Discussion: Angie's List: 'Fix' To Indiana Religious Freedom Law 'Insufficient'

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #234963

2

Whoa…You go grrrrl!

6 Likes
3

Uhhh…they aren’t interested in making any fix ‘sufficient.’ They just want the sportscasters to get back to talking about basketball.

15 Likes
4

Maybe the law is insufficient, but it seems to me that the proposed amendment leaves things in a better state now than they were before the original discriminatory law was passed because it explicitly states that “sexual orientation” cannot be an excuse for denying services to someone. Before now, I don’t think there was any mention of sexual orientation in Indiana law – or anywhere in the laws of most other conservative states. I do agree that firing of employees due to their sexual orientation and gender identity needs to be banned as well everywhere in the country, but hiring and firing wasn’t really the issue with this RFRA.

3 Likes
5
  1. It’s not Angie making these statements, it’s the CEO Bill Oesterle.
  2. Bill Oesterle is a huge supporter of Rush Limbaugh, this is just a tad hypocritical seeing as Rush has a huge anti gay bias himself.
  3. Angies List also supports Mark Levins radio show, so again, just a tad hypocritical.

Good for Angies List for opposing the RFRA law, but let’s not make them out to be the angels that they are most definitely not.

7 Likes
6

Oy, thanks for casting me as a bad guy lightweight to make yourself seem thoughtful. Give my best to Aunt Jemima, Mr. Clean, Uncle Ben and the Pillsbury Doughboy…

1 Like
7

Dear Indiana Republicans,
Tough to unring a bell, isn’t it!

1 Like
8

I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion. The idea was to use the RFRA as a wedge to open up state protection for other more pervasive actions, among which hiring and firing would be central.

Did you really think the goals for RFRA were all about baking cakes and pies for gay weddings?

3 Likes
9

That was the intent, but it backfired. For the first time ever, an Indiana law would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. You may want to vies this as a glass-half-empty sort of thing, but the glass was COMPLETELY empty before now.

1 Like
10

When you’re giving a shout out to a woman who has nothing to with the statements made by Angies lists CEO and are corrected, that somehow makes me the bad guy? Angie Hicks only owns 1.8% of the company and is basically just the spokesperson for the company. And yet you’re congratulating her for statements and policies that Bill Oesterle has made. I guess facts in your world are optional.

11

You seem to, yes.

12

You know, if they would’ve gone with the tame version in the first place they could’ve gotten half a loaf but Pence and crew went whole hog so now its full repeal because the half-assed fix isn’t going to sell everyone.

Indiana either has to be seen as all inclusive or they aren’t. The possibility of discrimination because of vague laws will scare many away.

I previously didn’t have much of an opinion regarding Indiana now I think very badly about the state. It is their job to change that, not mine.

2 Likes
13

The who exactly were you were congratulating with “Whoa…You go grrrrl!”?

14

Don’t you read your own posts?

15

Maybe the law is insufficient, but it seems to me that the proposed amendment leaves things in a better state now than they were before the original discriminatory law was passed because it explicitly states that “sexual orientation” cannot be an excuse for denying services to someone.

Well no, it says that the RFRA law can’t be used as a defense for discrimination, and includes sexual orientation among the classes. But since orientation isn’t included in the broader antidiscrimination law, it’s still legal to deny services simply because you hate fags.

It’s possible that they are sincere about including gays in the antidiscrimination law next session and are putting that one off because they know it will be a contentious debate, but are pre-wording this law in anticipation. I wouldn’t trust them in the least, but it’s possible.

16

How about we start a push to lift tax-exempt status on ALL churches?

1 Like
17

The proposed fix is sufficient in the sense that it puts Indiana back to where it was with regards to discrimination based on sexual orientation, namely it’s legal to discriminate except in local jurisdictions that have passed anti-discrimination ordinances. But it is insufficient in the sense that this isn’t a good place to be.

On the other hand it’s where a lot of states are and I personally wish that people who are beating up on Indiana would take a look at their own state and consider beating up on that if their state is in that categoroy. See https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map to find out

18

whatithink’s original comment doesn’t even refer to you. It provided background detail that you, likely, didn’t know about. I certainly didn’t know any of that and am happy to know it.

You should just say “thank you”.

19

Do you read yours? What “grrrrrl” were you congratulating?

20

I bet they end up with total repeal. Money talks, BS walks.