“What is important from an Arkansas standpoint is one, we get the right balance,” he said, “and secondly, we make sure that we communicate we’re not going to be a state that fails to recognize the diversity of our workplace, our economy and our future.”...Meanwhile, in Indiana, under time pressure from — of all things — basketball, the state legislature is working on amending the language in its RFRA.
Several businesses and tech companies, including the state’s largest employer, Walmart, as well as the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Municipal League and other civic groups have spoken out against the legislation.
April 1, 2015
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson sent the RFRA bill back to the legislature to be amended to look just like the longstanding federal RFRA.
"This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial. But these are not ordinary times," he said. He wants Arkansas to be known as "a place of tolerance."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
132 comments:
Oddly the UW isn't boycotting travel to Indiana.
This morning Limbaugh said that he's been subject to media pile-ons like Indiana is getting for its RFRA. He said that, in his case anyhow, that he has investigated how the Left is able to mount a media firestorm so quickly, and that it can be traced to multiple press releases and twitter feeds that originate with less than a dozen people, e.g., these 12 people are able to drive stories in the American media and on the web. Limbaugh did not say who these people were, though mentioned that one was a college professor and that Media Matters was involved.
Limbaugh might be lying. If what he said was true, it is a conspiracy that deserves a massive media investigation and expose of its own.
What a triumph this story has been, for the liberal media. A triumph, that is, over clear and sober legal thinking.
Funny how the one guy who is quite likely the foremost legal expert on RFRA laws at the state and federal levels -- Doug Laycock of Virginia (and formerly Michigan, until his wife was named Chancellor at U Va) -- has hardly been heard from, despite his own strident advocacy that RFRA laws are virtually all reasonable and proper.
I love a lynch mob because I know if I keep my head down one day I will get to be a part of one.
The horror of our current place in time is that things are worse for blacks than before the Civil War and worse for LGBTs before there wan an acronym. Before even gay marriage. It is surpassingly odd that this has come to pass but then we are where we are.
It is getting worse and worse for blacks and LGBTs. Approaching impossible to deal with, approaching the need for some even more drastic action(s).
Dennis Prager asked these questions today (largely in response to statements from Walmart and Apple).
Should a Catholic Priest who refuses to perform a gay marriage be put in jail? Yes or no?
Same question for a Catholic non-priest. Yes or no.
What this controversy has most highlighted is the absolute bullshit all this talk about "having a conversation" is. This would have been a perfect case to talk about how people with reasonable, but different, viewpoints could properly and equitably balance their interests in a way that is least likely to injure the other. Has it been handled that way by the left? As Prager noted, the right cannot even explain what they are doing even though they have a strong and equitable argument, a civil rights argument actually.
Oops, make that a Catholic non-priest who refuses to participate in a gay marriage event.
All this religious liberty shit is allowing the Amish to ignore the fucking traffic laws. As loud as I honk they persist in going below the minimum speed limit.
Plus they won't listen to 2Chainz.
Get behind an Amish in his fucking buggy and I will kiss your ass on Court Square if you see him give a hand signal.
They don't need an amendment, what they need to do is grow a frakking spine.
a Catholic non-priest who refuses to participate in a gay marriage event.
What is a Catholic non-priest? Just a person who attends a Catholic Church?
Gay marriage event is also a strange verbal concoction.
I don't see how a Catholic Priest can be jailed for not performing a gay marriage, as the Catholic Church doesn't recognize the sanctity of that union. It's not like a Marriage Sacrament (Catholic) can be performed in a Catholic Church.
Or are you saying Catholic Priests are about to be forced to perform non-Catholic marriage sacraments.
I doubt that'll happen. Ever.
It's not like a Marriage Sacrament (Catholic) can be performed in a Catholic Church.
Yeesh.
What I think I meant to write:
It's not like a Marriage Sacrament (non-Catholic) can be performed in a Catholic Church with a Catholic Priest doing it. I think.
A non-Catholic Priest can perform a ceremony (non-Catholic) in a Catholic Church -- I've been to one -- but there's been a Catholic Priest there too, in my experience.
I doubt that'll happen. Ever.
Interesting word there - "doubt."
It does not mean "it will never happen," but instead necessarily leaves open the possibility of it happening.
"Just a person who attends a Catholic Church?"
If I attended a Catholic church, MadisonMan, would that make me a Catholic?
You Lefties really do believe that belonging to a religion is like belonging to the Rotary, don't you?
Terry, I asked Tank a simple question.
What is a Catholic non-Priest?
Just seeking clarification because his wording confused me. That Catholics attend Catholic Church does not mean that all Catholic Church attendees are Catholic.
It seems to me that a law the recognizes or tries to incorporate the principle that free people have the right to decide who they do and do not want to associate with and should not have to fear punishment by the State or civil litigation for exercising that right has already “struck the right balance.”
If you don’t want to serve people at your business, you shouldn’t have to.
