Indiana GOP Gov signs law that discriminates against gays

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/indiana-gov-mike-pence-receives-instant-backlash-signing-anti-gay-bill-law/

Indiana's Republican Governor just signed a law that allows people to discriminate against gays in the name of "religious freedom". I guess religious freedom means you can ignore whatever laws you want.

Not surprisingly, there's a huge backlash brewing with companies and organizations threatening to pull out of Indiana. I hope they do.

What do you viners think?

Getting really sick of religious freedom being utilised to perpetuate... well, whatever the f*ck they want it to.

Humans are awful, we are just such a weaselly, sh*tty species.

republicans, man...

That's cruel.... really cruel.

But then again, cultural relativism and all that jazz.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/gen-con-indiana-religious-freedom-bill_n_6936698.html

"Organizers of Gen Con, said to be thelargest gaming convention in the U.S., have threatened to take their event -- and potentially millions of dollars -- out of Indiana if Governor Mike Pence (R) signs a controversial religious freedom bill into law.

Senate Bill 101 will prohibit state and local governments from “substantially burdening someone’s religious beliefs, unless that entity can prove it’s relying on the least restrictive means possible to further a compelling governmental interest," MSNBC reports."

http://mashable.com/2015/03/26/indiana-anti-lgbt-law-backlash/

"Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is taking a strong stand against a controversial Indiana bill signed into law Thursday that could allow businesses to turn away LGBT customers in the name of religious freedom.

Benioff announced on Twitter that the San Francisco-based cloud computing giant will no longer send employees or customers to Indiana and will "dramatically reduce" its investments to the state in response. A letter to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence opposing the law was signed by Benioff and other tech company leaders, including the CEOs of CloudOne and Salesvue."

I wonder if other states will try to follow in this Governor's footsteps... thinking about states like Tennessee, Mississippi, Nebraska...

hmm does anyone remember those signs in Restaurants that said "they have the right to refuse service to anyone" no one was super upset about that...

Remember those signs that say "No shoes, no shirt, no service" well what if i don't like shoes, thats discriminatory to me i guess

hmm i bet you can find a building within walking distance that doesnt have a Wheelchair ramp on it, but no one is upset about the discrimination towards handicap

but when Religion is involved well...

@trickyman86:

"Senate Bill 101 will prohibit state and local governments from “substantially burdening someone’s religious beliefs, unless that entity can prove it’s relying on the least restrictive means possible to further a compelling governmental interest"

Essentially. Bill 101

It basically is a backlash to the perceived growing encroachment of government upon civil liberties. It is much more far reaching than simply being "anti-gay" and though it could potentially be used in that way, what is actually happening is fear mongering by the progressives attempting to use a very small potentiality to overshadow the much larger issue of growing governmental encroachment and overreach.

\_/ Care cup is empty

1. so they can refuse service, but you know what if im refused because i act like an idiot, i can say its because im black and everyone will freak out

2. Yes you can...

3. so its ok for the privately owned buildings to discriminate against handicapped, but no not public buildings... hmm i see so "everyone is equal but some are equaler than others"

What a bullish!t law, humanist issues should be put before religion. This is straight up discrimination. Before everyone goes on a circle jerk bashing religion, you have to realize this was signed because of retarded logic. Not religion or religious freedom.

Not my problem..

@dbvse7: Then why post?

@mandarinestro: Cause I can.

I could ask the same thing to everyone here since I doubt it's anyones problem here :P.

@dbvse7: Yes but only one other person posted 'I don't care'. The rest expressed their opinions on it meaning that it is 'their problem'.

Posting 'I don't care' is contradictory because you have the ability to ignore a topic you dislike.

Oh and if you decide to reply to my post, it further proves my point.

The first 3 words of the bill are: "Religious freedom restoration"

So yes, it was signed because of religion.

Indeed in this country we have freedom of religion, but that does not mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religious freedom. It means you can believe and worship whatever you want. It does not mean that you can ignore laws or that laws dont apply to you because of your beliefs. Your beliefs are not any more special than anyone else's. If we did allow people to exclude themselves from laws they dont like because of their "beliefs" then I'd like to tell you all about my belief that I shouldnt pay taxes, or obey traffic laws... or any laws.

@mandarinestro: Question. Are they personally effected by it?

I don't like or dislike the topic. :P I responded cause I just felt like doing so.

I'm replying to you because I don't want to be rude and not reply back.

@dbvse7: If it's not their problem they wouldn't have gone to great extent to express their opinions. "I have a problem with X" doesn't necessarily interpret to "I'm affected by this and therefore I must care about X". I can live in Asia and have a problem with Russian communists shooting innocents for no good reason, can't I?

