Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Well, I am amused by your attempts to make a distinction between opposing gay marriage and discrimination against gays. It's totally illogical.

I point out distinctions where they exist. For instance, I'm opposed to people being strippers and wouldn't use my time and talents to help promote or celebrate it, but that is not tantamount to discrimination against the women who are strippers. I'm opposed to rap lyrics that are vulgar and profane, but it's not tantamount to be discriminatory toward black people who perform or enjoy rap music. I'm opposed to polyamorous or polygamous marriage but not to the heterosexual people who wish to have them legalized.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

First of all, I reject the notion that the Old Testament has nothing to say on the matter that's binding for Christians today. If you studied the matter half as much as you pretend to, you would understand that. It's why the Hebrew Scriptures are part of our Scriptures as well.

But second, the sexual ethic is in multiple places in the New Testament. Jesus reaffirms it in the Gospels, Paul and other NT writers reaffirm it in the Epistles. If you have something specific you're driving at, feel free to spit it out. Otherwise, I'm getting bored. I was fielding these "softballs" in the late 90s when the internet first started taking off. This tactic is lame.

You've got nothing. Got it.

I just gave you the broad view of where my sexual ethic is derived from. You obviously have something specific you're driving at so just get on with it rather than asking me to put forth an exhaustive list of Scripture references for you.

I'll try to avoid drinking half a fifth of rum tomorrow

That sounds like a good idea. Your liver thanks you.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The entire situation in Indianapolis is just another sad chapter in the government being forced to inflict damage on behalf of the angry mob. First, there has NEVER been a case where a business used this law to deny service to members of the LGBT community. The law has been entirely mis-characterized by the angry mob and the MSM was only too happy to come running to their assistance. After all, we're talking about another opportunity to slam a sitting republican over an issue of identity politics while at the same time create a diversion from the widespread corruption and failures of the current administration

Liberalism no longer exists in America. The politics driving what was once liberalism is now leftist and bent on authoritarianism. Politically speaking, their mission is a social project driven by a strict orthodoxy. Racial AND sexual identity politics are central components of that orthodoxy and ANYONE who undermines or, in their view, even attempts to undermine this social project is committing a cardinal sin against the orthodoxy and must pay a price and, an utterly complicit and corrupt MSM is only too happy to do their bidding for them.

[channonc 466]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

Agree. This was the same argument many used against interracial marriage and many states allowed bans and laws that provided for discrimination veiled in the same argument-- religious freedom. Frankly, I believe the state has an obligation to protect minorities (any minority) from discrimination.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

[channonc 466]

I get both sides but at the end of the day religions can't be used as a cover for bigotry ... and even if that was not the "intended consequence," it's the message that's being sent. Indiana has already paid the price for this mistake and they will continue to do so. Other states should tread cautiously.

Lifestyles can't be used as a cover for forcing mandates on private business owners either. Look, I think this issue is like every other...a media driven, politically motivated scare tactic with a sliver of truth to it. If Liberty and freedom were the centerpiece of our countries mission we wouldn't have to worry about things like this.

Homosexuality is a "lifestyle"?

Is heterosexuality a lifestyle also?

How about one's race? Is that a lifestyle?

Funny homer, I was just thinking the same thing.

[cooltigger21 0]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

These people will never tolerate that. As a society we have determined that gay marriage is going to be here. 5 years ago if you had offered that to these people but also let people not be a part of ceremony or celebration of it, they would have taken it in a heartbeat. Now they've decided that isn't enough. They won't give up until you are not allowed to not be a participant, even if you are a clergyman or a church.

[channonc 466]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

I don't agree with you, but let's just say for arguments sake that we do agree.

Why have such a broad sweeping law that basically gives companies freedom of religion? Why not just have a very narrow law that addresses gay marriage if that's really the issue at hand? Why not have a law that says businesses can choose to not provide services to gay marriages based on religious grounds? I don't understand the point of such broad language other than as a cloak to say "it's not really about gay marriage".

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

I don't agree with you, but let's just say for arguments sake that we do agree.

