Indiana governor backs down, calls for fix to religious law

[Bigun]

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

None! So long as they do not try to force my participation in the proceedings or to pay for the results of what occurs later!

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

Thanks for the honesty.

Here's Pence trying to defend the indefensible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skXFH2SFyAA

Here's the text of the legislation:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

Here are the differences between Clinton's law and Indiana's:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

[musiclady]

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

That's entirely beside the point of the discussion, Luis, and you know it.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals can marry, and EVERYTHING to do with the religious liberty given to us in the First Amendment to behave as we believe we are to behave.

If that means that we refuse to participate in a ceremony that we believe is immoral, then we need to be guaranteed the right to refuse and NOT be harassed because we do.

You are diverting from the subject to trap people.

What the majority thinks about gay marriage is not the point.  Religious freedom is what's at stake here, and even if the majority of Americans decided to believe that we Christians don't have that any more, the Constitution guarantees that we do.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's entirely beside the point of the discussion, Luis, and you know it.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals can marry, and EVERYTHING to do with the religious liberty given to us in the First Amendment to behave as we believe we are to behave.

If that means that we refuse to participate in a ceremony that we believe is immoral, then we need to be guaranteed the right to refuse and NOT be harassed because we do.

You are diverting from the subject to trap people.

What the majority thinks about gay marriage is not the point.  Religious freedom is what's at stake here, and even if the majority of Americans decided to believe that we Christians don't have that any more, the Constitution guarantees that we do.

No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.

There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.

Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?

I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.

[musiclady]

None! So long as they do not try to force my participation in the proceedings or to pay for the results of what occurs later!

THANK you!  THIS is the point.  The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.

The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not.  This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.

The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.

[musiclady]

No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.

There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.

Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?

I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.

I've watched you 'work' before, Luis.  This issue is very important to you, and I've observed your efforts to divert before.

btw, not necessarily 'nefarious' but quite a clever tactic on a debate forum.

Especially one that you consider to be 'right wing'.......

Now back to the subject?

[Bigun]

THANK you!  THIS is the point.  The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.

The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not.  This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.

The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.

Exactly right! 

[Lando Lincoln]

Oh boy... I've missed a lot...

[flowers]

THANK you!  THIS is the point.  The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.
.

Professor: Indiana RFRA ‘Fix’ Could Send Christians to Jail

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/professor-indiana-rfra-fix-could-send-christians-to-jail/

The greatly anticipated “fix” to the Indiana religious freedom law has been released by the Indiana legislative committee, and it is far worse than conservatives feared.

According to law professor Mark Rienzi, the new fix will allow the state to prosecute Christians criminally for denying gay weddings their professional affirmation.

Rienzi, of the Becket Fund and Catholic University School of Law and who was lead attorney in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case that upheld a claim under the federal religious freedom law, said this would “criminalize religious objectors.”

The “fix” maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana but says Christian business cannot use the law in declining to endorse a same-sex wedding. Christian business owners — florists, bakers, caterers and others — will now be forced to provide service for religious ceremonies that go against their “deeply held religious beliefs.” But the fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”

The “fix” carves our exemptions but only for churches, minsters, and overtly religious organizations — not for Christians who run for-profit businesses.

Social conservatives were quick to comment.

Marriage expert Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation said, “…the proposed fix amounts to nothing less than a wholesale repel of the Indian Religious Freedom Restoration Act with respect to those who need religious liberty protections the most.”

The Family Research Council issued a statement: “The new proposal guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their religious beliefs about marriage.” FRC president Tony Perkins said, “Religious freedom should not be held hostage to Big Business.” Much of the opposition to the Indian law came from major corporations who threatened economic retaliation for enacting the law.

Activist Linda Harvey pointed a finger at LGBT activists. “This ‘fix’ is everything gay activists could want.”

[musiclady]

So, it looks like our protection against the Gay Mafia has been 'fixed' out of the law........   

[Cyber Liberty]

No, I followed someone else's lead who brought up the issue of the Courts and same-sex marriage, then when Bigun responded to my response to Cyber Liberty, I responded to Bigun.

There are several threads of debate going on at the same time here.

Why do you insist on assigning nefarious and underhanded motives to my posts?

I'm just talking to people and stating my opinions.

