Mike Pence Should Step Down.

[wagyu52]

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.

Just cake??? Just food??? Clearly stated by a guy that has NEVER had experience with a bride and weddings.

 

[oldpink]

Just cake??? Just food??? Clearly stated by a guy that has NEVER had experience with a bride and weddings.

He'll totally change his tune and quit being so flippant the very first time that a homosexual sign printer is requested to print out a "God Hates Fags" banner.

 

[CZB1962]

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?

Most of these would be considered hate speech which is not protected so therefore can be refused. Are you really comparing two men or two women wanting to say "I do" to "kill a cracker" or God hates fags"?

Again I will say, substitute the word black, Hispanic, Jew, etc for the word gay in any sentence. If those sound wrong to you, then so should gay.

BTW, I support this bill when it comes to cases like Hobby Lobby. In that case the religious belief was not against any single group other than the fact that only women take the morning after pill. If there were a drug that caused what they saw as abortion for men, they would have been against it as well. The fact that it was no aimed at a certain group intentionally, and that the action caused harm to another if you believe abortion kills a baby, makes it different that wanting to refuse service to gays.

All they need to do it include Homosexuality as a protected class and this will all go away. If its not about denying service to gays then it should be an easy fix.

 

[flightsimmer]

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.

BS

 

[ghuns]

Not all people have a right to my services. I can choose my clients and have rejected cases based upon my personal, religious, beliefs. Why should the government be allowed to force me to provide my services to a client whose cause I do not believe in based upon my religious beliefs?

Cause you are a distinguished and learned member of the bar? You are "supposed" to have ethics? A baker? Pfft, he's just supposed to shut up and bake.

How many doctors discriminate against the poor and elderly by refusing to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients? But a florist? Just sell the gays their damn flowers.

It's classism I tell ya. It's discrimination against blue collar working class schmucks. I demand special protection for my people! We need anti-working class schmuck discrimination legislation NOW!

So, he new law was not necessary?

You wouldn't think, but much like the 2A, the 1A doesn't seem to mean what it says it means...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That seems pretty clear. It does NOT say the free exercise thereof, in the home. It does NOT say, the free exercise thereof, except in a business setting, we can prohibit the she-it outta it there.

IMHO, all religion is, to a certain extent, discriminatory. If we cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, those who practice a religion must be free to discriminate within the parameters of their theology. Yes, that discrimination may hurt your feelings. It may cause you inconvenience. But can't trump the right our founders saw fit to name as #1. The limit to this discrimination should only be that it does not harm others. If human sacrifice is part of your theology, sorry.

Should a Christian web developer be compelled to built a pornographic website?

Should a pro-life printer be forced to print banners for a pro-choice rally?

Should a church or mosque who rents facilities as a banquet hall be forced to host a bachelor party that features stripper and alcohol?

In each scenario, the right of the religious person to discriminate against another whose activities violate a deeply held belief should be absolute. No harm is done.

The backlash from passing this bill has nothing to do with discrimination. Nobody would seek to legally compel a Christian web developer to build a porno site. The backlash is about theology. It is a backlash from a community who takes great offense in being told they are immoral. They have gained acceptance from nonreligious people, and even from some sects among various religions who are more flexible in their theology. Instead of respecting the views of the holdouts, calling them crazy, or just telling them to eff off, they demand .gov intervention to force those holdouts to accept them.

Gay and lesbian people have been bullied in this country for a long time. The tables have turned and they now wield real political and economic power. They are using this power as club to beat into submission those who they see as their primary oppressors. Can't say I blame them, but it don't make it right.

 

[HamYankee]

I'm in Florida on vacation and Indiana is on the news here. I don't know why the heck Pence, or anybody cannot just say what the law is, and what it isn't and diffuse the whole media frenzy. What about all the other states that have similar laws? These LBGT people and those who jump on the bandwagon did not freak out about the other states' laws?

 

[MisterChester]

Most of these would be considered hate speech which is not protected so therefore can be refused. Are you really comparing two men or two women wanting to say "I do" to "kill a cracker" or God hates fags"?

