Aa
Indiana Law
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.
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.
Now Pence "vows he's going to fix" the law.
Pence vows to 'fix' religious freedom law, ensure 'no license to discriminate'
Published March 31, 2015
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-lawmakers-hurry-to-clarify-religious-freedom-law-amid-protests/
"....."What we had hoped for with the bill was a message of inclusion, inclusion of all religious beliefs," Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said Monday. "What instead has come out is a message of exclusion, and that was not the intent."...."
Now that sounds like a lot of malarkey which I take with a grain of salt......
Pence vows to 'fix' religious freedom law, ensure 'no license to discriminate'
Published March 31, 2015
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/31/indiana-lawmakers-hurry-to-clarify-religious-freedom-law-amid-protests/
"....."What we had hoped for with the bill was a message of inclusion, inclusion of all religious beliefs," Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said Monday. "What instead has come out is a message of exclusion, and that was not the intent."...."
Now that sounds like a lot of malarkey which I take with a grain of salt......
It is all made up to spark outrage. Someone might be discriminated against? You know what you do, take your business elsewhere. But hey lets not talk about Hillary lying and breaking the law. Lets not talk about a bad nuke deal, but lets make a big deal that a tranny might not get a birthday cake.
You still are unable to stay on point.
You really to focus.
You really to focus.
"'Need to focus"
Damn iPhones!!
Damn iPhones!!
Stick to the point. This law is about discrimination clear and simple. The law in Indiana has nothing to do with Clinton, save that for another thread.
In October 2014, a surprise decision by the US supreme court made same-sex marriage legal in Indiana. Adamson, and many others, believe that the state’s RFRA was enacted in retaliation to this change.
“What was the impetus for creating this? What happened that all of a sudden you had to do this here?” said Adamson. “The answer is nothing – they lost the marriage battle and they are very upset.”
That “they” includes Pence, who has said he would support legislation to clarify the RFRA law, Senate Bill 101, but is adamant that it remains in place and that it is not state-sanctioned discrimination. He has also said that making LGBT citizens a protected class is “not on his agenda”.
Pence, long admired by billionaire conservative donors Koch Brothers, was seen as a dark horse Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 election, though this recent public relations disaster has in effect guaranteed he will not be on the ballot.
Mike Pence on George Stephanopoulos
On Sunday, Pence defended the bill in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s The Week. The appearance inflamed opponents as Pence danced around questions about the law’s discriminatory implications and refused to directly answer questions about whether it gives businesses the right to deny service to LGBT people – six times.
“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? … We’re not going to change the law.”
“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.”
That message is also being pushed by the state’s tourism board, VisitIndy, which now has a banner stating “All are welcome in Indy,” with a rainbow alongside it.
Gen Con, a game convention that pumps money into local business, said it too was considering canceling plans to continue holding its convention in the city.
Council vice-president John Barth said that SB101 and the international reaction to it has nearly undone the work by he and past city council employees to make Indianapolis an attractive site for tourists, businesses and events. The city still recalls its success as the host of the 2012 Super Bowl, widely regarded as the best in recent history.
“We just took a 100- to 150-year jump backward,” said Austin Clevenger, who works in the video industry and attended Saturday’s rally against SB101.
In February, the Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the state’s RFRA after major corporations and athletic groups condemned the bill. Last week, Georgia’s legislature tabled its RFRA amid growing concerns voiced by corporations based in the state.
Marci Hamilton, author of God vs the Gavel and chair of public law at the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, has been fighting RFRA laws for nearly two decades.
She is confident that these laws will suffer at the hands of the free market and more inclusive attitudes from younger generations. “Given the trajectory of the emerging views of the young people combined with the cost of fighting a bill and then being deemed as bigots, I think the cost is too high,” Hamilton said.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/30/indiana-republicans-revisit-language-religious-freedom-law
In October 2014, a surprise decision by the US supreme court made same-sex marriage legal in Indiana. Adamson, and many others, believe that the state’s RFRA was enacted in retaliation to this change.
“What was the impetus for creating this? What happened that all of a sudden you had to do this here?” said Adamson. “The answer is nothing – they lost the marriage battle and they are very upset.”
That “they” includes Pence, who has said he would support legislation to clarify the RFRA law, Senate Bill 101, but is adamant that it remains in place and that it is not state-sanctioned discrimination. He has also said that making LGBT citizens a protected class is “not on his agenda”.
Pence, long admired by billionaire conservative donors Koch Brothers, was seen as a dark horse Republican presidential candidate for the 2016 election, though this recent public relations disaster has in effect guaranteed he will not be on the ballot.
Mike Pence on George Stephanopoulos
On Sunday, Pence defended the bill in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s The Week. The appearance inflamed opponents as Pence danced around questions about the law’s discriminatory implications and refused to directly answer questions about whether it gives businesses the right to deny service to LGBT people – six times.
