It does not make sense. So they put an exception for the LGBT community. What is the law then supoosed to be directed at? What are other situations where the religion forbids something and the the state forces you to do that against your wishes. Can a Catholic doctor refuse to treat a single unmarried pregnant woman? How about a Hindu refusing to serve anyone who eats beef? How about if I start a new religion that considers all Republicans to be sinners. Would I be able to refuse to serve them? How about if you worship the Satan, can you discriminate against those believe in God? And so on.
So⌠Bosma is lying.
âMost importantly, the change in this will hopefully put an end to this
greatest misperception of all, and that is that the people of Indiana
discriminate, because I can tell you honestly, nothing could be further
from the truth.â
Seriously? Just since this law was past there have already been several Indiana businesses who have openly said they WOULD discriminate. Nice try. Fail. With this law, and the businesses admissions that they would discriminate, I think we are getting a true picture of what âHoosier hospitalityâ really means.
I actually do wonder why so many big businesses have been relatively progressive in this field⌠is it because they value talent regardless of the source or because they are worried that talent will refuse to work there if it is viewed as a discriminatory workplace? I mean, I have worked with a number of fortune 500 companies and NONE of them have been efficiently run, but they do seem to have stumbled upon the correct way of handling gay rights issues. I am just kind of baffled by it.
Not sure âradicalâ conservatives will get âitâ but itâs clear that Pence and the GOP leadership did.
I watched the news conference/roll out. Theyâre still saying that they never intended to facilitate discrimination. They need to be called out on that and repeal should be pushed.
Bloomington City Council called for repeal yesterday:
http://www.styrk.com/posts/bloomington-city-council-calls-for-repeal-of-rfra
I can almost guarantee that, once we see the proposed change to the legislation, the law will contiunue to be problematic. Do we (mockening stated) âhonestlyâ believe these legislators suddenly have had a change of heart? They will do as little as is necessary to âfixâ the law and then claim victory once the dust settles.
They didnât have a change of heart at all. The Indiana business community TOLD them to make changes so they did.
This said the changes are significant but repeal is better. My city (Bloomington) council endorsed repeal yesterday:
http://www.styrk.com/posts/bloomington-city-council-calls-for-repeal-of-rfra
1 Like
These men DID NOT write the law - Scott Schneider did. He is a far-right wingnut whose legislative agenda is framed by his ideology. There is little doubt that the RFRA bill was ârevengeâ for the failure of an anti-same-sex marriage statute passed a year ago & found wanting by a federal district court. However, Long & Bosma are deluding themselves & all listening when they assert that the perception of discrimination was the motivating force, rather than the certainty of it. Sometimes, we have to swallow hard to accept an explanation for political action, even though the realities are far different
ââŚthe people of Indiana discriminate, because I can tell you honestly, nothing could be further from the truthâŚâ
We donât discriminate, we just refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, skin color, or religious affiliation. Get it right, people!
1 Like
âBosma said that the changes make a âstrong statement to assure that every Hoosierâs rights are protected, and wonât be infringed uponâ by the new law unless he feels like it.â
All so-called âReligious Freedomâ laws should limit protection to those business who post public signs clearly stating who they refuse to served on âdeeply held religious viewsâ.
Then the market can sort out what business people want to patronize, and people donât find out minutes before their wedding they donât have a photographer, a cake, pizzas, etc.
Here is an example,
Based Upon Deeply Held Religious Views this Business Refuses to Serve the Following:
xxxxxx
No sign, no legal protection.
1 Like
Most news outlets have posted the actual Amendment. TPM does not have enough staff to be THAT quick about it, give them a break.
The changes have been posted, and they are very clear that discrimination of any kind (even religious) is not allowed. The Amendment is very specific.
Actually under this Amendment (if it passes) those pizza people have admitted they would break the Law. Now you canât prosecute them for saying that, but if they act on it they can be prosecuted.
Read the Amendment, they did not only make exceptions for the LGBT community, they covered literally every form of discrimination, including religious, gender, race, etc. For some reason this article only addresses LGBT discrimination, when actually ANY form or discrimination should not be tolerated.
No, the Amendment covers ANY kind of discrimination, including religious.
One reporter asked the lawmakers what they were going to do to celebrate this great victory for their state, and they replied that theyâd be heading to Memories Pizza.
1 Like
Does anyone have a link to the changes? I havenât found it.
Itâs so interesting to see an article where Indiana lawmakers claim that Indianans donât discriminate right next to an article that shows an Indiana business proudly discriminating.
1 Like
Yes, repeal IS better. But it is encouraging that the public outcry is having an effect. Baby steps . . .
Got it, sorta! Indy Star:
You gotta scroll down to see some of the text; it was tweeted by sports reporter Mark Alesia. Havenât checked it yet, but this sounds encouraging: Advance America (aka Bigots Inc) are denouncing the changes.