Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Henry Hawk]

^^  ... since you're hanging around with nothing to do. 

I have baked a cake, grilled hamburgers, done some launch, and walked my dog....I have verbally responded, but too pooped to one finger a lengthy response on my tablet!  I will respond tomorrow, if my work permits.😀

[Locutus]

Okey dokey! 

[Locutus]

Happy Birthday to your daughter BTW. 

[Henry Hawk]

Happy Birthday to your daughter BTW. 

Thanks locutus!😁

[Exterminator]

For the life of me, it misspells H Y P O C R I C Y....

Fixed this for you!  LMAO!   

[Exterminator]

We live in a pluralistic and civil society, where our social contract demands we sometimes relinquish individual liberties in the name of a more just and open society.

This is something the right-wingers don't seem to be able to grasp on virtually any front.  They fail to understand that living in a society requires give and take and that one individuals rights end where the next's begin.  For them, it's all about me, me, me (and not the one who calls herself that on this forum although there is quite a bit of irony in her having chosen that screen name in this context).

[Exterminator]

[me]

George Takei expresses things quite nicely Here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/george-takei-boycott-indiana?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

. . .I myself am a Buddhist, not a Christian. But I cannot help but think that if Christ ran a public establishment, it would be open to all, and He would be the last to refuse service to anyone. It is, simply put, the most un-Christian of notions.

So let us be clear what this is really about: divisive politics. The far right has lost the war over marriage equality, and quickly. It now has staked out a new ground and shrouded itself ostensibly within the ambit of the First Amendment – for who can deny that we ought to give religious freedom its full and fair due? It seeks refuge in the recent, and regrettable, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hobby Lobby, which appeared to open the door for exceptions to "government regulation" in the name of protecting religious beliefs. . . .

. . .We live in a pluralistic and civil society, where our social contract demands we sometimes relinquish individual liberties in the name of a more just and open society. This means that while we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, the extent and impact of those beliefs, and what we may impose because of them, stops at the tips of our noses. This also means we must learn to respect and, yes, even love our neighbors, despite our differences. . .

. . .The doors of a school or a restaurant or a business, held open to the public, must be open to all. The days are over where some may be denied a seat at the table simply because of who they are – or in this case, whom they love. We cannot, and must not, march backward from where we have come. . .

Please give his piece a read, no matter what side of this issue you stand upon.

You know it's strange that this has gotten all blown out of proportion like it has. I noticed nothing in that bill that mentions businesses like restaurants, stores, or gay's specifically yet people have read that into it. Why should someone be forced to cater, photograph, or do a floral arrangment at an event they feel uncomfortable at? Why would someone even want to have a photographer, florist, or caterer who feels uncomfortable to work for them? A restauramt, clothing store, or any other business doesn't ask about your personal life or beliefs before they serve you so those types of businesses would not be affected but for some strange reason they have gotten included in this mess it seems. Would you feel that a gay florist, caterer, or photographer who didn't want to do business, with a straight person or an athiest who didn't want to do business with a christian was perfectly acceptable? This law could very well protect them too.

[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?

Okay, I am going to do something that I normally would never do on THIS forum.  Admit, that YOU are right ON THIS POINT, to an EXTENT!

I just had a very long discussion with a VP of this company who is a very avid republican participant for the City of Indianapolis. He explained it to me, where I can understand some of the beef.

As he said, this bill is a good bill, BUT, it DOES need to have the "sexual orientation" clause to this new bill or we (Indiana) needs to add Gays and Lesbians as a protected group under the discrimination laws. 

I also agree, that the way Pence shoved it through was too similar to what Obama and the democrats did with ObamaCare.  It needed time to air.  Shoving bills through is too much of a liberal thing..... such as.. Let's pass the bill, then see what is in it (or in this case, not in it).

Pence, IS indeed a Christian Conservative, who I believe he did not see this as a "shot" at the Gays, but fully believes it is there to protect religious views.  Which I still support.

But, I am able to grasp the beef by the Gay community. 

The bottom line is, The far right and the far left, are both extremely compassionate groups, who are tearing down this Nation.

I can say, I do get it.  I DO understand why the Gays are ruffled....I don't agree 100% (or even maybe 50%) but I see their point.

This RFRA does good for groups such as Notre Dame, who is now protected from HAVING to carry abortions on their insurance.  The Government can no longer say they HAVE to carry abortions. I think they as a religious group should have that right.

Without this law, the Gov could do make them cover it.

I still say this bill was blown out of the water for mostly political reasons, because I don't think the discrimination against gays would have held in court, but just as I feel strongly with religious protection, I see where THEY (Gays) want it also.

THERE!  I said it.  You MAY have been trying to tell me that....but I get it. 

[Exterminator]

I just had a very long discussion with a VP of this company who is a very avid republican participant for the City of Indianapolis. He explained it to me, where I can understand some of the beef.

As he said, this bill is a good bill, BUT, it DOES need to have the "sexual orientation" clause to this new bill or we (Indiana) needs to add Gays and Lesbians as a protected group under the discrimination laws.

Because every business that might move to Indianapolis or expand here will need their space either built or remodeled and your company is likely to get at least some of that work.  Those companies going elsewhere potentially affect your bottom line.

I also agree, that the way Pence shoved it through was too similar to what Obama and the democrats did with ObamaCare.  It needed time to air.  Shoving bills through is too much of a liberal thing..... such as.. Let's pass the bill, then see what is in it (or in this case, not in it).

Because a bill that provides health insurance for millions of people who previously had no access to the health care system is the same as discriminating against gays; right?

Pence, IS indeed a Christian Conservative, who I believe he did not see this as a "shot" at the Gays, but fully believes it is there to protect religious views.

Bullshit.  Pence is, was and always will be a religious ideologue who absolutely understood that this bill took aim directly at the LGBT community.

But, I am able to grasp the beef by the Gay community.

I'm sure the gay community will appreciate your grasping their beef.   

[Henry Hawk]

I'm sure the gay community will appreciate your grasping their beef.   

Maybe I should re-word that one....    (Not that there is anything wrong with that...in my Jerry Seinfield voice)

[Exterminator]

 

[Henry Hawk]

Because a bill that provides health insurance for millions of people who previously had no access to the health care system is the same as discriminating against gays; right?

No, because shoving a bill through without giving it time for ALL to look at to see what ramifications that are in the bill, who all it impacts and what pork may be in it....is the right thing to do.  PERIOD.  No matter whose bill it is.

[Exterminator]

No, because shoving a bill through without giving it time for ALL to look at to see what ramifications that are in the bill, who all it impacts and what pork may be in it....is the right thing to do.  PERIOD.  No matter whose bill it is.

If you think they've bothered to read it even now, you're delusional.

[Henry Hawk]

If you think they've bothered to read it even now, you're delusional.

Who is "They"?

Pence just had a press conference, he wants clarification added to this bill by the end of the week.