DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Gov. Mike Pence signed a controversial "religious freedom" bill on Thursday morning during a private ceremony in his Statehouse office.

Pence almost immediately began defending the law, saying at a news conference that the law was not a consolation prize for conservative groups who failed to pass a bill last year to add an amendment to the Indiana constitution banning same-sex marriage.

""I think there's a lot of misunderstanding," Pence said about the religious freedom law. "This has never undermined anti-discrimination laws."

When asked by one reporter whether sexual orientation should be a protected class, the governor answered that the matter was not on his agenda.

The governor spoke for about 30 minutes about the religious freedom bill during the news conference, which also addressed his temporary needle exchange program to stop an HIV epidemic in Scott County, before it came to an end.

"Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith," he said in a statement. "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action."

He cited as an example the University of Notre Dame's objection to a provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring insurance coverage for contraceptives.

The measure, Senate Bill 101, could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples and has set off a firestorm of controversy. Supporters say it's needed to protect those with strong religious beliefs from government overreach, but opponents say it would allow discrimination, particularly against gays and lesbians.

Pence has been under intense pressure from opponents. In the past two days, two major Indianapolis conventions have threatened to look elsewhere if Pence signed the bill, and a group of technology executives, including the CEO of Salesforce, have written to the governor to oppose the measure.

But Pence stood firm in his support for the bill. About 75 to 80 people - a mix of supportive lawmakers, religious leaders and conservative lobbyists including Eric Miller - attended the private signing ceremony just before 10 a.m. at the governor's invitation.

"It was a very crowded room. They said it may have been one of the biggest bill signings they ever had," said Micah Clark, who attended the ceremony as a staunch supporter of the legislation and executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana

The event was closed to the public and the press. Members of the media were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor's office.

The governor's office declined to provide a list of everyone pictured in an official photo of the bill signing.

Pence took issue with accusations that the measure would allow discrimination.

"This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," he said. "In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana."

Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, a Democrat, slammed the governor and the Republican-controlled legislature for supporting the bill.

"Although not unexpected, it is still extremely disappointing that Governor Pence endorses this out-of- touch, discriminatory legislation," said Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane in a statement. "Not only is this law unnecessary, it unfortunately has already portrayed our state as intolerant, unfriendly, and backwards; things which I believe most Hoosiers reject."

Still wondering how anyone could possibly believe it's Christians who are being persecuted.

Step by step by step we take America back.

If my faith says homosexuality is a sin and I am not to support it. How am I not being persecuted when it is illegal for me to not work with them?

Religious freedom entails freedom of association.

When we're talking about government organizations like schools...then the rules are different. But in our private lives and businesses discrimination based on belief (or really whatever you want) is a fundamental freedom. To argue otherwise is the most diverse rainbow colored kind of fascism.

If a christian on this board doesn't approve of homosexuality. But they would go to jail for not doing business with a homosexual... that is persecution that is actually happening.

I'm all for the enlightenment of society, but not when you try to accomplish it by pointing a gun at everyone. Accept the gays or go to jail!

taking back what? this isn't a christian country.

I didn't say it was.

so what are they taking back then?

It was founded on Christian values. The left has slowly over the years indoctrinated our children into believing otherwise.

Christianity was not the national religion, it was jus where the basic values of our constitution came from. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution the way it is talked about today by the left. It states that no religion would be forced upon anybody, and they had the right to follow any religion they chose. Over the years, it has been bastardized by many liberal groups, turning it from a freedom to practice any religion, to persecuting anybody with christian beliefs.

There was to be no state sanctioned religion, but a freedom to practice any religion you want.

Taking America back from those who would make it a Brothel, from those who would make her a whore. Step by step by step...

you realize that the same values you can find in almost all the other religions, right?

Christianity isn't special.

Ummm....it's been like that sense before you was born.

the only difference is people are more open about it.

For somebody trying to tell people to open their eyes, you sure seem to have yours closed quick often.

I fixed that for you

Depends on what you believe, its special to me because I believe Jesus Christ died for people like me, that I don't have to spend eternity in a devil's Hell, now you don't have to believe that because God gives us all a choice ...

Never before has our Government been an accomplice and step by step by step it will be no longer.

an accomplice to what?in the savage treating of indians, chinese and irish people?

in the ongoing battle of womens rights?

in jim crow laws?

in the salem witch trials?

religion has been the poster child of jacked up crap happening all over the world sense recorded history. as well as our government. I don't wanna hear it.

I'm not sure what would be causing you to spend time in hell.

I'm 100% behind your right to believe what you believe, but religious beliefs are being used here to allow discrimination.

I'm one of a great many who see this law as religious oppression.

I love it. It's the "who's rights are more important?" argument again. I'm actually still waiting for the Westboro Baptist church to find a gay printer and force them to make their signs. Would the gay printer have a right to refuse that business?

I know. Let's get back to segregation. That worked so well.

Assuming the signs they're asking to make are offensive, then yes. But if they came into the store and asked for a birthday sign, then no.

