Indiana's Religious freedom act

none2_none2

Literotica Guru
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Posts
1,083
While their govenor is going out of his way to do a PR campaign as to why their law is no threat to the LGBT community, the media was NOT unfairly judging their law. It is not 100% identical to the federal law from 1993 that they love to quote as being identical:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

The govenor has stated that they will be clarifying the law this week to prove that discrimination was not the goal. That being said, this other URL makes it appear that perhaps it WAS the intent of at least some of those behind the bill:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...surrounded_by_professional_anti_gay_activists
 
He can 'clarify' (i.e. backpedal) all he likes - this bill was enacted specifically so that people (which, of course, includes corporations) don't have to do business with anyone they don't want to as long as they can claim some sort of religious justification. As far as I can tell, this bill allows people to discriminate against anyone they wish - LGB, trans, black, jewish, asian, whatever - just by hauling out a racist/sexist/homophobic Bible quote. The test will come when (as it inevitably will) it conflicts with federal non-discrimination laws.

I only hope that a lot of non-Christians will use the law to discriminate against the fundamentalists who pushed for it so the latter can see how they like it. Either they'll be perfectly happy in their all-white/straight/cis communities or we'll hear a lot of screaming about how more laws are necessary to fight the evil discrimination against Christians. Because it's only discrimination when it happens to you - otherwise it's 'exercising your rights'. :rolleyes:
 
Well just keep in mind that not ALL Christians believe in this crap any more than ALL Muslims want to behead, burn, throw people off tall buildings, or wrap women up like mummies. In the case of Muslims, it is just that the vocal ones and the ones with guns who do think that way have lots of power.

In the case of fanatical anti-LGBT people, just know that when they have groups that follow them, they have more power. If you belong to a group and have clout to persuade them to vote a certain way, or to spend money on certain candidates, you have a lot more clout.

It is also misleading to think that all your enemies are easily stereotyped as Christians or for that matter religious. I knew plenty of males who couldn't give a flying fuck about Jesus or going to church on Sunday when they could party all weekend long. On the other hand if two people with penises wanted to get it on, they were grossed out. (They had no problem with lesbian sex.) They also had no problem with post-operative M->F's because even if they found them unattractive, it all boiled down to sex simply being a bolt screwing into a nut. So if you had a penis (bolt) but were willing to convert it to a vagina (nut), then the sex became fine.

The other thing I would point out is that many say how "friendly" people from Indiana are. I cannot say as I don't think I know anybody from Indiana, but one should keep in mind that the largest KKK organization EVER in any state was NOT in the south, but in Indiana after WWI. While they didn't have great numbers of blacks such as found in the south or more urban northern states, they were worried about too many Catholics -- especially the fact that many Eastern Europeans who were not Protestant were moving into the state. Around 1923 they even had some bill to try to restrict such an influx. So Indiana does have a very dark, intolerant past history.
 
My husband's family are Indianians and when we got married, his grandfather was so upset because I was a Sicilian Catholic and he was sure I had a tail....
Mike didn't want to tell him that I didn't because the fact that he knew such information would give Grandpa the vapors......
 
Well just keep in mind that not ALL Christians believe in this crap any more than ALL Muslims want to behead, burn, throw people off tall buildings, or wrap women up like mummies.
Oh, I understand that quite well, but sometimes I just get pissed off at idiots and think they deserve to reap some of what they sow.

And now there's this: Indiana Lawmakers Admit “No Gays” Signs Will be Allowed

EDIT: Oh, and this too: First woman in US sentenced for killing a fetus

Keep me away from fucking assholes who make laws like these. :mad:
 
Last edited:
And keep me away from Plett ( Canada ) :mad:
Ugh, Plett. I wrote him a very snarky letter a week or so ago urging him to reconsider his amendment to Bill C-279. I cc'd the backers of the bill as well, and yesterday received an email newsletter from one of its sponsors, Sen. Mitchell, in which he touches on the topic. Although it's clear he's not completely aware of the nuances of trans issues, he's obviously trying, and he makes some good points in a speech he gave to the Senate on the matter:

"We need to understand that there isn't something that needs to be protected from. In fact, quite often and usually, if not always, it is the trans people who do not want to be exposed in any inadvertent way. They are the ones who bear the brunt of the abuse so often."