I don't think you're nefarious at all, you certainly have cast new light on many issues for me.  There must be a lot of baggage from the past somewhere that I don't know/care about.  My main beef with this story, aside from the appearance of one of "ours" caving to the left and causing us flood of more grief in the future, is the erosion of the right of association.  That seems to have been lost in the shuffling.  Our legal ability to choose who we surround ourselves and do business with is shrinking.

Maybe we just disagree on how harmful that is?

[Cyber Liberty]

Professor: Indiana RFRA ‘Fix’ Could Send Christians to Jail

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/professor-indiana-rfra-fix-could-send-christians-to-jail/

This would explain the almighty rush to "fix" this law.  It also supplies cause to those of us who were insisting on some cooling off before "fixing" things.  Why is it every time something gets rushed, it benefits the left?

[evadR]

He said that exact thing.

The weakness is perhaps your perception.

Precisely.

In his interview with Snuffelupagus, he used terms and phrases like red herring, completely baseless, avalanche of intolerance, shameless rhetoric, misunderstanding and misinformation and he went after Snuffy.
He did it in a calm, cogent manner.
I'm not sure what else people would want him to say.

[evadR]

"...hose of us who were insisting on some cooling off before "fixing" things. "

Now THAT I will agree with.

To all the misfits that threatened to NOT COME to Indiana and not do business with Indiana, I say FK EM. Stay home and take your business elsewhere.
I'm not the governor so I can say that...he can't.

[Cyber Liberty]

He said that exact thing.

The weakness is perhaps your perception.

Precisely.

In his interview with Snuffelupagus, he used terms and phrases like red herring, completely baseless, avalanche of intolerance, shameless rhetoric, misunderstanding and misinformation and he went after Snuffy.
He did it in a calm, cogent manner.
I'm not sure what else people would want him to say.

I was fine with what he said to Snuffy.  I wish he'd stayed there.

[DCPatriot]

Tough crowd.......

[andy58-in-nh]

THANK you!  THIS is the point.  The militant left is trying to force us to participate or be punished, and in some cases are succeeding in putting people out of business.

The First Amendment should be enough, but apparently it's not.  This law is to guarantee our First Amendment right NOT to be coerced into doing something we believe is immoral based on our religious convictions.

The left has twisted it in order to have a political weapon against both Republicans, and more importantly Christians.

Yes, they have twisted it, and intentionally so. The Left wants to blur the distinction between associative freedom and invidious discrimination, so as to advance its poisonous agenda of dividing and conquering people on the basis of group identity.
 
A pizza shop owner must serve anyone who does not otherwise violate the law, threaten to cause harm to the business owner or otherwise damage the business owner's legitimate interests as an employer. It sure as hell does not mean the owner must bake a rainbow pizza at the demand of a queer customer.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've watched you 'work' before, Luis.  This issue is very important to you, and I've observed your efforts to divert before.

btw, not necessarily 'nefarious' but quite a clever tactic on a debate forum.

Especially one that you consider to be 'right wing'.......

Now back to the subject?

It's not "diverting", it's a conversation, and I have the ability to multitask and carry out several conversations at once.

I'm not a linear thinker.

The subject at hand is whether or not some people's religious rights trump other people's liberties. That subject is spread out over several topics... gay marriage, homosexual adoptions, and whether a religious individual who owns a business can deny a service to a homosexual individual based on his or her religious beliefs.

Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes, they have twisted it, and intentionally so. The Left wants to blur the distinction between associative freedom and invidious discrimination, so as to advance its poisonous agenda of dividing and conquering people on the basis of group identity.
 
A pizza shop owner must serve anyone who does not otherwise violate the law, threaten to cause harm to the business owner or otherwise damage the business owner's legitimate interests as an employer. It sure as hell does not mean the owner must bake a rainbow pizza at the demand of a queer customer.

I believe that the solution that's been reached in Indiana is actually both fair and workable.

It is my understanding that while that famous baker can't deny baking the cake for the homosexual couple, the photographer won't be forced to participate in the actual ceremony.

That's a generalization, but it is the gist of the compromise.

Now, the baker gets to decide whether or not they will simply not sell wedding cakes to anyone, and the same sex couple will need to find a photographer willing to work the wedding.

