Understand that I generally do not support boycotts.
I suppose that stems from the many knee jerk reactions that various fans have had when I said something they disliked and they announced that they were going to boycott my work, even though my work doesn’t reflect my views. Like the time that I worked on a video game that was associated with Orson Scott Card and gays were declaring I should be boycotted even though I was getting an award from GLAAD at the same time for my comic books.
Mostly I feel that boycotts needlessly punish the wrong people. You dislike Mel Gibson so you refuse to go to his movies, except the ones who are suffering are not Gibson but the movie theater owners.
But seriously: Indiana? WTF?
I can’t in good conscience attend any functions in a state that endorses discrimination in such an overt manner (although the governor apparently can’t actually admit it.) I’ve been to conventions in Indianapolis and such, but sorry, no more. I’m out until they repeal this idiotic law.
PAD
• 
Indiana’s law is little different from the laws of about 19 other states, or the federal law. Hëll, PAD, Connecticut’s law goes even further. See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Will you also be boycotting Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island?
BTW, the federal law was passed almost unanimously in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
That “little” difference goes a long way. It is written in such a way that makes it okay to discriminate against gay people. That’s its purpose. When it was being debated, a member of the legislature hostile to it suggested that an amendment be added that makes it explicit that it’s not legal to discriminate against people because they’re gay. The response was that there’d be no point in passing the law with that amendment. It’s a law to legitimize bigotry, covered in a disguising shroud of religion.
Really? What are the specific differences that say what you’re asserting? What is the language that authorizes what you’re saying?
The Indiana law says the state cannot “substantially burden.” So does the federal law. That means that the religious exception claimed must be major.
Connecticut’s law doesn’t qualify “burden.”
PAD, you’re a hëll of a writer and a hëll of a decent guy, but you’re politically naïve.
Really? What are the specific differences that say what you’re asserting? What is the language that authorizes what you’re saying? — Jay Tea
The Atlantic published an article detailing what makes Indiana’s law stand out above the others that you list. An excerpt:
“…the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
“The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.”
The key difference is that all the other states (bar one, which is changing tomorrow, I think) have LGBT as a protected class, so that law cannot violate a protected class, thus protecting the rights of LGBT, just like in Illinois, for example. Indiana could dig itself out of the hole quickly by adding LGBT to the protected class list in the state.
“PAD, you’re a hëll of a writer and a hëll of a decent guy, but you’re politically naïve.”
Ba ha ha ha! Jay Tea is naïve if he thinks that the only reason for this bill was to discriminate against the LGBT community. Sheesh! Governor Pence wouldn’t even answer the simple yes-or-no questions that George Stephanopolous asked him on Sunday!
Oops! I meant If Jay Tea does NOT understand that the only reason for this bill was to discriminate against the LGBT community.
Here, Jay, lemme see if I can explain it to you:
♪♫ One of these | laws is | not like the | oth-ers, ♫♪
♫♪ One of these | laws just | does-n’t be- | -long. ♪♫
♪♫ Can you | tell me which | law is | not like the | oth-ers, ♫♪
♫♪ By the | time I | fin-ish this | song? ♪♫
So… PAD mentions how he normally doesn’t support boycotts due to the impact on people not responsible for the problem. Then he goes ahead with just such an action?
I was raised in Indiana and still live in the Indy area. Comics fans like myself and my friends aren’t supporting this law and we’re doing what we can within the state to push back on it.
Unfortunately, decisions like PAD’s are going to go completely unnoticed by everyone except for fans like myself who might (theoretically) miss out on seeing him at a convention, etc.
As a result, the only people being impacted by PAD’s announcement are his fans and the majority of his fans aren’t supporting the law.
Economic boycotts of unjust laws have a distinguished (and effective) history in the country going back to Rosa Parks. Critics might have called MLK a “communist” but he really mastered capitalism as a tool for social change. If you blatantly discriminate against a sizable portion of your consumer base (black bus riders), you will feel the economic punch in your wallet if they stop riding.
However, economic boycotts of artists have a less distinguished (though, sadly still “effective”) history.
