and on this issue at least, I agree with the left. That doesn't mean the law won't be amended, despite Governor Pence's lack of sincerity on the issue, and I am sure the left will still be convinced of his true intentions, after watching him flap his gums for over a half an hour, I am more convinced than ever about his true intentions.
So just what did I get wrong here?
FWIW you have already stated that you support the right of a Christian baker to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a couple of "fags", so at least you are honest about your prejudices and bigotry, something you can hardly claim for the good Governor.
Right this very minute Governor Pence of Indiana is back peddling and is calling for amendments to the new law that will fix this very broken law.
He still denies that it was ever intended to give license to discriminate from behind the safety of the law,(to which I call bullshit) but is calling to put specific language in the law to prevent that from ever happening. Personally I will reserve judgment until I see the new language, but so far it appears that the back lash has had it's desired effect.
I've seen those camouflaged ads many times, someone I've never heard of suddenly catches my attention with a crazy post .
I knew nothing about Mike Pence a few days ago, now I see his name on billboards and multiple news channels talking about his childhood.
Last week three percent of the country knew his name, for better and worse, today he is famous.
A candidate in the political arena willing to do something that's been missing for years, compromise, has a good chance of winning favor with voters.
I still like the sound of Rubio/Walker 2016
Rubio/Pence doesn't have a ring to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/politics/indiana-legislators-fix-religious-freedom-law/
"Indiana's top two state lawmakers pledged Monday to amend the state's controversial "religious freedom" law to clarify that it cannot be used to discriminate against gay people.
Republicans David Long and Brian Bosma, the state legislature's senate president pro tempore and house speaker, respectively, insisted Monday that the law would not and was not intended to allow discrimination against anyone.
"It is not the intent of the law to discriminate against anyone and it will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone," Long said. "To the extent that we need to clarify through legislative action that this law does not and will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone, we plan to do just that."
He still denies that it was ever intended to give license to discriminate from behind the safety of the law,(to which I call bullshit) but is calling to put specific language in the law to prevent that from ever happening. Personally I will reserve judgment until I see the new language, but so far it appears that the back lash has had it's desired effect.
He still denies that it was ever intended to give license to discriminate from behind the safety of the law,(to which I call bullshit) but is calling to put specific language in the law to prevent that from ever happening. Personally I will reserve judgment until I see the new language, but so far it appears that the back lash has had it's desired effect.
It hijacked even CNBC which I leave on most of the day. After listen to him flap his jaw for over half an hour, I don't believe a fucking word that came out of his mouth, and I don't believe that he is going to ever hold higher office than he does now.
He is clearly doing damage control, as hundreds of millions of economic impact to his state have already been threatened. It was clear that even he didn't believe a word he was saying, but the important thing is that this law will have it's discriminatory teeth removed from it.
FWIW, while I can't stand Obama Care, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling either, and I think it too sends the country down the wrong road of not protecting us FROM religion as well as protecting ones right of religion.
We are a Republic, not a Democracy, when people like WillyWonka try to push for a "direct democracy" they are actually advocating "Mob rule" and that almost always ends up trampling minority rights, or in this case the right to "freedom FROM religion"
I'm very much on the outside looking in as someone not in the US, but I always find that the US's stated goal of separating church and state seems to not be achieved on an alarmingly regular basis. I mean, how can you profess to separate church and state when even your money has religious dogma printed/engraved on it? This just strikes me as another instance of that separation not being nearly as fully formed as is perhaps wanted, or intended, or talked about.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It states the govt shall not establish a state religion and will not deny the exercise of religion. References to God do not amount to establishing a religion.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It states the govt shall not establish a state religion and will not deny the exercise of religion. References to God do not amount to establishing a religion.
What if a gay couple goes to a Muslim owned bakery and are refused? How does the media play that?
What if someone goes to a gay owned bakery and wants Romans 1:27 (condemning homosexuality) on the cake?
It's a matter of how the law is enforced.
Well said GA.
He is clearly doing damage control, as hundreds of millions of economic impact to his state have already been threatened. It was clear that even he didn't believe a word he was saying, but the important thing is that this law will have it's discriminatory teeth removed from it.
FWIW, while I can't stand Obama Care, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling either, and I think it too sends the country down the wrong road of not protecting us FROM religion as well as protecting ones right of religion.
We are a Republic, not a Democracy, when people like WillyWonka try to push for a "direct democracy" they are actually advocating "Mob rule" and that almost always ends up trampling minority rights, or in this case the right to "freedom FROM religion"
If he thinks they will let up he is out of his mind. A former Congressman should know better.
and on this issue at least, I agree with the left. That doesn't mean the law won't be amended, despite Governor Pence's lack of sincerity on the issue, and I am sure the left will still be convinced of his true intentions, after watching him flap his gums for over a half an hour, I am more convinced than ever about his true intentions.
So just what did I get wrong here?
FWIW you have already stated that you support the right of a Christian baker to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a couple of "fags", so at least you are honest about your prejudices and bigotry, something you can hardly claim for the good Governor.
"the Left? They know discrimination is bad for business. 
That this law was passed while the NCAA is in town, and big business gets to come out looking like the most objective player in favor for the people's rights.
Anywho did you catch the Beiber roast?... Funny stuff
The (federal) Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy the same day. It was approved and shortly there after signed into law by Bill Clinton. Now the MSOM and the Democrats want to use the same law written by Schumer and Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton to destroy a Republican governor. One hundred percent Alinskyism as practiced by the usual gang of 'progressives'. Over 25 States have passed a FRA.
Christians and Jews in the US. He said you can bet the house if a Muslim owns a T shirt shop in Indiana , law tweak or no law tweak, and Joe off the street walks in and says he wants to have so many T shirts printed that read " Muhammad was a fraud " the Muslim shop owner will refuse and nothing will be said about it
a the business owners religious rights; freedom to worship God in the manner of his choosing, or his religious practices? It doesn't. This business owner views it as his religious right to judge them, by withhold his services and product.
And, why will he withhold his services and product to gay and lesbian couples, and not single gay and lesbians? They're still having sex in a manner opposed to his religious beliefs.
No one is forcing Indiana to change their law, but they going to try to fix it because they stand to loose a lot money if they don't. What was the purpose of the law in the first place. The problem I see is that we have way too many laws that don't serve a single purpose, but to get others to vote for said person who voted for or signed said law.