[aligncare]

Can an Indiana customer (gay or otherwise) force a Christian T-shirt screen printer to print a T-shirt emblazoned with "F*** God For Condemning Gay Marriage" or be sued for refusing him service?

[DCPatriot]

I believe that the solution that's been reached in Indiana is actually both fair and workable.

It is my understanding that while that famous baker can't deny baking the cake for the homosexual couple, the photographer won't be forced to participate in the actual ceremony.

That's a generalization, but it is the gist of the compromise.

Now, the baker gets to decide whether or not they will simply not sell wedding cakes to anyone, and the same sex couple will need to find a photographer willing to work the wedding.

Who would want to 'force hire' a photographer that personally finds your lifestyle nauseating and sinful?  Do you expect his/her best work?

And as Rush said today, "how, in the hell, hard is it to find a gay florist?"

[musiclady]

It's not "diverting", it's a conversation, and I have the ability to multitask and carry out several conversations at once.

I'm not a linear thinker.

The subject at hand is whether or not some people's religious rights trump other people's liberties. That subject is spread out over several topics... gay marriage, homosexual adoptions, and whether a religious individual who owns a business can deny a service to a homosexual individual based on his or her religious beliefs.

Many subjects, but only one topic... the culture war that's raging in the nation.

Religious liberties were paramount in the Founding documents.  If they are taken from us, we have lost one of the main reasons this country came to be.

Homosexuals who wish to marry are at liberty to find one of the many bakers, florists and photographers who don't have a problem with what they're doing.

Instead, they are targeting those whom they know disagree.

In your multi-tasking, perhaps you should try to include asking why the hate-filled left is doing what they are doing to Christian business people across the country.

It is part of their game-plan to take away our freedoms, Luis.  It needs to be the Republicans' game plan to allow us to keep them.

Edited to add:  If the Republicans don't stand up in defense of the liberty of Christians... who will?  They can't drop the ball on this one.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Religious liberties were paramount in the Founding documents.  If they are taken from us, we have lost one of the main reasons this country came to be.

Homosexuals who wish to marry are at liberty to find one of the many bakers, florists and photographers who don't have a problem with what they're doing.

Instead, they are targeting those whom they know disagree.

In your multi-tasking, perhaps you should try to include asking why the hate-filled left is doing what they are doing to Christian business people across the country.

It is part of their game-plan to take away our freedoms, Luis.  It needs to be the Republicans' game plan to allow us to keep them.

Edited to add:  If the Republicans don't stand up in defense of the liberty of Christians... who will?  They can't drop the ball on this one.

There's a perception problem here.

You accuse homosexuals of "targeting those with whom they disagree" while defending laws targeting homosexuals because we have a religious-based disagreement over their lifestyle.

Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual laws, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual sodomy laws, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't start ballot initiatives and referendums looking to forbid them from ever being able to marry one another, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't write this Indiana law which allows for any business or any individual to deny any kind of service to homosexuals based on alleged religious conflicts without having to face any sort of legal consequences, they just challenged them.

There's been a whole lot of "targeting" coming from both sides of this issue.

[musiclady]

There's a perception problem here.

You accuse homosexuals of "targeting those with whom they disagree" while defending laws targeting homosexuals because we have a religious-based disagreement over their lifestyle.

Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual laws, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't write anti homosexual sodomy laws, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't start ballot initiatives and referendums looking to forbid them from ever being able to marry one another, they challenged them.

Homosexuals didn't write this Indiana law which allows for any business or any individual to deny any kind of service to homosexuals based on alleged religious conflicts without having to face any sort of legal consequences, they just challenged them.

There's been a whole lot of "targeting" coming from both sides of this issue.

I agree that there's a perception problem.

I just don't agree that the problem is mine.

If you don't think the left is targeting Christians to bully their way into control of what we can say and do, then your head is deep under the sand.

But I know you won't be persuaded by one word that the rest of us have to say, so I'll let it go here.

Have a Blessed Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter, Luis.

[DCPatriot]

"They" are well organized.  They are well paid.

They find a business owner who holds religious beliefs that are not in sync with the current outrage of the day, and destroy their businesses and make outright physical threats.  Fed by a complicit mainstream media that drives the story headline.

It's not about not being reasonable by finding a more friendly vendor....it's about demanding that every business treat the gay lifestyle as normal.