JimmyBear wrote:

First of all, let me say that I believe homosexuality is wrong but I believe many things are wrong: excessive drinking, drunkeness, gambling, premarital sex and many many other thngs but I would never hurt anyone physically or emotionally because of my beliefs. I might explain my beliefs and try to persuade someone why I believe the way I do. I also believe in the free exercise of religion, I also believe that to a certain extent our religious freedoms are being eroded in this country as well as around the world. However, this law is very misguided and should not be enacted. It does open a whole can of worms. As CT has already said - then a gay or lesbian business could refuse to serve Christians. Also, it is this kind of action, that turns the public off from the true Gospel. I am not sure why my Indiana brothers decided to pass this law. Perhaps they were trying to protect their children from the open affection between gay or lesbian couples in a public restaurant, I don't know, but I do believe this law is wrong. I thought that our legislators investigate, research, and then think long and hard before passing a law. I am not sure they thought about this law before passing it.

Good post, Jimmy. I agree.

I think that, in general, you will find people supportive of protections for the exercise of religion.
The reason many find the Indiana law unacceptable is that it seems to protect, not the practice of religion, but religious based discrimination. Our religion might condemn homosexuality, or premarital sex, and it becomes our duty not to practice those things and to teach our children these concepts. However, it is not the exercise of religion to punish, or refuse to do business with people who hold other faiths.

It becomes a slippery slope. I remember a big uproar when a Muslim cab driver refused to transport a woman from JFK to her apartment because she was bringing a case of wine back from California. Crazy.

I am somewhat confused as to why Commonsense introduced the federal RFRA to this discussion, because, other than the name, it really has little in common with the Indiana Law.
The federal RFRA has as it's primary aim, restricting the federal government from enacting laws that restrict the exercise of religion.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to all religions, but is most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. 

Moveover, it has been found unconstitutional when applied to the states.

The Indiana act, on the other hand seems designed to allow individuals and businesses to discrimnate based upon religious beliefs.

Anyway, I would agree with BYOB and others. We are a nation of many creeds, and we need to live together in communities of tolerance and respect.
I would protect the excercise of religion. However, I don't consider trying to affect the behavior of people of other faiths to be the exercise of religion. It is discrimination.

Pence and his cohorts jump in to try to explain away the negative reaction to his bill:

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-officials-look-stem-religious-objections-fallout-204857636.html

More back pedaling by Pence this weekend  on This Week with Gearge Stephanopoulos:


Pence did not answer directly when asked at least six times whether under the law it would be legal for a merchant to refuse to serve gay customers. "This is not about discrimination, this is about empowering people to confront government overreach," he said. Asked again, he said, "Look, the issue here is still is tolerance a two-way street or not."

Sexual orientation is not covered under Indiana's civil rights law. Pence has said he "won't be pursuing that."

The governor told the Indianapolis Star on Saturday that he was in discussions with legislative leaders over the weekend and expects a clarification bill to be introduced in the coming week. He addressed that Sunday, saying, "if the General Assembly ... sends me a bill that adds a section that reiterates and amplifies and clarifies what the law really is and what it has been for the last 20 years, then I'm open to that."

But Pence was adamant that the measure, slated to take effect in July, will stick. "We're not going to change this law," he said.



Pence isn't even a good dancer . . . just refuses to answer the question . . . says the bill is not about discrimination . . . Says he's waiting for a "clarification" bill from the state legislature . . . And finally says he's not going to change the law.

Back into a corner, shoot yourself in the foot.  Good job, Mike.

Last edited by Rongone (3/30/2015 7:06 am)