This law says I can refuse service to a person based on who they are if that disagrees with the religion I choose. So if my religion says blacks, Asians, old people, women, Browns fans, dog owners, Catholics, & all politicians are evil, I can kick them out of my store?

Haha...so we should legally force lgbt to make birthday cakes for westboro baptist folk if they request it.

If you refuse a law you are fined in some manner. If you refuse a fine you are arrested. If you refuse arrest you are shot. All laws are death penalties so for them to be moral they need to be pretty damn justifiable.

So it is morally/legally justifiable in your mind to shoot LGBT people for refusing to make birthday cakes for vehemently anti-gay activists.

A nation-state is a monopoly on violence - Barack Obama

People are get all jazzed up about the government enforcing their social preferences when they conveniently ignore the logical consequences of violating law.

It's a birthday cake and you're a baker. Isn't that a normal service you provide for any gender, race, religion, etc.?

If the westboro baptist asked to create a "Die Ni&&er Die" cake, then sure, a baker could refuse that. But we're talking about a birthday cake. Why would a baker need to refuse a baptist, black, gay, or woman's request for a birthday cake?

Essentially, this law gives any store the right to refuse normal service based on who or what they think the person is, not what service their asking for. I don't understand.

i think the issue is, people need to stay out of the LBGT communities business, just like THEY need to stay out of religious business.

Gays should be able to marry, just like religious people have the right to ban whatever they damn well please regarding gays in their business.

if businesses want to segregate based off of sexual preference, well, whatever. there's not a lot of those type of businesses in the first place, as far as i know.


basically, people need to mind their own business.

cause it seems i'm more of a conservative than anybody on this board. i don't like the government all up in my crap.

...and then businesses can then refuse blacks, Asians, old people, women, Browns fans, and dog owners? Why let this happen?

I'm not sure I understand. In America, all men are created equal, unless you own a business and then you can pick and choose who enters your store? You don't like blacks, they're out. You don't like gays, they're banned. You don't like southerners, the store locks the doors.

Since when is that American?

honestly i don't like the idea either, but i've come to realize that a lot of these rules helps create even more prejudice bigots than before.

for example, and i know imma get slammed for this: i feel in 2015 we don't need affirmative action anymore.

lets say you had a white guy that was on the fence about racism. Well, if he gets picked over a black, asian, or hispanic guy, not because of qualifications, but because of skin tone, guess who just paid their annual fee at KKK R' Us?

That's an example, but that doesn't happen as much as it used to. And you can never know for sure. Maybe the other guy had a better interview, maybe you are actually a bad worker and never had a shot, and maybe you smell. Heck, if a person is one missed promotion away from joining the KKK, he's probably a racist already.

To me, this is just insane. My sister lives in Indiana because that's where my bro-in-law's territory in centralized (salesmen). So I can potentially expect to drive through a town looking for gas and see signs that say, "No Gays Allowed!". And because I'm in a mixed marriage, I could also see, "No Asians Served Here".

That's straight up wrong and everyone knows it. Welcome to 1925 when America was "great" and all minorities were treated like crap.

look, i support the LGBT community. It would be hypocritical of me NOT to, as i'm a minority, and if anybody should be supporting people's civil rights, its me.

And i do, but there's got to be a point where we stop forcing lifestyles on others.

letting them get married is NOT forcing their lifestyle on others. I support that to the max.

however, everything else is highly debatable.

But this isn't about forcing a lifestyle on anyone.

If you sell birthday cakes, then sell birthday cakes. It shouldn't matter who's buying them.

I understand this all started in Indiana when a gay couple asked a religious baker to make a penis-shaped wedding cake, or something like that. The baker should have the right to refuse the specific order, but if they change to a normal cake, how would that be forcing a belief on the baker?

Most people are making way more out of this bill than they should. Do you really think people are going to put signs up like that? You sound like the people who say legalized gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals...ridiculous. Read the actual bill. All it says is that a government entity cannot "substantially burden" any individual or private entity from practicing their religion. Substantially burden is open to interpretation though.

My personal view is that no one should be forced to participate in any religious activity or ceremony that violates their personal beliefs. That includes anything pertaining to a gay wedding. It's pretty simple.

people have their preferences all the time.

You don't see me complaining that i can't work at Hooters.

i'm not complaining that i can't join that frat in oklahoma, either.

If they want to refuse service to gays, fine. Remember, appearance and media attention. That business will either stay the same, fail, or succeed based off their views. This isn't denying somebody medical treatment or something, it's a damn birthday cake. companies have signs saying they refuse to serve people for any reason all the time.

it's not the federal government, it's a private business. I think you can't discriminate based off sex, color, religion as far as hiring. but i think you can refuse service to customers i think.

I think I agree with this.

shocking. seriously.

Nah, not really. If you take the chip off your shoulder. That chip weighs more than you think, and it shows.

and what chip is this?

Indiana must've hit 88 mph in a Delorean and back to good ol' Jim Crow...

Jim Crow laws were legally enforced/mandated segregation laws.

Freedom to discriminate is not the same as being legally required to discriminate.

