Indiana Law

[Vance2335]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/

So I just picked any link (that related to the topic) for this topic.
So basically Bill Clinton signed this law into effect in 2003 and this law is in effect for several states but this one is bad?

I ask you is it discrimination for a Jewish bakery owner to refuse to make a cake of Hitler for his birthday if someone orders it? Is it discriminatory for a black bakery owner to refuse baking something for a KKK function?

Just something to think about.

[orphanedhawk]

Agreed !

[brice1967]

It is sad.  There really is no place for it in society.  Life's too short to hate or discriminate against anyone you don't know.  

[specialmom]

Isn't it sad that there is still so much discrimination in the world?  Baking a cake for a gay couple is nothing more than doing business.  Business doesn't judge.  We live in a country in which businesses should not be allowed to do that.  

I do agree that I wouldn't want to hire someone to do something for me if they were inside seething about it or judging me in a negative way.  In truth, I would hope I would never even know those people existed.  

I know a man that I have no respect for and think he is a crummy human being.  he's rude and nasty to his wife, drinks a lot, just a gross person.  I wouldn't invite him to my home because I don't agree with how he lives his life and treats people.  But, I'd make him a cake if that were my business.  Business and personal are two separate things.  Should be any way.  

[brice1967]

Just wondering, if you were gay, Jewish, Muslim, black, white, Hispanic etc. and you were looking for a baker or pizzeria to come cater a wedding for you, would you even want a business that clearly doesn't want your business to go to work for you?  Out of anyone who can bake a cake or cater a pizza party, why would you want the one who doesn't want anything to do with you?  I think it makes no sense and all of this frivolity will create even more frivolous lawsuits in the future.

Anecdotal.... when I was in the bar/nightclub business, we had a woman of a certain ethnicity try to come in.  She was clearly inebriated and wasn't allowed to come in.  Naturally, she began screaming racism and causing a disturbance.  As I intervened, she called me every offensive thing in the book you can imagine, so I had one of the doormen call the police.  Needless to say, this drunken woman was arrested after being out of line with the cops after she tried to spit on the "pigs".

When she got out of jail, she stopped by to chew me out again.  She informed me that she was going to hire the biggest attorney money could buy and sue me, the club and have us all noted as racists.  This woman didn't have the ability to understand that neither her race or gender had anything to do with this, but rather her level of intoxication was the issue.  

As time went by, I got to refuse her service in the future because she was liability and it was more safe to keep her drunk butt out of my bar.

[Vance2335]

No company is pulling out of Indiana, they made idol threats. But Some of those same companies have selective outrage. They will do business in Saudi Arabia and Iran among others. But hey thats ok, because as you said it's all about $.

[orphanedhawk]

So, I'm supposed to believe what YOU say about the law ?
Sorry, Vance, but your reputation doesn't allow me to simply trust your opinion over others. I doubt all those companies are pulling out of Indiana for no good reason.

[Vance2335]

The law had nothing to do with discrimination. It was allowing people with deep religious convictions to abide by those and not feel threatened that they had to do something that was against what they believed. The law had wording that would have allowed certain people to be denied some service. Almost exactly the same thing that was signed into law in about 20 states. But since Indiana did not have a law that had LBGLMOP as protected then they COULD have been affected. Yes COULD because in reality it probably never would have happened.

When real discrimination happens in America tell me about it, because in other countries people are killed for being Gay. Oh and a bunch of christians were just killed for being christian in Kenya. We don't have those issues here so people follow what the media tells them and starts a phony outrage over nothing.

[orphanedhawk]

I deplore hate activities and of course think the KKK are despicable horrible men who are so deeply frightened inside their souls that they won't even say what they think without a hood to hide behind.

So, if this legislation is not about hate, what do you call it ? Is it fear, homophobia or would you call it  discrimination based on sexual orientation ?

[Vance2335]

Never said I was opposed or supported the legislation. But it was and is not about hate. But because that is what the media wanted you to believe liberals bought it hook line and sinker.

Why do you know so much about the activities of the KKK?

The examples I have given is about discrimination that could be, just like what could have happened in this law. Could happen and reality are two very different things.

[orphanedhawk]

Ha ! You are always trying to provoke and resort to calling names but can't even see it when someone does it back to you.

I'm as far from anti-Semitic one could be ! I'm not about hate, that's your forte'.

