Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

[bedstuy]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

[afleitch]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

It's not a lash out; it's planned and co-ordinated and I hate to say it, people are doing a terrible terrible of job of fighting against it. Many white Christians genuinely believe they are being discriminated against and this is their way of protecting what everyone else sees as merely the inconvenience of having to accommodate difference.

The only way to spike these bills is to tack on riders that require business owners to openly advertise who they won't serve. If someone's 'conscience' is so important to them that in the privacy of a one to one interaction with someone they disagree with they can turn them away (without the public knowing), then they should be willing nay proud, to let the public know before they do business with them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure is a lot of hysteria over this.  Washington State has language stronger than this in their Constitution and a judge still allowed the state to drop a huge fine on a florist for not doing a gay wedding.  So don't worry folks, you may well still be able to punish people for living according to religious beliefs you don't like.

[afleitch]

Sure is a lot of hysteria over this.  Washington State has language stronger than this in their Constitution and a judge still allowed the state to drop a huge fine on a florist for not doing a gay wedding.  So don't worry folks, you may well still be able to punish people for living according to religious beliefs you don't like.

How is not offering a service to a gay person on account of them being gay an extension of religious belief? Can you point me to the parts of relevant revealed texts that outline this particular nuance of religious belief?

[badgate]

Why has it taken so long for someone to nuke this trash state

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure is a lot of hysteria over this.  Washington State has language stronger than this in their Constitution and a judge still allowed the state to drop a huge fine on a florist for not doing a gay wedding.  So don't worry folks, you may well still be able to punish people for living according to religious beliefs you don't like.

How is not offering a service to a gay person on account of them being gay an extension of religious belief? Can you point me to the parts of relevant revealed texts that outline this particular nuance of religious belief?

Part of religious freedom is that religious views are not bounded by those that can be found in approved religious texts. They are a matter of belief and conscience. In the US, we do not have a certain list of approved religions.  The state does not decide what is or is not a valid religious basis for a belief.

Aside from that, if it were only a matter of stopping people from not serving "a gay person on account of them being gay" this issue would be very different. What is happening is people are being prosecuted for not performing roles related to a ceremony which goes against their beliefs.

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

[afleitch]

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

[Ebsy]

Maybe Evangelical Christians should be discriminated against for being assholes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

[MaxQue]

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

Freedom to not be discriminated is more important than religious freedom. If they don't want to sell flowers to gay people, they are free to change jobs.

[afleitch]

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

Exclusively religious beliefs no? I mean I don't see action, petitions and public calls to incorporate other belief systems within these bills. Surely if a persons conscience and belief is so important it needs supra-constitutional protection then surely it need not be exclusively religious belief? Obviously this must be a gross oversight and those who champion personal belief as the reason for these bills will amend the legislation accordingly once they acknowledge this error.

Indeed it is nice to know that these laws are in fact not triggered by anything other than people collectively deciding completely arbitrarily, that their religious belief with respect to dealing with another human being in daily conduct and business is suddenly useful important without any external factors whatsoever.

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them it's not being denied to them at all, it's entirely unrelated and has nothing to do with a persons opinion of them and finding a legal loophole in which to demonstrate incivility and downright disassociation with someone they don't like based on a transient religious focus on disliking an out-group and instead is an entirely unrelated exercise of personal conscience.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them

Yes, they can.  They can sleep safely because their safety is not being threatened by people who do not want to provide them wedding services.  You don't have to ruin someone's business and someone's life in order to sleep safely just because they've done something to offend you.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Maybe Evangelical Christians should be discriminated against for being assholes.

That's a thought. Go for it!

And again, this is only one issue which this law addresses. It's funny how much those who don't give a damn about freedom of conscience were complaining about employers not wanting to offer birth control, now they act like the only religious freedom issue is discrimination against gays because it's a better polemic for them.

True. And if I was a woman or a Muslim I'd be equally as concerned about what excuses people will pull out of their ass for not being a decent human being because of laws like this. But what sort of big social change happening right now in favour of a certain group of people who have suffered open and legal discrimination and harassment, a change that is happening imminently and openly appealed to in the various briefs in support of those bills over the past few years is the catalyst for these legal moves? Don't you think maybe, that religious belief actually has sod all to do with it and it might, just might be an action against a certain minority group?

No, I don't.  People have beliefs that are important to them.  Do you find this odd?

Freedom to not be discriminated is more important than religious freedom. If they don't want to sell flowers to gay people, they are free to change jobs.

Uh, no.

[afleitch]

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them

Yes, they can.  They can sleep safely because their safety is not being threatened by people who do not want to provide them wedding services.  You don't have to ruin someone's business and someone's life in order to sleep safely just because they've done something to offend you.

Ah okay. So these bills relating to personal belief and conscience, which just accidentally have been championed, written and codified with respect to religious belief and conscience only (and I await the soon be tabled amendments to those) and have absolutely nothing to do with targeting a specific out-group who are currently playing catch up with respect to having their persons respected are actually about weddings. And in order to legislate on the matter of weddings, because weddings appear to be very important in a state such as Indiana with one of the highest divorce rates in the country, they have drafted a huge wide ranging law on the matter of...well..just about anything that anyone can find objectionable for any reason they can tie to their faith, even if a person next to them with the same faith doesn't, in order that gays don't get wedding cake.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

LGBT people can sleep safely knowing that if service is denied to them

Yes, they can.  They can sleep safely because their safety is not being threatened by people who do not want to provide them wedding services.  You don't have to ruin someone's business and someone's life in order to sleep safely just because they've done something to offend you.

