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

[Deus Naturae]

An interesting radio interview here with a business owner:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/28/listen-indiana-restaurant-owner-pledges-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

He's proud of the law and lying to gay people so they leave his restaurant but not proud enough to openly say which restaurant it is. That should be part of these laws; they need to advertise who they won't serve, if not serving certain people is that important to them.

But, but, but.... this is all about MUH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  This is in no way, shape, or form homophobia.  

None of this:

You don't really seem to understand the concept of not wanting to ban something even if it's bad. People who discriminate against gay are indeed homophobes, and their behavior is deplorable. Some people are just of the opinion that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating and correcting behavior. It's a pretty simple viewpoint but apparently it's too nuanced for people like you then try to imply that people who don't want to ban homophobic behavior are by implication supporters of that behavior. It's the same argument that the government always uses to increase its control over society, because few people want to stand to government behavioral modification when it's directed against people whose behavior is deplorable (in large part because people like you will then try to say that they're by implication supporters of said behavior.

It's like how all of those hypocritical world leaders were more than happy to participate in a disingenuous free speech march and say "Je Suis Charlie" but when it comes to restricting speech that most decent people consider deplorable, they're nowhere to be found.

Just like H.L. Mencken said, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." It's easy to stand up for the right to popular speech and decent behavior, but when it comes to defending the rights of degenerates and scumbags, you get people like you who are basically like "If you support the right to do X, you must support X and are motivated by X."

[Deus Naturae]

The government does not have the right to infringe upon individual rights.


Business owners, on the other hand....

You don't have the right to force someone else to serve you.

[Deus Naturae]

The government does not have the right to infringe upon individual rights.


Business owners, on the other hand....

You don't have the right to force someone else to serve you.

Except that The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits all kinds of discrimination in public accommodations like supermarkets and restaurants, was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obviously I'm speaking about rights in the sense of principles, not legal realities. Just like how everybody has the right to life, despite the fact that many are murdered.

[Deus Naturae]

The right to discriminate based on gender, race, color and national origin is pretty important to you, I guess. What important principles!

It's called the right to freedom of association, and it logically implies to right to associate or disassociate oneself with or from others based on hatred, bigotry, and all kinds of terrible motivations, just as the right to freedom of speech logically implies the right to spew all kinds of hateful and bigoted nonsense. Our rights mean nothing if we only protect the right to do things that we approve of.

I don't want to be like Snowstalker in that one SOTU thread and keep repeating the same quote over and over again, but I feel like I need to reiterate this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.