case precedent, then the attorneys circle back around and one of the attorneys writes a summary which the other attorneys sign and send back to the attorney who helped other attorneys draft the law in the first place.
I'm not an attorney, but I can read what attorneys write. Maybe you can try it too? Maybe you can get past "the liberals are getting everyone ginned-up against us!" meme and check it out yourself? Would you at least agree that a bad law is a bad law regardless of who writes it?
Even though I've never once claimed that the Indiana law "legalizes discrimination," it would be prudent to point out that LGBT discrimination in Indiana is already legal. LGBT is not a protected class and Governor Pence has made it explicitly clear that he will not extend that protection.
Heck, the thing that jumps out at me more than "legalized discrimination" is that the courts in Indiana are now going to get to decide what a "religion" is.
Is THAT what conservatives really want? I'm shocked if that's true.
Should "religious liberty" be a protected class? How is that defined?
Starting off looking at the text of the bill, how about in Section 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.”
Let's unpack that before going any further. Read it a few times.
Thanks, Bhawk. Wonder how that line from Section 5 stacks up against the Constitution? In any case, seems like it has the potential to open up a pandora's box to me.
I am convinced that 100 years from now that the next generations will look back and see how unaccepting & narrow minded the preceding generations were in the acceptance of their fellow man.
Including Christians.
I'm not an attorney, but I can read what attorneys write. Maybe you can try it too? Maybe you can get past "the liberals are getting everyone ginned-up against us!" meme and check it out yourself? Would you at least agree that a bad law is a bad law regardless of who writes it?
It would be much easier if Liberals in general seemed to get upset about a myriad of bad laws on the books. Sorry, I just don't see it. I see the opposite. The more laws, rules, and regulations the better and rarely are they examined to determine good or bad.
No. It's matters like this one, where groups can be turned against each other and agitated are exactly what they go apesh!t over. It's not about cakes and cookies or even discrimination -- It's about politics, pure and simple, and I think everybody knows it deep down. Democrats compassionate and open, Republicans mean and out of touch. SSDD.
So they are not entitled to their first amendment rights?
Should a catholic priest have to marry a gay couple?
Priest marrying a gay couple? Is this even about that? Wouldn't that be government imposing on a religious institution? I don't think that is even relevant to this bill. If the Catholic Church is now a business they better start paying taxes.
Of course bakers are entitled to their first amendment rights. But, if you are in business to make money, it might be wise to keep your opinions to yourself so as not to alienate customers.
I have a pretty standard letter I send to business I once patronized that are members of the Chamber of Commerce. I let them know they lost my business because of their partnership with the Chamber. I hope they realize that those dues are potentially far more costly than advertised. This year alone my former Veterinarian has lost more than $3000 in business.
But if you are a baker in business to make a statement instead of make money - have at it. Cook you anti gay cakes, proudly fly your discriminatory "No Gays" signs, do whatever you can legally do to stop homosexuality. Hah! That'l work.
Apparently not everyone got the Five Man Electrical Band's memo.
And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that. Huh! Me workin' for you!"Whoa-oh-oh
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you the right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?Now, hey you, mister, can't you read?
You've got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat
You can't even watch, no you can't eat
You ain't supposed to be here
The sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside
Ugh![Lead Guitar]
And the sign said, "Everybody welcome. Come in, kneel down and pray"
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all, I didn't have a penny to pay
So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said, "Thank you, Lord, for thinkin' 'bout me. I'm alive and doin' fine."
Wooo!Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Sign
Sign, sign
I am convinced that 100 years from now that the next generations will look back and see how unaccepting & narrow minded the preceding generations were in the acceptance of their fellow man.
Including Christians.
Jesus was a liberal.
I'm not so sure. That abortion thing might have been a deal-breaker. Just guessing.
So, the matter of civil rights has been a mistake in your eyes? Should the Civil Rights Era end?
What content of my post inferred that I thought Civil Rights as a whole are a mistake?
Civil Rights as a whole??? What? You want to be able to pick and choose who to discriminate against?
Guess what alloak? That's discrimination.
The more laws, rules, and regulations the better and rarely are they examined to determine good or bad.
You yourself won't even entertain the thought of examining THIS law. Does that make you a liberal?
No. It's matters like this one, where groups can be turned against each other and agitated are exactly what they go apesh!t over. It's not about cakes and cookies or even discrimination -- It's about politics, pure and simple, and I think everybody knows it deep down. Democrats compassionate and open, Republicans mean and out of touch. SSDD.
This whine is just as comical as the first time you made it years ago. Democrats are everything that is wrong with America, Republicans are the embodiment of human perfection. SSDD.
But the government has taken sides, and the FORCE will go in only one direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indeed, the State of Indiana has taken the side of religion.
Exactly. It's Indiana that has taken sides. And it's the people who will make the change with their spending power. Funny how he sees it as the opposite.
How's that? The federal government will force you to do business as it sees fit. You are not free to serve who you want without punishment. And if you fail to do so the Supreme Court will side with the plaintiff, as has been proven. Backwards, my foot.
So, the matter of civil rights has been a mistake in your eyes? Should the Civil Rights Era end?
What content of my post inferred that I thought Civil Rights as a whole are a mistake?
Right here:
The federal government will force you to do business as it sees fit. You are not free to serve who you want without punishment
That reads as if the concept of protected classes irritates you. Does it?
But if you are a baker in business to make a statement instead of make money - have at it. Cook you anti gay cakes, proudly fly your discriminatory "No Gays" signs, do whatever you can legally do to stop homosexuality. Hah! That'l work.
That's what keeps getting missed (or ignored).... Nobody does that now!
Or 99.9998% don't, and this law won't change that. Nonetheless, people are in ginned up hysterics over it like the world has been turned upside down. Take a shot at Christians and advance your political leanings at the same time? How can you resist?
Jesus was a liberal.
I'm not so sure. That abortion thing might have been a deal-breaker. Just guessing.
Remember that bombing of the abortion clinic at the Sea of Galilee? Abortion was a real hot button with those early Christians.
What was the prevalent scientific view of when life begins back then?