If you don’t want to do business with people because you don’t like their policies on who they’ll do business with, you shouldn’t have to.
It’s only an issue if you want to be able to force others to conform to your beliefs.
Gov. Spence says he believes the Indiana law is perfectly reasonable and unobjectionable, but still caves in to this manufactured tempest in a teapot.
So how would he do as president?
I think he just kissed that idea goodbye.
Amend? If you can call it that. It will simply we rewritten as "RFRA for Dummies" so the libtards can't distort it.
Tank said...
"Should a Catholic Priest who refuses to perform a gay marriage be put in jail? Yes or no?"
Or think about a Catholic religious order, failing as they are apt to do these days, that puts one of their buildings on the market. And suppose that their board of trustees is required by state law to accept the highest bid, which turns out to be from Planned Parenthood, which intends to use the building as one of their abattoirs. Are you really ready to say that the sisters must sell it to Planned Parenthood? (We are assuming arguendo, of course, that said religious order is Catholic.)
Micheal: I love a lynch mob because I know if I keep my head down one day I will get to be a part of one.
Same. I've decided that gays are Nazis. And no one has sympathy for whatever is done to Nazis.
Goose. Good. Gander.
If you can be run out of business for not cheering gay marriage, you can be run out of business for not condemning gay marriage.
Its going to be a fun decade.
Madison Man:
I think you will be disappointed to see that Catholic Churches will be compelled to perform marriages between same sex couples. Or lose their tax status.
Only a matter of time.
The left has won the war. Religion will all but disappear shortly above ground. There will be the hold-outs who will be increasingly mocked and marginalized and the children of those adherents will abandon the faiths of their parents in order to make even a little headway in the world. They will be saying fuckshitpussy and listening to 2Chainz and having abortions: joining the crowd.
The left will triumph then for a brief time. Until the true believers, the ones who believe so strongly they will chop your head off if you disagree, triumph.
I wonder if some of the Tempest is big businesses trying to hamstring small competitors. "Stick with Walmart--that Mom and Pop store might secretly hate gays."
Really, it comes down to this: If you have been employed in the past, does anyone who requires your services have the right to force you to work for them, as long as they pay a wage?
I'm an independent contractor. I turn down clients all the time, for reasons ranging from "They seem high maintenance" to "Their work is outside of my specialty."
Why should I get to turn down anyone I want while a photographer must serve all comers? How does that even make sense?
And how can a court tell the difference between 'I refused this person because they were in a protected class' and 'I refused this person because they seemed high maintenance and their project was boring?
Interesting word there - "doubt."
It does not mean "it will never happen," but instead necessarily leaves open the possibility of it happening.
I seem to recall various supporters of SSM saying that DOMA was “unnecessary” because the courts would not try to use the fact that some States had adopted SSM to impose it on other States.
I think that people who say that we don’t need have laws protecting the rights of individuals to refuse to provide services that are contrary to their religious beliefs are being just as truthful as the people who opposed DOMA on the grounds that it was “unnecessary.”
Chuck mentioned Douglas Laycock. It might be that he is keeping silent on this issue deliberately:
http://overlawyered.com/2014/05/student-activists-hit-prof-douglas-laycock-foia/
The Left has gotten quite good at intimidating its adversaries in silence.
Conn. Gov Malloy announces that Connecticut will boycott Indiana notwithstanding the fact that Connecticut's RFRA statute is broader and stronger than Indiana's. ��
And how can a court tell the difference between 'I refused this person because they were in a protected class' and 'I refused this person because they seemed high maintenance and their project was boring?
I suppose it depends on how you turn the person down.
Previous engagement that day, sorry. A polite refusal that covers all the bases. I'm sorry, that's the week I'll be on vacation next year
How can a person be compelled to work if they have a valid vague excuse?
If I were a (successful) businessman, I don't think any one of my clients/customers would know my true feelings on many things.
So what was the key part of the Indiana law that made it so much worse than the federal law?
I never thought the federal law could actually enable anti-gay discrimination (if of course anti-gay discrimination were outlawed by the jurisdiction in question). But this does reflect a major change in attitude, where even in very Republican states they're pulling back at laws like this because they can be perceived as enabling anti-gay discrimination.
I think you will be disappointed to see that Catholic Churches will be compelled to perform marriages between same sex couples. Or lose their tax status.
Only a matter of time.
I see. So you're forecasting an Amendment to the US and Wisconsin Constitutions.
You Lefties really do believe that belonging to a religion is like belonging to the Rotary, don't you?
LOL!
No amendment needed, Madison Man, a re-interpretation is all it takes.
Just like Justice Black turned the Establishment Clause on its head; it's not that hard if you have the ego and the marketing skills.
This has been all over my facebook page. Rally's, folk art, etc. I will be happy when it goes away.
If nothing else, this truly is what democracy looks like.
Chaplains are already running into problems like that.
