Indiana's social conservatives wanted a law that insulated them from the gay rights movement. Instead, the state has now enacted protections based on sexual orientation.
No, they didn't. All the protections are still purely for religious reasons. You can still discriminate against gays in Indiana for any non-religious reason you want, such as because they have butt sex or carry aids, you just can't use RFRA as a defense in court on that point.
That's what your own link said, after they showed why nobody watches CNN by leading with Indiana's social conservatives wanted a law that insulated them from the gay rights movement. Instead, the state has now enacted protections based on sexual orientation for the first time in its history. If you actually read the fix that your article links it says: CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT DIGEST FOR ESB 50 Citations Affected: 1C 34-13-9. Synopsis: Antidiscrimination safeguards. Indicates that the law related to adjudicating a claim or defense that a state or local law, ordinance, or other action substantially burdens the exercise of religion of a person: (1) does not authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public; (2) does not establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public; and (3) does not negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Defines the term provider. (This conference committee report deletes the provisions concerning elections in SB 50, as amended by the house, and inserts provisions related to the law governing adjudicating a claim or defense that a state or local law, ordinance, or other action substantially burdens the exercise of religion of a person.) Effective: July 1,2015. All the fix does is say the RFRA can't be used as a defense in a case of refusing to provide services, facilities, goods, etc. But that's exactly the situation regarding those things that existed last month, before Indiana had a RFRA, which have almost never been used for that purpose anyway. The fix also doesn't say a single word about gay, LGBT, or sexual orientation.
For what it's worth, most of the gays I've met get annoyed with what I call "recruiter gays" like the ones at your party you catered. They are the LGBT equivalent to militant atheists or vegans that never shut up about being vegan...and certainly aren't the majority of gays.
Welcome to another episode of "GTurner: Is he just flagrantly dishonest, or is he really that stupid?"
Seriously, the little pizza joint does not cater. Apparently they don't even deliver. There are only nine restaurants in that town, counting McDonalds.
So when she said "We would have to say no, we are a Christian establishment," what she really meant was ... that Christian businesses don't do deliveries?
No, she was answering a hypothetical question posed by a city reporter who was out in the boonies fishing for opinions from store owners. Memories Pizzeria has an online presence. I went and looked at their menu. Great prices but no delivery or catering. So, they don't cater to straights - and in theory wouldn't cater a gay wedding because it would go against their religion - but they don't cater anyway. Second, no gays would ever ask a cheap pizza joint to cater their wedding. So the harm and exclusion is purely imaginary, but having to close their store because of death threats and possibly leave town for good was not. Thank God conservatives showed up to make them whole again, because liberals were buying rope and looking for good hanging trees.
They're still bigots, but feel free to hitch yourself to their wagon. It's not like we can think you're any more dumb than we do already.
How are they bigots any more than a Southern Baptist pizzeria that wouldn't cater a Catholic wedding because of all the beer and wine?
I like how most hotels don't break out the charges for the mini bar or pay per view porn. I have expensed several such charges to my employers over the years because there are no line items for porn and booze.
I posted the full text of the Indiana law in here somewhere, but now I can't find it. ETA: Nevermind. It was over in the Indiana political gain thread.
It was also meaningless, kind of like amending a clean air bill to explain that its NOx restrictions doesn't affect gay rights. But whatever keeps the retards happy.
There are all kinds of ways not to serve someone you don't want to, I just resent people saying it's against their "Christian" religious beliefs. If I told them they can't pray before a meal in my restaurant. they would be the first to scream persecution.
Exactly. It's looking more and more like these people are running a scam, betting on good old fashioned American bigotry from the same fatties and chumps that lined up around the corner when chikfila was having problems. Now they've disapreared with over $500k. Apparently they aren't even Christians. So how much of your money have these people made off with?
So you want to forbid families from praying before they eat? How about forbidding them from eating the food they just paid for? Is there any part of modern liberalism that doesn't require forcing people to do what they don't want to do (forcing them to spend their evening in a place they don't want to be, with people that make them uncomfortable, to support a cause they don't agree with - or lawsuits!), or forbidding them from exercising their First Amendment rights? (No, you can't say a private prayer!) The left has ditched even the pretense of tolerance and live-and-let-live. They no longer allow people to disagree with them or hold different opinions - and anyone who does must be singled out and destroyed. They're so intolerant that even though they'd never allow a Christian to come to their gay wedding, they'll shop around to find any Christian who admits they wouldn't go to a gay wedding, stick a camera in their face, broadcast it to the whole nation, then incite a mob to threaten to burn the Christian's store down. But that's not enough. They've also threatened the person who started the GoFundMe campaign for the random Christian victim, they've threatened people that donated, and they've threatened to steal all the money that was raised.
and why do "Christian" (Traditionalist more honestly) activists continue to insist this woman will lose her business, home, everything she owns when it's self evident a $1001 fine won't do that? At what point does "you shall not bear false witness" become as important to Traditionalists as as policing the penis is?
