Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[Hoosier8]

After the debacle on the Sunday morning circuit, losing his cool today, and his inability to say that discrimination is wrong, Mike Pence needs to do the IN GOP, as well as the national GOP a favor, and step aside. The damage is done. The complete lack of optics doing this the week an event larger than the Super Bowl is in town displays terrible leadership. Inviting known hate groups to the private, no press, invitation only bill signing was over the top.

The VP of VisitIndy was on the radio this afternoon discussing the millions of dollars Pence has cost hard working Hoosier families.

It is time for the real leaders in the IN GOP to step forward and the suffering. This will spill into 2016 presidential elections so I would wager state leaders could easily get the backing of prominent national GOP leaders.

The gay mafia wins!

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, but after reading some of the responses, I thought you and others were in agreement with this new law? If it's not a good law, it really doesn't matter what letter comes after his name or what the president has done. Governor Pence is a decent man and it appears that he stepped out there without any suppressive fire and was left on his own. I'm sure he will get through it, but the state may suffer some.

I am on the fence with this one as with most "New Law"
I figure the most every situation is already covered somewhere in existing Law.

I do not feel he needs to step down.

 

[mrjarrell]

I've stayed away from this, because I believe any business owner has the right to serve whomever they choose and should also be willing to accept the results if they choose not to serve a particular group. My question is, what law, in any of the civil rights legislation, forces a private business owner to serve someone? Maybe I've missed something, but I've not found it. If it doesn't exist, what is the purpose of this new law?

The purpose, as put forth by the bills crafters (as quoted upthread) was to allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers. The RFRA is not like other states, it deliberately protects those who would discriminate. It was totally unnecessary here in Indiana, as the LGBT community was already denied any legal recourse for discrimination, (as we saw last year). That wasn't the case in other states, but was here.

 

[kiddchaos]

What was your point?

He (the Oregon cake guy) sells cakes dude. He sells food. If Jesus had a cake store, I'd bet he'd sell it to them.

 

[buckwacker]

I don't hate any of them, those are your twisted words. Miller and the TEAvangelicals have an agenda I am against their agenda, not their religion.

I'm just applying the same standard to your words as you have applied to theirs. They have a point of view with which you disagree and they actively seek to exert political influence to that end and as a result you consider them hateful. So...you disagree with their point of view and wish to exert political influence, so therefore, by your standard, you are hateful. Or are you being hypocritical.

 

[buckwacker]

The purpose, as put forth by the bills crafters (as quoted upthread) was to allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers. The RFRA is not like other states, it deliberately protects those who would discriminate. It was totally unnecessary here in Indiana, as the LGBT community was already denied any legal recourse for discrimination, (as we saw last year). That wasn't the case in other states, but was here.

This is a blatant falsehood.

 

[buckwacker]

He (the Oregon cake guy) sells cakes dude. He sells food. If Jesus had a cake store, I'd bet he'd sell it to them.

Why do you think he(Jesus) would sell the cake?

 

[buckstopshere]

Jesus just came to me and told me that you are to give me $5000. Do you deny your Lord? I'm kidding of course but I hope you get my point.
He sells cakes dude. He sells food.

I understand you're kidding but Jesus telling you that I should give you $5g's would immediately be chuckled at since that is not scriptually sound.

Your point appears to just be it's food, it doesn't matter. Obviously if you owned a bakery you wouldn't have a problem with making the cake. Problem is, you're missing my point in that the food or pictures are irrelevant to the requirement of being forced to participate in a sinful act. It's not the food, it's not even the person, it's the act.

The satanist in my example is out nothing. I won't make his cake decrying Satan is Master of the Universe but someone else will. Someone who thinks such as yourself would cater to his needs. For me, I have to choose between denying my Lord or being sued. I'm out everything. I'm either morally bankrupted or financially.

 

[HoughMade]

I've stayed away from this, because I believe any business owner has the right to serve whomever they choose and should also be willing to accept the results if they choose not to serve a particular group. My question is, what law, in any of the civil rights legislation, forces a private business owner to serve someone? Maybe I've missed something, but I've not found it. If it doesn't exist, what is the purpose of this new law?

In Indiana? No such state law, I don't know about municipalities. Therefore, hopefully if politicians keep their heads, it will never be used. This is a prophylactic measure giving guidance to governments about under what conditions they can make laws that affect people's personal religious beliefs, in addition to a defense should such laws be passed.

 

[HoughMade]

The purpose, as put forth by the bills crafters (as quoted upthread) was to allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers. The RFRA is not like other states, it deliberately protects those who would discriminate. It was totally unnecessary here in Indiana, as the LGBT community was already denied any legal recourse for discrimination, (as we saw last year). That wasn't the case in other states, but was here.

Where does the Law say any of this? It's a cute high-school debate technique to quote what people have said about the Law rather than the language of the Law, but the language of the Law is what was enacted. No one's thoughts about what it means or an opponent's fanciful interpretation of what they think someone else wants it to mean, is law.

I suppose jumping to this conclusion says more about what some people want to force others to do, than anything else. Apparently it was never about "live and let live."

 

[dusty88]

his inability to say that discrimination is wrong

I didn't see the whole interview. Did he refuse to answer a question that said "discrimination is wrong" or did he refuse to state that it should be ILLEGAL. The two are not remotely the same.


