You know he is bought and paid for by the Koch bothers … he is their golden boy. Looks like his gold is now tarnished. Sad day for Indiana when he was elected!
4 Likes
That was my thought, too. Half the reason we have gay marriage in so many states now is the ridiculous overreach the fundies did on outroght bans of it.
3 Likes
I saw it.
It was worse than I had imagined.
4 Likes
granfalloon – a false karass; i.e., a group of people who imagine they have a connection that does not really exist. An example is “Hoosiers”; Hoosiers are people from Indiana, and Hoosiers have no true spiritual destiny in common, so they really share little more than a name. Another example is a Cornellian, a student or graduate of Cornell University.
3 Likes
fix it by repealing it.
1 Like
You can read how Clinton was boxed in on DOMA at the link.
As for Glass-Steagall, it didn’t matter if Clinton signed the repeal bill into law or not. It came with veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate and would be law without his signature a few weeks later on a re-vote. The real problem was three Republicans: Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), who were the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that killed the power in the Glass-Steagall bill.
!!!PENCE FOR PRESIDENT!!!..???
what? no takers?
1 Like
Is it just me, or does anyone else think Mike Pence would be a natural in a wax museum?
1 Like
Loved Pence this morning. In so many words: “We were just making sure the poor persecuted Christians in Indiana can live free! We can’t believe that people misunderstood us so badly!” ~ derp! derp! derp!~
Oh…no one misunderstood you Pence…and THERE’S your problem.
And now, with their teats firmly in the ringer, the tactic of both him, his Republican ilk, and the Bagger & Con Righties supporting the “Religious FreeDUMB” bill is so FOXworthy’ in it blinding obviousness and predictability: Make hateful and depraved discrimination absolutely legal in your state. When it blows up in your face, accuse everyone else of being hateful bigots for discriminating against you!
Hey Guv’! How’s that workin’ for you?
7 Likes
Can’t someone who is GAY sue someone who refuses them service by claiming THEIR RELIGION allows that they BE GAY (say, a Wiccan, or an ordained Gay Presbyterian Minister) and now THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS have been trampled on?
(down the rabbit-hole we go…)
That would be an interesting case.
3 Likes
The ugly head of the repub state congress just said the law was in 30 states and based on the HOBBY LOBBY decision of the roberts court…RBG was correct…they, roberts conservative males, OPENED THE GATES OF HELL
Boycott Indiana and call the robert court activist males and thank them for the most recent atrocity and taking of Liberty from the USA.
1.202.479.3211 or 1.202 479.3000!
3 Likes
Actually while the “it mirrors Federal law” talking point is b.s. - yet blithely repeated by the Morning Joe crew this morning until Gov. Malloy of Connecticut set them straight - there is a need for state versions of the original RFRA, because the Federal law only gave protection for religious ceremonies and practices against Federal prosecution. Curious, if religious freedom was such a big deal in Indiana, that they took 20+ years to do something about it…
3 Likes
The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 [1997]). If states want to have RFRAs, each state must pass its own.
You would do well to read the Wikipedia article on this since it is quite informative and you seem to be somewhat confused about what the federal RFRA is and how it came about. And if you want to lay the blame on Clinton for signing it,then you don’t understand the concept of the veto-proof majority.
1 Like
If only George Stephanopoulos would have asked Gov Pence why he wants to mimic Bill Clinton and President Obama, we might have gotten an interesting answer.
6 Likes
I have a few questions: Where were the scolds at the Indianapolis Star when this law disastrous was being debated? And this is a more general question, if a business owner can cite their sincerely held religious belief to refuse service to LGBT people, what’s to stop a business owner from doing the same to refuse service to African Americans, people with physical or mental disability, or, for that matter, people with red hair and green eyes?
5 Likes
He sounds just like Tom Corbett here in PA with the voter ID bill. Couldn’t explain his way out of a paper bag with a straight edged knife. You signed it asshole and you can’t explain it? Right. Well, lucky for us, PA found someone better for the job when it came time for renewing his contract.
6 Likes
The ‘Star’ should realize Indiana’s ‘leaders’ require a fig leaf larger than God can provide…the ‘law’ is junk, winger boilerplate, and should be tossed along with passé Pence.
4 Likes
This is just backlash against marriage equality. I expect more to come from other intolerant states. The governor is a terrible liar.
2 Likes
Repeal this law NOW, in all states that passed similar laws, including the feds 20 year old stupid religious freedom law.
Division of church and state must be absolute!!!
What Makes Indiana’s Religious-Freedom Law Different?
The new statute’s defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality.
First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
3 Likes