I am sooo angry with our govenor!

[Stray59]

AAARRRGGGHHH! I have just watched the second weekly show of Saturday Night Live where Indiana was a running joke - all over a very stubborn govenor, Mr. Mike Pence signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For those of you who may not know, the RFRA allows business the right to deny services to people who do not live up to the business owners standards basically. Yes, Indiana is very conservative in many ways, but in all reality, we are making strides forward; as an example, we had just passed the law giving the LGBT community the right to get married. But with this new law, if a bakery does not wish to bake a wedding cake for LGBT wedding, they can just say they don't have to do so; but now they can say it is because they morally disagree with someone else's lifestyle. The weird thing is, they already HAVE that right - it is called the "right to deny services to anyone" - it is posted in most stores and restaurants, not just in Indiana, but in most, if not all, states and it comes as a right to anyone who owns or leases property or services. Usually it is reserved for people who are a public nuisance or present some other issue to the employer, but it is common practice. Duh.......
I hope the rest of the people in US, (and thanks to CNN "around the world"), understand that this law WAS NOT voted in by the majority of the people of this state; had it been put to vote, it would have failed by a huge margin. MANY of us fought it - State businesses, civil rights groups, teachers, churches, etc - and yet, not matter what, Pence said he was going to sign it into law, "regardless of any outcry".
He has pandered to a very small minority of people who fought the Right for Gays to Marry act, so, since it passed, now they wanted a law on the books so they can openly discriminate and tell you why they are discriminating - with no legal recourse.
Pence has states that this was not the "spirit of the law" but when asked 6 times on a CNN interview if he thought it was okay to discriminate against gays, he would not answer the question, he just kept talking about how that was not what the law was for; but he NEVER said it was not right or would not happen.
This is just such a blackeye to everyone here and it is going to cost the state's economy BILLIONS. We have companies pulling out, large numbers of high salaried individuals are transferring out of the state, we have already lost several huge conventions (THE lifeblood of Indianapolis) and the support of groups that have been a huge asset to everyone here.
This is really devastating to so many of us. One joke on SNL was bounced off the punchline of, basically, "If I wanted to know what it was like to live in the 60's, I would move to Indiana." I had to first laugh and then sort of cry on the inside. I would like to think that the basic focus on any state would be advancement, not regression, but we will be years trying to shed this perception of the people of this state, if we every do.
The only good thing to come out of this is it has destroyed Gov. Pence's chances of going any further in politics. He is reported to be a very nice person, with very high values, but this has shown that when he wants something, regardless of the majority opinion of the people, businesses and churches of this state, he plows right ahead, without concern for the consequences to the economy, pride, stature and hopes of the State.
Although I lived in Illinois until 8 years ago, (which by comparison is very progressive - Who knew?) I am embarrassed for what is now my home state. I have a very good life here, running into virtually no prejudice or discrimination, meeting very friendly people daily; but, to hear the newscasts and the opinions of other states, you would think that I ran a high risk of getting bent over everyday and was made to "squeal like a pig", to quote the movie "Deliverance" - That really is the farthest thing from the truth.
This was such a total loss on so many levels. The overall shame that this state has to carry due to one man being so pig-headed and losing sight of his duty, which is to protect and help the State prosper. Instead, he has imperiled the security of this state, and in my opinion we need a new bill - the GRTG bill. "Get Rid of This Govenor".....how else do we save face?
Thanks for letting me vent!
Signing off as "Glad to get that off my chest in Indiana............"

[Paul Mc]

I hear you. My family lives in Indiana although I never have personally. It's a shame what happened for sure, but I think it shows more Pence's character and that of some legislatures rather than that of the state as a whole. Just my two cents. It also seems to be what a lot of people on NPR and other talk programs are more getting at, rather than saying it is Indiana as a whole. Hoosier hospitality is all I've ever been shown and seen in Indiana.

[orchidsarefun]

unfortunately this was another example of getting what you don't vote for. So few people take the effort to vote in elections and they then get to represent the 'majority' in decision-making. In Australia voting is mandatory. I say make it here too, instead of doing just about everything possible ( limiting voting hours, cutting voting days, demanding ID as examples ) to stop people from voting. Voting should be a celebration of exercising your rights, not a chore.
The USA is held to be a 'beacon' of Democracy but it sure sends conflicting signals to the rest of the world.

I read that the pizza shop in the news has been donated over $800,000 from conservative wellwishers. And in other news I also read that no self-respecting LGBT couple would serve pizza at their wedding........maybe chili, never pizza

[katrina]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

unfortunately this was another example of getting what you don't vote for. So few people take the effort to vote in elections and they then get to represent the 'majority' in decision-making. In Australia voting is mandatory. I say make it here too, instead of doing just about everything possible ( limiting voting hours, cutting voting days, demanding ID as examples ) to stop people from voting. Voting should be a celebration of exercising your rights, not a chore.
The USA is held to be a 'beacon' of Democracy but it sure sends conflicting signals to the rest of the world.