If children isolated in Central Africa are dying from famine and AIDS, does it affect the US? No. Then why would many Americans campaign for health in Africa if it doesn't affect them? :P

Also, this is the internet. Spending time and energy to type three words in a topic you don't care about means you do care since you have the option of ignoring it completely without being rude :P

so basically its same ol same ol.

Women vote? nope

gay vote? nope

minority vote? nope

@mandarinestro: I'm talking more on lines of taking something personal, then having an issue with it.

@dbvse7: As far as I know, none of the posters above are gay or a resident of Indiana (I know people on CV who are openly gay). And yet many of them are just as disturbed as a gay person from Indiana would be :P

Again you have expended your time and energy to reply to me. It's okay if you don't reply, really; I don't consider it to be rude ;)

F**king religious fanatics man.

Just yet another reason I'm anti-religion.

Why can't religion die already?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/politics/indiana-religious-freedom-law-2016/index.html

This backlash (against a backlash I might add) seems terribly knee jerk and ill informed. But given all the SJW soap boxing of late it doesn't surprise me. I agree with Rubio and Jeb Bush in that article. This is basically to protect conscience nothing more. Will some exploit it? Sure. Just as some have purposefully chosen vendors who they knew would offer resistence simply to exploit them for political and possibly financial gain.

Back and forth we go.....

Some businesses wont be affected by this at all. Others, like a baker who doesn't wish to provide a cake for a gay wedding, or a nurse who doesn't wish to be involved in abortions, will be protected now from frivolous litigation and liberal progressive smear campaigns.

Freedom is difficult and requires mature negotiations with compromises. In reality no one ever gets everything they want in a disagreement.

Back and forth we go....

It's not surprising to hear people say "it's not my problem".... until they have a problem. then they want others to care about their problems. Like when minorities were screaming "cops are killing us"...... I don't care....not my problem. SMH

This honestly isn't a valid reason to be anti-religion given the opinions, views and acts of a view don't reflect those of many. Just saying.

Very proud of the Indianapolis Mayor's response to this bill though. Especially considering he's Republican.

http://gawker.com/gop-mayor-of-indianapolis-issues-executive-order-protec-1694684520

It would indeed be something to be proud of if he did it out of legitimate conviction. But, I have little doubt that he's doing this because of politics. He's covering his ass because he knows this kind of stuff wont fly in a city like Indianapolis that's more liberal and Democratic than most of the state. With so much heat coming down on his state and his party, this is the thing he has to do to stay alive politically. So, nothing to be so proud of. Just another politician playing politics.

My question is how exactly do they enforce this law?

Are they going to ask every person that comes in to fill out a personal history form to see if their beliefs match up?

Sounds pretty much a "permission to hate" law.

I can not wait for them to try and throw someone out for being homosexual and the person just says "but i am not homosexual." Now what? How do you prove it?

Wouldn't it just be easier to pass a law that has nothing to do with religion and just have it say. "You can throw out anyone you want?"

Oh wait, any private business can do that anyway...

Not really. Businesses in the US cant discriminate based on certain criteria (race, color, religion, etc). Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for more information.

If you really want to support someone who's opposed to this law on moral and ethical grounds rather than cynical and political ones, we have many other places to look.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/tim-cook-leads-tech-sector-opposition-against-discriminatory-indiana-law/

Tim Cook could just keep his mouth shut and no one would say anything. He's the business leader of a large company, and as such getting into controversial political arguments isnt usually a very wise thing to do. Sure, he's gay, but he doesnt have to do or say anything here.

@willpayton: Everything you just said is complete speculation. I will feel proud of whoever the f*** I feel like being proud of. Don't try to mitigate my own feelings. That's absurd. This man, within a day of this awful bill coming into pass, signed an executive order declaring those businesses receiving city funding can't do the sh*t this new law says it can do. So, he LITERALLY did EVERYTHING within his power. Yet, just because he's a Republican, you're gonna chalk it up to "ah, just a dirty politician trying to save his own ass." How about giving credit where credit is due!? And do you seriously think there aren't Conservatives who dislike this new law? Because I've talked with a few myself, so unless you know the mayor of Indianapolis, how about sparing us your bull?

It's people like you that keep this two party system so vitriolic and unmoving. Someone tries to reach across the aisle, you take their hand and say "heh, I know you don't REALLY want to do this, because every one in your party is a homophobe that wouldn't mind ignoring the constitution to further your own agenda. I bet you love this new law, but it'd be career suicide to admit as much, right?" Just don't be surprised when he unclasps his hand from yours and then calls you an a**hole.

I find it interesting how angry you get when someone points out the obvious, that politicians usually do what they do for political reasons.