Which was widely predicted, and the libtards promised us it wouldn't happen.
MadisonMan: I see. So you're forecasting an Amendment to the US and Wisconsin Constitutions.
Back in the 20s, apparently, the federal government couldn't prohibit alcohol without amending the constitution.
Today, under the exact same constitution, they can prohibit cocaine just fine.
Don't underestimate those who wish to control us.
Can we finally please dispense with the myth that big business is allied with conservative republicans? Please?
So you're forecasting an Amendment to the US and Wisconsin Constitutions.
Isn't there already an amendment about respecting rights to religion? Does that even matter anymore?
Douglas said...
"Conn. Gov Malloy announces that Connecticut will boycott Indiana notwithstanding the fact that Connecticut's RFRA statute is broader and stronger than Indiana's"
Funny how Gov. Malloy believes that a state has a right to refuse to enter commercial transactions with a third-party but that a private individual has no such right.
I'm glad the Catholics are on the chopping block--missed me by that much.
When they came for the Catholics I did not speak up..because I'm Lutheran
I think you will be disappointed to see that Catholic Churches will be compelled to perform marriages between same sex couples. Or lose their tax status.
What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter.
MadisonMan: "Gay marriage event is also a strange verbal concoction."
Whereas gay marriage is not a strange concoction at all." LOL.
If the issue is baked cakes, the Hobby Lobby case established that closely held corporartions were covered and can assert religious beliefs.
So, would a small bakery be considered a closely held corporation? If Hobby Lobby was, then what about the mom and pa bakery.
Thus, even if we use only the still leads to cake baker vs gays confrontation.
MadisonMan wrote:
Terry, I asked Tank a simple question.
What is a Catholic non-Priest?
This is what catholic.org says:
The person who claims to be a practicing Catholic while not giving at least religious submission of intellect and will to the all Church's teaching, including that related to the ordination of women, artificial contraception, abortion, and homosexuality (to pick a few of the hot-button issues) is being disingenuous. These moral teachings are part of the "standards of excellence" that are part of the Catholic practice. Without at least religious submission of intellect and will to these and similar teachings, one can be many things, but one thing one cannot be is a practicing Catholic.
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=49496
The problem is that if you allow the state to define who is and who is not a legitimate follower of a religion, you have a state that is incentivized to recognize only religious beliefs that are in line with its goals. There are breakaway Catholics who are more orthodox than the Pope. Do they count as Catholics?
If I am a member of the Westboro Baptist church, is the state going to recognize the validity of my religious beliefs?
As I understand it, civil rights laws with respect to race depend on self-identification. If you are 1/16 black and 15/16 hispanic, you can call yourself black or hispanic. Indian tribes are a bit different because they have a different legal relationship with the US.
What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter.
Why the hypothetical that won't happen? Why not use a real example, like their refusal to do abortions? Is that going to change?
The bakery ought to argue that they do wedding cakes and SSM isn't a wedding.
No religion is involved. It's the business they're in. Weddings.
I argue SSM isn't marriage and I'm not religious at all. I can prove it, too. No religious authority needed, just ordinary language.
garage: "What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter."
You're kidding, right?
Try this instead: What if a city council passed an ordinance that Muslim women couldn't wear hijabs in public.
Maybe the bakery now has to advertise "Wedding Wedding Cakes" not just "Wedding Cakes."
MadisonMan said...
"What is a Catholic non-priest? Just a person who attends a Catholic Church?"
In context, I assume that he means a layman, that is, not just someone who attends a Catholic Church, but a member of the Church, principally someone who is a confirmed Catholic.
Try this instead
Why?
Michael wrote:
All this religious liberty shit is allowing the Amish to ignore the fucking traffic laws. As loud as I honk they persist in going below the minimum speed limit.
I drive on the highway and no one is driving the speed limit. Almost everyone is above it by 20mph. So, its not as if the non amish are alone in not obeying law.
But I get it, you want to get somehwhere (probably speeding) and they are too slow.
Clearly, statutes designed to protect religious freedom must give way in the face of the possibility that same sex couples might have to drive an extra block or two because they couldn't get a wedding cake or wedding flowers from a mom and pop shop run by religious folks whose beliefs do not permit them to support gay marriage.
After all, the country was founded on the right to wedding cakes for gay marriage ceremonies.
Can we please get away from the religious bigotry of the Left? I don't think SSM is real marriage for the same reason the classical Greeks and Romans didn't accept same sex marriage. It's a joke. In our case it is a joke imposed on the people by a tyrant class. It's no different than Caligula making his horse a senator, or the bailiff in the William Tell legend nailing his hat to post and making citizens salute it as they passed by.
Deirdre Mundy wrote:
I'm an independent contractor. I turn down clients all the time, for reasons ranging from "They seem high maintenance" to "Their work is outside of my specialty."