I guess in the United States freedom of religion only applies if it’s in lock step with the left.
No one is in favor of impeding one’s freedom of religion. If someone’s religion insists they despise gays, I don’t care. But when they say, “Because you’re gay I don’t have to serve you,” that’s a point where the line must be drawn by anyone who is not a knee jerk conservative.
PAD
Amazing how people also forget that owning a business is a privilege, not a right, just like driving; so you don’t technically have constitutional rights for your business, and you have to obey laws, including anti-discrimination.
Also, for supporters of this idiotic law, I NEVER EVER want to hear you whine your stupid bûllšhìŧ about “the war on Christianity”. because you guys just bring it all on yourselves….
Scott is a disciple of Betty Bowers.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K0lCBvMBcPQ/U7h1Irlk6MI/AAAAAAAAZmY/UlJpsiVoCm0/s1600/bowers-religion.png
I think a key point is also that we’re discussing discriminatory business practices. A Jewish or Christian-run business can choose not to open on Saturdays or Sundays respectively. In those cases, it’s not serving *anyone.”
I also think it’s one thing to demand a religious person work on the Sabbath so that I can get a bagel. But I seriously don’t comprehend the burden upon a business owner to bake a cake or make a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. That is a service that’s not in any way similar to a rabbi presiding over an interfaith wedding.
This debate reminds me that just 50 years ago (arguably even sooner) an interracial couple might have the same issue when making arrangements for their wedding. It’s shameless and judgmental. And you don’t need religion to have either negative trait.
Only partially correct, Peter:
Anti-discrimination laws do, indeed, protect selected classes in the area of commercial sales. If you come to my flower shop and say you want flowers for a wedding, pay for the flowers, then leave, a VERY strong case for discrimination can be made if the clerk refuses the sale.
The line is drawn at the point the florist becomes legally obliged to arrange the flowers on site at a same-sex wedding. See further the Azulcar case in Colorado (the same thing in reverse). Florists (and cake decorators) are not required to render such “service.”
Now, as long as I have your attention (and since we just spent an inordinate amount of time resurrecting the Logan Act): What should we now do about prosecuting you for violating the Sherman Act? After all, organizing a boycott of Indiana certainly constitutes an “unlawful” combination “in restraint of trade.”
Freedom of religion primarily covers belief and practice. While people can certainly believe that some people have undesirable traits, I don’t believe it’s a specific practice to deny them service or be outright spiteful. In the case of Christianity, I never quite understood how people could be so mean to others despite that whole, “Love your neighbor as you would yourself,” thing. As far as I can tell, it didn’t come with exceptions.
Especially when it comes to restaurants, refusing to serve gay people seems decidedly unChristian. I can’t recall stories of Jesus denying food to “sinners.”
And unless these businesses have morals forms that customers are required to fill out, it seems like the so-called religious business owners are singling out a specific group (gays) and a specific activity (gay weddings). Religious freedom also does not mean the freedom to *selectively* apply the rules of your religion. A florist in North Carolina admitted that she’d have no problem serving an adulterer or someone who “dishonored” their parents but not gays because that’s a “different sort of sin.” Yes, one that didn’t even make it into the 10 Commandments, like the others!
I guess we’re going to have the people who think Christians are a persecuted minority in this country coming out of the woodwork.
How in heel would you know?
Well, some conventions are apparently feeling the same way. GenCon is looking into pulling out of the state once its contract is up.
Dragon*Con is also not happy about a similar law being considered in Georgia. THAT would be an interesting situation, especially given their other problems in recent years.
Here’s a part of the law that I haven’t heard discussed at all: Does it enable people to refuse service to anyone with a different religion or religious beliefs? If a business owner believes Jesus is the One True Savior (which a lot of religions believe), can they refuse to, I dunno, photograph a Bar Mitzvah, or rent a hotel room to two unmarried people, or serve breakfast to Muslims, or not sell books to athiests? What about other discrimination based on religion, like the KKK’s beliefs that they’re both religious and superior to non-whites? The “I can refuse to serve anyone based on my personal beliefs” seems to be the start of a very dangerous slippery slope.
