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

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The religious right is losing, has been losing, will lose, and this kind of thing is their reaction. Awful.

Just keep saying it to yourself: "WE'RE NOT LOSING WE'RE NOT LOSING WE'RE NOT LOSING"

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

And this precisely is what I was yelling and shouting about when the SCOTUS handed that awful Hobby Lobby decision. In some dark corner someone will always use faith or religion to justify their bigotry, intolerance, etc.

Just keep saying it to yourself: "WE'RE NOT LOSING WE'RE NOT LOSING WE'RE NOT LOSING"

I don't think we are at all. This was rejected in Arizona of all places. That the far right is doing something like this in Indiana as a reaction to the direction of the country was / is kind of my point. Puerile desperation, it is. It's sad that innocent people get caught up in it, though, or get stuck fighting it.

What?  The baby is the religious right. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Love that shua, Sanchez, and co. are trying desperately to defend this.  Stop pretending this is anything than what it is, the anti-LGBT agenda in it's death throes.  No more no less... and you are ******* babies.  Whining, bitchy, bigoted babies.  "Ewwwwww... gay people are gross!" <== in a nutshell this is all this is. 

You lost.  Move on. 

Assuming I was bigoted against gay people (which I am not, and never was, even when I was a douche), I'd say we won. The law was signed. The right to discriminate is freedom of association. The right to be a douche is protected. Get over it.

You sound like a mentally disturbed 9th grader in this post, but then again, maybe you are just being yourself.

Not getting it.  I'm directing "you lost" to the anti-LGBT agenda; which is a real thing.  They fought hard for the minds of America to be with them on this issue and they lost.  Gay marriage is legal in most states and will be in all of them once the SCOTUS tackles the issue. 

These laws are not in any way being written to protect people's right to discriminate.  Do you really think if I refused to have Christians served in my place of business that these people would support that?  Hell friggin no.  Religious conservatives are furious that they lost and they lost AGAIN.  Of all people to make this point, the most poignant was Jerry Springer on the Howard Stern show. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNBEG0Omf7M

Why is the religious right so angry?  Because you lose on every social issue.  Abortion, segregation, gay rights, separation of church/state... all losses when presented to Constitutional interpretation.  You are constantly reminded that this is a secular nation no matter how hard you try to paint it as a bastion of Judeo-Christian sentiment.   You don't think these laws will get struck down in the Supreme Court?  They will.  And you can put another one in the "L" column.

The point is this: If you want to do business in the United States, use the protections of the laws of the United States on your ability to do business, and use the land of the United States on which to build your place of business; you may not refuse to serve based on non-compelling interests.  Refuse of service based on race, gender, etc. has been unanimously struck down by the highest court.  These laws will not survive the federal test. 

So much like Jim Crowe these are. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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:

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Can we all accept this is Pence trying to shore up the largely conservative, largely homophobic republican base?

This whole saga feels like the Religious Right's last major stand on the issue of teh gayz.

As I said... death throes.  You are correct.  The SCOTUS has settled this when it came to race and they'll settle this when it comes to sexual preference in due time.   

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Mayor Of Indianapolis Signs Executive Order Protecting LGBT People:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/greg-ballard_n_6972928.html

Connecticut Bans State Funded Travel to Indiana
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-indiana-boycott-lgbt_n_6969684.html

Indiana GOP Plays Stupid on Backlash
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/indiana-anti-gay-law_n_6969286.html

Gay Indianans... you sanctuary from rural rubes who despise you has been revealing.  FF Mayor. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Indiana House Speaker is "disappointed" in the way Pence has defended the bill to the public.


If this bill is just a bit of red meat to the base in order to get Pence something to talk about for a future election (President or just re-election), I think it's backfired at this point. The left was always going to hate this bill, but a lot of moderates are coming out against the bill as well, and I can't imagine the right thinks any more highly of Pence than before; after seeing him refusing to answer straight yes or no questions about the bill.

Obviously, because there are certain types of people who believe that "freedom" is defined by the ability of society to ostracize a group based on something as vague as "religious belief".  They fail to realize that they are free to feel any way they want but that the basic construct of a functioning society is some basic respect towards inate qualities and personal choices (not that being gay is a choice, but even if it was it wouldn't matter).  These types of people tend to be Republicans.  

EDIT: I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who whine and bitch about a TV channel suspending one of their employees for hateful speech, citing that his right to free speech should go way beyond the ability of his employer to take any action, also support these bills.  The only similarity is that they come down on the side of whoever is bashing the group that they hate.  The hypocrisy and true motivations of the SoCons are obvious and apparent and so few call them out on a national stage in this context. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?

The Republican areas of Indiana are very, very conservative.  I'm not sure that this is going to hurt him too much outside of galvanizing what liberals the state has. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Could this hurt Pence if/when he runs for reelection, or will it still make no difference because Indiana is Indiana?

The Republican areas of Indiana are very, very conservative.  I'm not sure that this is going to hurt him too much outside of galvanizing what liberals the state has. 

What if the dominoes keep falling as far as businesses refusing to do work there or the possibility of them losing out on a major sporting event?

It would be pretty ironic if the party of Muh Job Creators ended up killing/preventing the creation of jobs for sake of defending the bigotry and regressiveness of its supporters and elected officials.