Why should I get to turn down anyone I want while a photographer must serve all comers? How does that even make sense?
ah see, but gays are a special class. If they tell you to jump, you have to ask how high, or its bigotry.
I think many are missing the entire point of the sordid episode.
The manufactured Twitter Outrage Brigade is not just influencing public opinion (via media), but the legislative, executive, and judiciary.
Anybody else long for the days when the lynch mob had to actually get dressed, don their pitchforks and torches, walk a mile or two the the public square to demand their 6 pounds of flesh?
garage: "'Try this instead.'
Why?"
Oh, never mind. We wouldn't want it said that you could see any issue other than those contemplated by the template.
garage mahal wrote:
garage: "What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter."
Wow you really think the RFRA allows someone to assert religious rights and get away with anything.
It's a blank check, a get out of jail free card.
"What if the religion says you can rape women. What then?" Garage asks as if what he's asking has any basis in reality?
What if my religion allows me to steal all your worldly goods?" What then?" asks Garage as if what he's asking has any basis in reality.
The standard is if govt wants to imposeon religion it needs to pass a test. Then it needs to come to a solution that does it in the least intrusive way (if it doesn't side with the religious argument).
So, on what basis would society say you can just kill people in hospitals. Well other than abortion. Or terry Schiavo.
I don't know about whether they obey traffic laws but I am pretty sure the Amish ar allowed to opt out of paying social security and madicare payroll taxes.
So, on what basis would society say you can just kill people in hospitals
Not killing. Just refusing to administer care. Are you saying the government must force caregivers to administer care to someone against their will?
Can a drug store refuse to sell Tylenol to a parent with a baby that has a 104 degree temp?
"What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter."
This is a really a phenomenally stupid question. Catholic hospitals treat other religions, including atheists. And homosexuals. Presumably they draw the line at voluntary sex change operations. And abortions.
This is what happens when arrogant pols and judges take a word, marriage, and bastardize its 2,000 years old meaning.
If cultural schisms were widgets that were regarded as valuable by economists, they would have to say our economy is booming.
jr565 wrote:
"Wow you really think the RFRA allows someone to assert religious rights and get away with anything."
This is the meme that being pushed, hard, by the Left on their gullible supporters. On NPR the other day, they interviewed a Lesbian who said that Indiana dentists were now free to turn away gay patients because of the RFRA. The interviewer did not bother to correct her, or even give another opinion.
Your tax dollars at work!
Supposedly pharmacists can refuse to sell you aspirin, even absent a religious reason. (Though I'm not sure what that religious reason would be)
And suppose that their board of trustees is required by state law to accept the highest bid.
Yes, this is a realistic supposition. Can you find any state laws that require a private party (let alone a religious institution) to accept the highest bid in a transaction?
Didn't think so.
Catholic hospitals treat other religions, including atheists.
Should they have the legal right not to.
Yes. Or No.
I think you will be disappointed to see that Catholic Churches will be compelled to perform marriages between same sex couples. Or lose their tax status.
Only a matter of time.
How much time. It has been over 50 years since Loving v Virginia, and no religious institution has successfully been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage.
This is a completely bogus fear.
Unless I've been misinformed, the state RFRA in Indiana is mostly irrelevant -- the State doesn't have a law that prohibits anti-Gay discrimination, so the RFRA doesn't override anything. (Yes, I understand that there are local laws that prohibit discrimination, so that's an issue).
For example Garage:
http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5yv8w-refused-purchase-two-packets-300-mg-aspirin-tablets.html
So, could a pharmacist refuse to sell someone aspirin with 104 degree fever? Apparently yes.
@MM
A Catholic person who is not a priest.
As Simon noted.
I'm an independent contractor. I turn down clients all the time, for reasons ranging from "They seem high maintenance" to "Their work is outside of my specialty."
But you cannot turn down a client because they are Black, a woman, or because you don't agree with their religion.
For what it's worth-
Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
Follow
Just got off the phone with #MemoriesPizza; they’re considering never opening again. Receiving a lot of death threats.
garage mahal wrote:
Not killing. Just refusing to administer care. Are you saying the government must force caregivers to administer care to someone against their will?
some girl on the news recently refused chemo for a treatable cancer, and I think the hospital forced her to take it.
There was no religious objection on either side.
I think Walmart courting gays is like RINOs thinking Hispanics will someday vote for them. Not gonna happen. Gays shop at Target. They wouldn't be caught dead in Walmart.
So here's the case:
http://www.wfsb.com/story/28695003/teen-forced-to-undergo-chemo-must-have-treatments-in-hospital-cannot-go-home
Girl has hodgkins a highly treatable cancer. However, she doesn't want to take chemo because she doesn't want toxins. However, she will probably survive if she is treated.
So Garage asks if a hospital can just let you die ,if they have a religious reason.
Apparently they make you live if they have a secular reason.
