TOPIC: Indiana Revises Legislation

Per Fox News (I saw it initially on CNN, but couldn't find it when I looked again):

"Indiana lawmakers have approved changes to a new religious objections law to address charges that it could allow discrimination against lesbians and gays.

The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act approved Thursday by both chambers prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on factors that include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service."

Hopefully, as long as Pence signs this, that will put all of this behind us and ease worries about GENCON and other businesses pulling out of Indiana.

It is interesting, but not at all surprising, that this positive development isn't getting nearly the press and airtime as the controversy did.

Cynical me says: Controversy = more clicks = more ad revenue. So the news outlets are already moving on to the next controversy.

Non-cynical me says: People are just trying to understand the impact of the changes before they weigh in

Really cynical me says: people on the internet actually trying to understand something before speaking about it? Yeah right!

I think it is interesting that that is the same amendment (more or less) that was rejected before sending it to Pence to sign in the first place. It was amendment #4 if anyone is curious.

*MO010105-Lanane*
SENATE MOTION
MADAM PRESIDENT:
I move
that Senate Bill 101 be amended to read as follows:
1
Page 1, line 5, after "1." insert "
(a)
".
2
Page 1, between lines 9 and 10, begin a new paragraph and insert:
3
"
(b) This chapter does not apply to:
4
(1) IC 22-9-1 (Indiana civil rights law); or
5
(2) any state law or local ordinance that prohibits
6
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
".
(Reference is to SB 101 as printed February 20, 2015.)
________________________________________
Senator LANANE

You are correct that the provision(some of the key language is quoted below) was similar to a Democratic amendment which prior to the Bill initial passage was soundly defeated by the Republicans. In essence the amendment prohibits businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing

"to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service."

I am glad for a decent start but work is not over

It's certainly a step in the right direction, and for that I am thankful.

I had a friend who was once very active in the church. I asked him why he stopped, and he said it was because of the pressure. Nothing he did was ever enough, so he just quit.

I think of him every once in awhile. (Not because of anything Druegar's said.)

But, now we have a pizza shop in Indy who had to shut down and stop answering the phones because she answered a reporter's hypothetical question saying she would happily serve gay customers, but wouldn't want to cater a gay wedding at her restaurant. (Whatever your views of a baker's "participation" in by baking a cake, I think this hypothetical example gets much closer to "participation.") But think about that. Closed down, not for anything she actually did, but for expressing an opinion about a hypothetical situation.

I guess the message there is, don't talk to reporters about controversial topics.

So, yeah. I'm sure this isn't over.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I had a friend who was once very active in the church. I asked him why he stopped, and he said it was because of the pressure. Nothing he did was ever enough, so he just quit.

I think of him every once in awhile. (Not because of anything Druegar's said.)

But, now we have a pizza shop in Indy who had to shut down and stop answering the phones because she answered a reporter's hypothetical question saying she would happily serve gay customers, but wouldn't want to cater a gay wedding at her restaurant. (Whatever your views of a baker's "participation" in by baking a cake, I think this hypothetical example gets much closer to "participation.") But think about that. Closed down, not for anything she actually did, but for expressing an opinion about a hypothetical situation.

I guess the message there is, don't talk to reporters about controversial topics.

So, yeah. I'm sure this isn't over.

Intolerance goes both ways, and I don't think the Pizza store owner said anything worthy of being driven out of business. All of the people calling in and placing fake orders in order to drive his small, family owned store out of business are VERY much in the wrong, in my opinion.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I had a friend who was once very active in the church. I asked him why he stopped, and he said it was because of the pressure. Nothing he did was ever enough, so he just quit.

I think of him every once in awhile. (Not because of anything Druegar's said.)

But, now we have a pizza shop in Indy who had to shut down and stop answering the phones because she answered a reporter's hypothetical question saying she would happily serve gay customers, but wouldn't want to cater a gay wedding at her restaurant. (Whatever your views of a baker's "participation" in by baking a cake, I think this hypothetical example gets much closer to "participation.") But think about that. Closed down, not for anything she actually did, but for expressing an opinion about a hypothetical situation.

I guess the message there is, don't talk to reporters about controversial topics.

So, yeah. I'm sure this isn't over.

I very much agree with you on this and it won't stop until human being are prefect obedience soulless to enslave themselves or slavery. But to human beings as we are not prefect in any ways shape or form, then the gov't will keep touching on the hot button issue as always do and then focus on making laws that you know that certain people will fall under by their intentions and/or their mistakes to make more money on fines and/or incarceration are both. Many of these issue open-ended for a reasons to be use over and over and over until one day we want it to stop and hopefully not at judgement day. As man kind are their own worst enemy and the victim of society still call for peace and equality, while the abuser ask for more and more for themselves and also it never enough to full their dark purpose. Then what learn history when it going to still repeat itself in one form or another. They make more monies on the oppress society than to benefit the rest of man kind. In America the power is their own people as citizens and not the government of civil worker or the official lawmakers. But these recent days has been proofing fault in that belief by a miles. Let me show you by one example by our forefather and once president of Thomas Jefferson to have the right to bear armed. Today, they like you believe that constitution is outdated by today reason of crime and violent. But Thomas Jefferson he put it in the constitution for a reason that if one day if the government decide to go rogue that the people can protect itself. Mine has times change for the worst and it not like my people is been killed by the Nazi, but by our very own law enforcers. We were never equal in the eyes of the laws because we are divide by states border with very different and very segregate by paying more in income taxes in New York and California as democrat states, while the while in Texas as republican state don't have to pay it at all. We were always divide from the very begin and now we are force to think very careful as to what this is overlook like many other things by other citizens where is intently divide by ourselves as secretly issue race, sex, and class, but that is not discriminate when the people do it ourselves. When money is involve it is discrimination or if a cop pull you over in a car and search and seize your money that is over $5,000.00 is actually a incident, even if there is no charge of a crime at all.

-Eversuede-

Mike Steele wrote: Intolerance goes both ways, and I don't think the Pizza store owner said anything worthy of being driven out of business. All of the people calling in and placing fake orders in order to drive his small, family owned store out of business are VERY much in the wrong, in my opinion.

Agreed! I find actions like that disgusting. It reminds me of the cliques in High School that thought they could get away with anything , no matter how heinous, just because they were among the popular kids.

Just because you think you're right doesn't give you the right to destroy another person's business or even to ridicule their beliefs. Doing so makes you just as bad as the bullies that many of us nerds had to deal with in High School. Worse even because you should know better!

The pizza shop hasn't closed permanently, and with the GoFundMe campaign they are going to come out ahead. Let's see what they do with the more than $100K that was given to them.

bpsymington wrote: The pizza shop hasn't closed permanently, and with the GoFundMe campaign they are going to come out ahead. Let's see what they do with the more than $100K that was given to them.

Yes, it seems they were lucky and it's working in their favor, but beside the point. That doesn't excuse their persecution, and next business owner hit with this kind of DNS-type attack will probably be less lucky.

Oh, and if I understand the previous arguments:

The government has a compelling interest in commerce.

A person or persons unknown engaged in criminal activities of harassment and placing fraudulent orders. These criminal activities were design to cause financial harm to this business for engaging in protected speech, based on the religious views of the owner. These activities went far beyond protected protests, and into the realm of unlawful interferance with commerce. Didn't they?

That should mean that this attack qualifies as hate crimes against a protected class, based on the Civil Rights Act, so I expect there is strong condemnation and hope for prosecution of the offenders coming from both sides of the SB101 debate.