The puppetmasters of the GOP have no interest in creating jobs.  None. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Indiana House Speaker is "disappointed" in the way Pence has defended the bill to the public.


If this bill is just a bit of red meat to the base in order to get Pence something to talk about for a future election (President or just re-election), I think it's backfired at this point. The left was always going to hate this bill, but a lot of moderates are coming out against the bill as well, and I can't imagine the right thinks any more highly of Pence than before; after seeing him refusing to answer straight yes or no questions about the bill.

Obviously, because there are certain types of people who believe that "freedom" is defined by the ability of society to ostracize a group based on something as vague as "religious belief".  They fail to realize that they are free to feel any way they want but that the basic construct of a functioning society is some basic respect towards inate qualities and personal choices (not that being gay is a choice, but even if it was it wouldn't matter).  These types of people tend to be Republicans.  

EDIT: I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who whine and bitch about a TV channel suspending one of their employees for hateful speech, citing that his right to free speech should go way beyond the ability of his employer to take any action, also support these bills.  The only similarity is that they come down on the side of whoever is bashing the group that they hate.  The hypocrisy and true motivations of the SoCons are obvious and apparent and so few call them out on a national stage in this context. 

Very well said. More people on the national stage need to call out and expose these SoCon hypocrites for the bigots that they are. I give kudos to George Stephanopolpus for asking the tough questions to the squirming Mike Pence. I also find it amusing how the party that blames the victim and thinks that there's no such thing as victimhood is now creating a false narrative that they are the "victims" of a "far left radical liberal socialist atheist secular government and mainstream media" that is "forcing" them to contradict their faux moral compasses. I guess in their minds, you're only a victim if you're a far-right evangelical Christian.   

SoCons, I think, realize their political clout is waning and these "religious freedom" bills are just Hail Marys and red meat. I love how outraged they were when A&E was threatening to pull the plug on Duck Dynasty after Phil Robertson make his asinine and bigoted remarks about blacks and gays but how silent they were at defending The Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines voiced her opposition to Bush and the war. I don't seem to recall any SoCons defending them when almost every country music radio station stopped playing their music after the remarks were made. Hypocrites, all of them. I'm exposed to them every day on my Facebook with trollish posts from Right Wing News, Conservative Tribune, Breitbart, Fox News, and other right-wing echo chambers.

The only loyalty SoCons have is towards their own beliefs and the only principle they stand for is that their way of thinking is correct in all situations.  Anything and everything is completely dependent on whether or not they agree. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Just watched the George Stephanopoulos interview with Mike Pence and it's simply embarrassing.  Pence is such a POS.  His generic politician answers are ridiculous. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference. 

Indiana rednecks looking to stick it to the gays have got to be pissed.  You know they were just itching to throw out the next fag that walked in. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Looks like the bill is going to be revisited to add language concerning discrimination against the LGBT community.  He's still pushing this ridiculous narrative that this was not about discrimination, but at least the public outcry is going to make a difference.

True, the current push for these laws has fairly clearly been caused by the advent of same-sex marriage.  But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Nor can you deny that marriage is just as much viewed as a social contract between two people that has tangible benefits. 

I don't deny that.  But I don't forget that a contract between two people doesn't usually involve third parties who weren't part of the contract negotiations.

Oh c'mon.  How much are they involved?  How many people have a judge do this stuff?  It's well-accepted and has been for a long time for a heterosexual couple to sign some paperwork over at the municipal court.  The idea of marriage as strictly religious or must necessarily be religious at all is dead. 

You see, conservatives love to make it all about principle when it suits them.  Muh religious freedumb.  Muh Constitooshun.  But the Supreme Court has said many a time over on many a different issue that a compelling interest must be shown; fancy talk for why and what's your motivation.  This would never hold up because the motivation for these laws is so blatant and obvious to discriminate against gay people.  This almost lands in the "fire in a crowded theatre" category.  You have freedom of speech/religion/press/etc. but there are limits on how it can be used when it comes to the effect on what we perceive to the be rights of others around you.  This has been so reviewed that it's almost as fundamental an American principle as the text of the Bill of Rights itself. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The new language specifically includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

Considering that was most of the motivation behind the bill, what exactly is the point of it now?  What new protection to "religious liberty" are the fine, good-natured folk of the Hoosier State now afforded? 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Question: I'm starting a religion that involves blowing coke off the hoods of police cars in rural bumbkin counties in Indiana.  Does Mike Pence have my back? 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Question: I'm starting a religion that involves blowing coke off the hoods of police cars in rural bumbkin counties in Indiana.  Does Mike Pence have my back? 

Doubtful. You're not the first one to try that sort of thing. First you would need to be able to convince a court your beliefs are sincerely held, which given your posting history will not be easy. Next even after that you would need to argue there is no compelling government interest in preventing you from doing so, or that the government interest could be alternatively furthered by some more accommodating means. You would not be the first to try and apply the RFRA to drug use and the legal track record isn't so good.

I know I know... but I am illustrating a point.  You HAVE freedom of religion if you are not doing anything already illegal.  But if whatever you are doing isn't illegal, why do we need bills to reenforce freedom of religion?  It's just another angle where the real motives of this bill are illuminated by the light of my justice.