But as far as hospital letting you die for purely religious reasons, are they taking your money? If a hospital let you stay in their bed, they are assuming care. So then how would they have grounds to let you die and not provide care.
Such a hypothetical then could not really happen.
What could happen would be if a hospital refused to perform an abortion. But then they wouldn' have you in the hospital on a bed as if they were treating you.
Apparently they make you live if they have a secular reason.
Be careful about extending decisions on medical care for minors to adults. Generally, adults can refuse treatment.
Amend? If you can call it that. It will simply we rewritten as "RFRA for Dummies" so the libtards can't distort it.
Would it be OK if we made, say, Miley Cyrus sing the songs we want her to sing? I mean, if we meet her price, she can't tell us NO to singing songs discussing how much she sucks as a singer, right?
If you can be run out of business for not cheering gay marriage, you can be run out of business for not condemning gay marriage.
Its going to be a fun decade.
My tolerance for homosexuality is effectively over as well. Shame, because most gays are quite nice and lovely --- but when they allow their assorted hordes to do this shit, then they are guilty.
I see. So you're forecasting an Amendment to the US and Wisconsin Constitutions.
*snicker* You think they'd need an Amendment. Hilarious.
The Left doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. It simply protected them until they had enough power to take over.
Note how quickly hippies went from "We want free speech" to enforcing speech laws so draconian that they'd make Hitler blush.
Anybody else long for the days when the lynch mob had to actually get dressed, don their pitchforks and torches, walk a mile or two the the public square to demand their 6 pounds of flesh?
I'd vote for any candidate who told a Twitter mob to get some pants on, get out of their mom's basement, and do something worthwhile. Then do what they hate and Tweet back "Fuck you guys, also"
Should they have the legal right not to.
Yes. Or No.
They absolutely should.
And if they were Progressive, they wouldn't offer care and would be cheered for it.
I think Walmart courting gays is like RINOs thinking Hispanics will someday vote for them. Not gonna happen. Gays shop at Target. They wouldn't be caught dead in Walmart.
Walmart has been sucking up to the Left for about a decade now. Which is why I curtailed my shopping there heavily.
Want to support people who hate your clientele? Good luck with that.
Just leaving the "gays" alone won't be enough. Soon it will be a requirement to engage in sodomy.
First Amendment religious or moral protections are triggered when a behavior or expression cannot be reasonably accommodated without violating a religious or moral principle.
For example, religious or moral people, or generally people with a conscience, cannot be compelled to commit or contribute to the murder of wholly innocent human lives, from the beginning of its evolution (i.e. conception or fertilization), to its natural end (i.e. death). This Constitutional and moral tenet prevents State and private coercion of people to participate in commerce with the abortion industry and its consumers.
Walmart and Apple are extremely dumb to get involved in the culture wars. Walmart, especially. It's enough to say, all our welcome in our stores. When you start saying people with traditional religious beliefs are bigots, those people are going to take their business elsewhere.
Some people also need reminding that we have an all-volunteer military and that many of those people have traditional beliefs. When they stop participating in society's institutions because their beliefs are derided as bigotry, it has consequences for everyone. Just as the movement to tarnish all police has consequences on policing and the ability to recruit police officers.
garage mahal °•○●□ said...
What if a Catholic hospital didn't want to treat a gay person after a heart attack? Or any person for that matter.
Of all of the risibly stupid things that garage mahal has written in comments on this blog, this may be the most ludicrous.
Yes, garage, the hospital has to treat the emergency patient. Even if the patient has no money to pay. See, about a dozen federal and state laws most particularly EMTALA, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. A hospital should not have the right to refuse treatment to an emergency patient, and no hospital has such a right, and certainly not under any federal or state RFRA.
What a perfectly stupid argument you've conjured up this time. Your left-wing blog authors have let you down. Get some new sources.
From a Tim Carney column:
"On one side is the CEO of the world's largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers.
One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences."
But the high priests of gaydom have issued their fatwas and their consorts in the media, apparently, corporate America, and other nitwit have heeded the call.
It's remarkable that Apple has closed all of their stores in Indiana in protest.
Wait ... you mean they didn't?
Terry said...
This morning Limbaugh
So you're saying that the potential for discrimination against gays is not an issue BUT those pesky liberals in the media are FAR more dangerous because they dare to make everyone investigate the bills that pass state governments? That's rich.
If anything the real conspiracy comes from the conservative lobbyists who got this RFRA bill into the hands of legislatures. Anyone who is paying attention knows that post Hobby Lobby and post the NM wedding cake case many conservatives see an opening to draft legislation that drives us all a bit rightward - in the name of 'religious liberty'. In short these bills are no where close to the original bill that Schumer wrote in the 90's.
Flash: Tim Cook and the CEO of Walmart and several other companies who have publicly condemned the new RFRAs have announced that they will cease doing business with China and enriching a regime guilty of egregious human rights violations and religious persecution.