"I think that this piece of legislation [...] does a great deal in recognizing transgender rights [....] On the one hand, it gives that and, on the other hand, it just takes all of that away with this amendment that really won't work, that really is discriminatory, and that really is — to use the oft-used statement — a solution looking for a problem that doesn't, in fact, exist."​

It's no surprise that Plett would have introduced this amendment, as he appears to come from the extreme right wing of our Conservative party, which is ideologically very similar to the American religious right.
 
Last edited:
My husband's family are Indianians and when we got married, his grandfather was so upset because I was a Sicilian Catholic and he was sure I had a tail....
Mike didn't want to tell him that I didn't because the fact that he knew such information would give Grandpa the vapors......

OMG bout choked on my coffee on that one. Vapors...LOL

I guess Indiana doesn't have any real problems that they had time to bring up a bill like this. How could they have not anticipated the backlash this created.

Oh, right, they're politicians.

I guess they don't have any problems with school funding, jobs,etc.
 
OMG bout choked on my coffee on that one. Vapors...LOL

I guess Indiana doesn't have any real problems that they had time to bring up a bill like this. How could they have not anticipated the backlash this created.

Oh, right, they're politicians.

I guess they don't have any problems with school funding, jobs,etc.

There is nothing like defending your constituents against the evil sin of immorality (especially m2m sex) to get people to ignore the fact that their are more serious problems. At least that is the case in midwestern politics (and I'm sure the south). I trust it is that way all over the country.

It wil be interesting to note how big a role gay issues define the 2016 election -- at least the Republican primaries...

To be honest, I'm not as liberal as some. I really don't care if someone doesn't want to bake me a cake, serve me pizza, etc. Why? Because I wouldn't want to give even a penny to those who thought I was that evil. However, I do draw a distinction on the nature of the business. What if an ambulence, hospital, fire department felt that they could not assist someone because they were perceived as gay or "gay married" and thus that was a threat to their religious liberty to in anyway associate with such a person or persons... At that point when someone is at risk at loosing their life, I don't care what your religious beliefs are, you have to try to save them.

Note, I have my doubts if I would marry my partner. Not because I have doubts about him, but the thought that somewhere there is a list of who is gay married. Many don't know but one of the most tolerent societies of gays was Germany just before the Nazi's. Then the pendulum swung the opposite direction. Just because people appear to be more tolerant today doesn't preclude a change of heart.
 
Last edited:
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”
― Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works - Volume XII

nuff said Indiana
 
To be honest, I'm not as liberal as some. I really don't care if someone doesn't want to bake me a cake, serve me pizza, etc. Why? Because I wouldn't want to give even a penny to those who thought I was that evil.

Yeah, I think this is one of those "laws are blunt instruments" things.

There are reasonable arguments for having such laws. In a small town where only one or two outlets sell food, a bigot with a "no gays" policy could easily force gay people out of town altogether, especially if they don't have a car to go shop elsewhere. (IIRC, people used the same tactic to drive out Chinese miners during the gold rushes.)

Obviously an urban wedding-cake shop or pizza outlet isn't in the same class - if they refuse to sell to gays, they're probably hurting themselves more than anybody else. But it'd be hard to write legislation that covers only the serious cases.
 
Yeah, I think this is one of those "laws are blunt instruments" things.

There are reasonable arguments for having such laws. In a small town where only one or two outlets sell food, a bigot with a "no gays" policy could easily force gay people out of town altogether, especially if they don't have a car to go shop elsewhere. (IIRC, people used the same tactic to drive out Chinese miners during the gold rushes.)

Obviously an urban wedding-cake shop or pizza outlet isn't in the same class - if they refuse to sell to gays, they're probably hurting themselves more than anybody else. But it'd be hard to write legislation that covers only the serious cases.

While it might be different to segregate that which is necessary from that which is not, I think it is something that should be attempted. Obviously I am free to not give my money to someone I know who doesn't like me -- regardless if the government forces them to provide goods and services to me or not.

The real problem is that when you force someone do to something against their will there is built in resentment. While that may sound like it is THEIR problem to deal with, the fact is that it could come back to haunt you. I am no a historian, but I do know that Germany had gotten pretty liberal with gay rights prior to the rise of the Nazi party. While I do not know the details as to the "why's" behind why the pendulum swung the opposite direction in Germany, the fact is that it did. (Unfortunately, when a society is stressed, they do look for scape goats. Perhaps the economic stress in Germany is why groups like Jews, gays, etc were turned against.
 