“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? … We’re not going to change the law.”
“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.”
That message is also being pushed by the state’s tourism board, VisitIndy, which now has a banner stating “All are welcome in Indy,” with a rainbow alongside it.
Gen Con, a game convention that pumps money into local business, said it too was considering canceling plans to continue holding its convention in the city.
Council vice-president John Barth said that SB101 and the international reaction to it has nearly undone the work by he and past city council employees to make Indianapolis an attractive site for tourists, businesses and events. The city still recalls its success as the host of the 2012 Super Bowl, widely regarded as the best in recent history.
“We just took a 100- to 150-year jump backward,” said Austin Clevenger, who works in the video industry and attended Saturday’s rally against SB101.
In February, the Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the state’s RFRA after major corporations and athletic groups condemned the bill. Last week, Georgia’s legislature tabled its RFRA amid growing concerns voiced by corporations based in the state.
Marci Hamilton, author of God vs the Gavel and chair of public law at the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, has been fighting RFRA laws for nearly two decades.
She is confident that these laws will suffer at the hands of the free market and more inclusive attitudes from younger generations. “Given the trajectory of the emerging views of the young people combined with the cost of fighting a bill and then being deemed as bigots, I think the cost is too high,” Hamilton said.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/30/indiana-republicans-revisit-language-religious-freedom-law
Ok for the 2 jacks who posted...I started this thread and everything I have posted is ON TOPIC.
OH-Yes it has everything to do with Clinton because he signed the same basic law in 2003. The wording is changed a little but it is very relevant to the topic.
Some liberal wanted to make this a big deal when it was not. It is not about discrimination. If you read the law it has nothing to do with discrimination. Like most laws there is not wording in place that would give ultimate protection btu the law is not a right to discriminate.
How about you answer this...who would you stand behind? A black baker who refuses to make a cake for the KKK or the KKK? Do you dare answer that? No you will not because you are not HONEST.
OH-Yes it has everything to do with Clinton because he signed the same basic law in 2003. The wording is changed a little but it is very relevant to the topic.
Some liberal wanted to make this a big deal when it was not. It is not about discrimination. If you read the law it has nothing to do with discrimination. Like most laws there is not wording in place that would give ultimate protection btu the law is not a right to discriminate.
How about you answer this...who would you stand behind? A black baker who refuses to make a cake for the KKK or the KKK? Do you dare answer that? No you will not because you are not HONEST.
Neither the Klan or Nazis have ever claimed to be 'religions', nor would anyone choosing not to promote their hate speech have to do so on religious grounds. Your logic, as always, is flawless.
https://saltycybergypsy.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/religious-burden/
https://saltycybergypsy.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/religious-burden/
Is it not discrimination though? Come on answer it.
My logic is more sound then any liberal logic.
You want to talk about religion only then? What if a muslim cater was asked to serve pork and he said no because of religion. Is that not discrimination against others based on religion?
My logic is more sound then any liberal logic.
You want to talk about religion only then? What if a muslim cater was asked to serve pork and he said no because of religion. Is that not discrimination against others based on religion?
"How about you answer this...who would you stand behind? A black baker who refuses to make a cake for the KKK or the KKK? Do you dare answer that? No you will not because you are not HONEST. "
If the KKK guy wanted to purchase a type of cake that the black baker typically offers for sale then my opinion is that the KKK guy has the right to purchase the cake. If, however, the KKK guy wanted a cake which depicted a lynching of a black man or wanted KKK on the cake then I would support the baker's right not to be forced to create that cake. But, as has been noted that isn't a religious issue.
"What if a muslim cater was asked to serve pork and he said no because of religion. Is that not discrimination against others based on religion? "
Again, a caterer (not "cater" btw) doesn't have to serve a particular dish - generally caterers have menus - even Muslim caterers. He probably wouldn't have Matzoh Ball Soup on the menu either but that's not a religious issue. In your case the caterer would presumably not be denying service because the customer wasn't Muslim or because he was Christian. He simply didn't have pork products on his menu.
If the KKK guy wanted to purchase a type of cake that the black baker typically offers for sale then my opinion is that the KKK guy has the right to purchase the cake. If, however, the KKK guy wanted a cake which depicted a lynching of a black man or wanted KKK on the cake then I would support the baker's right not to be forced to create that cake. But, as has been noted that isn't a religious issue.
"What if a muslim cater was asked to serve pork and he said no because of religion. Is that not discrimination against others based on religion? "
Again, a caterer (not "cater" btw) doesn't have to serve a particular dish - generally caterers have menus - even Muslim caterers. He probably wouldn't have Matzoh Ball Soup on the menu either but that's not a religious issue. In your case the caterer would presumably not be denying service because the customer wasn't Muslim or because he was Christian. He simply didn't have pork products on his menu.