Cook said he puts the brutal and murderous conduct of the Chinese government right up there with that of the evil cake bakers and florists in the US.
Barack Obama has announced the suspension of negotiations with Iran until Iran stops executing homosexuals and on a lesser note stops threatening genocide against Israeli Jews - although he remains flexible on the latter issue.
As the governor said, this is a generational thing, for the most part.
His fucking son even signed a petition asking him to not sign the law.
Republicans will change on this issue when their 20 something children and all corporations bitch about it. Or their
child comes out.
It leaves organizations like Family something or another with little influence.
Matt wrote:
"So you're saying that the potential for discrimination against gays is not an issue BUT those pesky liberals in the media are FAR more dangerous because they dare to make everyone investigate the bills that pass state governments?"
No, that is what you wrote, Matt. You might want to reread my 1:50PM. Apparently you are having eye trouble.
Titus: "Republicans will change on this issue when their 20 something children and all corporations bitch about it. Or theirchild comes out."
Republicans are changing today because they are as unprincipled as Democrats and are cowards to boot. Homosexuality is the defining issue in our and historically failed effete societies.
We are a ridiculous people!
Money talks and corporations and the chamber of commerce have spoken.
"The left has won the war. ... The left will triumph then for a brief time. Until the true believers, the ones who believe so strongly they will chop your head off if you disagree, triumph."
I sympathize with your viewpoint, I really do. But why does the non-left seem so pathetically weak?
Terry
So when you wrote:
"[Rush] has investigated how the Left is able to mount a media firestorm so quickly, and that it can be traced to multiple press releases and twitter feeds that originate with less than a dozen people...[and that] If what he said was true, it is a conspiracy that deserves a massive media investigation and expose of its own."
You didn't really mean it? Because that is exactly what I read. You are saying there is a conspiracy in the liberal media. What I read into it was that the conspiracy is far worse than the RFRA bills. Otherwise why mention it? Maybe you are saying you hate he liberal media AND the RFRA bill?
hombre
What does Obama have to do with this? Did the White House say they will not do business with Indiana?
"You are saying there is a conspiracy in the liberal media."
Why is that so hard to believe?
Supposedly pharmacists can refuse to sell you aspirin, even absent a religious reason. (Though I'm not sure what that religious reason would be)
4/1/15, 4:25 PM
Because it's a contraceptive.
Titus said...
"Money talks and corporations and the chamber of commerce have spoken"
Yes, although I confess to wondering when the left bought into the proposition that giant, obscenely-rich corporations should get a veto over state laws.
I sympathize with your viewpoint, I really do. But why does the non-left seem so pathetically weak?
Because they want to be liked. Remember the geeks in high school who did papers for the football team? And still didn't get invites to the cool parties?
All these corporations expressing opinions. It's almost like they were persons or something
"It's remarkable that Apple has closed all of their stores in Indiana in protest.
Wait ... you mean they didn't?"
It's even more remarkable that they stopped doing business in Saudi Arabia because that gay guy was given 450 lashes.
Oh wait. You mean they didn't ?
I love Apple. Slave labor yes, Indiana Religious freedom no.
@Michael,
Oh, Michael, Tim Cook will regret opening this can of worms.
Because, ya know who has a really bad attitude towards its gays but buys a shitpot of Apple stuff --- China.
Honestly, I don't think Cook will survive as CEO of Apple after this finally works its way through. He put his corporation at the service of his personal beliefs, and has now exposed it to charges of hypocrisy or having the fun of explaining to a large part of the world why you should buy Apple even though the corporation thinks you're a sorry-ass bigot.
Apple has taken a strong stand in Saudi Arabia though. Anyone killing a Gay man is banned from buying an Ipad.
For 30 days.
"I sympathize with your viewpoint, I really do. But why does the non-left seem so pathetically weak?"
Because it spent the last fifty years building businesses and creating jobs instead of gaining power in the schools, media and government. It took its eye off the ball and thought that good sense would prevail and that the moral foundation laid over the centuries would prevent what cannot now be prevented.
So. Settle back and grab yourself some 2Chainz music. Educate yourself. Let your little children listen. Because they are going to need to speak the language of 2Chainz.
Freder F
It was a completely bogus fear of people of an evangelical bent that there would be such a thing as gay marriage. Our dear president was an opponent of this completely normal and reasonable event only a few years ago.
I thinks it's important for everyone to remember this brouhaha has just started. The Left-wing smear machine has swung into action, because it was ready & primed. The Right-wing smear machine hasn't even gotten ginned up yet.
All those companies standing proud for the right of the gays to have their wedding cake & eat it, too? Just wait until they get the fundy Christian pushback, and start doing the real accounting for how much it'll cost them to "make those bigots pay through the nose". Where they gonna move --- Connecticut? Corporations are spineless. They'll make these announcements about how "tolerant" they & then, quietly, it be back to the status quo ante.