Why have such a broad sweeping law that basically gives companies freedom of religion? Why not just have a very narrow law that addresses gay marriage if that's really the issue at hand? Why not have a law that says businesses can choose to not provide services to gay marriages based on religious grounds? I don't understand the point of such broad language other than as a cloak to say "it's not really about gay marriage".

They basically just modeled it off of the '93 federal RFRA. But I'd be completely supportive of a more specific law that cited certain examples like a same-sex wedding or similar event. They could even specify that it applies to events, occasions, ceremonies with content that may violate religious belief but that it can't be construed to allow a refusal of service simply on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. - you can't refuse to serve a gay customer in your pharmacy or restaurant).

[aubfaninga 16]

Can anyone find me an instance of a business discriminating against homosexuals outside of the SSM debate?

[cooltigger21 0]

Can anyone find me an instance of a business discriminating against homosexuals outside of the SSM debate?

If there are any, they are extremely rare. If there had been any we would have heard about it. The media would have been broadcasting it day and night for several days in a row.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Can anyone find me an instance of a business discriminating against homosexuals outside of the SSM debate?

If there are any, they are extremely rare. If there had been any we would have heard about it. The media would have been broadcasting it day and night for several days in a row.

I'm sure if you go back a decade or so you could probably find a few incidents that weren't. But all the cases that have come up in the last few years that prompted reactions like this law are in the SSM realm.

[aubfaninga 16]

Can anyone find me an instance of a business discriminating against homosexuals outside of the SSM debate?

If there are any, they are extremely rare. If there had been any we would have heard about it. The media would have been broadcasting it day and night for several days in a row.

I'm sure if you go back a decade or so you could probably find a few incidents that weren't. But all the cases that have come up in the last few years that prompted reactions like this law are in the SSM realm.

I'm seeing Arkansas is taking a similar route as Indiana as we type. I have to assume Alabama is not far behind.

[cooltigger21 0]

Can anyone find me an instance of a business discriminating against homosexuals outside of the SSM debate?

If there are any, they are extremely rare. If there had been any we would have heard about it. The media would have been broadcasting it day and night for several days in a row.

I'm sure if you go back a decade or so you could probably find a few incidents that weren't. But all the cases that have come up in the last few years that prompted reactions like this law are in the SSM realm.

I'm seeing Arkansas is taking a similar route as Indiana as we type. I have to assume Alabama is not far behind.

Alabama already has one of these laws on the books. Not sure of how it's worded but there is one.

[homersapien 11,361]

Well, maybe you didn't mean to equate them, but that is what you did.

Perhaps Jesus didn't mention them because he didn't have any moral issues with it. After all, homosexuality is not an activity that necessarily victimizes someone such as child molestation or rape.

In fact, I can imagine Jesus would approve of homosexual marriage. Why would He oppose it?

As Weegle might say, His purpose was not to enforce the law.

No, it's not that I didn't "mean to", it's that I didn't. The criteria was implied that if Jesus didn't mention something by name, it must not be something He has any problem with. There is a long list of things that Jesus didn't mention by name. It ranges from the relatively minor (jaywalking, littering) to much more serious things such as those I mentioned. I chose two serious things that also happen to fall under the broader umbrella of sexual matters, that most sane people would universally condemn as wrong. The fact that Jesus didn't mention them by name doesn't therefore mean He doesn't care or has no problem with there. Ergo, the fact that Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexual sex by name is no indicator of whether He has any problems with it.

If you want to use "equating" then to be more precise, I was not equating child molestation or rape with consensual homosexual acts as if they are the same thing. If they are equated at all it is that they both have a place on the long list of "Stuff Jesus never mentioned by name." And it was pointed out just show the ridiculousness of putting forth such a criteria as a measuring rod for things He would be concerned about.

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

But you can always declare that homosexuality is not a sin. If so, I would like to know what your religious objection is.