While it might be different to segregate that which is necessary from that which is not, I think it is something that should be attempted. Obviously I am free to not give my money to someone I know who doesn't like me -- regardless if the government forces them to provide goods and services to me or not.

The real problem is that when you force someone do to something against their will there is built in resentment. While that may sound like it is THEIR problem to deal with, the fact is that it could come back to haunt you. I am no a historian, but I do know that Germany had gotten pretty liberal with gay rights prior to the rise of the Nazi party. While I do not know the details as to the "why's" behind why the pendulum swung the opposite direction in Germany, the fact is that it did. (Unfortunately, when a society is stressed, they do look for scape goats. Perhaps the economic stress in Germany is why groups like Jews, gays, etc were turned against.
You are not a historian n2n2! The rise of the the Nazi party was due to a number of economic and political screw ups but perhaps the most notable was the idea of appeasement by foreign powers ( Britain and France ) and by German industrialists in Germany who were more frightened of communism than Hitler.

Appeasement, which is what you advocate here, has never achieved anything except provide oxygen to dictators. They can then turn to the wavering and say "Look - politician X and celebrity Y thinks it is ok we refuse to serve gay people" and so convince them to at least go along with their policies and 'Oh well, if there are a few gays murdered... well, there are always people being murdered'.

Those small-town shop-keepers are little dictators: they are all living with 19th century mindsets, with nasty religious stigma based on 16th century make-believe. Unless we stand up to them now, then NO progress will be made, it'll simply perpetuate the bigotry and ignorance.
 
You are not a historian n2n2! The rise of the the Nazi party was due to a number of economic and political screw ups but perhaps the most notable was the idea of appeasement by foreign powers ( Britain and France ) and by German industrialists in Germany who were more frightened of communism than Hitler.

Appeasement, which is what you advocate here, has never achieved anything except provide oxygen to dictators. They can then turn to the wavering and say "Look - politician X and celebrity Y thinks it is ok we refuse to serve gay people" and so convince them to at least go along with their policies and 'Oh well, if there are a few gays murdered... well, there are always people being murdered'.

Those small-town shop-keepers are little dictators: they are all living with 19th century mindsets, with nasty religious stigma based on 16th century make-believe. Unless we stand up to them now, then NO progress will be made, it'll simply perpetuate the bigotry and ignorance.

Sorry, but you didn't understand my post at all. I know what led up to WWII. I said I didn't know what caused the pendulum swing from the most homosexual tolerant country in the world to one that used the pink triangle on gays that it put in concentration camps. I'm not a historian on gay German rights...

That pendulum swing to opression for gays I can only guess at. Perhaps it was because with the Nazi's master race theory, men that were either effeminate and/or choose not to sire children were considered an insult to that theory. Perhaps it was because a few million German men had been killed not more than 20 years earlier during WWI, and thus any German male not trying to populate the fatherland were considered traitors.

Whatever it was, it was sure proof that just because things are tolerant today does NOT mean they will be tolerant tomorrow. I think it is safe to say that homosexuals will always be in the minority, thus gay rights are only as good as the dominate populations are willing to be tolerant of them. Even laws and constitutions that are strong today, can be gone tomorrow. There simply are no guarantees.

Comparing appeasement during WWII to allowing non-essential businesses being left alone is a BIG stretch, but since you want to make such a leap fine. However, you have to dig under the covers to see what was behind some of this...

The end of WWI was a very punitave time for the powers that lost. All of Germany's overseas territories were given to other European powers. They also lost some territories at home too. Likewise, they were told to pay war reparations which help lead to hyper inflaction from where we get the stories of pre-WWII marks being so worthless that a wheelbarrow full of them was required to buy a loaf of bread.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was another loosing power. It was an empire with many cultural groups within its boarders. (Obviously, the Austrians were Germanic, and the Hungarians Hungarian.) Their demise caused each of the individual cultural groups to split off and seek individual nationhood.

When these new nations were created, no thought was given to the German and Hungarians who lived outside of Austria and Hungary. (Unlike in the Soviet Union where they deliberately moved Russians into non-Russian territories to help "Russify" the regions during the 70 year existance of the Soviet Union's existance, many of these Germans & Hungarians had lived in these territories for centuries.)

