@Indiana new legislation “protecting businesses”.

(Someone asked me if I can’t just be foolish on Facebook… Well, hell, NO! I will be foolish here as well:)

1 – The State of Indiana passing laws that are to allow business to reject service to gays: WRONG. Even with the argument that it is to protect businesses from the heavy lawsuits gay people file against business. We should not respond with legislation against others whereas saying that we don’t like “legislation” which is against us

UPDATE: Please read a clarification in the comments.                               UPDATE #2 – Please read how CNN “headlines” the matter here

2 – Gay people closing otherwise good business by suing them because they cannot bake a cake for themselves, or arrange flowers by themselves (what kind of gay people are they?): WRONG
3 – Gay people in business, hypothetically, refusing to provide services for the KKK and the Westboro (more like West Burro) Baptist Church in a anti-gay regalia: WRONG.
So, in whatever case, it is all wrong! The fact is that no one wants to live together with those with whom they disagree. The fact remains that TOLERANCE is something you give, not something you DEMAND! The one demanding TOLERANCE and rights should be the first one READY TO GIVE IT!
I have repeated this often, including in “diversity” courses: Tolerance demanded is in and of itself INTOLERANCE! Especially when it is in detriment of others.
If it matters, before you call me names, read this: I do business with gays although I respect those who do not!
Now you can call me names …
A Civil War “of sorts”?
  1.  We can’t live without legislating against those whose live styles or opinions we despise;
  2.  We can’t live without involving the courts against those whose life styles and opinions we despise;
  3. We can’t live without involving the GOVERNMENT against those whose life styles and opinions we despise:
THEN, we are already amid a CIVIL WAR; a bloodless one indeed, but perhaps just as dividing of a society as a full blown CIVIL WAR!!!!

You Might Also Like

15 Replies to “@Indiana new legislation “protecting businesses”.”

  1. “The State of Indiana passing laws that are to allow business to reject service to gays”

    Just for a point of clarity here. That is not what the law allows or does. The law says nothing at all about public accommodations nor does it change Indiana’s existing public accommodations law, which, by the way, currently does not consider sexual orientation a protected class.

    The rhetoric being leveled at RFRA does not match the reality of what the law does.


    1. Just for clarification, the lawyer that argues in the above opinion piece is a supporter of the bill, not an unbiased, independent analyst. A week ago, the guy was listed as the advocate of the bill, I the below report.
      I’m not a lawyer, but let’s not pretend a lawyer arguing for the bill is independently unbiased!


      “Both sides of the argument came armed with academic experts. Daniel Conkle, professor of Law at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, stated that he believes the bill as it is written would not preclude human rights or be a “license to discriminate” as opponents have suggested. Robert Katz, professor of law at the IU McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, disagreed with Conkle’s analysis, stating that it is exclusion of anti-discrimination language from the bill that is the reason why people are so fearful of the repercussions the bill might have, especially on individuals who depend on anti-discrimination laws and language for the direct protection of their civil rights and freedoms.”

      Personally, on both sides, it just looks like another excuse for lawyers to get big paydays. I really don’t care what happens in Indiana. That’s a foreign country, isn’t it? I’ve got a sister-in-law that lives there. It’s like going back in time 100 years.

      1. He says in the piece that he supports the law. Indeed, that is the point of the piece. The facts he states are either true or not, though.

        1. Which means he presents only one side of the argument.
          “The rhetoric being leveled at RFRA does not match the reality of what the law does.”…from the advocates of the law.

          1. For John; why should I show the facts are wrong? I am not a lawyer. However, the fact that another lawyer represents the other side, clearly indicates that there is another side to the argument.

  2. Thanks for the clarification. The idea behind the post stands because sadly is how the interpretation or the intention of the law is being sold to America in some circles.
    I do share your concern for the misleading interpretations! Give me permission and I will post your clarification within the post!
    Thanks again!

  3. Never has an RFRA type law, whether it be state or federal, been used to deny services to an LGBTQ individual or couple that has stood up in court. It has been used unsuccessfully as a defense, but not successfully to the best of my knowledge. If mistaken, I am sorry. The states that have RFRA laws passed them primarily so that when cases involving them came up they could be handled in state courts rather than automatically be made a federal case. All state RFRA laws have also been modeled on the federal statute, which the SCOTUS has indicated would not allow for refusal of services based specifically on the sexual orientation of the person denied service. Anything other than this is just rhetoric from one side or the other. It is little more than a manufactured reason to fight.

  4. Thanks Scott! But, do check the headline on the article cited on CNN. I didn’t want to promote their page but I had to due to the vast amount of misinformation being spread over the Internet based purely and solely on the headline of their report! The distortion of the facts that such headline brings to the discussion table is indeed sad! Of course now CNN changed their headline to a more balanced one, but the original was “Indiana’s governor signs law that allows for the rejection of service to gays” – or something very similar to it!

  5. The real issue may not even be gays. The law may simply reflect either the need for a easy to marginalize scapegoat — similar to what Nazis did to the Jews — or the need to prove that an otherwise do-nothing legislature isn’t a total waste of taxpayer money.

  6. On ABC’s “This Week” this past Sunday, Mike Pence first tried two-stepping around George Stephanopoulos’ question as to whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow businesses to discriminate against homosexuals.

    That was before the hoof-in-mouth Indiana governor admitted protecting gay rights wasn’t on his list of things to do. Of course, the revelation subsequently put the governor’s staff into damage control mode.

    As if that weren’t enough, it turns out that on the same day the Indiana legislature passed its precious Religious Freedom Restoration Act, The First Church of Cannabis Inc. filed the necessary paperwork to become a non-profit organization in Indiana!

    Now, thanks to Indiana myopic politicians, it may be legal to smoke marijuana in Indiana if that practice is part of one’s religious practices. As one Indiana lawyer put it, the time may have come to “Praise the Lord and pass the grass!”

  7. For anyone trying to make sense out of the Indiana governor’s recent flip-flop on that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the whole thing can be summed in two words: Symbolic legislation.

    Much like restoring compulsory prayer in schools and making it illegal to burn an American flag, symbolic legislation such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act seldom solves real problems. Instead, these useless laws are passed to appease a political constituency.

    Another way of looking at symbolic legislation is to think of them as sound bite laws or dog whistle laws. Either symbolic legislation makes for good press or its wording has a special meaning for a particular constituency.

    In the case of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it both sounded good and, at least until the Indiana governor muddied the waters with his less artful dodge on ABC, sent a clear message to rightwing Jesus huggers that it was okay to be a Bible-loving bigot.

    Further proof that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was symbolic legislation comes from the fact that, while similar legislation has advanced in Arkansas, Republican politicians in both Georgia and North Carolina are getting cold feet.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.