News, Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers (Iran, government)

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by PuddingPops

These are the type of people who will protest and complain on twitter/facebook every day until it's publicly acceptable to grope your gay partner at Chuckie Cheese Playland or make out in the street as all passerby stop what they're doing and applaud them for their sexual liberation.

I'm all for it precisely because it makes the right upset. When you right-wing homophobes write such hyperbole, it just strengthens my resolve. Your unhappiness isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Until then, they need to make up stories about being oppressed and laws "specifically designed to discriminate against them". I don't know, I suppose it gives them a power trip or something. Meanwhile, 99% of the population could honestly care less.

It seems to bother you, though. Also, the phrase is "couldn't care less". Using "could care less" makes it look like you don't understand the things you say.

[dragontales]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

Typical Progressive - "I was for the law, before I was against it" Lot of "evolving" goes on in the Democrat Waffle Factory, for sure!!

like these:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ys-flip-flops/

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

1) Does the government have a compelling interest in people being able to patronize a coffee shop? If so...

the government has a compelling interest with insuring domestic tranquility and equality.

2) Is forcing one particular coffee shop to violate their religious beliefs the least intrusive and restrictive way to serve that compelling interest?

A Coffee shop does not have a religious belief, it is an inanimate building. To own a business anywhere in the US, you must submit to the requirements of the Government. So the argument of the owners religious preference has already been voided by the specific fact that they started a business.

Those two questions are exactly all that the law demands the government to answer. If a less restrictive way for the compelling interest of gays being allowed to patronize coffee shops can be found other than forcing that one particular coffee shop via government ultimatum, then that less restrictive way must be employed. In general, the existence of competition in the marketplace that serves the need satisfies a less restrictive method to serve the interest.

The coffee shop is an example, not the premise to which this argument is based. Trying to restrict the debate to "a coffee shop" is intellectually dishonest.

Of note, if no competition existed, or all the coffee shops went anti-gay, then the compelling interest would have fewer methods for satisfaction, and it would likely be well within the letter of this law to then have the government indeed use force via ultimatum.

That's all these RFRA laws are for. Forcing the government to seek the least restrictive and intrusive way to satisfy a compelling interest where freedom of religion is invoked as a defense. Under the federal law and all 20 state versions, a business could still be legally forced to do something, provided that was the last possible option to satisfy the interest.

trying to hide discrimination under the guise of religions freedom is no better than trying to hide slavery under the banner of "states rights"

Lets stop the Political correctness and sugarcoating. This is a bill that was passed to allow businesses to discriminate, regardless of the intentions you claim its authors have.

[Mr. Mon]

At the end of the day the law is pretty meaningless because sexual orientation is not currently a protected class in Indiana. A shop owner is perfectly within their rights to not serve someone because they are gay/gay married/whatever. But regardless if you think it's a good bill or a bad bill, it's simply pandering to some of the worst elements of the conservative base and it makes Indiana look bad in the eyes of outsiders.

It's disingenuous to try and give cover to bigotry with "religious freedom" and it's simply bad for business.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Lets stop the Political correctness and sugarcoating. This is a bill that was passed to allow businesses to discriminate, regardless of the intentions you claim its authors have.

Same for the United States federal government and 19 other states with the exact same law, I guess.

And sure, it allows discrimination, because a business should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. These RFRA laws simply allow religion to be a specifically noted reason. Hey, like I said, blame Chuck Schumer and Bill Clinton...they started it.

[Boss]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

At the end of the day the law is pretty meaningless because sexual orientation is not currently a protected class in Indiana. A shop owner is perfectly within their rights to not serve someone because they are gay/gay married/whatever. But regardless if you think it's a good bill or a bad bill, it's simply pandering to some of the worst elements of the conservative base and it makes Indiana look bad in the eyes of outsiders.

It's disingenuous to try and give cover to bigotry with "religious freedom" and it's simply bad for business.

I had Pence as a dark horse in 2016. I now know that he has lost the majority of the population in the national election in 2016

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Same for the United States federal government and 19 other states with the exact same law, I guess.


And sure, it allows discrimination, because a business should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. These RFRA laws simply allow religion to be a specifically noted reason. Hey, like I said, blame Chuck Schumer and Bill Clinton...they started it.

Not in a nation that prides itself on equality.

Also, the law passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the senate, there is no blaming an individual for something like that. I blame the entire congress.

But why should that matter ? wrong is wrong no matter if a majority support it. And further more, im about 80% sure that law was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Not in a nation that prides itself on equality.

Also, the law passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the senate, there is no blaming an individual for something like that. I blame the entire congress.

But why should that matter ? wrong is wrong no matter if a majority support it. And further more, im about 80% sure that law was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

How did you calculate your 80%?

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Private businesses should be allowed the FREEDOM to refuse service to anyone they choose.

Including black people?

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Not in a nation that prides itself on equality.

A nation priding itself on equality wouldn't have progressive taxes, affirmative action, institutionally mandated legal discrimination, a Congressional **insert non-white race here** Caucus, or anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Also, the law passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the senate, there is no blaming an individual for something like that. I blame the entire congress.

Exactly. I was begging that particular answer in my remark on Schumer and Clinton. Of 536 people responsible for a bill to become a law, 533 of them agreed that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was worth making into a law. 533 out 536? 99.4% majorities are pretty rock solid and bipartisan imho.

So the 20th state version signed into law in Indiana is bipartisan as well. Joined by 533-3 majority in the federal level and 19 other states. Can't really drop this on Mike Pence like he just thought it up last week.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

But why should that matter ? wrong is wrong no matter if a majority support it. And further more, im about 80% sure that law was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

The state enforcement was deemed unconstitutional in 1997 as it exceeded the proper exercise of Congressional enforcement power. That's why 20 states have written their own state versions, and maybe why the other 30 have not. Federalism at its finest really.