After reading your and aubfaninga's posts I think this is the ultimate basis for our disagreement. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see it as one of the natural states of sexuality that is manifested in a small percentage of people. As long as these people are otherwise moral and empathetic to the rights of others, there is nothing about homosexuality that is evil or immoral. The Old Testament is simply wrong about homosexuality, just as it is factually wrong about many - if not most - things it discusses.

Beyond this basic value, my argument resides in concepts of civil law. Our legal system is based on the concept of equality of rights for everyone. One's inherent sexuality does not constitute a reason for those rights to be compromised.

Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

[channonc 466]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

I don't agree with you, but let's just say for arguments sake that we do agree.

Why have such a broad sweeping law that basically gives companies freedom of religion? Why not just have a very narrow law that addresses gay marriage if that's really the issue at hand? Why not have a law that says businesses can choose to not provide services to gay marriages based on religious grounds? I don't understand the point of such broad language other than as a cloak to say "it's not really about gay marriage".

They basically just modeled it off of the '93 federal RFRA. But I'd be completely supportive of a more specific law that cited certain examples like a same-sex wedding or similar event. They could even specify that it applies to events, occasions, ceremonies with content that may violate religious belief but that it can't be construed to allow a refusal of service simply on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. - you can't refuse to serve a gay customer in your pharmacy or restaurant).

But it's been proven above that this law is different from the federal version. The IN law includes businesses which the federal law did not.

[channonc 466]

Well, maybe you didn't mean to equate them, but that is what you did.

Perhaps Jesus didn't mention them because he didn't have any moral issues with it. After all, homosexuality is not an activity that necessarily victimizes someone such as child molestation or rape.

In fact, I can imagine Jesus would approve of homosexual marriage. Why would He oppose it?

As Weegle might say, His purpose was not to enforce the law.

No, it's not that I didn't "mean to", it's that I didn't. The criteria was implied that if Jesus didn't mention something by name, it must not be something He has any problem with. There is a long list of things that Jesus didn't mention by name. It ranges from the relatively minor (jaywalking, littering) to much more serious things such as those I mentioned. I chose two serious things that also happen to fall under the broader umbrella of sexual matters, that most sane people would universally condemn as wrong. The fact that Jesus didn't mention them by name doesn't therefore mean He doesn't care or has no problem with there. Ergo, the fact that Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexual sex by name is no indicator of whether He has any problems with it.

If you want to use "equating" then to be more precise, I was not equating child molestation or rape with consensual homosexual acts as if they are the same thing. If they are equated at all it is that they both have a place on the long list of "Stuff Jesus never mentioned by name." And it was pointed out just show the ridiculousness of putting forth such a criteria as a measuring rod for things He would be concerned about.

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

But you can always declare that homosexuality is not a sin. If so, I would like to know what your religious objection is.

After reading your and aubfaninga's posts I think this is the ultimate basis for our disagreement. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see it as one of the natural states of sexuality that is manifested in a small percentage of people. As long as these people are otherwise moral and empathetic to the rights of others, there is nothing about homosexuality that is evil or immoral. The Old Testament is simply wrong about homosexuality, just as it is factually wrong about many - if not most - things it discusses.

Beyond this basic value, my argument resides in concepts of civil law. Our legal system is based on the concept of equality of rights for everyone. One's inherent sexuality does not constitute a reason for those rights to be compromised.

Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

These are the exact arguments also used against sharia law. It's why our government was founded as a secular one, not a religious one.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let me also note that these sorts of conscience exemptions are not always necessarily compulsory for a Christian (or I would assume an observant orthodox Jew or Muslim). Different people would evaluate their involvement in these ceremonies differently. Some may feel that they could make a cake, allow the customer to order their own same-sex topper with two grooms or two wives, drop the cake off at the location and leave and be done with it and that would not constitute a level of "participation" that would be problematic for them. But the same person may feel that jobs where they have to be more directly involved in the entire celebration and attend it and such would be a step too far. A photographer or a wedding planner comes to mind. It would need to be worked out by the individual.

