Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[aligncare]

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.

 

Enthusiastically agree!

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

Basically because Walker has terra firma to stand on while Pence was arguably wrong.

Even Rehnquist and Scalia disagreed with such broadly crafted religious exemptions. 

BTW... Pence represents everyone in his State, not a portion of the people in his State and certainly not a larger "us", and a good number of those people he represents vehemently disagree with this law as written.

[evadR]

"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."

There are all kinds of ways to reply that Pence could have taken and to be honest, I'm not sure what was in the original bill or what Pence's total responses were.  What I do know is that he responded to criticisms in his way which was to propose a solution to something he viewed as needing clarification.  That's his job, he's the governor.
I take a look at all this man has accomplished in his state and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Others take a look at the situation and arrive at a different conclusion, one that I disagree with.
Why are we so quick to eat our own?

[aligncare]

Reacting from a defensive position shows uncertainty and weakness. If he wasn't sure it was good legislation why did he sign the bill?

[Bigun]

You can't just abide by the decisions that you support (Hobby Lobby) and not by the ones you oppose (Lawrence).

Well it certainly appears to this observer that the current regime has very much failed to get that memo!
 

[Cyber Liberty]

Luis, I don't think we'll ever agree on the proper role of the SCOTUS (I will never be able to state my case as eloquently as you can).  I still think major social reforms should be done in the political process, not the Courts.  You mentioned the Courts acted against the majority opinion on abortion, and are likely to do so again for gay marriage.  The purpose of working it out politically is to move the hearts and minds of people in the "correct" direction.  If Abortion had been left alone it would, as you said, be a practice permitted almost everywhere, available to everybody willing to cross a state line.  That's true because hearts and minds have changed over the years (some would argue not for the better, but that's another argument I don't want to have). 

Same with Gay Marriage.  It used to be a major third rail, a hot-button issue sure to bring a lot of people to the polls to vote against it just a few years ago.  That has completely changed, and if things are allowed to move without the courts' intervention that will be available (tyranny free) for every American as well in just a few years.

The courts need to stay out of making major changes to the fabric of society, now matter how good the cause may seem.  It's tyranny in black robes, even if they do "the right thing."  Just call Balls and Strikes, that's it.

[evadR]

I suppose it depends on the position you choose to take.
If you feel he "caved", then you might say he's just an ignorant pol.  He clearly indicated that he "never expected all the uproar" which may tend to support that position.
OR, maybe he felt the possibility of discrimination was ok and he agreed with it.
OR, maybe he felt the bill was a good bill and worthy of his signature.  I tend to think this one applies because as I stated before, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's a pol but not a devious pol.  Maybe this will wise him up a bit.

I do think the central issue of this thread is whether or not he "caved".  Best as I can tell, everyone on this forum, with the exception of moi, thinks he did.

[Bigun]

"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"??????

Bigun says that Pence should have just kept his mouth shut and let the leftist trash do what they are going to do no matter what he does.

One of  main (perhaps the only) reasons the pilgrims came to America to begin with was to have the freedom to associate or not with whom they pleased.  I think they were right and that we should still have that ability today.

A baker should have the right to tell you that he is not going to bake your cake for any reason he chooses. I don't care if it's simply because he doesn't like your looks! You have every right to find a baker who does like you looks, or who wants your money despite what he thinks of your looks, that will bake your cake.  THAT is what I call FREEDOM!

And one more thing while I'm at it.  A human being cannot possibly survive on this planet if he does not discriminate. A LOT in fact!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis, I don't think we'll ever agree on the proper role of the SCOTUS (I will never be able to state my case as eloquently as you can).  I still think major social reforms should be done in the political process, not the Courts.  You mentioned the Courts acted against the majority opinion on abortion, and are likely to do so again for gay marriage.  The purpose of working it out politically is to move the hearts and minds of people in the "correct" direction.  If Abortion had been left alone it would, as you said, be a practice permitted almost everywhere, available to everybody willing to cross a state line.  That's true because hearts and minds have changed over the years (some would argue not for the better, but that's another argument I don't want to have). 

Same with Gay Marriage.  It used to be a major third rail, a hot-button issue sure to bring a lot of people to the polls to vote against it just a few years ago.  That has completely changed, and if things are allowed to move without the courts' intervention that will be available (tyranny free) for every American as well in just a few years.

The courts need to stay out of making major changes to the fabric of society, now matter how good the cause may seem.  It's tyranny in black robes, even if they do "the right thing."  Just call Balls and Strikes, that's it.

The majority favors same sex marriage at this time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

Back when Loving was decided, 72% of the people were against interracial marriage.

[musiclady]

There are all kinds of ways to reply that Pence could have taken and to be honest, I'm not sure what was in the original bill or what Pence's total responses were.  What I do know is that he responded to criticisms in his way which was to propose a solution to something he viewed as needing clarification.  That's his job, he's the governor.
I take a look at all this man has accomplished in his state and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Others take a look at the situation and arrive at a different conclusion, one that I disagree with.
Why are we so quick to eat our own?

I'm not 'eating' anyone.