I agree 100% on the fact everyone should vote and that instead of looking at it as a chore...it should be celebrated. It was a hard earned right...many, many years ago.

As for making it hard to vote...it's never been easier! There are early voting centers in most cities where people can vote on days other than the actual voting day. Many larger cities even have transportation to and from voting centers! I understand that in here in Columbus we even have translators in our voting centers and if that's true then I'm confident many other cities have the same. On voting day the polls open at 7am and are open until 7pm...some areas I think even later. People are given permission to leave their jobs and vote at any time throughout the day. And, if for some strange reason, someone can't find a few minutes to vote during the entire nearly/aprox one month prior to voting day....then they can vote by absentee ballot. I don't see how it could get any easier and/or accessible.

As for the ID...people have to show IDs for just about everything these days so showing it to vote is something that should not be dropped. Voting fraud happens w/the ID policy in place...I can't imagine how bad it would be w/out required IDs. There really is no good reason why someone can't produce an ID.

Lastly, mandated voting? What a disaster that could be. You might be able to "make" people vote but you can't make them educate themselves over the issues/candidates/etc. Voting is a right...and if people opt to forfeit that right...then that is as much their right as voting is. Personally, I'd prefer the uniformed/educated on what's going just stay out of it. I cringe thinking of people basically playing hopscotch through the ballots.

IF we could also somehow make everyone get involved and actually be an "in the know" part of the process...what a wonderful world that would be. But, it's not going to happen in my life time, I'm sure.

[Subrosa]

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

[Stray59]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

No, Subrosa, but the fact is, prior to this law the store owner had the right to say "No, I can't fulfill that order for you! Sorry." We all have the right to say "No", for whatever reason, UNLESS we are denying a group of people based, not on an individual, case-by-case scenario, but to openly discriminate against an entire group. Some of that MAY have occurred prior to this law, but we did not have any reported issues of such. Personally, if someone does not want to serve me, for whatever reason, I would not give them my money or my trust that they will do the job correctly.
But now, you can say "no", not just to an individual, but to an entire group. Now, under law, if a store owner decides not to serve a particular GROUP of people, he can exclude them from receiving services. Under this law, if a Muslim emergency room physician decides he will not operate on Christians, based solely on their religious differences, he cannot be forced to do so. Personally, I would not WANT a physician that does not WANT to operate on me to be forced into it, as he may decide to "re-assign" some body parts that I like right where they are! But, the spirit of this law allows such discriminatory practices.
A side note - a loophole in the law was found by a gentleman who immediately opened the "Church of Cannabis", which is legally protected under this law. It would not have been prior to this law being enacted.
Again, we already had the ability to refuse to provide service, so this was simply a conservative backlash to the majority decision to allow the LGBT community to marry, a law that WAS voted into being. Pence was against passing the law, and when it passed he and his minority of conservatives immediately went into action to curtail the new law to the best of their ability.
But no, prior to this law you could not force a person to create something they did not wish to.
But, we were not having such issues prior. There was nothing really gained by this bills passage into law. It just looks like we are ignorant, backwoods people who want to return to the pre-civil rights passage.
It just speaks volumes of the Govenor's ability to heed warnings and protect the State, which is his job. He protected nothing, and instead set us back several decades in human rights.
You cannot legislate morality - our past has shown that this never works. That is why we have "seperation of Church and State".

[orchidsarefun]

Stray59 - I believe the Governor has signed an amendment to the law and that everything should....belatedly...now be OK ?
I have an interesting story to tell regarding business flexibility. I like to think of myself as a curry afficianado and make a point of trying out local curries wherever I am at the time. I have travelled to most States in the USA and I have only found a few Indian Restaurants that serve beef curry or any kind of beef dish. ( look up the Hindu religion and you will know why ). The latest was in Little Rock AR - Star of India Restaurant. It has a wonderful beef curry and ( as usual ) I asked the Owner why he serves beef and how he reconciles it with his religion. I get one of 2 stock answers - either the Owner is actually Christian ( rarely ) or that the business wouldn't survive in that area without serving Beef Curry as a dish. He has a separate chef to prepare the beef curry.
Now one can have doubts or be sceptical, whatever, but I say this is a fantastic example of how businesses should be. They either survive....or make a plan to survive. That's the way it should be. No judgements on their customers. If I don't find beef, I just have lamb instead.
Funnily enough in other countries that I have travelled in, the serving of beef in Indian Restaurants doesn't seem to be that much of a noticeable issue. The USA has this beef issue and also the issue of selling goat curry as lamb curry, which really does get my goat......

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Hmmmmmm.....should a Muslim owner of a t shirt store be compelled by law to fill an order for a t shirt depicting the prophet Mohammed, in direct conflict with his religion?

