Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law

[DCPatriot]

Are you referring to the high minded, well thought out philosophy of blaming of Protestants and Germans?

How is a similar treatment of Mexicans received?

Whatever are you talking about?  We all know that Martin Luther was a hack.  And the Catholic Church is the one true Church.   

Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts.  He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.

He's 'the most interesting man in the world'!   

 

[aligncare]

Whatever are you talking about?  We all know that Martin Luther was a hack.  And the Catholic Church is the one true Church.   

Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts.  He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.

He's 'the most interesting man in the world'!   

 

And where and how did he develop such skills of logic?

[Relic]

Whatever are you talking about?  We all know that Martin Luther was a hack.  And the Catholic Church is the one true Church.   

Seriously though...I'm not alone in getting enjoyment reading Luis' posts.  He gets me to exercise my brain on a myriad of subjects.

He's 'the most interesting man in the world'!   

We all have our own tastes. I hate squash and my wife loves it. I don't hold it against her.

[GourmetDan]

We all have our own tastes. I hate squash and my wife loves it. I don't hold it against her.

   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Most of them were Deists, and as such didn't have much in common with Martin Luther.

Frankly, Luther was more of a Catholic than a Deist.

I think you're going nowhere with this line of attack, Luis.....

(Oh, and I know about the German thing too, but Mennonites are a far cry from Lutherans, as well).

"Line of attack"?

That's not a line of attack musiclady, it's a line of thought.

You may not agree but it isn't an attack, it's a perspective on history.

Here's more Martin Luther on marriage.

"No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove."

Luther compared marriage to clothing and housing. Of the world.

Before Luther there was the Catholic Church and marriage as one of seven sacraments. After Luther's Reformulation there was the Catholic Church, where marriage was (and still is) a sacrament, and lots of other not Catholic churches, and civil marriage.

"Luther was more of a Catholic..."

Luther was excommunicated, then later declared an outlaw and a heretic by the Church.

We may differ in opinion, but you shouldn't take that asan attack.

An attack would be closer to something like: "Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis."

And here I thought myself both a logical person and an American.

[musiclady]

"Line of attack"?

That's not a line of attack musiclady, it's a line of thought.

You may not agree but it isn't an attack, it's a perspective on history.

Here's more Martin Luther on marriage.

"No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove."

Luther compared marriage to clothing and housing. Of the world.

Before Luther there was the Catholic Church and marriage as one of seven sacraments. After Luther's Reformulation there was the Catholic Church, where marriage was (and still is) a sacrament, and lots of other not Catholic churches, and civil marriage.

"Luther was more of a Catholic..."

Luther was excommunicated, then later declared an outlaw and a heretic by the Church.

We may differ in opinion, but you shouldn't take that asan attack.

An attack would be closer to something like: "Scapegoating him because he broke away from an extremely corrupt (at the time) Catholic Church, won't take you very far among logical Americans, Luis."

And here I thought myself both a logical person and an American.

I just wrote a thoughtful post to you, and it disappeared, but I don't feel like recreating it right now.

Suffice it to say, that you and I have a different "opinion" regarding the factual and historical Luther, and the reality that his religion was closer to Catholicism than Deism.

In addition, I believe it would behoove the Republican leaders to emulate Luther.

When confronted with an attack against him and his belief in Scripture regarding salvation by faith, he responded, "I cannot, I will not recant.  Here I stand."

If Mike Pence would have done something like that yesterday rather than caving in to the irrational attacks of the demonic left, he would have gained the respect of the majority of Americans.  Instead, he folded.

Now........ when you decide to give up your seeming obsession with Luther and us nasty "collectivist" Protestants, we can talk again.


G'nite, Luis.

[Lando Lincoln]

BOOM! Newt Gingrich SLAMS opposition of Indiana RFRA law as nothing but a LYNCH MOB

Posted by The Right Scoop on Apr 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM in Politics

Everyone should take note, because THIS is how you respond to the radical left screaming about Indiana’s RFRA law. Not only does he defend Mike Pence on HuffPost Live, he calls the opposition a lynch mob and won’t back down when challenged. He also hits back at the louder voices condemning the law over their selective moral outrage and blatant hypocrisy:

-------------------

Newt does the slap down on this one...  I wish I could embed the video.

http://therightscoop.com/boom-newt-gingrich-slams-opposition-of-indiana-rfra-law-as-nothing-but-a-lynch-mob/

[aligncare]

Newt was superb! Of course, he usually is. He had that info babe eating out of his hand.