You think I'm full of it? How's business at Hobby Lobby & Chik-Fil-A these days?
Actually, Matt, you are misquoting me again. I did not refer to Limbaugh by his first name. I did not say that Limabaugh had investigated anything, but that he said he had investigated media pile-ons directed towards him. The section you elided reads "He said that, in his case anyhow, that he . . ."
I did not endorse the idea that Limbaugh was telling the truth, but calling attention to his claims.
What's your theory on the development of the Indiana RFRA media shitstorm, Matt?
Yes, although I confess to wondering when the left bought into the proposition that giant, obscenely-rich corporations should get a veto over state laws.
Funny that. When it was Hobby Lobby, their argument was that businesses shouldn't have viewpoints. Now? Different standards...
rccocean wrote:
Apple has taken a strong stand in Saudi Arabia though. Anyone killing a Gay man is banned from buying an Ipad.
For 30 days.
Actually its not quite as bad. If you kill a gay you don't get the U2 album automatically downloaded. U have to download it yourself.
Seriously people of all creeds need to stop doing business with Angie's list and Yelp. Just pull all your business. It will only backfire on you and sabotage your business.
I Callahan wrote:
Funny that. When it was Hobby Lobby, their argument was that businesses shouldn't have viewpoints. Now? Different standards...
Everything is funny about this. This what the dems and libs pushed. Clinton signed this. Obama pushed for this. Scalia and Jesse Helms opposed.
Warren was for it.
Everything is shifted 180. States that have RFRA's run by democrats are saying they won't travel to Indiana.
Stephen King who lives in Maine which has an RFRA is suddenly all a flutter about the evils of RFRA's.
You'd think we could have heard some of this for the past 20 years.
What else? Oh yeah, corps aren't people. But now that apple is talking agains RFRA's then suddenly businesses have opinions.
and oh yeah, the left demands we accept the Supreme Court rulings when it comes to abortion, and I'm sure gay marriage.
But hobby lobby's upheld the RFRA which is not much different than a Indiana's RFRA.
And suddenly they're jumping all over themselves not accepting the result.
Republicans should get some people who benefited from the RFRA and ask the Sally Kohn's of the world if we should deny them the rights they won.
Because we can't have the possibility that a christian baker might question whether being forced to bake a cake is a violation of his religious freedom.
Not that there would even be a guarantee that he would win.
All religious person should have no recourse or protection because the gays want their cake.
My view is that it is fine with me if someone does not want my business, as long as they are open and honest about it and are willing to take the business hit.
It looks like they are NOT willing to take the business hit.
It looks like they are NOT willing to take the business hit.
How so? No one's asking for subsidies.
Asa Hutchinson was one on the house managers (prosecutors) who drew up impeachment against Clinton.
Maybe he drew some lessons from the trial defeat in the Senate.
sunsong: "It looks like they are NOT willing to take the business hit."
.....because.......?
There is long term risk to the Democrats in getting their agenda driven by the activist gay left.
Without a huge turnout of minority votes (e.g. blacks & latinos), the Democratic Party loses. Big time.
The problem is, both these groups, just aren't very fond of gays or gay issues. Oh, they're better than they used to be, but still. They still think that "all that faggot shit" is what white people do. Even when they have homo-sex with each other (which they do apparently as much as whites), they rarely self-identify as "gay".
Both groups are very religious, with blacks being the most religious ethnic group in the US, and Latinos not too far behind. How will they take seeing their coreligionists targeted by the gay lobby? As these cases pile up & the scenario repeats over & over, probably not well, because, you know, that's my momma who sings at the church or lights the candle every morning por Nuestra Senora de Gaudeloupe.
The Democratic coalition has always been, at root, an ethnic one. Now, a very vocal sexual minority is getting thrown into the mix. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Let's face it. Religious people are not welcome to participate in society. So they should not join the military. Let the progressives volunteer. The progressives can also staff the police forces throughout the country and serve as prison guards.
@matt 8:08: On Sunday Josh Earnest took a shot at the Indiana law while denying that the RFRA Obama voted for in Illinois was similar.
You know, Obama's mouthpiece.
do all the right-wing fossils on this thread:
history is against you. You can rail against the tides of change, but you will go down with the Confederacy in ignominy.
The national boycott on Indiana has gathered steam in record-breaking time! Now if only the NCAA will boycott the Final 4, that will be the coup de grace of this evil law and it will be repealed within days.
@Alex,
history is against you
Spoken just like the guys who set up the USSR, Alex. they had history on their side, too.
Care to bang your shoe on the podium & tell us that you'll bury us?
Yes Alex, you and your Gay Nazi's just pulled a little online Kristallnacht against a pizza place. Including tweets to burn the place down. And now death threats that have them considering closing their doors.
Were you part of that, my Little Gay Nazi? I bet you wet your pants. You're probably goose-stepping at this very moment in your leather Gestapo jacket and buttless chaps.