This would be refusing to do a particular task based on the task in and of itself. They could also refuse to print a shirt with a vulgar image, a curse word, a swastika, and so on.

A cake bakery could deny making someone a giant penis-cake, too. Maybe because they are religious, maybe because they don't want to make something that may offend other clients.
These are not prejudiced acts. These are acts that the shop owner would deny to all customers.

When you deny one customer a service that you offer to all other customers based on your personal prejudice against them, that is being a bigot. If someone doesn't serve someone who is a racial minority solely based on that fact, they are racist.

Therein lies the major difference.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

EVERYTHING going on in Indiana right now offends me!! From the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was amended to protect LGBT people and other minorities) to the poor woman Purvi Patel now in prison for 22 years for "feticide" (and simultaneously child endangerment? how can you be charged with both?) ... it's just astonishing me how people are being treated there.
I am feeling really upset and angry about so much of this.

In the words of the Notorious RBG, "You are free to move your arm all around, but the second your arm might hit someone's face, your freedom ends." We have so much freedom here, yet we try to restrict minority groups even in the present day.

...yet people say we live in a post-racial, post-sexist, and post-discrimination society? Not by a longshot!!

And Stray59, I know not all people in/from Indiana are responsible for this!

At any rate, I'll just publicly state here that I believe in equality for all people and fair treatment regardless of your minority status (female, religion, lgbt status, disability, socioeconomic status, mental health, and so on).

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by astrid

This would be refusing to do a particular task based on the task in and of itself. They could also refuse to print a shirt with a vulgar image, a curse word, a swastika, and so on.

A cake bakery could deny making someone a giant penis-cake, too. Maybe because they are religious, maybe because they don't want to make something that may offend other clients.
These are not prejudiced acts. These are acts that the shop owner would deny to all customers.

When you deny one customer a service that you offer to all other customers based on your personal prejudice against them, that is being a bigot. If someone doesn't serve someone who is a racial minority solely based on that fact, they are racist.

Therein lies the major difference.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

EVERYTHING going on in Indiana right now offends me!! From the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was amended to protect LGBT people and other minorities) to the poor woman Purvi Patel now in prison for 22 years for "feticide" (and simultaneously child endangerment? how can you be charged with both?) ... it's just astonishing me how people are being treated there.
I am feeling really upset and angry about so much of this.

In the words of the Notorious RBG, "You are free to move your arm all around, but the second your arm might hit someone's face, your freedom ends." We have so much freedom here, yet we try to restrict minority groups even in the present day.

...yet people say we live in a post-racial, post-sexist, and post-discrimination society? Not by a longshot!!

And Stray59, I know not all people in/from Indiana are responsible for this!

At any rate, I'll just publicly state here that I believe in equality for all people and fair treatment regardless of your minority status (female, religion, lgbt status, disability, socioeconomic status, mental health, and so on).

The flaw in your logic is that you equate someone holding the religious belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman as prima facie evidence that the person is bigoted. Using the pizza shop as an example, an owner who would refuse all service to someone simply because of their sexuality would indeed qualify as a bigot. However you don't seem to accept the fact that there are many people who on a day to day basis don't really care what other people do with their genitalia. Until the concept of marriage, about which they have specific, Constitutionally protected beliefs about enters the equation. A person who refuses to serve someone based upon their sexuality within those specific circumstances is not being a bigot, they are not being a hypocrite. And again I ask, from where does the government derive its authority to force them to be a hypocrite?

[astrid]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

The flaw in your logic is that you equate someone holding the religious belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman as prima facie evidence that the person is bigoted. Using the pizza shop as an example, an owner who would refuse service to someone simply because of their sexuality would indeed qualify as a bigot. However you don't seem to accept the fact that there are many people who on a day to day basis don't really care what other people do with their genitalia. Until the concept of marriage, about which they have specific, Constitutionally protected beliefs about enters the equation. A person who refuses to serve someone based upon their sexuality within those specific circumstances is not being a bigot, they are not being a hypocrite. And again I ask, from where does the government derive its authority to force them to be a hypocrite?

I think if you have a business open to the public, then you deny some members of the public your services based on their protected minority status, you are being a bigot.
You can't have things both ways. Either you're serving everyone equally, or you should serve only people who agree with your lifestyle/religion privately through your religious facilities. Deviation from that is treating people unequally. Period.

Believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman is a bigoted belief, imo. You shouldn't try to force your religion on others, and you shouldn't try to legislate your religious beliefs in a way that limits the freedoms and rights of others, or imposes them on others.
I support freely practicing religion, but if it prevents you from treating people with decency and equality, maybe you shouldn't participate in those activities that lead you to treat people unfairly.

In the words of Captain Picard to Worf:
"Mr. Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty because of the demands of their society, they should resign. Do you wish to resign?"
"No sir."

If you choose to serve the public, yet you cannot do your job because your religious beliefs are contradictory to the service you offer, you should not do that job.