As an aside, while I live in Indiana, I was born and raised in Wisconsin.
Atheists Now Have Safe Haven in Madison, WI]
Maybe its time to move back.
LGBT Protections Included In Fix For Indiana’s ‘Religious Freedom’ Law]
The Republicans caved in to reason. Apparently there is a poll that says 57% of Americans favor “religious people” using their religion as a defense, but I believe that poll was from January or February (before the current firestorm). I wonder if the results would be different today.
Has it occurred to anyone here that terrorists who are caught with bomb-making equipment and other evidence of terroristic plans, under the Indiana “Freedom of Religion” Act, could plead that they acted on their religious beliefs and are therefore not guilty of terrorism? If you think it would not apply, please explain why that would be an exception and what language in the law would create such an exception.
It could also be a defense of a Muslim man were caught stoning women or killing a daughter for refusing to get married in an arranged marriage or who just ran away from an abusive family.
Lois
Has it occurred to anyone ...As in "Did they think this through before they did it?" I think not. Oops: Indiana RFRA Could Allow Wiccans To Get Freaky On State Capitol Steps] Come to Indiana for a religious free-for-all!!! :ahhh:
Has it occurred to anyone here that terrorists who are caught with bomb-making equipment and other evidence of terroristic plans, under the Indiana "Freedom of Religion" Act, could plead that they acted on their religious beliefs and are therefore not guilty of terrorism? If you think it would not apply, please explain why that would be an exception and what language in the law would create such an exception. It could also be a defense of a Muslim man were caught stoning women or killing a daughter for refusing to get married in an arranged marriage or who just ran away from an abusive family. LoisBetter to worry about what actually does take place. Hypothetical slippery slop scenarios to the umpteenth degree are pointless to discuss unless they actually occur. What "is" happening would be a much more reasoned and fact based approach to the discussion. A meteor the size of the moon "could" hit the earth and wipe us all out, but basing all our plans on the remote possibility of it happening is probably wasted time.
I know. But I'd give the good guys a chance to get out before erecting the fence. After all the "conservatives" shoot each other, the good Indianans can have the state back and make it a beautiful place once again. ;) LoisHis response was simply to claim that Indiana is the victim of intolerance ( I assume because they are catching a lot of flack for legalizing intolerance) and that the law simply protects religious libertyI did not see it but I read about it. This is a joke (not the funny kind). The Indiana Republicans have since said that they were confused and surprised that ANYBODY took the bill for anything other than a statement of freedom for all religions (which makes them liars or stupid or both because a number of groups and businesses brought it up before it was approved in both houses). Now they are talking about amending it in order to make its purpose clearer. When asked if this meant it would clearly state that discrimination against gays would not be allowed, as other states have done, Pence said it was "not on his agenda". In other words, no, it will not disallow discrimination against gays, because that was the purpose of the bill in the first place.I keep wondering if the US could just remove Indiana as one of the United States (and a couple of other states), let them have their “independence", cut off all Federal money, and build a fence around it.Lois! I live in Indiana. Please don't lock me in! We're not all Indiana Republicans.
.. the good Indianans can have the state back and make it a beautiful place once againI Live in Indiana But I am from Wisconsin My wife saw someone wearing a T-Shirt that said that and thought that perhaps we should each get one. We're both originally from Wisconsin. I don't know a lot of "good" (aka non Social Conservative) Indianans (aka Hoosiers, aka Rednecks) to whom the state can be given back. I will stay here for the time being. Kind of like being on the front lines. There ARE Atheists among us here.
I live in Illinois but occasionally travel to Indianapolis. The religious billboards of "hell is real" etc. make it clear you have crossed the stateline. You are in the battle zone. A ground zero of sorts... the good Indianans can have the state back and make it a beautiful place once againI Live in Indiana But I am from Wisconsin My wife saw someone wearing a T-Shirt that said that and thought that perhaps we should each get one. We're both originally from Wisconsin. I don't know a lot of "good" (aka non Social Conservative) Indianans (aka Hoosiers, aka Rednecks) to whom the state can be given back. I will stay here for the time being. Kind of like being on the front lines. There ARE Atheists among us here.
I know I am late in weighing in on this, but my issue is with the notion that florists, bakers and other providers of services, supplies, or commodities hold the grandiose idea that they are “participating” in a wedding celebration or “making the wedding happen.” The provider of goods such as food is not an officiant who is making the marriage official, legal or putting on a stamp of approval. No offense to bakers or florists, but the bottom line is that they are actually far removed from the process…couldn’t a gay couple just omit the fact that it is two same sex people getting married and just have one person go request and pay for the services and then have the florist come to the site, decorate with the flowers and then leave? The details of the wedding and who is involved is none of their business actually. By this logic, if a person goes into a bridal shop to purchase wedding clothes, the salesman could question the person about their marriage and then deny the sale. If sales people (whether it’s a florist, baker or whomever believes this, they are misguided about their actual role in the whole process.
No offense to bakers or florists, but the bottom line is that they are actually far removed from the process...couldn't a gay couple just omit the fact that it is two same sex people getting married and just have one person go request and pay for the services and then have the florist come to the site, decorate with the flowers and then leave? The details of the wedding and who is involved is none of their business actually.These really are core questions that I wish everyone who is for this kind of legislation would address. I've tried to ask my fundie friends and they try to keep it to people having the right to run their business as they please. First question, how does the business owner determine who is acceptable? If they are a well dressed couple who talk about their church, what are they judging? They are judging what they do in their bedroom. If the couple is heterosexual, should they be asking how they have sex? Because I'm sure a lot of heterosexual Christians break several laws of Leviticus on a weekly basis. They issue of "forcing" someone to go against their beliefs pretty weird. You're baking a cake. Now, taking the example of the photographer, I could see how someone who just can't get past their prejudice would be very uncomfortable doing the work, which would mean being around a lot of gay people for a few hours. But there is nothing illegal about that person telling a potential customer that they would be uncomfortable. It's then a decision for all to enter into that business relationship or not. I think it would be very rare for someone to threaten to sue a photographer for refusing in circumstances like that. If the photographer was smart, he'd just be sure to get some other work on that day and say he is not available.
I suppose you could accuse me here of reductio ad absurdum, but just try to imagine a world where all business owners were given the freedom to run their business “as they saw fit”. If this were the case then a mechanic could refuse to fix the car of an interracial couple because they were on their honeymoon and he didn’t agree with interracial marriages, a jewish baker could refuse to sell bagels to a muslim, A catholic physician could refuse care to woman who had previously had an abortion, and an evangelical restaurant owner could refuse to serve anyone who didn’t present a church flyer at the door leaving atheists out in the cold.
The world could become a very complex place. You would need a spread sheet to keep track of the businesses that you could and couldn’t patronize in your area based on your sex, age, race or religion. More importantly it would send a message that we as a society value the right to discriminate against unpopular groups above all else.
While my scenario may indeed be a display of reductio ad absurdum the fact is that for those who are members of the discriminated classes there is nothing absurd about this at all. It would be a fact of life.
The religious right is going to continue for years trying to carve out further privilege in our laws than they already have. And, every time they don’t get what they want they will cry persecution and rile up the base to try to further their agenda. Just as their policy on freedom of choice for women, they will continue a “death by a thousand cuts” approach for decades until their numbers fall off because they are a dying breed. Let’s just hope that a growing “unaffiliated to any religion” trend keeps growing in numbers and momentum.