Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Yes. Was the decision right/fair though?

I think part of the "problem" is that it's very easy for people to relate with the wedding participants. No one wants to be discriminated against, judged, or looked down upon for how they live their lives.

And, I can certainly understand how it would be hurtful to be turned down by a photographer or caterer because they disagreed with my "lifestyle".

But, if we put it in terms where people relate to the service provider, I think we would get different answers/reactions.

Should an ad agency be forced to accept any client, and any campaign the client wishes to run?

Should a lawyer be forced to take any client, and make any case the client wishes?

Should Tom Verducci be required to co-author a book with anyone who wants to hire him.

Should a web designer be forced to build a website for NAMBLA? (Or a pro-life or pro-choice abortion group.)

Should a political consultant or pollster be forced to work for David Duke, or any other candidate they disagtee with.

Should a newspaper be forced to run any advertisement?

Should a freelance reporter be forced to take an assignment from any newspaper? What if they wanted to turn down work from the Washington Times because they didn't want to take money from the Unification Church affiliated paper? Is that discrimination?

 

This is where you go off the rails, Dick. Why does there need to be some amped up "battle" for America's soul? Why do progressives need "to win it, really win it"?

The evolution of thought on all of these issues has been going on one person at a time through individual contemplation and prayer and in small quiet conversations among serious and thoughtful people for centuries. The idea that there needs to be a big confrontation with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or anyone who holds non-mainstream beliefs (to the extent they are not harming anyone by means including but certainly not limited to discrimination), is unnecessarily provocative and, in the long run, counterproductive to your cause unless your goal is to stand over someone and say "nah, nah, nah, nah."

That's also my issue with this legislation. It's unnecessarily provocative and emboldens those with the ugliest intent.

 

I think you're overstating it just a tad, but I think we can all agree that burning this family at the stake won't be productive for anyone.

The president gets a pass, in my view, because his actions in office spoke much louder than the blatant yet empty pandering he did previously.

What bothers me more was the reaction to Rob Portman, whose support for gay marriage was summarily rejected by a lot of people, solely because of his party affiliation.

 

But where do you draw the line?

What if they don't want to decorate the cake with two grooms? That's a particular cake.

What if they don't want to write Adam and Steve on the cake? That makes it a particular cake.

It's the particulars that matter. If the couple just wanted to buy a cake out of the display, and leave with it, that's one thing. They are commissioning a custom cake.

 

Cran, I'm not advocating a big confrontation.

I'm advocating the opposite: reasoned persuasion.

 

Right. Portman and Cheney are still evil.

 

The line is that they have to reject the business based upon the aesthetics of the order, not the sexual orientation of the couple.

 

OK. I basically agree. So, is decorating the cake with two grooms, or writing "Adam & Steve" on the cake an aesthetic?

 

I don't know. This is why we have courts.

 

LOL. OK. But, I think a lot of people would wish that their every action (lack of action) didn't open themselves up to potential legal action.

Why, some might even support legislation that would make it clear that their religious beliefs would allow for them to turn down work.

 

Yeah, it sucks. Welcome to law.

"My religious beliefs preclude me from catering an interracial marriage."

 

C'mon, you know only democrats get credit when they change their minds about gay marriage.