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
"....."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.
"'Need to focus"
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.
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.