Exactly, I was wondering aside from it potentially being a problem for gay people if they chose to use it that way, how this law would be useful or used by businesses in other aspects. Aside from that, a man could order a wedding cake by himself and no one would know if he intended on marrying a man or a woman.
I believe, technically, as a private business owner you can refuse anything that is not a protected class. For example, you can refuse to serve people not wearing shoes.
As a Hoosier that feels this is law is a vile and evil law and now I’m forced to support the boycott of my own state, believe me when I say this is not fun, but it has to be done. I support Peter David and any and all comic book creators who do this.
I only ask try not to paint all Hoosiers as homophobic bigots there are a lot of us that want this law repealed just as much as you do and we’re doing everything in our power to do just that.
Unfortunately, the issue goes beyond “discrimination” (whatever that exactly is). The ultimate question is whether Indiana’s courts should become vehicles for obliging the citizenry to approve of voluntary behavior a great number of those citizens despise.
“Sexual orientation” can, indeed, refer to something one is born with and over which he or she has no control. For example, a female fetus whose adrenal glands overproduce testosterone in utero (masculinizes the fetus) clearly has no control over that and no more should be the victim of discrimination than someone with blue eyes.
These conditions are rare, however, and cannot account for the 3-5 per cent of Americans who claim to be homosexual.
There are psychologists today who say that almost all of this behavior is “innate” or “innately based,” and that view even has made its way into some judicial opinions (Judge Posner’s opinion in Bostic, for example). But, there are several problems with this hypothesis:
1) It’s bad biology, and there is no biological foundation for it (at least in the numbers observed — ethologists long ago rejected these kinds of explanations).
2) The experimental methodology supporting it is flawed (it is not science to call up lesbians on the phone and ask, “Do you think you learned to be homosexual, or do you think it was something you were born with? And, by the way, if you say that it’s a ‘badge,’ we’ll reward you for your answer with anti-discrimination laws.”).
3) Legally, the question largely is irrelevant. For example, I reasonably might argue that a person’s peculiar biochemistry makes him or her unusually susceptible to alcohol or heroin (and one could establish a biological foundation for that claim). The legal problem is that we don’t put people in jail for being a heroin addict (and we don’t put alcoholics in jail at all other than to dry them out). What we do put people in jail for is illegally possessing heroin (and that’s a totally voluntary act).
If any here wish to argue whether homosexuality is exclusively or even primarily a function of genetics, that’s a discussion we can have (again); however, anyone who claims that participation in a homosexual “wedding” somehow is genetically commanded behavior merits being laughed off the blog. And, the issue raised by the Indiana legislature is whether Indiana’s citizens should be legally liable for, e.g., refusing to bake a homosexual wedding cake or refusing to arrange flowers for the “ceremony.” Cases like this already are in the courts, and for the most part, they are an abuse of process.
Discrimination law is very complex; I’m pretty sure one could find other kinds of cases which are not abuse of process. That does not change the fact that, already, there is talk on the internet of suing the Catholic Church for refusing to conduct “gay weddings.” Indiana’s new law may be inartfully drawn, and amending it may be desirable. That does not make the law evil of itself or meriting some kind of economic nuclear strike.
The legal problems the law addresses are real.
Since, you claim, homosexuality is a choice for the most part, I’m assuming that your are attracted equally to men and women and choose to be straight?
I see Peter still has his head in the sand. It’s still nice to know the criticism hurts.
On the possibility you’ll get this before he notices:
“Behavior” to an ethologist is more expansive as a concept than what you imply. What the APA long has stated (and we’ve known this since at least the Forties) is that there naturally are a continuum of states from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual, with most people naturally in the middle. This, incidentally, is true in MOST primate societies, not just human beings. (Bonobos are notoriously bisexual.)
However, OUR institutions were designed to drive out the middle, then suppress one of the extremes. This was done (rightly or wrongly) for public health reasons, is Jewish in origin (take that, Peter), and have the effect of CREATING categories of “queer” and “unqueer.”
