12767747, RE: it's an anti-gay temper tantrum that is ultimately meaningless Posted by murph71, Tue Mar-31-15 09:42 AM
>but exposes the State of Indiana as a bigoted bully (if >corporations are persons w/religious beliefs then a state >government can be an illogical bigot and an unreasonable >bully). > > >>DEFENSE >> >>Social conservatives say that the law would stop the >>government from compelling people to do things they object >to >>on religious grounds, like catering or providing flowers for >a >>gay wedding. > >this is stupid b/c private businesses like florists and >caterers already had the 'right' to deny service to any >customer for any reason. certain private businesses that >provide public accomodations are prohibited from >discriminating against customers from certain protected >classes like racial minorities. in Indiana gays are not a >protected class under the state's anti-discrimination statute. > so as far as i know a florist could deny providing service >for a gay wedding already w/o this law. > >>< Article Excerpt "In any event, most religious freedom[br />>>claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or >>discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide >>valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to >balance >>religious freedom against competing interests under the same >>legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It >is >>anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not >be >>mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.] > >duh. the US Constitution already handled that. > >let's be for real - the law was passed b/c some anti-gays went >to the state legislature whining and crying and the >legislature handed them this pacifier to assuage their hurt >feewings b/c the gays can get marriage licenses and waaaah >waaaah waaaaah. > >it's stupid. > >and now the state has shot itself in the foot and created all >of this drama for no good reason, really. but maybe it won't >end up hurting the bottom line - $. a few entities have made >some noise about leaving or refusing to do future biz in the >state due to this statute. maybe that storm will pass and >things will be just fine for Indiana w/this statute on the >books.
^^^^End post^^^^^
|