Okay, in explanation~ how does the Jewish baker know that the man buying bagels is a Nazi ? He doesn't unless the man tells him. He knows the buyer isn't a Jew, that's obvious. He may suspect him to appear to be Nazi like ( looking like a goy with a pole stuck up his tuchas) but he doesn't know unless the man threatens him. Once he's threatened, everything changes. And this law is not about people being verbally or physcially threatened.

So, how does the black man know the guy buying his pie is a member of the KKK ? He doesn’t either unless the guy shows up wearing his hood and robe which is not what the KKK does when they go to the store. When they go to the store, they appear as they normally do because it is a secret group. It’s secret because their actions are illegal and this has nothing to do with the Indiana law either.

If you do not consider yourself a hate monger, how can you support this legislation?

So, Vance, I’ve allowed you to do what you do best, digress into far fetched ideas that have little to do with the topic at hand.

This law is all about hate, not about unifying people which is what our country needs more than anything but then again, divide and conquer does work well for those in power.

[mikesimon]

Is the GOP losing Walmart?

(CNN)As goes Walmart, so goes the nation?

Everyone from Apple CEO Tim Cook to the head of the NCAA slammed religious freedom laws being considered in several states this week, warning that they would open the door to discrimination against gay and lesbian customers.

But it was the opposition from Walmart, the ubiquitous retailer that dots the American landscape, that perhaps resonated most deeply, providing the latest evidence of growing support for gay rights in the heartland.

Walmart's staunch criticism of a religious freedom law in its home state of Arkansas came after the company said in February it would boost pay for about 500,000 workers well above the federal minimum wage. Taken together, the company is emerging as a bellwether for shifting public opinion on hot-button political issues that divide conservatives and liberals.

And some prominent Republicans are urging the party to take notice.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who famously called on the GOP to "be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club," told CNN that Walmart's actions "foreshadow where the Republican Party will need to move."

"The Republican Party will have to better stand for" ideas on helping the middle class, said Pawlenty, the head of the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington lobbying group for the finance industry. The party's leaders must be "willing to put forward ideas that will help modest income workers, such as a reasonable increase in the minimum wage, and prohibit discrimination in things such as jobs, housing, public accommodation against gays and lesbians."

Arkansas victory

Walmart, which employs more than 50,000 people in Arkansas, emerged victorious on Wednesday. Hours after the company's CEO, Doug McMillon, called on Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson to veto the bill, the governor held a news conference and announced he would not sign the legislation unless its language was fixed.

READ: Who is Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson?

Walmart's opposition to the religious freedom law once again puts the company at odds with many in the Republican Party, which the company's political action committee has tended to support.

In 2004, the Walmart PAC gave around $2 million to Republicans versus less than $500,000 to Democrats, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. That gap has grown less pronounced in recent years. In 2014, the PAC spent about $1.3 million to support Republican and around $970,000 for Democrats.

It has been a gradual transformation for Walmart.

In 2011, the company bulked up its nondiscrimination policies by adding protections for gender identity. Two years later, the company announced that it would start offering health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of employees starting in 2014.

Retail experts say Walmart's evolution on these issues over the years is partly a reflection of its diverse consumer base, as well as a recognition of the country's increasingly progressive views of gay equality (support for same-sex marriage is at a new high of 59%, according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll).

"It's easy for someone like a Chick-fil-A to take a really polarizing position," said Dwight Hill, a partner at the retail consulting firm McMillanDoolittle. "But in the world of the largest retailer in the world, that's very different."

Hill added: Same-sex marriage, "while divisive, it's becoming more common place here within the U.S., and the businesses by definition have to follow the trend of their customer."

Backlash shines a light on where business leans

The backlash over the religious freedom measures in Indiana and Arkansas this week is shining a bright light on the broader business community's overwhelming support for workplace policies that promote gay equality.

After Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, signed his state's religious freedom bill into law, CEOs of companies big and small across the country threatened to pull out of the Hoosier state.

READ: Indiana's religious freedom law: What you need to know

The resistance came from business leaders of all political persuasions, including Bill Oesterle, CEO of the business-rating website Angie's List and a one-time campaign manager for former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Oesterle announced that his company would put plans on hold to expand its footprint in Indianapolis in light of the state's passage of the religious freedom act.

NASCAR, scheduled to hold a race in Indianapolis this summer, also spoke out against the Indiana law.

"What we're seeing over the past week is a tremendous amount of support from the business community who are standing up and are sending that equality is good for business and discrimination is bad for business," said Jason Rahlan, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

Presidential politics

The debate has reached presidential politics.

National Republicans are being forced to walk the fine line of protecting religious liberties and supporting nondiscrimination.

