Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Saw a woman at work today wearing a T-shirt that said in big, bold letters: FRIES OVER GUYS

That's discriminatory. It may not violate any religion, but probably violates Obamacare body-mass index guidelines.

 

Michelle Obama would rather it read APPLE SLICES OVER GUYS

 

YF and Bull Connor ... two peas in a pod.

 

At least in this message board vacuum, you want to rewrite the whole nature of how civil rights laws work. At some point the "solvency" of your point has to be challenged.

So, fire away. Tell us how you get this done. What's the bright line test? How would American people actually support this worldview? Your last 20 or so posts make your point. Repeatedly. It cannot be lost on anyone. But what does this hypothetical world look like? What are the challenges of it?

 

Not to ruin the stereotyped narratives here, but this "liberal's" stance:

To me, the endgame of this law's backlash shouldn't be making sure every businessperson is forced to engage with every patron. That feels invasive. However, where this law went wrong, in my opinion, was extending further protection for those that wish to discriminate against marginalized groups, specifically LGBT persons. In a state like Indiana, with a history of discrimination and an unrivaled KKK population --and more germane to this issue, no legal protections of LGBT people -- this law felt like a state-sanctioned loophole for anti-gay business owners (and others) to actively "other" the LGBT population under the guise of religious freedom.

So to me, there will always be businesses enacting discretion as to who they serve. The state, however, should not make it easier to discriminate, especially without making any real attempt to protect those people from more heinous acts of discrimination. So Indiana deserves the backlash not because I want to make war with religious-based discrimination (which I think is bogus if you know Christ's teachings at all, but whatever). Indiana deserves the backlash because this is just the latest attempt to cater to an anti-LGBT base, put lipstick on the pig, and call it the protection of religion. Meanwhile, they make no legitimate moves to protect the marginalized group. That feels, to me, like closing the gap in the separation of church and state, and choosing sides based on flawed, discriminatory religious grounds. Which I find unacceptable.

 

I'm not crazy about the word "bigot" here. Maybe it's a cop-out on my part, but tone matters a lot, here maybe more than in other places. One of my best friends, my running partner, we were just talking about it this week how we felt 10 years ago when Gavin Newsom made his big publicity play. My friend was on the other side. In my dreamy touchy-feely world, I like to think our 45-60 minutes of real conversation back then had some impact on the way he feels now, 100 percent on board with the rights movement. So I don't think "this is a bigot." I think it's someone who needs to get with the times. And that's no different from lots of issues. Your average 65-year-old Southerner is someone who most likely was not predisposed to see the races as equal when he was 15 or 20.

But ... dq, I know you're putting the Bull Connor jabs in there, but how is this philosophically different from that movement? The course of American history is basically a bunch of people saying "just wait, just wait, your time will come" and oppressed people saying "nope, our time is now." It was too early for Branch Rickey to sign Jackie Robinson. Women's suffrage had to be forced to the voting public. The world would eventually accept interracial marriage, just not quite yet so why do you have to push it? And while a wedding cake is qualitatively not in the same world as the kind of rights gained there, if it's a matter of rights and equality, what is the difference?

 

Try Journal Register Company, or whatever it's called now. If they were pizza, they'd be Chucky Cheese pizza.

 

Well, they both use hoses in their line of work.

 

I'll quote my former columnist... "Anyone who says Gannett isn't the worst chain, has never worked for Gannett."

 

I remember saying this years ago when someone asked who was worse, Bob Jelenic or Craig Dubow. I responded that Dubow was just a corporate drone, while Jelenic flat-out went out of his way to be an asshole.

 

If I'm looking for a job, and have my resume on LinkedIn, I can turn down an employment offer for any reason I want.

If the sports editor is gay, or black, or a woman, and that makes me uncomfortable, I can turn down the job offer. And, there's no way the potential employer can seek legal recourse to make me come work for them, or suffer some other consequence.

Is that problematic? So, bigots limit their opportunities. Are there gay bakeries that can't find employees? Do African-American sports editors have a problem finding sportswriters willing to work for them?

I'm not sure why selling your services as an employee is and different than selling your services as a small business owner.

We're not going to legislate away bigotry. So, we're reduced to determining if the local baker is a bigot, and if he is, if that means he's lost his right to operate his business.

I think it's especially absurd when there is a lack of a problem.

If African-Americans in some small town could not find a hall willing to host their wedding, or a gay couple couldn't find anyone willing to cater their wedding, we might have a problem.

That's just not the case. Every florist in town hopes their competitors turn down the available business offered by gay couples.