I'm no Pence fan and very frustrated by the motives behind this law, btw but I'm more disappointed in the irrelevant reactions to it

Pence should probably step down. It abundantly clear that he's an idiot. The votes were there to override his veto. He could have easily vetoed the bill, citing clarification issues, yet still symbolically supported it. His stupidity has ended his national aspirations, and taken millions from Hoosier pockets.

Again, not a Pence fan. But asking an elected officer to "step down" is typically for ethical violations. It was odd the publicity on this came up after it had passed both houses. A veto on his part would possibly have been completely throwing the legislators under the bus. I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that he was a proponent of this law when it was a bill. That would be tremendously poor leadership to veto under those circumstances.

 

[kiddchaos]

Why do you think he(Jesus) would sell the cake?

What is the significance of Jesus eating with sinners?

So the owner of the cake store is not trying to be like Jesus. How ironic.

 

[buckwacker]

What is the significance of Jesus eating with sinners?

So the owner of the cake store is not trying to be like Jesus. How ironic.

How would one explain the whole driving the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip thing?

 

[buckstopshere]

What is the significance of Jesus eating with sinners?

So the owner of the cake store is not trying to be like Jesus. How ironic.

see my points made above about the acts vs the person and reread those references without your presupposition. hint: no participation and all repented.

PM me if you want to have a real conversation on the topic.

 

[level.eleven]

Where does the Law say any of this? It's a cute high-school debate technique to quote what people have said about the Law rather than the language of the Law, but the language of the Law is what was enacted. No one's thoughts about what it means or an opponent's fanciful interpretation of what they think someone else wants it to mean, is law.

I suppose jumping to this conclusion says more about what some people want to force others to do, than anything else. Apparently it was never about "live and let live."

Why is it being fixed?

 

[dusty88]

Why is it being fixed?

the same reason it was started: politics

 

[Bartman]

Why is it being fixed?

We had to pass it to see what was in it?

 

[oldpink]

Wanna know what's the very epitome of hypocrisy?
A bunch of gaystapo activists casting about in cities with scores of florists, photographers, and bakeries, zeroing in on those owned by businesses run by people they know full well will have religious reservations about celebrating their little ceremonies, then using the heavy hand of government and intimidation to run said businesses out of town.
The hypocrisy comes in when those activists claim that they are the real victims.
It's all a totally contrived, well orchestrated scheme of retaliation against people they don't like.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Jesus just came to me and told me that you are to give me $5000. Do you deny your Lord? I'm kidding of course but I hope you get my point.
He sells cakes dude. He sells food.

Or does he sell art? Why do people pay Duff Goldman and the gang at Charm City Cakes tons of money to make them a cake? Why don't they just get the cake at the Kroger Bakery?


I , like Church Mouse above, am on the fence with the law. Not sure that it was necessary. And I for one , am HAPPY tobreak bread with ANYONE. But if I was an artist - I reserve the right to choose which commissions I take. So to the degree it's just a cake - I agree - serve everyone. To the degree it's artwork - different standard. And if I was a photographer and you want me to go all Robert Maplethorpe on things - you may kindly defecate in your hat.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You can hardly say that you are forcing let's say a florist to sell flowers for instance. That is what they chose to be in business for. If you mean allowing them to single out a select group of people then that is the very definition of discrimination.

All you have to do is substitute any other group in the sentence. I don't want to sell to blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, women, Hispanics, etc. If any of those make you cringe then so should gays.

Depends, a cake with "kill a cracker" for the NPP, "god hates fags" for the westboro baptist church, "kill all infidels" for CAIR, "all men suck" for name the militant womans lib organization of your choice, "take back our country" for la raza?

I've stayed away from this, because I believe any business owner has the right to serve whomever they choose and should also be willing to accept the results if they choose not to serve a particular group. My question is, what law, in any of the civil rights legislation, forces a private business owner to serve someone? Maybe I've missed something, but I've not found it. If it doesn't exist, what is the purpose of this new law?

Technically no it doesn't force them to serve someone, but if the reason they don't serve them is because they are a protected class. The fines/lawsuits if they continue will quickly run them out of business.

Indiana small business owners are being forced to hang signs in their windows stating "We Welcome Everyone" the week of an event larger than the Super Bowl. Just saw on the news that stores from Zionsville to Greenwood are already receiving calls asking whether or not all are welcome.

So sad. So much misery being wrought by the GOP.

Who is forcing them to do so? And getting a call about your business practices is misery?

Jesus just came to me and told me that you are to give me $5000. Do you deny your Lord? I'm kidding of course but I hope you get my point.
He sells cakes dude. He sells food.

If Jesus came to me and said to give you $5k, that is one thing. For you to say he did is another....

The purpose, as put forth by the bills crafters (as quoted upthread) was to allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBT Hoosiers. The RFRA is not like other states, it deliberately protects those who would discriminate. It was totally unnecessary here in Indiana, as the LGBT community was already denied any legal recourse for discrimination, (as we saw last year). That wasn't the case in other states, but was here.

Really? Then why was it called the hobby lobby bill when it was being discussed outside the floor? And not let's say the cake baker from CO bill?