So, when a girl I know in California says, “I don’t know what I am,” I know exactly what she is: She’s a human being — with a fully functioning will of her own. And she DOES choose what to do with her life.
All animals learn, and there are various kinds of learning. Some kinds of learning are very powerful (which makes them difficult to reverse). In this sense, “learning” is more than something you do by sitting in class. I’ve never had a lion in my geometry classes, and if I ever do, I’ll probably look for another class to teach. But, no one doubts that lions learn.
As I stated, there are people who are structurally homosexual. But, even in these cases, their adult behaviors reflect a high degree of learning and choice. A woman masculinized in utero (from malfunction of her adrenal glands) is essentially homosexual at birth. But, if at maturity, she chooses to get a “butch” haircut or participate in a lesbian “wedding,” these are fully the byproduct of voluntary decisions. The claim, “Homosexual behavior is OK” (or for that matter, “Homosexual behavior is NOT OK”) is a value judgment part of a philosophy of being, and it begs credulity to say that something like that is inherited. Indeed, what the Bible actually says about this is (in effect): “DON’T do what the Egyptians do, and DON’T do what the Canaanites do, but CHOOSE TO DO what I tell you to do, because I am the Lord God,” &c., &c. You can read this yourself: Leviticus 18. And, if you read far enough, you’ll come to the passage which commands: Don’t engage in anal intercourse, and don’t sleep with a monkey.
(N.B.: The word, “homosexual,” is not even in the Bible — it is modern in origin.)
Whether these health proscriptions remain valid today certainly can be debated. I had ham last week, and I’m not headed for hëll. Ancient Jews did not have a lot of things we take for granted today, including microscopes and cast-iron stoves. They did not realize that the harm from pigs actually comes from microscopic worms which proper cooking kills. So, they deified the prohibition, which survives in Jewish culture to this day. Even though the reason is (partially) obsolete.
Medical problems associated with anal intercourse — a widespread behavior within the homosexual community but also not unheard of in heterosexual relationships — are more intractable. AIDS is a real virus, and it WILL kill you. To the extent ancient Jews knew about it, it’s easy to see why they would make sodomy ungodly. AIDS remains a dangerous virus today.
Now, I suppose you could say, “We can fix that with condoms.” And, perhaps, for now, we can. But, what happens when agents for a foreign government learn how to preserve the virus in the gut of an arthropod? For now, AIDS cannot be contracted casually, but I’ve participated in the biotechnology revolution and have seen where it is going. Today’s science fiction is tomorrow’s science fact. We are, indeed, manipulating the fundamental building blocks of life — and for good or for evil.
Legitimizing homosexuality and its associated behaviors, thereby making them more acceptable to increasing numbers of people, could walk us into a situation where large areas of the United States become uninhabitable, and we could be saddled with 20 million dead.
A Soviet nuclear strike probably would not have caused those kinds of casualties or damage.
This is more than a word game.
For almost 3,500 years, we have combated such possibilities by creating institutions that try to induce removal of the source from society. That, too, is a voluntary choice. You, of course, are free to argue that we should make a different choice. But, I remain skeptical, in the wake of so much experience, that such an admonition in any way is wise. I really have no malice toward those who choose to be different, but with “firmness for the right,” I think we have to respect the choices of those who do not want to become part of the problem. If Peter does not want me passing laws requiring him to eat pigs, then he should understand when someone else does not want a law requiring them to arrange flowers at a same-sex “wedding.”
A properly drawn RFRA law accomplishes that end.
Gotcha. You ARE attracted to men and want to have man-sex, but have forced yourself to not be with men, basically. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, I said what I said, nothing more nor less. If you wish to dispute the science, you can start by reading the amicus brief by the APA currently before the Supreme Court of the United States (and supporting petitioners); and, if you can get a copy, you then can read mine (which says the exact same thing at footnote 1), supporting the respondents.
Courts always start with the facts. When the scientists on both sides agree, that’s usually a good place to start.