The case that comes up most often with respect to appeasement is the creation of the country of Czechoslovakia and the areas of German majorities (or super minorities) referred to as Sudetenland. People in the Sudetenland had argued since 1918/1919 when the Austria-Hungarian Empire was carved up that these areas should be allowed to join with Austria or Germany. The powers behind the peace treaties for WWI would not allow this...

Move 20 years later to 1938, and you have Nazi Germany feeding off TWENTY years of resentment in the Sudetenland for why they were not allowed to join the German speaking countries of Germany or Austria. France & England were actually willing to compromise by stating that any part of the Sudetenland where over 50% of the population was Germanic speaking could join as wished, but the other territories should stay put. That is what is called a compromise.

Unfortunately, Hitler was not about compromise, but about doing whatever he wished. So he simply took all of it. Furthermore, he then simply went on to take all of Czechoslovakia. England and France at that time were appeasing Hitler by not sticking to the line they drew in the sand after giving him a good compromise as to what they could do for him.

I still don't see how that has to do with small, non-essential businesses. Howevrer, I will say that it IS a good example of what happens when you are not willing to compromise one bit. Resentments build up, and if enough people have resentments they will turn against you. Hitler never would have risen to power if so many Germans had not been humiliated and forced to suffer. Humiliation and suffering are the breeding grounds for nationalist dictators...

Small town shop keepers don't need to be villified. Probably most of them have never known any gays. They are simply acting on what they know and feel, and they are scared. It does no good to back them in a corner and say we are going to MAKE you adapt. Nobody gay/straight/inbetween is going to die if "Ma's Flower Shop" doesn't do flowers for a gay wedding. All that forcing them to changen does is make it sound like there really IS a gay agenda and that all there fears are being realized. Now as for essential services, obviously you cannot allow any excuse for denying services. Making that distinction is what I call a natural and normal compromise.

You cannot force people into your way of thinking, and that isn't just about gay issues. Just look how things are over in the middle east. Bush and Co. thought they could simply take out dictators, and have elections, and presto wamo we would have another constitutional republic like ours over there. It isn't working is it? We have a much bigger mess now than when we had dictators over there. So much for our "superior government rubbing off over there...

Finally, I would add that it is folly to blame this on religion. Religion is simply an excuse to justify bigoted feelings that someone already has. In Africa, plenty found homosexuality as a disease of western culture and repressive colonialization. The atheist based communist countries such as the Soviet Union saw it as part of capitalistic excesses which lead to immorality.

If religion was gone tomorrow, you would still not have everybody embrasing homosexual tolerance. That is the nature of human existance. It is easy for humans to think in terms of "us" vs "them" for the enumerous ways we can slice and dice humans into categories.
 
Last edited:
Yup, history. I still don't see how that has any bearing on this issue...
Those shop-keepers can refuse business with anyone, but they shouldn't do it on the basis of gay discrimination anymore than they can on the basis of race. Or can they? I dunno, it is Indiana...
 
Last edited:
Then I see the Church of Cannibis establishing itself in Indiana, essentially making it de facto legal. Now there's a woman who belongs to the Church of Satan demanding that the state waive her mandatory 72-hour waiting period before having an abortion for the sake of free religion.

Haha… haha… … pahahahaha…

Backfired, eh?

The name "Religious Freedom" act is just an advertising label, like "all-natural" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It's a way to sugarcoat bullshit so that bigots and posers can hide their heads in the sand more easily.
 
A couple things.

First, most small towns have their gays, even if some small towns don't want to admit it.

Second, the reason small town businesses discriminating is a major issue is that, in many small towns, by not providing service to LGBT individuals, it is highly likely that they are one of the only providers of said service in the town, with too small an LGBT community to make another grocery store, gas station, etc viable. So this forces the discriminated party to travel for daily goods, raising their cost of living. This was a feature of the Jim Crow South, and there was a reason that such discrimination was made unlawful. Because it protects the freedom of the shop owner at a cost to an entire group of Americans. And "they can move" is not a strong answer, since they are already financially penalized for living there, adding moving is merely putting the cost incurred by discriminatory business practices on this person twice.
 
With today's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, states like Indiana, as well as most of the Republican presidential candidates, are further marginalized as bigots who use religion as an instrument of divisiveness.
 
Back
Top