I have zero doubt that money and politics powered the changes as that is how things are done. The bottom line is that they need to come up with a law that addresses the needs of two protected classes, religion and sexual orientation. I don't know if sexual orientation is a protected class in Indiana but regardless the law cannot permit discrimination; but at the same time has to protect a person's rights to practice their religion. It's a heck of a balancing act that I doubt will ever be addressed to both side's satisfaction.

I have zero doubt that money and politics powered the changes as that is how things are done. The bottom line is that they need to come up with a law that addresses the needs of two protected classes, religion and sexual orientation. I don't know if sexual orientation is a protected class in Indiana but regardless the law cannot permit discrimination; but at the same time has to protect a person's rights to practice their religion. It's a heck of a balancing act that I doubt will ever be addressed to both side's satisfaction.

 

Mirrors a "red state-blue state map" in many respects.

 

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

Mirrors a "red state-blue state map" in many respects.

 

https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

 

Do any of those laws address the religious rights aspect? People seem to forget it is a two headed coin which is the concern of the other side. In any of those states could a person be forced to provide a service or product that could make it appear he supports a cause that his/her religion thinks is a sin?

Money was 100% the driving force to the changes. In the short time this bill has been in place, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue had either already pulled out of the state or had made it clear they were pulling out if things weren't addressed immediately. That's not appeasing to the "liberals". That's appealing to the almighty business dollar.

According to a lefty a person's faith and beliefs mean nothing when it comes to their protected classes getting what they want. As much as I despise the fools at Westboro Baptist I really, really, really hope they attempt to hire openly gay photographers to chronicle their activities. How could they turn them down? Maybe Right to Life could find pro-choice caterers to serve at their functions. How could they turn them down?

Do any of those laws address the religious rights aspect? People seem to forget it is a two headed coin which is the concern of the other side. In any of those states could a person be forced to provide a service or product that could make it appear he supports a cause that his/her religion thinks is a sin?

 

The amendment to the IN legislation, and the legislation in KY include exemptions for churches, religious organizations, etc.

According to a lefty a person's faith and beliefs mean nothing when it comes to their protected classes getting what they want. As much as I despise the fools at Westboro Baptist I really, really, really hope they attempt to hire openly gay photographers to chronicle their activities. How could they turn them down? Maybe Right to Life could find pro-choice caterers to serve at their functions. How could they turn them down?

 

You do realize that the game has changed as of yesterday, right?

Arkansas approved similar legislation. I wonder if we'll see the same level of protest against them.

My question is this...What if a gay establishment has to make a cake for a group of people celebrating traditional marriage.

Arkansas approved similar legislation. I wonder if we'll see the same level of protest against them.

Very doubtful. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson delayed signing the bill until changes were made to the original language.

I don't know if anyone will read this but there have been changes which render some of the continued posts irrelevant:

Indiana, Arkansas Amend 'Religious Freedom' Laws : The Two-Way : NPR

Lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas have approved changes to their respective "religious freedom" measures designed to answer critics who charged the laws were meant to discriminate against gays and lesbians by allowing businesses to refuse them service.

 

The amendments were passed by Legislatures in Indianapolis and Little Rock after a day of wrestling over the details of amendments to the measures.

Indiana's legislation, signed into law last week by Gov. Mike Pence, set off a massive online protest and prompted several large companies, such as Angie's List, to threaten to curtail their business in the Hoosier state.

Lawmakers meeting in Indianapolis on Thursday approved changes to the law to prohibit service providers "from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on factors that include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service," according to The Associated Press.

It is the first time the Hoosier state has defined either sexual orientation or gender identity a protected category.

Early in the evening, Pence signed the clarifications into law. Retuers reports that in a statement, he said "the bill had been misunderstood, and he emphasized that it still protects religious liberties."

You do realize that the game has changed as of yesterday, right?

 

Sure I do. Doesn't alter my last post one iota. In fact if anything it makes me feel stronger about it. The left does not care what a person believes as long as their protected classes are in no way "harmed".

Sure I do. Doesn't alter my last post one iota. In fact if anything it makes me feel stronger about it. The left does not care what a person believes as long as their protected classes are in no way "harmed".

 

 

***sigh*** I would think as Americans, we would all be in favor of ensuring that society is fair to all, not just those that agree with us.

***sigh*** I would think as Americans, we would all be in favor of ensuring that society is fair to all, not just those that agree with us.

 

Some in this country don't look at it as being Americans. Everything is right or left with them.

 

I would actually think those who are more on the conservative side would be thrilled with the results of this. It's exactly what they want. A law was put in place. It was met with such resistance by the public and companies, that the lawmakers realized they were going to have a financial crisis on their hands if they didn't make a change. The market spoke. Keep this as is, and you're going to lose hundreds of millions in $$.

***sigh*** I would think as Americans, we would all be in favor of ensuring that society is fair to all, not just those that agree with us.

 

So then you would be fine with gay photographers being hired to chronicle the activities of Westboro Baptist because according to this law and the additional provisions made recently they can't refuse, regardless of how strongly they object to their vile actions.

 

You're OK with a caterer that is strongly pro-choice being hired to cater a Right To Life event, because according to the law and the clarifications made to it they can't refuse.