IS IT NOT DISCRIMINATION THOUGH? That is the point. Put religion in it or out of it, still denial of service because you don't like what is done.
In the case of the muslim if it can be shown that he ever made a dish that was not on the menu then goes right back to denial for religious reasons.
I am not saying that the law is good or right or bad, but if you want to make it about one singular issue of "what might happen" then you have to cover all grounds.
In the case of the muslim if it can be shown that he ever made a dish that was not on the menu then goes right back to denial for religious reasons.
I am not saying that the law is good or right or bad, but if you want to make it about one singular issue of "what might happen" then you have to cover all grounds.
Discrimination in general is not illegal. We discriminate countless times per day - per hour perhaps. When you order lunch you're discriminating against every dish on the menu except the one you choose.
{discriminate
transitive verb
discriminated, discriminating
to constitute a difference between; differentiate
to recognize the difference between; distinguish
Origin of discriminate
; from Classical Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare, to divide, distinguish ; from discrimen, division, distinction ; from discernere: see discern
intransitive verb
to see the difference (between things); distinguish
to be discerning
to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)
adjective
involving discrimination; distinguishing carefully
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
discriminate
verb
dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
verb
, intransitive
To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, especially to show prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or a similar social factor: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.
verb
, transitive
To perceive or notice the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: unable to discriminate colors.
To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience; characteristics that discriminate early stone artifacts from pieces of natural stone.
Origin of discriminate
Latin discrīmināre, discrīmināt-, from discrīmen, discrīmin-, distinction; see krei- in Indo-European roots. }
See: http://www.yourdictionary.com/discriminate
BUT, when you discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, national origin or sexual orientation - protected classes - then it becomes a legal issue.
{discriminate
transitive verb
discriminated, discriminating
to constitute a difference between; differentiate
to recognize the difference between; distinguish
Origin of discriminate
; from Classical Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare, to divide, distinguish ; from discrimen, division, distinction ; from discernere: see discern
intransitive verb
to see the difference (between things); distinguish
to be discerning
to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)
adjective
involving discrimination; distinguishing carefully
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
discriminate
verb
dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
verb
, intransitive
To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, especially to show prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or a similar social factor: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.
verb
, transitive
To perceive or notice the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: unable to discriminate colors.
To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience; characteristics that discriminate early stone artifacts from pieces of natural stone.
Origin of discriminate
Latin discrīmināre, discrīmināt-, from discrīmen, discrīmin-, distinction; see krei- in Indo-European roots. }
See: http://www.yourdictionary.com/discriminate
BUT, when you discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, national origin or sexual orientation - protected classes - then it becomes a legal issue.
Yes that is my point, you can't just say well this law leaves a loophole that someone MIGHT discriminate against someone else yet not look at the larger picture that is not addressed. Don't make this about one set of people when it can be a much larger issue.
If you're saying that the Indiana Law is bad law and that it leaves the door wide open for all manner of discrimination then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, just between you and me - we do know that it was drafted and enacted for the purpose of allowing discrimination against the gay, lesbian and same-sex married couples - don't we?
But, just between you and me - we do know that it was drafted and enacted for the purpose of allowing discrimination against the gay, lesbian and same-sex married couples - don't we?
The wording of the law does leave a loophole for potential discrimination. But I think we also have to look at the rights of a business to deny service. When we get government trying to stop this or stop that we always run into problems.
No I don't think the law was crafted to discriminate against people.
No I don't think the law was crafted to discriminate against people.
Arkansas governor sends religious freedom bill back to legislators
Washington (CNN)Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law.
The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."
His decision comes in the wake of an uproar in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence has faced pressure from businesses, sports associations like the NCAA and popular culture figures to backtrack on a similar religious freedom law he signed last week. In Arkansas, it's been Walmart heaping apply the most pressure.
Hutchinson asked lawmakers to recall the law that the Arkansas House had given final approval on Tuesday -- or to send him follow-up legislation that makes the changes he requested.
Meanwhile, Hutchinson said, he's considering signing an executive order that bars discrimination among the state's workforce.
"The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchinson said. "It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."
Case in point, Hutchinson said: His son Seth signed a petition asking him to veto the bill -- and also gave his father permission to tell reporters he'd done so.
Hutchinson said he supports Arkansas adding a religious freedom law to its books -- but he wants it to directly mirror the federal version that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993.
"We wanted to have it crafted similar to what is at the federal level," Hutchinson said. "To do that, though, changes need to be made. The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law."
READ: Mike Pence says he wasn't expecting backlash
The perils Arkansas faces were made clear Tuesday morning when Pence insisted he'd "fix" Indiana's law to make sure it doesn't allow businesses like Christian florists or bakers to turn away gay and lesbian customers -- which the bill's conservative supporters had said was one of their chief goals.
"Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no," Pence said.
Following Indiana, Arkansas has become the second of what could be a spate of states to add religious freedom laws to their books this year. There are 14 other states considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Advocates of the measures insist they're simply mimicking what the federal government did under Clinton, and what 19 other states had already done.
But the context has changed. The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling that could legalize same-sex marriage across the United States -- and social conservatives have come to view religious freedom laws as the next frontier in the culture clash over gay rights.
And Indiana's fight exposed another problem: Gays and lesbians lack the shield that a state anti-discrimination law that includes protections based on sexual orientation would offer -- and Pence has said he's not interested in changing that.
Making social conservatives' case harder is the intense opposition from business communities. In Arkansas, home-state giant Walmart was a leading critic of the religious freedom bill.
The other states where religious freedom bills have been introduced are Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Those efforts have stalled, though, in North Carolina and Georgia.
A Georgia bill hit a roadblock when a House member successfully amended anti-discrimination language into it.
And in North Carolina, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory has said he won't sign the measure into law, saying Monday in a radio interview that the proposal "makes no sense."
"What is the problem they're trying to solve?" McCrory said. "I haven't seen it at this point.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/arkansas-religious-freedom-anti-lgbt-bill/index.html
Washington (CNN)Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law.
The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."
His decision comes in the wake of an uproar in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence has faced pressure from businesses, sports associations like the NCAA and popular culture figures to backtrack on a similar religious freedom law he signed last week. In Arkansas, it's been Walmart heaping apply the most pressure.
Hutchinson asked lawmakers to recall the law that the Arkansas House had given final approval on Tuesday -- or to send him follow-up legislation that makes the changes he requested.
Meanwhile, Hutchinson said, he's considering signing an executive order that bars discrimination among the state's workforce.
"The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchinson said. "It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."
Case in point, Hutchinson said: His son Seth signed a petition asking him to veto the bill -- and also gave his father permission to tell reporters he'd done so.
Hutchinson said he supports Arkansas adding a religious freedom law to its books -- but he wants it to directly mirror the federal version that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993.
"We wanted to have it crafted similar to what is at the federal level," Hutchinson said. "To do that, though, changes need to be made. The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law."
READ: Mike Pence says he wasn't expecting backlash
The perils Arkansas faces were made clear Tuesday morning when Pence insisted he'd "fix" Indiana's law to make sure it doesn't allow businesses like Christian florists or bakers to turn away gay and lesbian customers -- which the bill's conservative supporters had said was one of their chief goals.
"Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no," Pence said.
Following Indiana, Arkansas has become the second of what could be a spate of states to add religious freedom laws to their books this year. There are 14 other states considering similar proposals this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Advocates of the measures insist they're simply mimicking what the federal government did under Clinton, and what 19 other states had already done.
But the context has changed. The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling that could legalize same-sex marriage across the United States -- and social conservatives have come to view religious freedom laws as the next frontier in the culture clash over gay rights.
And Indiana's fight exposed another problem: Gays and lesbians lack the shield that a state anti-discrimination law that includes protections based on sexual orientation would offer -- and Pence has said he's not interested in changing that.
Making social conservatives' case harder is the intense opposition from business communities. In Arkansas, home-state giant Walmart was a leading critic of the religious freedom bill.
The other states where religious freedom bills have been introduced are Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Those efforts have stalled, though, in North Carolina and Georgia.
A Georgia bill hit a roadblock when a House member successfully amended anti-discrimination language into it.
And in North Carolina, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory has said he won't sign the measure into law, saying Monday in a radio interview that the proposal "makes no sense."
"What is the problem they're trying to solve?" McCrory said. "I haven't seen it at this point.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/arkansas-religious-freedom-anti-lgbt-bill/index.html
Vance, really - when Pence had a photo of him signing the bill and behind him were at least 3 individuals who are known anti-same sex marriage activists don't you think that tells us something? He had lobbyists there at the signing. Please, don't be disingenuous about the real intent of this law. It is what is is and if it wasn't we wouldn't be seeing the outrage we're seeing now and Pence wouldn't be walking back from the Indiana law and Asa Hutchinson would have signed his law by now. Everyone knows what this about and I suspect that you do too.
BYW, there are substantive differences between the Indiana Law and the Federal Law that the Indiana Law proponents are arguing it mirrors.
BYW, there are substantive differences between the Indiana Law and the Federal Law that the Indiana Law proponents are arguing it mirrors.
Gay marriage is legal in Indiana, so how can the same gov and legislature sign a law that a lot of states don't have but then try to discriminate? Again fake outrage from the left.
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/
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/
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
That's where we stand and that is what's owed to the public, IMO.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