Well said. I think most of us agree that orientation are grounds for firing or losing the right to vote. The sudden demand that everyone not only accept but actively endorse someone’s right to a tax break is off-putting enough. The hate-filled, violent rhetoric against anyone who disagrees or even questions these sweeping changes is very disturbing.
Sorry! “are NOT grounds for,” above.
Please back up your comment “there is talk on the internet of suing the Catholic Church for refusing to conduct ‘gay weddings’,” with some *reputable* sources.
The Catholic Church is fully within its rights to deny ANY couple the use of their facilities if that couple is not Catholic or does not abide by Catholic teachings. Even if you’re a non-Catholic who DOES abide by Catholic teachings (and one could argue what constitutes being a Catholic in such a situation), the Church can refuse to join you and your partner (same-sex or not) in the institution of marriage just as it can deny you participation in Communion (non-Catholic Christians are generally barred from taking Communion in a Catholic church).
And if we really want to get down to it, Robert, the whole reason this law exists is based on something that is NOT innate to any human being–religion. NO ONE is born as any particular religious sect or faith or whatever you want to call it–not even Jews if you want to get biologically technical about the matter. If religious “orientation” were truly innate, people would NOT be able to change their religions–and there would be no need for laws banning apostasy or blasphemy. But religion is not innate. We’ve seen numerous cases of people converting to other faiths; a very notable case is recorded in the New Testament–that of Paul né Saul. Bob Dylan converted from Judaism to Evangelical Christianity and back to Judaism. George Harrison converted to Hinduism. And so on. And all of these “deeply-held religious beliefs” seem to vanish when circumstances aren’t as convenient. Like after Hobby Lobby was able to use religion of its owners to deny contraceptive coverage for health insurance plans, the company never bothered to explain why they imported (and continue to import) so much Chinese merchandise when China is notorious for not only legal abortion for all women but authorizes a policy which practically mandates contraception (the “one-child” policy) and is a pretty well-known violator of human rights, not the least of which includes virtual slave labor of its “free” employees (as opposed to the actual slave labor of using prisoners to manufacture many of the country’s exports). And the people who’ve used their “religious principles” to refuse service ONLY for same-sex weddings while not seeming to have objections to other weddings which may violate “deeply-held religious beliefs”–interfaith marriages are among the most notorious but there’ve been a few documented cases in recent years of interracial couples being turned away by their own pastors/ministers (yeah, this moves away from the notion of a for-profit business and to an actual religious “business” but ultimately, that’s what these “business” people have been doing–trying to claim their for-profit business is effectively a church or ministry). There was also the situation of one of the anti-LGBT bakers who received phone calls looking for cakes for a Wiccan wedding as well as an abortion party among other hypothetical scenarios, NONE of which were refused by the bakers (despite the seeming contradiction in the “deeply-held religious beliefs” claim).
Not to mention that Hobby Lobby’s mutual fund for employee retirement plans invested in a company that actually makes “Plan B” or “Day After” contraceptives (often mis-called “abortion pills”).
That’s right. Hobby Lobby was actually investing corporate funds in the company that makes those!
That said, I must quibble a bit with your terminology. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other religion has the authority to join a couple in the institution of marriage. Only the State government can do that, by issuing a marriage license.
What churches can perform (but others can as well) is called “weddings” which is an optional ceremony which can, but need not, be religious in nature, which symbolizes the initiation of the marriage which already existed from the moment the marriage license was signed. Marriage, on the other hand, is the lasting civil and contractual legal partnership between consenting adults to share property, legitimize offspring, and form a family unit. It is not the ceremony that initiates it.
Weddings ≠ marriages. Those words are not synonyms. One does not say, “I’m going to be the Best Man or Maid of Honor at my best friend’s marriage,” nor does a betrayed spouse wail while demanding divorce, “Our wedding is over!” It’s always the other way around.
There’s another term at play here, and that is the religious sacrament known as “Holy Matrimony.” This is the religious sacrament which generally parallels the civil and contractual partnership of marriage. In most Christian religions, their weddings are also religious rites that actually do initiate the religious sacrament of Holy Matrimony, as well as being a ceremony to symbolize the initiation of the civil institution of marriage.