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law
Indiana lawmakers strike deal to fix religious freedom law

[aligncare]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/237698-indiana-lawmakers-strike-deal-to-fix-religious-freedom-law
Indiana lawmakers strike deal to fix religious freedom law

Pence blew it the moment he cowered, the moment he backed down. Instead of confidently standing in support of protecting religious conscience, he caved.

Pence could take a lesson from Newt.

[evadR]

"The legislative fix reportedly would make clear that the law, which prevents government intrusion onto personal religious beliefs, does not justify denying services to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

What wrong with that?
Does it bring the law in line with the other states that have passed religious protection laws?

[Lando Lincoln]

Pence blew it the moment he cowered, the moment he backed down. Instead of confidently standing in support of protecting religious conscience, he caved.

Pence could take a lesson from Newt.

Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts.  The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.

Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.

[Lando Lincoln]

"The legislative fix reportedly would make clear that the law, which prevents government intrusion onto personal religious beliefs, does not justify denying services to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

What wrong with that?
Does it bring the law in line with the other states that have passed religious protection laws?

To me at this moment, all of that is secondary perhaps tertiary.  The rapid capitulation and its effects are now the big issue.

[musiclady]

Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts.  The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.

Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.

Agree with the far-reaching impact of Pence's weakness.

The leftist bullies have been emboldened by their victory here, and I believe we are going to see bullying from leftist thugs in the 2016 campaigns, as well as against individual Christian business owners, like we have never seen before.

I like the comparison with Walker, too.  Scott stood up against the thugs and won.

Pence crumbled and lost........... and the rest of us will suffer for it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Agreed! Additionally, Pence's capitulation will have far-reaching impacts.  The shrill voices from the left will become louder when they are selectively outraged over future issues, the media reporting will be more breathless, and political calculus will be more complex for future legislation. Pence will live with this.

Walker v. Pence - a study in contrasts during a political earthquake.

What is happening here is exactly what is supposed to be happening. A contentious issue is working its way (and being worked out) through the laboratory of the States. It just needs to get to the SCOTUS to be resolved.

Anti homosexual sodomy laws were struck down (because they should have been) by Lawrence.

The government's attempt at forcing businesses owned by individuals with strong religious objections to providing abortifacients to employees was struck down by Hobby Lobby.

The issue of same-sex marriage will be decided very shortly with four cases on the docks scheduled for hearings sometime this April.

In both Lawrence and Hobby Lobby, the SCOTUS, whether you agree with the outcome of the cases or not, sided with the rights of individuals over the rights of the collective. I expect the same outcome for the same-sex marriage cases. I believe that same-sex marriage will be legal in all States by the end of this year.

Should one of these "baker won't bake me a wedding cake because i'm gay so I'm suing him" cases goes before the SCOTUS. I think that the SCOTUS will look at all the facts, weigh the rights of the baker and the rights of the gay couple and come up with the most logical response which safeguards both the baker's rights (religious liberty) and the gay couple's rights (the State's compelling interest to eradicate discrimination as well as not allowing any class of citizen to be treated as second class citizens) and find the least restrictive means to resolve the conflict.

What is driving this issue is religious opposition to homosexuality being codified.

We've written laws and statutes against homosexual sex, voted and enacted referendums making same-sex marriage illegal, and (in the case of Indiana) crafted a law which makes it legal and to deny service to homosexuals with impunity, based on religious objection to homosexuality.

It's like we (or a segment of we) is trying to make homosexuality non-existent in our society. That ship has sailed, and the more laws we enact trying to suppress homosexual behavior, the closer we get to having the Court grant legal protected status to sexual preferences.

I understand and respect the religious objections, but I also understand and respect the objections of some who don't think that they should be forced to accept a second-class citizenship because of laws based on religious beliefs that they themselves may not believe in. "Why should I be governed by someone else's religious beliefs" is a perfectly acceptable question to ask in a free society.