Hope you are proud of what your hatred has created. I'm looking forward to seeing It turn on you.
If you don’t want to serve people at your business, you shouldn’t have to.
Through the miracle of public accommodation doctrine, the state can force you to serve whoever they tell you to serve. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is.
As it happens in this case the state will probably be superfluous, as business owners who don't toe the line will be hounded out of business by the brownshirts.
In the three days or so this media hysteria has been growing I found one person who actually commented on the phenomenon of outrage itself -- Rush Limbaugh.
And after I commented on it here I was attacked by a commenter named "Matt" who misquoted me twice, and who actually seemed to believe that the possibility of twelve (or fewer) individuals to control what stories are featured on television, radio, and internet news sites is less important than entirely hypothetical anti-gay discrimination in a state he probably can't find on a map of the United States.
These are ugly times.
Blogger Alex said...
The national boycott on Indiana has gathered steam in record-breaking time!
So. We're going to kick em out, right? 49 states, right? Bastards have it coming!
Why is it important for me to know that these people are gay?
Often in human history two cultures clash and one wins on the battlefield. Afterwards the victor kills the wounded and lets the locals know that if they harbor fugitives their villages will burn because the intention is to wipe that other culture off the face of the earth.
I agree with gay marriage and look forward to maybe attending one for a certain family member but I will not support this mob going after people who just want to be left out of it.
You think you're Rosa Parks but in reality you're Robespierre.
I'm joining the resistance for the duration of the terror.
"What is a Catholic non-priest? Just a person who attends a Catholic Church?"
Any Catholic who is a wedding photographer, baker, florist, caterer, planner, musician...you don't have to be ordained clergy to have sincere religious beliefs.
It would be awfully nice if the other 50% or so of Christianity could also count themselves in as Conscientious Objectors in the cultural takeover.
The pizza shop thing is still going on and it is obvious that it was a complete fabrication.
ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”
Meanwhile China builds new bases and Iran builds nukes.
YoungHegelian: Oh, Michael, Tim Cook will regret opening this can of worms.
Because, ya know who has a really bad attitude towards its gays but buys a shitpot of Apple stuff --- China.
Honestly, I don't think Cook will survive as CEO of Apple after this finally works its way through. He put his corporation at the service of his personal beliefs, and has now exposed it to charges of hypocrisy or having the fun of explaining to a large part of the world why you should buy Apple even though the corporation thinks you're a sorry-ass bigot.
And
There is long term risk to the Democrats in getting their agenda driven by the activist gay left.
Without a huge turnout of minority votes (e.g. blacks & latinos), the Democratic Party loses. Big time.
The problem is, both these groups, just aren't very fond of gays or gay issues.
I seriously doubt that any of the above matters. I see no evidence that the expression of negative attitudes toward homosexuality among blacks and Hispanics translates at all into "conservative" voting patterns among them, beyond single-issue referenda. Look, it's not as if the SJW thugs are likely to target them when trawling for victims for the next regularly-scheduled Two Minutes Hate. They know perfectly well that this is all about humiliating and marginalizing the Wrong Kind of White Person, so why should they care? Only in rare circumstances are they in peril of getting trumped in a round of victimhood poker. Mostly they're free to speak and discriminate as they please.
Ditto for the likes of Cook. China and Saudi Arabia don't care about Cook's personal opinions or if Apple is hounding some schmuck nobody in the USA (they quite understand the need for hounding schmuck nobodies), and Western corporations and their leaders will always truckle to and accommodate genuine theocrats and dictators where profitable.
That Chik-fil-a and Hobby Lobby succeeded in standing up to the bully-boys doesn't demonstrate that Apple and Walmart can't benefit from supporting the bullies and joining in with them.
I don't think Walmart is 'supporting bullies', they are just commenting on a local law.
Gays shop at Target. They wouldn't be caught dead in Walmart.
Honey, this is bullshit. Gays are not a monolithic group. If you live in a small town and the nearest target is an hour away you are gonna shop at walmart.
"And how can a court tell the difference between 'I refused this person because they were in a protected class' and 'I refused this person because they seemed high maintenance and their project was boring?"
You broke the code. The answer is, if the left doesn't like you, you refused the job because you are a bigoted homophobic H8er, and you need to lose your job, your business, your life savings, your house, and any future ability to practice your profession.
The people pretending that this is not the end game are the Nazis. Even if they can't see the swastika they are saluting.
"The people pretending that this is not the end game are the Nazis. Even if they can't see the swastika they are saluting."
Kristallnacht was the culmination of many days of "private citizens" letting other citizens know that some businesses owners had religious beliefs that were abhorrent and that people should not shop there.
After that night many Jewish businesses closed voluntarily because of market forces.
"Just leaving the "gays" alone won't be enough. Soon it will be a requirement to engage in sodomy."
If you don't participate, it must be hate!
Post a Comment