Posted on 03/30/2015 9:15:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
In an almost-certainly futile attempt to get shrieking critics to tell the truth about it.
You're certainly well aware of the hysterics concerning Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - pretty much the exact same law that's on the books in 19 other states and at the federal level, and absolutely not something that permits petty discrimination against blacks, gays or anyone else. But the shrieking goes on because that's the point. It's designed to make you think Indiana has done something unprecedented and horrific. If you listen to the shrieking instead of actually reading the bill, you just might believe that veryy thing.
I'm quite sure passing a "clarification" isn't going change this in the slightest, but Indiana is going to give it a shot:
Since the Republican governor signed the bill into law Thursday, Indiana has been widely criticized by businesses and organizations around the nation, as well as on social media with the hashtag #boycottindiana. Already, consumer review service Angie's List has said it will suspend a planned expansion in Indianapolis because of the new law.
Pence did not answer directly when asked at least six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers. "This is not about discrimination, this is about empowering people to confront government overreach," he said. Asked again, he said, "Look, the issue here is still is tolerance a two-way street or not."
Pence told the Indianapolis Star on Saturday that he was in discussions with legislative leaders over the weekend and expects a clarification bill to be introduced in the coming week. He addressed that Sunday, saying, "if the General Assembly ... 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, then I'm open to that."
But Pence was adamant that the measure, slated to take effect in July, will stick. "We're not going to change this law," he said.
If Pence expects the left to just say, "Oh, OK, now we understand, everything's fine" . . . well, I can't imagine he really thinks that. They won't be honest and they won't be rational no matter what Indiana does. The whole point of their huffing and puffing is to create the illusion that evil, sadistic Christians want to persecute gay people sheerly out of hate. Any opportunity they have to create that illusion, they will take. Passing a "clarification" won't matter in the slightest.
What would help is if the media would actually report the facts of what the law does and doesn't do, rather than ignoring the substance of the law and focusing instead on what gay activists "fear" it would do. (Translation, what they know it won't do but claim to think it will so they can get more attention.)
In the end, this law is designed to protect people of faith from being forced by the state to participate in things that are anathema to their faith. That has nothing to do with serving a gay person lunch in a restaurant, or any of the other silly and dishonest scenarios left-wing activists are screeching about.
And if the law is inspiring boycotts of Indiana by activist business people, that's not a criticism of Indiana. It's a criticism of the business people who can't stand the idea that a state has a law that protects the rights of people of faith - even though 19 other states have the same law and they're not boycotting them. Because right now it's in vogue to rip on Indiana, not because of facts, but because the people screaming the loudest seem to be the most influential among those who are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
And no "clarification" ever matters to people like this, nor does it appear to matter to their media cheerleaders.
“Clarify” probably means caving.
Ignore the shreaking freaks. No “clarification” necessary for freedom.
I’m not sure why a gay pair (they’re not a couple) would want a Mooselimb owned bakery to be forced to bake them a cake.
If I know Pence from his past dealings, he won’t cave.
Unless he’s been Romneyfied.
How do we organize a BUY-cott?
Someone has to list the scenarios where the law applies. In general transactions that are personal, should allow the proprietor to refuse service. Examples: relationship related photography, food preparation, art work.
Then the transactions where the law does not apply: banking, most food / beverage service, trades, employment, medical etc.
It’s one thing to be asked to not discriminate, it’s another being forced to celebrate something you despise.
The law should protect us from the latter.
What about the concept of being offended? Usually that empowers, but not in this case?
I agree. He’s one of our best.
they’ve signaled clarification since Saturday, but there is Apsley no indication Sunday that they had any intention of changing the intent of this law.
Lesseee ....
Can I go into a Halal deli and demand a hot pastrami sandwich?
Can I go into a GLBTQWERTY bakery and demand a Romans 1:26-27 cake?
Can I go into a black tailor shop and demand they sew me a KKK Grand Kleagle outfit?
I can’t?
Well then shaddap, whiners!
The Gaystapo SHALL NOT be prevented from pounding their opponents into the dust!
I can only imagine that clarification will help prevent courts from wholesale dismissing the religious defense in cases. At the moment, it is slightly ambiguous, with clarification it will be explicit. You can not compel someone to participate in something which is against their religion without a strict scrutiny of the issue. This goes far beyond the petty gay whiners who are throwing a temper tantrum over this.
What’s interesting is that this particular debate is sparking political conversations at our local brewery. Yesterday, not one person could defend the hysteria being aimed at Indiana. One rightly asked if an atheist must create and print religious tracts that are used to recruit people into religion.
It’s time the 20 states with these law retaliate and forbid any state fund to be spent in states that support advocating sodomy!
Haven’t paid too much attention to this, so maybe someone can clarify for me. Will this ultimately lead to Muslims evoking their rights to sharia law?
[[In general transactions that are personal, should allow the proprietor to refuse service. Examples: relationship related photography, food preparation, art work.]]
The rub will be that if these people have businesses on public land, then the left will scream that it’s discrimination
[[it’s another being forced to celebrate something you despise.]]
EXACTLY- imagine if all Americans were FORCED to practice islam because some court decided that by refusing to practice islam you were discriminating against those who practice it
[[What about the concept of being offended?]]
The constitution was set up to protect our RIGHTS’ it was NOT set up to protect our delicate sensibilities and delicate feelings (hence the RIGHT to free speech- we can say anything even if it is offensive- yes there are a few exceptions, but very few)
same as 30 other states and the federal government ?
It’s official.
We are now living in a country that is ruled by Twittermobs.
Connecticut Governor calls for boycott of …………….Connecticut?
I gotta go to work in 2 minutes….somebody here should post this—>
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/connecticuts-governor-doesnt-understand-his-own-states-rfra/
I am boycotting the state of Washington until they change the name of their state. Although his slaves were freed upon his demise, he was a slave owner. That is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.