Likely GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush initially backed Indiana's religious freedom law and Pence, but moderated his tone a few days later. The former Florida governor said Wednesday that Indiana could have taken a "better" and "more consensus-oriented approach."

"By the end of the week, Indiana will be in the right place," Bush said, a reference to Pence's promise this week to fix his state's law in light of the widespread backlash.

Others in the GOP field are digging in. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the only officially declared Republican presidential candidate, said Wednesday that he had no interest in second-guessing Pence and lashed out at the business community for opposing the law.

"I think it is unfortunate that large companies today are listening to the extreme left wing agenda that is driven by an aggressive gay marriage agenda," Cruz said.

Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who previously served on Walmart's board of directors, called on Hutchinson to veto the Arkansas bill, saying it would "permit unfair discrimination" against the LGBT community.

Jay Chesshir, CEO of the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce in Arkansas, welcomed Hutchinson's pledge on Wednesday to seek changes to his state's bill. He said businesses are not be afraid to wade into a politically controversial debate to ensure inclusive workplace policies.

"When it comes to culture and quality of life, businesses are extremely interested in engaging in debate simply because it impacts its more precious resource -- and that's its people," Chesshir said. "Therefore, when issues arise that have negative or positive impact on those things, then the business community will again speak and speak loudly."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/politics/walmart-religious-freedom-bill/index.html

[mikesimon]

Ind. lawmakers agree to amend 'religious freedom' law

{.....The clarifying language is likely to rile socially conservative advocacy groups, which hold significant sway among Republicans at the Statehouse and PUSHED HARD FOR THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW AFTER A FAILED LEGISLATIVE EFFORT LAST YEAR TO ENSHRINE A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.(emphasis added)

Leaders of three of those groups — the American Family Association of Indiana, the Indiana Family Institute, and Advance America — declined comment or did not return messages from The Star Wednesday.

But in an email update to supporters from the AFA's Micah Clark, he urged them to contact their state senators and to pray for legislators.}

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/indiana-religious-freedom-law-deal-gay-discrimination/70819106/

[mikesimon]

LGBT Protections Included In Fix For Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law

{...."The changes proposed by the Legislature represent a step in the right direction that takes us closer to achieving our goal of passing the Fairness for All Hoosiers Act," said Freedom Indiana Campaign Manager Katie Blair, referring to a proposed measure would protect LGBT people from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. "Today, the harm has been lessened, but we have not reached the day when LGBT Hoosiers can be assured that they can live their lives with freedom from discrimination."

"It’s long past time to enact a comprehensive nondiscrimination law," Blair continued, "and we must continue to work to ensure, once and for all, that the RFRA cannot be used to discriminate against or hurt anyone."

"Now that there's broad public understanding that gay and transgender people in much of Indiana are terribly vulnerable to arbitrary discrimination by businesses, refusal of housing and being fired just for being who they are -- and even Gov. Pence has agreed that that is wrong -- that unacceptable situation requires a full solution," added Jennifer Pizer, national director of Lambda Legal’s Law and Policy Project.

Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle also said the changes didn't go far enough. Oesterle, whose company is based in Indianapolis, has been an outspoken critic of RFRA and canceled a $40 million headquarters expansion in response to the new law. In a statement Thursday, he said he wanted to see state lawmakers go further.

“Our position is that this 'fix' is insufficient," said Oesterle, who previously served as a staffer to former Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). "There was no repeal of RFRA and no end to discrimination of homosexuals in Indiana. Employers in most of the state of Indiana can fire a person simply for being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Questioning. That’s just not right and that’s the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state.“

The new proposal also isn't sitting well with some of RFRA's original backers, including Eric Miller, founder and executive director of Advance America. Miller was one of the few people invited to Pence's private signing ceremony for the measure last week.

"The Indiana General Assembly should not destroy in less than 36 hours the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that took over 65 days to go through the legislative process earlier this year," Miller said in a statement Thursday.

In a press release, Miller's group expressed worry that if the new RFRA language is adopted, "Christian bakers, florists and photographers would no longer have the benefit of Indiana law to help protect them from being forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding."

On Wednesday, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchison (R) also asked his state legislature to change its proposed RFRA, after Arkansas faced blowback similar to Indiana's. Hutchison had originally said he planned to sign the bill....}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html

[Vance2335]

Yes because I am not in 100% agreement with you. Forgot anyone who does not agree with you is wrong, delisional, idiot...whatever. You come back and can't even hold a conversation together because you have to be right on everything. You can not allow anyone to have a different opinion. You can't allow anyone to think different from you, hell you can't even think for yourself. You need articles to do that for you. You get lost in being correct that you miss the whole point here. It's actually sad.

