Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Sam]

In other news, a similar law was passed in Illinois in 1998, and you'll never guess who voted for it:

Barrack Hussien Obama

Compare the texts. Not the same. It's either ignorant or disingenuous to pretend the laws or the intent behind them are remotely similar.

[Mountain Man]

Compare the texts. Not the same. It's either ignorant or disingenuous to pretend the laws or the intent behind them are remotely similar.

Oh, of course.

Source: Washington Post

In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences, and whether those are important can depend on the legal expert you consult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cked-by-obama/

© Copyright Original Source

But they're not "remotely similar". Yeah, O.K.

[Mountain Man]

Looks like Governor Pence is buckling under the pressure and is asking for "clarification" in the form of a rewritten religious protection law that won't actually protect religion. As one conservative put it, "Pence is being forced to change the law to put a thumb on the scale — to change a neutral balancing test so that the gay rights lobby always gets to win."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ia-blitzkrieg/

[Sparko]

The Pink Gestapo strikes again. Tolerance!!!!! ...as long as you agree with them.

tumblr_n89am7vKLK1sjx9vwo1_r1_500.jpg

[Sam]

Oh, of course.

Source: Washington Post

In broad strokes, the Indiana and Illinois laws are similar. But there are a couple of important differences, and whether those are important can depend on the legal expert you consult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cked-by-obama/

© Copyright Original Source

But they're not "remotely similar". Yeah, O.K.

Read the texts: what's relevant to this discussion isn't similar and what's similar isn't relevant. Indiana's RFRA, unlike Illinois' RFRA codifies corporations (not even closely-held corporations, if I remember right) as 'persons' under this RFRA and, more importantly, makes the RFRA a legal defense even when the government isn't a party to the suit.

So, yeah, not remotely similar. Read the texts and work on understanding the context rather than whatever the talking points happen to be.

[KingsGambit]

Looks like Governor Pence is buckling under the pressure and is asking for "clarification" in the form of a rewritten religious protection law that won't actually protect religion. As one conservative put it, "Pence is being forced to change the law to put a thumb on the scale — to change a neutral balancing test so that the gay rights lobby always gets to win."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ia-blitzkrieg/

The clarification will state that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...ion/index.html

I'm not sure how it's possible to read that into the bill without outright repealing it.

[Sam]

The clarification will state that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...ion/index.html

I'm not sure how it's possible to read that into the bill without outright repealing it.

$5 on the clarification being non-binding or only pertaining to government actions. That's the only way I can think of achieving both the goal of the law, which is to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation by private parties, and the political goal, which is to distance Pence and others from the first goal.

[Darth Executor]

$5 on the clarification being non-binding or only pertaining to government actions. That's the only way I can think of achieving both the goal of the law, which is to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation by private parties, and the political goal, which is to distance Pence and others from the first goal.

The goal is to prevent gays from forcing you to cater to their wedding. It's no more "discrimination" than refusing to pick cotton for free.

[KingsGambit]

By definition, discrimination is treating people differently. The term itself is inherently neutral; consider "price discrimination" in economics. One can support the law and freely admit that it permits discrimination (and that this is a good thing).

[Darth Executor]

By definition, discrimination is treating people differently. The term itself is inherently neutral; consider "price discrimination" in economics. One can support the law and freely admit that it permits discrimination (and that this is a good thing).

That definition is not the one commonly used in these issues though.

[Mountain Man]

...the goal of the law, which is to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation by private parties...

That's not the goal of the law, and saying it is is as big a lie as "Hands up, don't shoot!" In fact, the law makes zero reference to sexual orientation. The goal of the law (at least the original goal before Pence asked for "clarification") was to give practitioners of religion a legal defense in the event they were sued for refusing to compromise their core values.

[Mountain Man]

Read the texts: what's relevant to this discussion isn't similar and what's similar isn't relevant.

Of course it's not.

This is a very typical of you. Whenever you're proven wrong, you suddenly declare those facts "not relevant" and carry on like you haven't been refuted. It's all rather amusing, not to mention disingenious.

[Sam]

Of course it's not.

This is a very typical of you. Whenever you're proven wrong, you suddenly declare those facts "not relevant" and carry on like you haven't been refuted. It's all rather amusing, not to mention disingenious.

Again, read the texts. If you have a refutation that pertains to what we're talkin' about here, you haven't yet put it forth. Referencing Illinois' RFRA as though it were remotely similar to Indiana's RFRA in terms of what we're discussing (hint: think wedding bells, not peyote) is either showing ignorance or disingenuous thought, as I wrote.

[Sam]

That's not the goal of the law, and saying it is is as big a lie as "Hands up, don't shoot!" In fact, the law makes zero reference to sexual orientation. The goal of the law (at least the original goal before Pence asked for "clarification") was to give practitioners of religion a legal defense in the event they were sued for refusing to compromise their core values.

"Refusing to compromise on their core values" ... by discriminating against same-sex couples. Yup.

[Mountain Man]

Again, read the texts. If you have a refutation that pertains to what we're talkin' about here, you haven't yet put it forth. Referencing Illinois' RFRA as though it were remotely similar to Indiana's RFRA in terms of what we're discussing (hint: think wedding bells, not peyote) is either showing ignorance or disingenuous thought, as I wrote.

Of course you're the one who thinks the Indiana law was written with the specific goal to discriminate against homosexuals, so if you want to talk about ignorance then be my guest.