Churches are free to refuse their version of Holy Matrimony to whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, and ditto the weddings that initiate them.
Please, Joe: If you’re going to criticise me, criticise me for what I said, not what I didn’t say.
No one claimed that religious ideas are innate. Exactly the opposite was claimed.
Re the claim of suing the Church, that was made by a number of people discussing this matter at other news sites (Peter’s is not the only talk show I appear on).
I did not bother to write down the reference. But, there’s no reason for me to lie that it happened.
Re Hobby Lobby, the firm did, indeed, have investments in the firms mentioned PLUS a health-care plan for its employees that provided some of the drugs. According to the complaint, when Hobby Lobby’s owners discovered the full dimensions of the matter, viz., that said firms were providing “Plan B” drugs and also making those available via Hobby Lobby’s health-care plan, THAT is when the firm’s owners took action.
You may disbelieve the allegation of the complaint if you want to; however, to the extent it be true, such vitiates your objection.
Finally, more generally:
1) Lots of things are in the Bible which also are against the law or even are part of the law. These include prohibitions against murder, larceny, perjury, adultery, bribery, and a host of other common-law offenses.
The Bible even contains a passage describing the organization of the federal courts and the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction (I’ve got to hand it to you, Peter — your man, Moses, was one smart dude — although the “organization” suggestion actually was made by his father in law).
In other words, that something is in the Bible neither makes it appropriate or inappropriate as a model for secular legislation. The question, rather, is whether there be a rational, independent, secular reason for imposing a Biblical law.
This is a most important point. It is arbitrary whether we drive on the right side of the road or the left side of the road; but, it is NOT arbitrary that we drive on the SAME side of the road. All law has an objective element in it. It is high error to ignore that by running up the flagpole the Equal Protection Clause and then trying to level everything upon some legal bed of Procrustes.
The Court (if it’s doing its job) still has to ask: What EXACTLY is being proposed here? States do possess a general police power. When states pass laws which require florists to sell flowers to anyone who walks in the shop, that is an exercise of the police power (and I assume Peter favors that). The question of allowable “discrimination” only properly comes up when, as part of the sale, the florist becomes obligated to participate in the SSM “wedding.” Properly drawn RFRA laws excuse the florist from doing that, NOT from refusing to sell flowers.
I’ve not read Indiana’s law, either in its original or proposed revised form. It is correct CONSTITUTIONAL law to say, however, that obliging someone to participate in a same-sex “wedding” (beyond some straight commercial sale) raises serious First Amendment concerns. The Hobby Lobby case raised that very issue (and Hobby Lobby won).
Took me a sec to figure what was going on but that was worth a laugh (the vowel thing).
As a long time comics retailer in Indianapolis, I’m disgusted by what Pence is doing. Thankfully our Republican Mayor is disgusted by this as well and has signed an executive order protecting our LGBT community….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/greg-ballard_n_6972928.html
Our Chamber of Commerce and City Council have all come out against this misguided and hateful bill. Our major sports teams have come out against this and just about all our College’s in the state have come out against this (I haven’t seen a statement from every college yet)….
It’s bad for Indiana, it’s bad for Indianapolis and it will be reflected in the next general election.
Excellent. Well done. If I’m invited to Indianapolis (which I have been in the past) I’ll go.
PAD
On the main page, it says there are 19 comments. When I click on the article title or the comments box, it says no comments and show none.
That’s in Firefox. Internet Explorer shows the comments, but not Firefox. And I HATE IE.
I dunno if it’s a bug or a variant of disemvoweling, but it’s not worth my time and effort to work around.
It does the same thing in Chrome. Just refresh the page, or shift+refresh if that doesn’t work.
Safari works fine.
PAD
So does Pale Moon, which is basically Firefox done right (Gekko engine, but without the bloat).
Jay Tea: Not sure if you’ll be able to read this, but I stumbled upon the fact that if you block images in Firefox, you can see all the posts.
Probably the first time Telus (Canada)’s new charges for data overuse has done me a favour.