All I'm calling for is the space to allow people to do this. If one extreme is "gay marriage is illegal" and the other is "gay marriage is not only legal, but you can be forced to contribute/participate in the ceremony and celebration of it", a middle ground for compromise could be "gay marriage is legal, but no one is forced to be involved in the ceremonies against their religious beliefs." Much like a doctor can be an ob/gyn but not perform abortions. Or an anesthesiologist can refuse to participate in doctor-assisted suicide in states where it's permissible.

I don't agree with you, but let's just say for arguments sake that we do agree.

Why have such a broad sweeping law that basically gives companies freedom of religion? Why not just have a very narrow law that addresses gay marriage if that's really the issue at hand? Why not have a law that says businesses can choose to not provide services to gay marriages based on religious grounds? I don't understand the point of such broad language other than as a cloak to say "it's not really about gay marriage".

They basically just modeled it off of the '93 federal RFRA. But I'd be completely supportive of a more specific law that cited certain examples like a same-sex wedding or similar event. They could even specify that it applies to events, occasions, ceremonies with content that may violate religious belief but that it can't be construed to allow a refusal of service simply on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. - you can't refuse to serve a gay customer in your pharmacy or restaurant).

But it's been proven above that this law is different from the federal version. The IN law includes businesses which the federal law did not.

And I've not only acknowledged that difference but explained why it became necessary to protect business owners from entities other than just the government.

[TheBlueVue 177]

However, isn't it a breath of fresh air? Indiana passed a law that created serious heartburn even though that heartburn was totally unwarranted but, instead of saying tuff s*** like Obama does when he rams an EO down the throats of the citizenry, Mike Pence acknowledged the questions of those who dont like the law and said they would clarify it THIS WEEK. When is the last time BHO regrouped and said or even implied he'd reconsider the voices of the populace? His attitude, like most in his party, is one day we'll all appreciate how much smarter he is than everyone else and we'll thank him. So, let me g'head and get that out of the way....Thanks Obama.

[cooltigger21 0]

However, isn't it a breath of fresh air? Indiana passed a law that created serious heartburn even though that heartburn was totally unwarranted but, instead of saying tuff s*** like Obama does when he rams an EO down the throats of the citizenry, Mike Pence acknowledged the questions of those who dont like the law and said they would clarify it THIS WEEK. When is the last time BHO regrouped and said or even implied he'd reconsider the voices of the populace? His attitude, like most in his party, is one day we'll all appreciate how much smarter he is than everyone else and we'll thank him. So, let me g'head and get that out of the way....Thanks Obama.

You could give the gay rights people everything they are demanding right now and 5 minutes later they'd be back with a new set of demands. It never ends. It's the same with any leftist whether it be gay rights, environmentalists, gun control or any issue. They are never satisfied. They always seek more control over your life and you are not allowed to disagree with them or they will bring all manner of wrath upon you and seek to destroy your reputation and even ruin you financially. They got the guy from Mozilla fired simply for contributing money to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

Well actually, I'm not. But even if I were, it's not relevant to this particular issue.

Part of it is language confusion. Christianity does not say that merely being same-sex attracted (homosexual) is a sin. Desires, temptations, attractions - such things in and of themselves are not sinful, regardless of whether they are homosexual in nature or heterosexual. Or even if they are outside of sexual issues altogether. Sin requires a consent of the will and/or pursuit of the thing desired. I may be tempted toward envy of my more prosperous neighbor. I may have strong attraction toward a woman who I am not married to. But merely having these feelings is not sin. I would have to follow through on it in some way, either by consenting in my heart and mind to lust after the woman (objectify her for my own sexual gratification), pursuing or having a sexual relationship with her, or by stewing on and dwelling on my envy of my neighbor's success. So just like being a heterosexual (being exclusively or predominantly attracted to the opposite sex) is not sinful in and of itself, neither is being homosexual. Actions that either take regarding their sexuality can be sinful.

That said, I'm not proposing that someone be able to refuse service simply because the customer is homosexual or even a non-celibate homosexual.