IMHO, this is America in action. Personally, I think it's great. Here's why:

1. At the present time, we don't have a government that is run by a 'Christian caliphate.' Trust me- whether you're a deeply devout Believer or a total Satanist, you DON'T want a caliphate of any sort to be running your nation. "Power/Absolute Power"... we all know the quote.

2. At the present time, we have a lively, ongoing public debate about where the lines get drawn... between religious freedom, freedom FROM religion, religious persecution, civil rights, human interaction, inconsistencies in the application of law- there are at least 8-10 layers to this talk.

And healthy debate is essential for a representative republic's general health.

3. It seems that The People are weighing in as equals in this fight... in the arena of private enterprise, no less. Cake bakers are now free to reserve services from potential clients whom the deem objectionable. National businesses/entities are free to take their convention business to some other state, because they find the atmosphere in Indiana objectionable.


As I see it, all is as it should be. All parties interested in this are still free to deal with this new law as they see fit. No one has been denied their rights to act, speak, or influence others about how this issue was handled. Christians, LGBT's, business owners, potential conventioners, rank-and-file citizens... ALL get their say in how they think/feel about this decision.

As I see it, that's what America has ALWAYS been about.

Debate.
Disagreement.
Discussion.
Compromise.
Maneuvering.
And more debate.

It's how we've always worked sh!t out. And to be honest, s#!t is never really totally worked out.

"What a piece of work is Man..."

______________

And that's why I'm chuckling at 40YEARS' assertion that "America is being taken back."


America isn't being "taken back" from anywhere/anyone... because America has always been a shared ideal. The ideal itself has always been up for interpretation... hence, the ongoing debate. THE DEBATE is what makes us strong as a nation. The fact that we have so many strong beliefs and strident voices is what gives our nation its energy to move forward... even if that path scribes a serpentine line in the sands of time.


Astute students of history have seen this country's prevailing ideology swing both L & R on a cyclical basis since its very inception. IMHO, I believe that cycle is essential to the perpetual health of a nation, because despite popular (polarized) opinion, neither side has all the answers... because we, as Human Beings, never have all the facts.

Only those who'd view American politics/policy like struggling pre-schoolers fighting over a contested and cherished toy in a sandbox would view it as such. ("It's MINE! You can't have it !!!")

_____________

(Although I mentioned 40YEARS by name in this post, it's not really my intention to single him out. It really isn't. I only used his quote as an example of posts I see like this all over the internet. Folks who are politically his opposite do the exact same thing. I saw a crapload of it in 2008, and 2012, after the national presidential elections. It made me smh then, and it's made me smh every time since... no matter who says it.

__________________

Indiana will get whatever her policies bring her- for good or ill. As a student of Mankind, I'm keenly interested in what might happen next.

As a general poster to this thread's subject matter, I don't really have a dog in this specific fight. As a member of an American Populace that has seen more than its share of oppression, discrimination, intolerance and outright hatred, I'm very interested in seeing where this decision (and its ramifications) goes.

The Big Fights in America have almost always been engaged in our societal "gray areas"... how we resolve those areas have always defined us from generation to generation, as we are viewed by our progeny.

On most 'issues' like this, both biig and small, I find myself asking this question before deciding what to do/think: "What would my great-grandchildren think about my choice(s)? How did my decisions today impact the lives they will lead- and the issues they will encounter?"


I'd like very much for my progeny to see their great-grandfather as someone who came down on the beneficial side of time/current events... regardless of the issue du jour.

IMHO, this isn't a step back OR forward. It's a temporary side-step that produces results for a politician who is thinking on a time frame that is calculated to his own lifetime and career span. He's looking for votes and numbers.

Those numbers are only good for NOW... and numbers are extremely volatile. He'll be just as happy to reverse his decision, if the numbers tell him that he'll lose the upcoming election... and his policies will change to match he prevailing atmosphere. It's what politicians do.

Bottom line: This is much ado about nothing. It's just another "in the moment" issue that's meant to keep us talking/arguing. The irony of it is this: we've ALWAYS been talking among ourselves... and we did it long before the internet made it so easy for us.

All this technology/interconnectivity... and we're still the same chunks of 98.6 we've always been.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A private business should be able to hire whoever they want and serve whoever they want. It's their business not the governments.

It's up to the customers to determine if that business should be successful or not. Don't like how the business operates then just boycott them. You can also open a competing business to eat up their profits.

There is ZERO reason for the government to be involved.

In spite of justifications this law is religion based legislation.

If a Muslim had proposed this there would be no doubt from some that this law is Sharia Law.

There can be debate about either extreme from, it doesn't mean actual discrimination to citizens will be forced to obey religious doctrines, but there is no debate that this is a religion based law.

What will be interesting is what happens in court.

Because that worked out so well before. Businesses had to be forced to serve blacks & women, and nothing, short of perhaps WAY, WAY, WAY more time would have changed that. The vast majority isn't always correct.

Go ahead. But rule #1 of business is you need customers, if you exclude certain demographics, you will go out of business, or remain so small your influence is insignificant.

If a business wants to refuse service based on personal beliefs, so be it, I probably don't want to support their business then anyway. It's not like we are in the 1800's with only 1 general store for 100 miles.