Ok, you dont want me trying to change your feelings, fine. Then how about you stop being self-righteous and hypocritical and dont tell me what my motivations are. Deal?

And, no, it's not people like "me" who keep the system the way it is. I judge politicians based on their words and actions, based on the facts and not what I hope their motivations are. I'm perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due. But, I'm not going to jump in with praise because of a few words and actions that also just happen to be politically expedient.

But if a fellow Democrat did it, then...? Oh, that's right then we'd get to praise them. Then it's about morality and not about political reasons.

If it's self-righteous to not scoff at someone's efforts and assume they're doing it for their own personal gain, then sure. That's what I am. Not sure where you got "hypocrite" though.

A stubborn mentality is a huge part of the issue in the current political landscape.

OH REALLY!? THEN I'M SURE YOU'VE READ ALL ABOUT GREG BALLARD, RIGHT!? Since, according to you, you only judge politicians "based on their words and actions" and "based on the facts," then maybe you'd like to explain to me what it is about Ballard's history, stances, words, and policies that led you to assuming he isn't doing this because it's wrong and he disagrees with it. Surely there must be something that made you jump come to the conclusion that he's only covering his own ass, and wouldn't disagree with this law otherwise.

No, but you'd just as soon jump in with a hand wave of condemnation.

Whose "fellow Democrat"? Is this your way of implying that I'm a Democrat and therefore I'd look at him differently if he was?

Well, I'm not a Democrat. If he was a Democrat then yes I'd feel the same way. Politicians mostly do things like this for political reasons. Most people seem to understand this.

And how was I being stubborn? I simply said that I think he's saying this for political reasons and you replied with hostility. Seems to me that reacting in such a way to the smallest criticism of your views or of a politician you support is an actual sign of stubbornness. You need to look in the mirror.

I dont need to read all about him because I know that he's a politician and this move will help him politically in a fairly liberal city within a conservative state. Could I be wrong? Sure. He may indeed be doing this purely out of the goodness of his heart. But, I doubt it.

The question is not why do I think he's acting out of political expediency, the real question here is why are you so quick to react with such hostility to what I wrote... which was in no way insulting to you. I merely questioned the motivations of a politician and in return you insult and attack me.

@leonardo_liafador: Not really just this to be honest, it's just one thing upon a pile of many. I dislike even normal religion for it's views on sex, for example. How taboo it's made and how terrible it makes some women feel about their sexuality. Even everyday Christianity does that.

But yeah, you are right. I know plenty of religious people who oppose this law too.

My fellow Democrat. I'm a Democrat.

Mmm-hmm. Sure you would.

Because you're unwilling to change your perspective of the other side of the aisle. You'll only allow them to fit the mold you've created for them.

OF COURSE YOU DON'T

Yet you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you only "judge politicians based on their words and actions, based on the facts". Good grief.

Oh, is that the real question? Is that the real question here? Well would you like a real answer, sweetheart? First off, I think I'll decide what I do and don't find insulting, thanks. Second of all, maybe....just maybe I happened to have a really shi**y night. And maybe, just maybe I saw something in the news that genuinely lifted my spirits and gave me a sense of pride. And maybe, just maybe I came on here and tried to share what I saw, and only received a "lol he's just a dirt politician trying to cover his own ass. You shouldn't feel proud of him, here's someone who you should feel proud of" in response.

But, nah. You go on ahead and play the victim. I'm just the crotchety over-reactionary prick who "attacked" you, after all.

Discrimination should be legal based on whatever the property owner wants.

1) Businesses are private property. Property rights need to be protected, or else you'll end up in a third world country very quickly (Which is what is currently happening in the West due to property rights being trampled all over).

2) The use of force outside of self defense is by definition immoral. Stopping discrimination is not self defense. So discrimination must be stopped through means that don't involve violence.

3) Anyone who does discriminate will be boycotted and blacklisted. So virtually no business would discriminate, and those who do would be severely punished or put out of business. So why do we need to involve the government at all?

K... How would they even determine if customers are gay?

There are limits to what you can do on your property. You cant murder someone just because it's on your property. Likewise there are limits to what you can do with your business, since as a society we agree that businesses can be regulated. So, you have to follow health and safety regulations, human rights regulations, etc, even if it's on your business. If you dont like that, you can go somewhere without laws and live like a hermit. Or maybe a theocracy like Iran is more to your liking. But here we have laws. And no, you cant just be exempt from the laws because or your personal beliefs. If that were the case then we'd have anarchy and laws would be meaningless.

@kuonphobos said:

This is literally the dumbest political cartoon I've seen in my life. . . . . .unless this is satire.

Unless a gay man carries himself to be pretty masculine, it's pretty easy to tell. There are a lot of gay men that are feminine.