After reading your and aubfaninga's posts I think this is the ultimate basis for our disagreement. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see it as one of the natural states of sexuality that is manifested in a small percentage of people. As long as these people are otherwise moral and empathetic to the rights of others, there is nothing about homosexuality that is evil or immoral. The Old Testament is simply wrong about homosexuality, just as it is factually wrong about many - if not most - things it discusses.

That is fine. There are people who insist that the natural state of human beings is not to be monogamous. We shouldn't have expectations of marriage and being sexually faithful to just one person at all. Nonetheless, Christians regard sex before marriage (homo or hetero) to be sinful. And they regard having sex with someone you are not married to as sinful as well. And they regard divorce for reasons other than abandonment (which can entail abuse) or adultery to be wrong and remarriage to be prohibited in such situations. So I would say that a wedding-oriented business would be justified in refusing to provide services for many heteros that are having ceremonies that violate their beliefs in these ways as well.

Beyond this basic value, my argument resides in concepts of civil law. Our legal system is based on the concept of equality of rights for everyone. One's inherent sexuality does not constitute a reason for those rights to be compromised.

Conversely, equal rights also entail 1st Amendment rights. Compelling someone to be involved in an activity or event that violates those rights isn't equality either.

It's funny...we've had the old canard about how Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality explicitly therefore it must not be a big deal to Him thrown out there. Using the same logic: the Constitution doesn't say anything explicitly about marriage or homosexual marriage rights. It does explicitly grant free exercise of religion rights. Should that be taken as an indicator of which right should have precedence?

Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

That isn't the language of the Constitution though. It doesn't say that religious rights are subordinate to all others.

[RunInRed 16,383]

Republican Arkansas Governor refuses to sign similar law passed by state legislature ...

http://www.politico....74.html?hp=l2_4

Of course this may have something to do with it ....

Wal-Mart slams Arkansas "religious freedom" law

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company says the legislation “threatens to undermine” the state’s inclusive spirit and does not reflect the company’s values.

...

Today’s passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold

[RunInRed 16,383]

As I said earlier, defenders of Indiana's law, including almost every GOP Presidential hopeful, are going to come out on the losing end of this ...

Numerous businesses and prominent figures have also expressed concern with Indiana’s religious freedom law, including the National Football League, NASCAR, National Basketball Association, Women’s National Basketball Association and the NCAA, which hosts the men’s Final Four at Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium on Saturday.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3W4hQkn9Y

[autigeremt 6,597]

As I said earlier, defenders of Indiana's law are going to come out on the losing end of this ...

Numerous businesses and prominent figures have also expressed concern with Indiana’s religious freedom law, including the National Football League, NASCAR, National Basketball Association, Women’s National Basketball Association and the NCAA, which hosts the men’s Final Four at Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium on Saturday.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3W4hQkn9Y

From a public relations standpoint? Absolutely! It doesn't matter where the law stands anymore. It's about emotion and media driven, special interest group destruction of the other side.

[homersapien 11,361]

However, isn't it a breath of fresh air? Indiana passed a law that created serious heartburn even though that heartburn was totally unwarranted but, instead of saying tuff s*** like Obama does when he rams an EO down the throats of the citizenry, Mike Pence acknowledged the questions of those who dont like the law and said they would clarify it THIS WEEK. When is the last time BHO regrouped and said or even implied he'd reconsider the voices of the populace? His attitude, like most in his party, is one day we'll all appreciate how much smarter he is than everyone else and we'll thank him. So, let me g'head and get that out of the way....Thanks Obama.

Excuse me, but this is not about Obama. :-\

As far as Pence "acknowledging" the questions he was asked, he certainly didn't address them.

Pence, Indiana and now Arkansas have stepped in it big time. And to a certain extent, the same can be said for Republicans and Christians. They have really shot themselves in the foot. They are wailing against the march of progress and of history and are destined to lose. Homosexuality is obviously a natural condition and not a "choice". Science has clearly demonstrated that. The next generation understands it. The church and conservatives cannot deny science and hope to prevail.

RuninRed is right. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.