So go have fun little boy and let people who have an open mind do the grown up work and have grown up conversations.

[mikesimon]

You're hopelessly uninformed and dangerously delusional.
I'm finished exchanging with you Vance.

[Vance2335]

"I was speaking about Hilary Clinton not her husband. We don't refer to male politicians by their first names now do we ? If  you want to differentiate her from her husband you have only to use both names."
*-Then use both names as I did, "So basically Bill Clinton signed this law into effect in 2003 and this law is in effect for several states but this one is bad?"

Yes one person who has a personal agenda is going to make it the worst case situation.

As for your question about the baker. I can tell you that if a Nazi walked into a bakery to buy some bagels from a Jewish baker, the baker would sell them to him. After all money is money. And if you don't get that, you don't know Jacksheet about Yiddish.-Thank you for the anti-semetic speech.

[Vance2335]

What is so suprising that I didn't see a photo? Who cares who is in a photo? That has nothing to do with the law.

I clearly have shown that I know more on the subject then you. You have taken one side and of course everyone has to be on it or they are wrong. I have only asked people to think and ask questions and not give into the fake outrage.

You brought up the article which has no new info in it, but I decided to point out the hypocrcy of some who are against this law that was a direct reference to WHAT YOU POSTED.

As for staying on point, I have been nothing but on point in a THREAD THAT I STARTED. You bring up a picture, what does that have to do with the law? NOTHING. STAY ON TOPIC.

[orphanedhawk]

I was speaking about Hilary Clinton not her husband. We don't refer to male politicians by their first names now do we ? If  you want to differentiate her from her husband you have only to use both names.

As for your question about the baker. I can tell you that if a Nazi walked into a bakery to buy some bagels from a Jewish baker, the baker would sell them to him. After all money is money. And if you don't get that, you don't know Jacksheet about Yiddish.

Now, since you obviously didn't read my last reply how about you read these comments from it :

“The law is actually somewhat complicated, but the anti-gay politics behind the law are not complicated,” said Steve Sanders, a law professor at Indiana University at Bloomington’s Maurer school of law.

“These RFRAs have become the new anti-gay initiatives,” Sanders said. “The symbolism and the politics of the law are far more troubling and far more toxic than the actual substance of what the law will do itself.”

[mikesimon]

Didn't see the photo?
Not surprised.
You don't seem to know anything about this subject.
What does Apple have to do with this law? NOTHING!!
Again, not surprised.
And again, you've shown you cannot stay on point.
Again, not surprised.

[brice1967]

What I'd prefer regarding this law is abundant transparency.  I'd have done all I could to have written the bill in a fashion that dictates exactly what I mean.  I don't know what the Governors intent is, but it leaves the whole thing wide open.  I'd have done more to remove any doubt.

That's where we stand and that is what's owed to the public, IMO.

[Vance2335]

When you call the law "discrimination" when it's not that then yes it can be labeled as a joke.
Yes I did read it and article is not really that informative but does make an interesting point, "And Apple CEO Tim Cook has an op-ed in today’s Post condemning the law." Yet this article and others have not come out against Tim Cook for allowing Apple products to be sold in countries where it is legal to kill gay people.

Didn't even see the photo, don't know who was there and what they have said. That is a question for the Governor.

[mikesimon]

You say the article is a joke while admitting that you haven't read it yet.i  doubt that you'll read it.

That seems to be the way you approach things.

One question:

Why were those anti-gay activists flanking Pence during the photo-op of him signing the law?

[Vance2335]

I grasp that the outrage is made up. Someone read the bill and said oh this law does not contain this specific language so I have to protect people from something that most likely will not happen.

The media has twisted this around like they always do. Even the link (which I will read) is a joke "indianas-new-discrimination-law...THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW IS ABOUT.

[mikesimon]

It may be legal but gays/lesbians and same-sex couples are not designated under Indiana State law as a protected class. Some local - county ordinances may have laws/ordinances that protect them but this new State law could muddy the waters significantly.

You don't seem to grasp the complexity of this issue.

Try reading this article. It's rather long but if you read it and comprehend it I think it may clear things up a bit for you.

Answering five questions about Indiana’s new discrimination law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/30/answering-five-questions-about-indianas-new-discrimination-law/