I am voicing disagreement and disappointment with someone whom I felt could have handled the situation with strength.

He did not.  Apparently the vociferousness of the attack rattled him to the point where he didn't react in the best interest of the state, because he enabled the leftist enemy to get the better of him.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm not 'eating' anyone.

I am voicing disagreement and disappointment with someone whom I felt could have handled the situation with strength.

He did not.  Apparently the vociferousness of the attack rattled him to the point where he didn't react in the best interest of the state, because he enabled the leftist enemy to get the better of him.

The people in his State were attacking him.

He may have not reacted in the best interest of a political faction within his State, but there are other political factions in his State with a voice in government.

[musiclady]

Basically because Walker has terra firma to stand on while Pence was arguably wrong.

Even Rehnquist and Scalia disagreed with such broadly crafted religious exemptions. 

BTW... Pence represents everyone in his State, not a portion of the people in his State and certainly not a larger "us", and a good number of those people he represents vehemently disagree with this law as written.

Ah, but religious freedom IS in the best interest of everyone in his state.

He could have said, we'll look at the law and tweak it without showing the weakness he showed.

He did not clarify immediately that the law was being grossly misinterpreted by its attackers.  He did not clarify that the law was not written to discriminate, and that saying that it did was patently false.

He could have reacted with strength, and he didn't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Show of hands please.

Who here has actually read the legislation we're all discussing?

[Cyber Liberty]

I suppose it depends on the position you choose to take.
If you feel he "caved", then you might say he's just an ignorant pol.  He clearly indicated that he "never expected all the uproar" which may tend to support that position.
OR, maybe he felt the possibility of discrimination was ok and he agreed with it.
OR, maybe he felt the bill was a good bill and worthy of his signature.  I tend to think this one applies because as I stated before, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's a pol but not a devious pol.  Maybe this will wise him up a bit.

I do think the central issue of this thread is whether or not he "caved".  Best as I can tell, everyone on this forum, with the exception of moi, thinks he did.

That sounds like a pretty fair assessment of how we got to this page.

[musiclady]

The people in his State were attacking him.

He may have not reacted in the best interest of a political faction within his State, but there are other political factions in his State with a voice in government.

He needed to firmly represent the truth about the bill, and he did not.

Truth is not dependent on 'political factions.'  The bill was not discriminatory against gays, and he didn't defend that fact.

[Bigun]

The majority favors same sex marriage at this time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

Back when Loving was decided, 72% of the people were against interracial marriage.

To protect us from misguided majorities is EXACTLY  why we were given a Republic instead of a democracy!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ah, but religious freedom IS in the best interest of everyone in his state.

He could have said, we'll look at the law and tweak it without showing the weakness he showed.

He did not clarify immediately that the law was being grossly misinterpreted by its attackers.  He did not clarify that the law was not written to discriminate, and that saying that it did was patently false.

He could have reacted with strength, and he didn't.

He said that exact thing.

The weakness is perhaps your perception.

Have you read the legislation?

[Luis Gonzalez]

To protect us from misguided majorities is EXACTLY  why we were given a Republic instead of a democracy!

Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?

[Luis Gonzalez]

He needed to firmly represent the truth about the bill, and he did not.

Truth is not dependent on 'political factions.'  The bill was not discriminatory against gays, and he didn't defend that fact.

Have you read the bill?

[Cyber Liberty]

Show of hands please.

Who here has actually read the legislation we're all discussing?

Not me.  I can't read legalese, and am willing to admit that people who have been steadfastly wrong in interpreting laws when it comes to their self-interest in the past could actually have this right.  I just doubt it very much.

I certainly could be guilty of backing the wrong horse.  A lot of the argument, however stems from how Pence reacted, not whether he is correct on the merits.  If it's a bad law after all, his reaction looks a lot like caving, and a lot of us are sick of seeing that in people we expect to fight on our behalf.  He could have doe a "fix" later after the liberals have stopped screaming and went somewhere else, like Arkansas.

[Cyber Liberty]

Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?

Bob Hope had a joke about that.....

[musiclady]

He said that exact thing.

The weakness is perhaps your perception.

Have you read the legislation?

I know that's a 'gotcha' question, but honest person that I am, I'll answer it.  No, I haven't read it, but I've read comments and responses from people who have.  If I read legislation, it would still be subject to my own interpretation, so I try to find out what people whom I trust think.  (For the record, my husband is one of the only people in the US who read the entire Obamacare bill, and I trust him completely about what's in it).

I don't believe we're talking about 'perception' however.  He did NOT respond to the lies that were being told about the bill.  He did NOT correctly state that this was a political attack and a ploy of the left.

I know he said that they would take a look at the bill and tweak it, but it was surrounded by an absence of correction of the record of those who were attacking the State of Indiana.

[Bigun]

Who is forcing you to marry a man Bigun?

No one! And they will not! Nor will they force me to have have any part whatever in a wedding in which two men or two women are "married"!

[Luis Gonzalez]

No one! And they will not! Nor will they force me to have have any part whatever in a wedding in which two men or two women are "married"!

So then, what difference does it make to you whether two men marry each other?