Having said all that, I believe that the homosexual activists will lose this battle if it ever reaches the SCOTUS, since the SCOTUS, in their need to find a balance between the State's compelling needs to both not promote discrimination and respect the religious beliefs of its citizens, will simply see that the cake can be baked elsewhere, by someone who does not object to baking it.

What's ironic here, is that the Court may work its way back to a general religious exemption case that was overturned by the SCOTUS with Scalia and Rehnquist leading the majority charge. They were right (in my opinion) when they argued that a general religious exemption based on the free exercise clause would have a veritable spectral march of subsequent demands for religious exemptions from anyone, and the  prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, including antidiscrimination law. Case in point, Bob Jones University (I visited that place in the '70's, so I KNOW what this was all about) wanted a religious exemption from race discrimination laws so that they could keep blacks out of their campus (Bob Jones Unioversity vs. The United States (1983).

This will work itself out. It just needs to get to the SCOTUS.

[Lando Lincoln]

Again Luis, another well-reasoned post.  It is one that I don't take any exception to - save one perhaps which is the tangential issue here (for me). 

I take exception to the speed in which Pence capitulated to the outrage.  The Indiana legislature passed it, he signed it.  So, stand on it. Instead, his knees buckled.

If it proves to be flawed or abused, correct it later based on experience; not now for political expediency.

That is my issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Again Luis, another well-reasoned post.  It is one that I don't take any exception to - save one perhaps which is the tangential issue here (for me). 

I take exception to the speed in which Pence capitulated to the outrage.  The Indiana legislature passed it, he signed it.  So, stand on it. Instead, his knees buckled.

If it proves to be flawed or abused, correct it later based on experience; not now for political expediency.

That is my issue.

I never mentioned Pence, and in a way I believe that the law should stand so that the law suit can be filed.

Pence is a politician, not a warrior or a crusader. So he will act in a politically expedient manner.

He buckled because the law is a flawed law. It is too broad, and as Scalia and Rehnquist agreed general religious exemptioms are intrinsically flawed. I get what you're saying, but the fact remains that he signed a bad bill into law, and he's taking fire for it.

Not every politician can take the same amount of fire.

The main difference between Walker and Pence are the issues themselves.

Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue.

[aligncare]

While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.

[Luis Gonzalez]

While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.

None of us have that choice.

You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not by the ones you oppose (Lawrence). That would lead to the end of all law and order, and lead to anarchy.

Their ability to make these decisions is enshrined in the Constitution itself.

BTW. They don't "decide matters of religious conscience" for anyone. They decide how the Constitution and all applicable laws should be observed for everyone.

[Cyber Liberty]

None of us have that choice.

You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not for the ones you oppose (Lawrence). That would lead to the end of all law and order, and lead to anarchy.

Their ability to make these decisions is enshrined in the Constitution itself.

BTW. They don't "decide matters of religious conscience" for anyone. They decide how the Constitution and all applicable laws should be observed for everyone.

That's mostly true.  If I were a baker and the SCOTUS ruled that if I bake cakes for heterosexual weddings, then I have to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, and I felt very strongly about not wanting to support the latter, then I have the option of ceasing the former and staying within the law.  I would have a sign, "We don't bake cakes for ANY weddings" prominently displayed in my shop over the bread, cupcakes and cookies.  I think most bakeries would be able to stay in business with that hole in their market.

As an aside, I think you have a much better opinion of the SCOTUS than I do when it comes to "doing the right thing."  Additionally, if universal gay marriage is approved by the SCOTUS, the issue will not be put to rest.  No, it will become another political football to be kicked around for decades, like Roe v Wade, proving political issues need to be decided by political process, messy as that is.

[evadR]

"Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue. "

True dat.  This is why the two situations are not comparable.  Mixing apples and oranges is what we often do on these forums.

All I have heard on this thread and others is how Pence, who two weeks ago was a good guy, is now a POS that "caved".  Let me be the first to disagree.

All I want to know is "What does Bigun say"??????

[GourmetDan]

While acknowledging they have the power--I don't see why I should have confidence that those temporary 9 folks in black robes have the wisdom to decide matters of religious conscience for me? And still be true to the founding documents--Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment, which form a foundational documentary shield for religious conscience.

