That’s what is known as a low class CYA (cover your ass) move. Pence blamed " internet conspiracies", yesterday, and “the media.”
6 Likes
Yesterday Pence made a laughing stock of Indiana and killed any chance he has of holding a higher office. If he doesn’t correct this blunder, he’ll be a one term governor.
4 Likes
It’s just so gross when gays grope and make-out at the bridal cake shop.
There’s a morality tale (I went to a Catholic elementary school) that tells of a pillow fight where all the feathers from the pillows were all over the room. The participants in the fun then regretted it. To their dismay, they discovered that you can’t really put all those feathers back in the pillows. I think this applies to Pence: all those feathers aren’t going back into your pillow, dude. You made the mess, you live with the consequences.
7 Likes
No need to clarify. Either repeal it or suffer the consequences!
5 Likes
Just go away, republi-tard!
It’s gross when anybody does it, gay or hetero. People need to grow up. And I’m not talking about simple kissing, I’m talking serious groping, etc. Nobody wants to see that shit, it’s sophomoric stupidity to show off how you can grab your mates ass and massage it in public. Oh, it should not be illegal, but a biz owner has a right to tell people to leave if they act as such. A night club owner might definitely allow that, a restaurant owner might not. No problem either way. Same with being too loud, annoying other patrons, etc. The customer is not always right. If the customer is acting like an ass, the customer is not right.
3 Likes
Clarify? Shouldn’t laws passed by lawmakers already be clear before they’re signed into law? What bullshit. Their trouble is that folks understand this law all too well, and they can’t escape having legislated discrimination.
And “small tribe” of people who say its discrimination? It was more like a “small cult of bible-thumpers” that passed this crap in the first place.
11 Likes
Shouldn’t that headline read Indiana’s Top Bigot Lawmaker’s?
1 Like
Really? Hoist by their own petards. (Pssst, we do understand English and have known all along when Repubs lie.)
2 Likes
As dense as you repukes?
The amendment narrowly passed, so the GOP tabled the entire thing.
And Erik, son of Erik promptly declared the two Republicans who voted for both the bill and the amendment as “traitors”.
The interesting thing is that Indiana, Georgia, and most of these states it’s still perfectly legal to discriminate against gays already, because their nondiscrimination statutes don’t cover sexual orientation. The real object of these laws is (in addition to looking good to the crazy base nationwide) is not just to allow discrimination in public accomodations, but to allow representatives of the government itself, like county clerks or other marriage officiants, to cause problems for couples wanting to marry.
2 Likes
Lolz. “It sets a standard of review for the court.” Bullshit. It sets a standard of review so low that any claim of religious sanction for discriminatory behavior is sufficient to prevent action by the state.
Clarify why we need religious anything clarified into law. Religion got its carve outs in the constitution and they are clear, concise and to the point.
One of the mainstays is, do not combine church and state. A religious law by definition goes against the constitution and has no place in our government.
All men are created equal, this is self evident. And, they are endowed with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the trilogy for the ages.
Slavery was ended in big part due to this declaration. There is no just argument against all men being created equal and if that argument is being made by a religious group, then it needs to stay in the church and out of government. Before we get around to the discriminatory nature of this law, we have to get past the constitutionality of it.
5 Likes
Indiana’s Top Lawmakers Looking To Clarify Religious Freedom Law
Clarification:
Sorry! We f^cked up. We’ll rescind it.
Other than that clarification?
Don’t bother.
jw1
1 Like
Any time you have to explain your bigotry… it’s generally not a good sign.
3 Likes
Hmmm. Wonder how TPM missed this…
WATCH: Indiana GOP leader admits ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign would be legal in most of the state
-snip-
But during the press conference, a reporter noted that Indiana does not have a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
“You guys have said repeatedly that we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anyone, but if you just ignore the existence of this law, can’t we already do that now? Can’t so-and-so in Richmond put a sign up and say ‘No Gays Allowed?’” she asked. “That’s not against the law, correct?”
“It would depend,” Bosma replied. “If you were in a community that had a human rights ordinance that wouldn’t be the case.”
“But most of the state does not have that, correct?” the reporter pressed.
“That’s correct,” Bosma admitted.
It needs clarification because you know it’s so difficult to know who Jesus would hate.
3 Likes
stressed that they hadn’t anticipated the backlash
Is this a clarification of the discrimination enacted by the law, a clarification of the legislators unanticipated electoral demise or a clarification of Indiana’s involvement with a secret, religion-wrapped anti-homosexual cabal?
Carmelites and Franciscans…St. Theresa of the Little Flower and St. Francis would be so not proud.
(I’m guessing the man in the black fedora could be a rabbi?)
3 Likes
Actually, it is quite the opposite, but has the same effect. They have set a standard of proof so high – strict scrutiny – it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to overcome. What the law does is, essentially, is give business owners with religious beliefs the status of as a “suspect class.” That classification is generally reserved for folks who have been subjected historically to discrimination, share an immutable characteristic leading to the discrimination, whose characteristic doesn’t prevent the group from contributing to society and are generally powerless in the political arena.
Yes, religious groups can claim strict scrutiny as a suspect class, but only in cases in which they are being discriminated against not exerting discrimination against someone else. And, since when has the sale of a cake or a floral arrangement suddenly become an exercise of a religion or a religious ceremony? It’s a cake being sold. That’s it - a business transaction.
3 Likes