Again I will say, substitute the word black, Hispanic, Jew, etc for the word gay in any sentence. If those sound wrong to you, then so should gay.

BTW, I support this bill when it comes to cases like Hobby Lobby. In that case the religious belief was not against any single group other than the fact that only women take the morning after pill. If there were a drug that caused what they saw as abortion for men, they would have been against it as well. The fact that it was no aimed at a certain group intentionally, and that the action caused harm to another if you believe abortion kills a baby, makes it different that wanting to refuse service to gays.

All they need to do it include Homosexuality as a protected class and this will all go away. If its not about denying service to gays then it should be an easy fix.

You get the H E double hockey sticks out of here with your logic and reason!

 

[ghuns]

All they need to do it include Homosexuality as a protected class and this will all go away.

Yeah. That exactly what we need. Another protected class. All men are created equal, but some are extra super special equal.

 

[MisterChester]

Yeah. That exactly what we need. Another protected class. All men are created equal, but some are extra super special equal.

Technically everybody falls into a few different protected classes already. A white male Christian is protected three times (race, gender, and religion). If sexual orientation was added, it would be four, because then heterosexuals could not be discriminated against as well. It's not just protecting gays, it protects heterosexuals too.

I don't agree with protected classes on principle, however, we do have a bunch of fools in this country that do not believe all men are created equal.

 

[miguel]

Technically everybody falls into a few different protected classes already. A white male Christian is protected three times (race, gender, and religion).

Can you clarify how there is protection by race, gender and religion for this group? I'm not following and happy to learn what I don't know.

 

[MisterChester]

Can you clarify how there is protection by race, gender and religion for this group? I'm not following and happy to learn what I don't know.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[miguel]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not baiting, just trying to clarify...are there examples of white, Christian men invoking protection under the Civil Rights Act?

 

[printcraft]

Not Ted Cruz. He'd probably hug him and swap some spit.

What's wrong with that? Are you anti-gay or something?

 

[mrjarrell]

Tully: Mike Pence is out of his league as governor

Not usually in agreement with Tully on much, but I do think he rather nailed it this time. Pence is out of his league as governor. He was Ok as a congress-critter but is now playing well above his weight.

 

[MisterChester]

Not baiting, just trying to clarify...are there examples of white, Christian men invoking protection under the Civil Rights Act?

There might be, but it's irrelevant. They certainly could under the law if it were to happen.

 

[ghuns]

we do have a bunch of fools in this country that do not believe all men are created equal.

So how 'bout a constitutional amendment that says so. Have an asterix next to it and down at the bottom say, AND WE REALLY MEAN ALL THIS TIME!

 

[miguel]

There might be, but it's irrelevant. They certainly could under the law if it were to happen.

I am earnestly asking that question. Do you know of any case law of a white, Christian man invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect himself in court?

If you don't, that's cool, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but to say "A white male Christian is protected three times (race, gender, and religion)." by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then when I ask for an example of such, you say, "There might be, but it's irrelevant. They certainly could under the law if it were to happen." in reply to my open-minded request for further clarification is, well, insincere at best.

Was the word "gender" even included in that act?

 

[chipbennett]

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.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion - even if your opinion is more full of horse manure than the fields by my house.

 

[chipbennett]

Technically everybody falls into a few different protected classes already. A white male Christian is protected three times (race, gender, and religion). If sexual orientation was added, it would be four, because then heterosexuals could not be discriminated against as well. It's not just protecting gays, it protects heterosexuals too.

Given that every person has race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, your statement is rather tautological.

I don't agree with protected classes on principle, however, we do have a bunch of fools in this country that do not believe all men are created equal.

At the very least, we agree on something important.

Where we disagree is the nature of the people that think otherwise. Some classes of people are actively pushing to be more equal than others, with little to no action by anyone to make some classes of people less equal - although the latter is generally what is claimed to be happening.

 

[longbow]

Mike is a Dependable guy