Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Exterminator]

Nope, Millions.  Millions of everyday, hard-working, good people.  If you think I'm wrong....then prove it.

I can say this.  Exactly 1,264,877 Million of people voted for Mike Pence and several million voted for our state senators and congressmen, and they voted for this bill by a LARGE number.

Many of those people have come out publicly against this legislation. 

[Henry Hawk]

Many of those people have come out publicly against this legislation. 

A few.  With your logic, I can say that some democrats support it.  Fact is, millions of people are NOT against it.  For the record, I never stated one way or the other if I was in favor of it being passed or not.  I'm just pissed on how badly this was mis-characterized. 

[Palehorse]

Two word; "sexual orientation" need only be added to the protected classes contained within civil rights law in this state, and all of this goes away. Instantly.

But Mikie says no way.

Wonder why?

[Exterminator]

I'm just pissed on how badly this was mis-characterized.

It is being exposed for exactly what it is and you know it.

[Henry Hawk]

Two word; "sexual orientation" need only be added to the protected classes contained within civil rights law in this state, and all of this goes away. Instantly.

But Mikie says no way.

Wonder why?

No he didn't.  He said if "the general assembly in Indiana sends me a bill that adds a section that reiterates and amplifies and clarifies what the law really is and what it has been for the last 20 years, than I'm open to that."

[Henry Hawk]

It is being exposed for exactly what it is and you know it.

Wrong!  It is being portrayed as discriminatory when it is NOT.  It is only designed to protect Religious Liberty of people of faith.  We have laws in place regarding discrimination. It is a political ploy by the left to demonize Christians. It is shameless rhetoric.  PERIOD.

Again, I want to say, I'm still on the fence if they should have passed it, but not because it is discriminatory towards sexual orientation, because it is NOT.  It allows the courts to protect those of faith.

It couldn't be more simple, yet it is WAY OVERBLOWN.

[me]

The bottom line is that this type of legislation, regardless of whether it's in Indiana or elsewhere, is simply designed to aid and abet those who want to want to be able to discriminate, and to do it legally.  It allows them to discriminate against whomever they choose, all while hiding behind a cloak of their religious beliefs.  Nothing more; nothing less.

And I ask again. Is that what Clinton's 1993 bill did? If so where was the outrage then?

[me]

Quote from: Exterminator on March 29, 2015, 09:07:49 PM

    It is; google it.

I did. Read it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#

Once again. Go to the bottom right, click on Bill version, then click on introduce senate bill (s).  I posted this same thing a few pages back and you obviously didn't see it or ignored it.

[Locutus]

Wrong!  It is being portrayed as discriminatory when it is NOT.  It is only designed to protect Religious Liberty of people of faith.  We have laws in place regarding discrimination. It is a political ploy by the left to demonize Christians. It is shameless rhetoric.  PERIOD.

Again, I want to say, I'm still on the fence if they should have passed it, but not because it is discriminatory towards sexual orientation, because it is NOT.  It allows the courts to protect those of faith.

It couldn't be more simple, yet it is WAY OVERBLOWN.

Have you checked the resumes of some of the people who were present at Pence's private signing ceremony?  If not, you certainly should.  I would be interested in whether or not you still would make the claims that you're making here after you check that out. 

[Exterminator]

Wrong!  It is being portrayed as discriminatory when it is NOT.

That is simply not true.  They have come right out and said that it is designed to protect business owners from being forced to service gay marriages when it is against their religious convictions to do so?  Again, how is that not discriminatory?

[Exterminator]

You can post your links 100 times, me, and it still won't change the fact that Indiana's law is fundamentally different from the federal law despite whether or not your lack of reading comprehension allows you to understand how.

[Exterminator]

And I ask again. Is that what Clinton's 1993 bill did? If so where was the outrage then?

Here.  Read it.

[Palehorse]

No he didn't.  He said if "the general assembly in Indiana sends me a bill that adds a section that reiterates and amplifies and clarifies what the law really is and what it has been for the last 20 years, than I'm open to that."

Nope. I heard it straight from his own anti-Christ pie-hole myself on Sunday.

"That is not what the people of the state of Indiana want, so I am not going to do it."

Now , I am one of those people and so are several hundred of my friends; and NONE of us agree with the law and are in full support of adding those two little words to Indianas civil rights laws.

[Locutus]

Time to get out the illustrations for those who don't want to research and understand on their own.  This is EXACTLY what that bill was about.  To claim otherwise is just disingenuous. 

 

[me]

Please, dont pull that crap knowing the type of people our POTUS associates himself with.