Ah okay. So these bills relating to personal belief and conscience, which just accidentally have been championed, written and codified with respect to religious belief and conscience only (and I await the soon be tabled amendments to those) and have absolutely nothing to do with targeting a specific out-group who are currently playing catch up with respect to having their persons respected are actually about weddings. And in order to legislate on the matter of weddings, because weddings appear to be very important in a state such as Indiana with one of the highest divorce rates in the country, they have drafted a huge wide ranging law on the matter of...well..just about anything that anyone can find objectionable for any reason they can tie to their faith, even if a person next to them with the same faith doesn't, in order that gays don't get wedding cake.

I wasn't the one claiming this bill was only about gay stuff.  The thing people have been convicted of relating to not serving gays that has caused controversy have had to do with weddings, often with people who are fine with serving gays at other events.

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

[Cassius]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?

[Indy Texas]

Salesforce.com, one of the largest providers of cloud-based CRM software, has announced it is effectively boycotting the state - it will not send any of its employees to Indiana to sell its products or train customers.

Left unclear is what is going to happen to Salesforce employees who are already living and working in Indiana.

Here that, bigots? No Salesforce for you! Your marketing is going to suck from now on!

[afleitch]

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions?  

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If flowers were a requirement to be married, then the arguments of those who want to require florists to provide them would have validity.  As I am unaware of any jurisdiction that does have such a requirement, then requiring people to participate in a ceremony by providing products or services, especially a ceremony that most consider a religious ceremony first and a civil contract second, is an impingement upon religious liberty.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Why has it taken so long for someone to nuke this trash state

^^^I agree.

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?

No, we would not attempt to pass a law creating a legal protection for gay people to discriminate.

Nice try though.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

Freedom of worship is a poor substitute for freedom of religion, circumscribing it within a narrow sphere to try to manage it and keep it devoid of social power. The USSR conspicuously kept the former in their Constitution but not the latter.

What bearing should the fluidity of belief systems have on whether people should be allowed to live according to those beliefs?  Just because these views can change does not mean the state should be in the business of reeducating people whose beliefs it does not like.  Nor can they so easily control these beliefs.  Religion has often not rendered unto Caesar when Caesar has demanded more than a coin, and it has its venerated martyrs because of it.  If you want to reason with religious people about their faith you can do it, but not if you try to force them to act against it, for then you have ruined all credibility because you have shown just how much you truly despise and hate those trying to live faithfully according to their religion as they understand it.

[Mercenary]

While I don't think you should be able to refuse a customer in general, like say selling a cake to someone, I think you should be able to refuse certain things. Like I think it is fine to refuse writing a specific message on a cake (either pro or anti-whatever). Likewise, I think you should be able to refuse to perform at specific occasions (weddings, birthdays, etc).

Of course if you do refuse those things, there is nothing wrong with the public disliking it and refusing to do business with you in the future either.

[afleitch]

Do you understand that people of the same religion or denomination can have different religious convictions? 

Yes. I also understand that such convictions, while sincerely held for periods of time are fluid. People can change their understanding of one religion, move into a new one or drop it all together and in doing so adjust their 'conscience' or re-prioritise what is important to them. As a result of that, under the guise of religious freedom of conscience they can conscientiously object to anything and then cease to object to it the next day.

Which we can all do, but we don't all have access to legal 'rights' to discriminate in our views against subsets of people. One would surely expect that if other people had access to the same rights as religious people do over matters of conscience, then if one had a deep and personal objection on the basis of conscience to miscegenation for example that such laws would reflect this. If such laws were fair. Indeed, one of the issues I have with laws like this, is that it gives religious people disproportionate legal protection over matters of conscience.

It seems rational to protect people who have an essential innate trait such as the colour of their skin their gender, their sexual orientation and so on from disproportionate and irrational 'ire' at them being who they are from a powerful majority. Instead we offer protection to a particular religious subset of personal conscience which is subject to alteration, change and complete reversal in order to allow them to disregard civility when dealing with an outsider. Furthermore it cheapens religious faith and traditional religious exemptions by equating the refusal to house, serve, assist and hire people you consider objectionable to the act of worship.

Freedom of worship is a poor substitute for freedom of religion, circumscribing it within a narrow sphere to try to manage it and keep it devoid of social power. The USSR conspicuously kept the former in their Constitution but not the latter.

What bearing should the fluidity of belief systems have on whether people should be allowed to live according to those beliefs?  Just because these views can change does not mean the state should be in the business of reeducating people whose beliefs it does not like.  Nor can they so easily control these beliefs.  Religion has often not rendered unto Caesar when Caesar has demanded more than a coin, and it has its venerated martyrs because of it.  If you want to reason with religious people about their faith you can do it, but not if you try to force them to act against it, for then you have ruined all credibility because you have shown just how much you truly despise and hate those trying to live faithfully according to their religion as they understand it.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make at this stage, other than using flowery language to essentially suggest that somehow there’s something ‘anti-religious’ in opposing exclusively religiously motivated opt outs in how people can treat an out group with respect to law. Indeed if anything it is a case of special pleading; that religious personal motivation is worthy of a greater protection in law than non-religious personal motivation. It is suggesting that conscience is only important if it dovetails with the divine and therefore offers religious beliefs greater protection than non-religious beliefs. Indeed it gives a personal religious belief system which you admit can be fluid and entirely arbitrary a greater protection than a person. It protects how a person treats another person more how the other person is treated. And it will always do that if it’s an exclusive privilege given to one particular group. There is no corresponding law that allows an LGBT person to say to a person of faith ‘you think x, you act x and you undermine my safety so I want nothing to do with you based on my conscience and I want legal protection to that effect’. I wouldn’t actually want a corresponding law of course, but these religious opt out laws weaponise one group over another.