I am sooo angry with our govenor!

[Leafmite]

I believe that all people should be treated equally. A business should not be allowed to deny someone service, employment, or equal pay based on gender, sexual orientation, color of their skin, etc. The Constitution has that wonderful division between church and state as well as a very nice preamble that sort of sums up the goals which the US should be seeking to attain. Religious freedom is important but religion should never be allowed as an excuse to treat others as less than equal. I think we have been through that before.
Next up...equal pay for women.

[Stray59]

AnonYMouse:
I hope I have not been posting "veiled barbs" - I have read through my posts and don't see them, but then I would be biased. I do hope I have not offended anyone, and if it seems I have, I will delete this post.
Again, public, adult discourse is good for growth, and I hope we have achieved that here. BUt, before I truly offend anyone, I will remove the post.
Let me know if I have stepped out of line....I will correct or try to make good. But my perspective is perhaps off right now, as I said, the community here is waiting on results to see how this pans out and it has been rather nerve wracking........ I do apologize and if others think I should delete this, I will do so willingly and with no hard feelings.

[AnonYMouse]

I'm just saying be thoughtful of what you (general you not a specific you) post because there could be more people viewing this and it could be out there forever.

[Stray59]

BTW Catherinecarney - Please do not let this law keep you from visiting our state. Come for the people and the Hoosier Hospitality, the IMA greenhouse, the Indianapolis Children's Museum, the HUGE variety of sports venues, the constantly changing shows at the fairground, the Indy 500 race track, the Indy Fringe concerts and activities, the Eiteljorg museum, the Indiana State museum, the phenomenal carved-stone architecture, the phenomenal variety of dining establishments, the NCAA Hall of Champions and the incredibly friendly, accepting people. No matter how your kids live or look, no matter who they choose to love, neither they, nor you, will be denied services. That is just not how Indy runs. I have lived here, openly with my partner, for 7 years, and we have yet to be denied services ANYWHERE. It has NEVER been an issue. We have our "anniversary" cakes (we haven't had a ceremony, but we know when we committed to each other in our hearts) baked at what many call THE BEST bakery in town - Long's bakery - and they have never raised an eyebrow or acted anything but appreciative that we wanted to give them our money. (BTW - Add Long's to the list of reasons to visit, but be ready to wait at least 30 minutes - people start lining up about an hour before they open to just to get a donut! -- they are THAT good.)
I understand your ethical issues, but please do not let this law keep you from enjoying all the great things Indiana has to offer. This is the GOVERNMENT of the State - not the people who depend on others to come and see how friendly we actually are. I would LOVE to see a large flood of LGBT members come into our community to help us overcome this stigma and move forward on the human rights front.
Don't let this law hurt us further. Write in your indignation to the Govenor's Office, where it will be heard. If you just do not show up, no will no you are missing but you. Please do not count us out - you and your children will find us accepting, friendly, gracious and GRATEFUL hosts.

[gnathaniel]

Originally Posted by Brooke

Yes Federal law trumps State laws but neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution prohibits States from having a State approved religion. The First Amendment guarantees everyone has Freedom of Religion.

Incorrect, see Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1--the case in which the Supreme Court held the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment 'incorporated' against State action via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Most but not all of the Bill of Right's substantive protections are now considered incorporated against the States in similar fashion.

I'm not familiar with the State versions of the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act (ironically passed at a time in our history when religious liberties were LEAST threatened in any way), but the federal one essentially only requires application of somewhat-heightened scrutiny to federal laws 'substantially burdening' (a squirrelly concept to define) religious exercise. RFRA does NOT feature automatic standing to sue, despite the SCOTUS majority seemingly imagining in this feature en route to a Hobby Lobby decision textually unsupported by either RFRA or any part of the 1st Amendment--talk about judicial activism! Then again, trying to be an unelected 'super-legislature' seems to be the order of the day whenever the Roberts Court touches PPACA or other supposedly 'left-wing' laws; hopefully they'll prove me wrong in King v Burwell...

[Subrosa]

So many people so willing to have force used against those they disagree with is the real issue here. That and the fact that too many citizens no longer understand and accept the concept that while I do not agree with what you are doing, I will defend your right to do it. We as a nation have become a bunch of crybabies, because our political environment has devolved to the point where those who cry the loudest get what they want at the expense of those they shout down.

[AnonYMouse]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

So many people so willing to have force used against those they disagree with is the real issue here. That and the fact that too many citizens no longer understand and accept the concept that while I do not agree with what you are doing, I will defend your right to do it. We as a nation have become a bunch of crybabies, because our political environment has devolved to the point where those who cry the loudest get what they want at the expense of those they shout down.

There are people in this country who would like to see segregation back and worse. Do you defend them as well?

I will defend their freedom to express those sentiments. I will physically oppose them if they try to act on it.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by AnonYMouse

There are people in this country who would like to see segregation back and worse. Do you defend them as well?

I will defend their freedom to express those sentiments. I will physically oppose them if they try to act on it.

I defend their right to say as many stupid things, as often as they wish to say them. Are you actually insinuating that I support the beliefs of such people? Because I present a quite valid legal argument against something completely unrelated that you happen to hold dear? The knee jerk reaction in your mind that made that idea seem likely, and that question seem appropriate is a very good step towards justifying the use of the force I spoke of against me in your own mind. Why are you so eager to go there knowing so little?

[AnonYMouse]

You're right. That was a knee jerk reaction, I don't know you and using segregation was unfair.

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 PM ----------

My apologies.

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

This would be refusing to do a particular task based on the task in and of itself. They could also refuse to print a shirt with a vulgar image, a curse word, a swastika, and so on.

A cake bakery could deny making someone a giant penis-cake, too. Maybe because they are religious, maybe because they don't want to make something that may offend other clients.
These are not prejudiced acts. These are acts that the shop owner would deny to all customers.

When you deny one customer a service that you offer to all other customers based on your personal prejudice against them, that is being a bigot. If someone doesn't serve someone who is a racial minority solely based on that fact, they are racist.

Therein lies the major difference.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

EVERYTHING going on in Indiana right now offends me!! From the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was amended to protect LGBT people and other minorities) to the poor woman Purvi Patel now in prison for 22 years for "feticide" (and simultaneously child endangerment? how can you be charged with both?) ... it's just astonishing me how people are being treated there.
I am feeling really upset and angry about so much of this.

In the words of the Notorious RBG, "You are free to move your arm all around, but the second your arm might hit someone's face, your freedom ends." We have so much freedom here, yet we try to restrict minority groups even in the present day.

...yet people say we live in a post-racial, post-sexist, and post-discrimination society? Not by a longshot!!

And Stray59, I know not all people in/from Indiana are responsible for this!

At any rate, I'll just publicly state here that I believe in equality for all people and fair treatment regardless of your minority status (female, religion, lgbt status, disability, socioeconomic status, mental health, and so on).