This is just the normal progression of the idea that you can force people to behave in certain ways in the name of achieving the goal of 'non-discrimination'.

People discriminate, always have and always will.  It just has to reach the point of insanity before people will wake up.  And maybe they never will...

[musiclady]

"Walker had black and white financial reasons backing his actions but Pence is dealing with the grey areas of a social issue. "

True dat.  This is why the two situations are not comparable.  Mixing apples and oranges is what we often do on these forums.

All I have heard on this thread and others is how Pence, who two weeks ago was a good guy, is now a POS that "caved".  Let me be the first to disagree.

I still don't think that comparing Pence's reaction to a leftist assault and Walker's is an apples to oranges comparison.

While I don't think Pence is now automatically a bad guy because of his response, he has definitely lost the respect of many of us, desperate to see character and strength in the people who represent us.

I think Pence dropped the ball on this.  He needed to make it clear that this bill was not discrimination, but rather a defense against discrimination.  He needed to articulate that it was to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians to live up to their own consciences.  He needed to say that the attacks against Indiana were trumped up by the hate-filled leftist thugs (though in more diplomatic terms, perhaps!).  He needed to make it clear that the attackers were making things up, and the boycotts of Indiana were disingenuous at best.  He needed to defend the First Amendment, those who believe in it, and his own state, and those of us in other states who are being and will be attacked in the future.

He withered under fire.  Walker, attacked by the same leftist evil, did not.

It's the responses of the two men that are comparable, whether or not the details of the leftist gestapo attack were the same.

Obviously, some people will overreact and throw Pence under the bus (that's what people do), but it is not wrong for those of us who are looking for leadership and not seeing it in this case with this Governor, to be disappointed.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is just the normal progression of the idea that you can force people to behave in certain ways in the name of achieving the goal of 'non-discrimination'.

People discriminate, always have and always will.  It just has to reach the point of insanity before people will wake up.  And maybe they never will...

I discriminated this morning when I chose to turn right instead of left at the end of the block on my way to work.  Yes, we discriminate all the time, but most people seem to have forgotten exactly what that means.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As an aside, I think you have a much better opinion of the SCOTUS than I do when it comes to "doing the right thing."  Additionally, if universal gay marriage is approved by the SCOTUS, the issue will not be put to rest.  No, it will become another political football to be kicked around for decades, like Roe v Wade, proving political issues need to be decided by political process, messy as that is.

There's a reason why I have a good opinion of the SCOTUS.

They've gotten it mostly right over their 224 year history.

Sure they've handed down dome bad findings, Dredd Scott, Kelo come to mind, but overall they've done an outstanding job.

Every decision however, has one side thinking they did the right thing and the other thinking the wrong thing, and if you sat two people down, one a liberal and the other a conservative and asked them to each write down a list of the cases that the SCOTUS got right and the ones they got wrong, you'd end up with basically the same list, but in mirror image.

I also understand that when we get to contentious issues where each side's argument has a degree of merit, they are the guys charged by the Constitution to settle the dispute, and I am obligated to live by their decision since it is my choice to live under this Constitution. Just like you wouldn't bake wedding cakes for anyone, I don't have to live under a Constitution that empowers the judiciary to do what the SCOTUS does.

To decide these kinds of issues politically is not a good idea, since the issues would always be decided by the majority, and the rights of minorities could be easily trampled. I always go back to an old text boom explanation of the differences between a Democracy and a Republic:

"The purpose of a Republic is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."

"... and the liberties...".

That's the balance. Protecting both the rights AND the liberties of the people.

Political decisions are driven by politicians, and politicians are driven not so much by conscience, but by electability and the pursuit of power, and asides from that, politicians like it when contentious social issues are left unresolved since it gives them issues to run on.

Abortion is such an issue.

What difference does a POTUS stand on abortion make?

They really can't do anything about it. It is way easier however, for a politician to inflame passions and garner support by talking to people about abortion than it is to detail how they'll get the nation out of debt.

Almost every right wing politician has sided against Roe and abortion, but it's 42 years since Roe, and Roe stands unscathed.

Lacking Roe, abortion would still be legal in the US in the more liberal States and by extension, to all Americans.