Why is this law different from all other laws?
1) All past laws embittered gays once. This law reminds them of the past wrong while doing it again, embittering them twice. Also, this law was passed by dips.
2) All other laws allowed gays to eat chametz or matzah. This one tells them to eat šhìŧ.
3) All other laws allowed gays to eat all kinds of vegetables. This law makes the voters in Indiana look like vegetables.
4) All other laws were supposed to be upright and straightforward. This one was passed at a special ceremony in which the press was not invited.
Debate over. Jonathan wins, hands down.
Here is the afikomen, Mr. Roth. I hope you have a special someone to share it with.
You realize that I have to pay you to get the afikomen back? Then again, I did just put my two cents in. The annoying thing is, now matter how old I get, I am still almost always the one who has to ask the four questions every year. At least they no longer ask me to sing it.
Next year in Indiana.
Next year may all be free.
If you dislike Mel Gibson, why would you pay to see him? And can’t you see something else in that theater that is not starring him?
Should’ve been clear: you dislike his opinions and therefore you’ve decided to boycott his films even though you previously loved his movies.
PAD
This law is based on a case that arises out of CO where a couple owned a bakery. The couple made cakes for different patrons, including homosexuals. A gay couple came to the bakery and wanted to pay them to bake a cake for their same sex union. The bakery owners said no, they believed that same sex unions were against their religious belief. The gay couple sued the bakery for discriminating against them, and the state shut down the bakery. Now, whether you agree with the religious beliefs of the bakery owners or not (which I do not), I don’t believe its the right of the state to tell a business owner who they must provide a service to, unless the service of of a substantially unique nature or a life saving nature. As a minority, I neither want nor need the state to legislate a businesses morality for me.
I work hard for my money, and I’d rather the person I plan on doing business with feels the freedom to express their beliefs as they see fit, so if they are racist, homophobic, or some other “ism” I decide to keep my dollars out of their pocket. I can go to another store that will welcome my me, and my business. From my reading of this law, it seems its designed to protect business owners, like the bakery owner from the state shutting them down.
If a store doesn’t want to serve me for a biological, and or religious purpose I have other recourse’s than to sue. The internet has given us the ability to tell the world about our experiences, and like minded people can decide not to frequent such an establishment. The free market will shut it down. To tell a store owner that they MUST perform a service for you seems too much like slavery to me.
Colorado did not shut him down. He chose to close his business when told he would have to serve all members of the community, not just the people he likes.
Right now I feel sorry for all of the local area businesses run by people that didn’t support this crap or at least heavily staffed by people that didn’t support this crap. When it comes to pandering to the base on big base issues, Republicans (hëll, both parties) can dig their heels in rather stubbornly. There are probably more than a few mom & pops that look forward to summer season or convention season revenue, maybe even depending on it to help even out their books, that are going to take a hit if this drags out or gets worse.
This is why I hate when stupid people with power use “religion” as a bludgeon to hurt others rather than leaving it alone and not helping to give faith a bad name.
And in what can only be considered a future classic example of the law of unintended consequences, here’s an article explaining how Indiana’s “religious liberty” law can indeed bring Sharia law to Indiana: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/03/next-we-muslims-bring-sharia-to-indiana.html# Hah!
I think we’ve already seen proof of the law’s intention in action: Memories Pizza announced they would not cater to gays (actually according to Yelp they don’t cater period but that as left out of their announcement). This drew some backlash. In response a crowdfunding campaign commenced to fund their anti-gay position. As a result, Memories Pizza got $842,387 out of the deal. Now imagine what that amount of money could have done for food banks, or to assist in
Cyclone Pam relief, or any of a number of causes based on love and not hate.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/03/crowdfunding-page-indiana-pizzeria-supported-rfra-raises/25270337/
Homosexual weddings I meant. Apparently they’ll still serve homosexual people in the restaurant.
It just goes to show that’s really easy for many to hide behind their religion not only to excuse their behavior, but also the fact that they don’t actually know jack about said religion.
Because he is in the toe!