The New Jim Crow?



Indiana Governor Signs Anti-Gay ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill At Private Ceremony

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) quietly signed legislation Thursday that could legalize discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement Thursday. “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

The bill received national attention, but Pence signed it with little fanfare in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The Indianapolis Star reported that members of the media “were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.”

Oh, my!

Pence’s signature on the bill came despite concerns from organizers set to hold major events in the state. On Wednesday, leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) sent a letter to the governor saying they were reconsidering holding their 6,000-person general assembly in Indianapolis in 2017 because of the legislation.

“We are particularly distressed at the thought that, should RFRA be signed into law, some of our members and friends might not be welcome in Indiana businesses — might experience legally sanctioned bias and rejection once so common on the basis of race,” they wrote.

Organizers of Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country, also threatened to stop holding its event in Indiana if RFRA became law. Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con, said more than 56,000 people attended the convention in Indianapolis last year, pumping more than $50 million into the city.

Marc Benioff, CEO of the tech giant Salesforce, tweeted Thursday that the company would now be avoiding Indiana.

That’s not good.

But the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed Indiana’s RFRA and other similar bills popping up around the country, has argued the potential for discrimination is huge.

“These bills are often incredibly vague and light on details — usually intentionally. In practice, most of these bills could empower any individual to sue the government to attempt to end enforcement of a non-discrimination law,” wrote the LGBT equality group in a report. “The evangelical owner of a business providing a secular service can sue claiming that their personal faith empowers them to refuse to hire Jews, divorcees, or LGBT people. A landlord could claim the right to refuse to rent an apartment to a Muslim or a transgender person.”

In a statement Thursday, HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow said the Indiana General Assembly and Pence have sent a message saying, “as long as your religion tells you to, it’s ok to discriminate against people despite what the law says.”

“This new law hurts the reputation of Indiana and will have unacceptable implications for LGBT people and other minorities throughout the state,” she added.

O. M. G.!

There is even a #BoycottIndiana hashtag trending on Twitter so you know this shit is serious.

But wait! There’s more!

Dad- the religious freedom act may look like something else but it isn’t. Unfortunately Indy is full of hate and it is exactly what it looks like. This started when a baker refused to make a cake bc a couple was gay. It’s not ok and regardless of what the law is supposed to mean, it is absolutely being used for hate. It’s hard to imagine when you are in a more liberal state but mike pence is useless and this law is being used against civil rights. The people supporting the law prove this in our state. I have babies here. Babies I pray look back on these years the way I look back on colored only water fountains. We legalized fair marriage and these are the same people comparing those marriages to humans wedding dogs. I cannot figure out how a state that was part of the Underground Railroad would also hate and prey against gays. I watch one of our best friends be called a fag and a queer and I will NEVER be ok with any of it. Because my liberal, loving dad taught me better.

That last one was from My Darling Daughter who lives in Indiana. That was her reply to me asking if she had actually read the statute because (surprise, surprise!) it doesn’t say what people claim it says.

I raised my baby girl right and she makes me proud. Like her, I support gay rights and same-sex marriage.

My baby girl is a lot smarter than me but she didn’t go to law school like I did.

Here is what the new law says:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental
entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been
substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened,by
a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending
violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative
proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other
governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant
governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the
governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in
order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of
this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter
determines that:
(1) the person’s exercise of religion has been substantially
burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and
(2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not
demonstrated that application of the burden to the person:
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest;
the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party
and shall grant appropriate relief againstthe governmental entity.
(b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of
the following:
(1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that
prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this
(2) Compensatory damages.
(c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may
award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable
attorney’sfees, to a person that prevails against the governmental
entity under this chapter.

It was modeled after this law:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden
a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from
a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.

That law was signed by this guy:

After being passed by the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 Bill Clinton signed it into law waaaaay back in 1993. But in 1997 SCOTUS decided that it didn’t apply to the states, so a bunch of them (counting Indiana) passed their own versions of the law. A smaller bunch have state court decisions providing similar protections.

So basically people are freaking out over a Indiana law like the federal government and 60% of the other states also have.


In fact, it doesn’t mention gays at all. Nor does it say that freedom of religion trumps other laws. What it does is it establishes a simple two-pronged test for the courts to use in determining whether a law impermissibly infringes on an individual or group’s First Amendment rights.

In this particular case, the issue is not about a general right to refuse service to gay people. It is about requiring Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gay weddings.

Is that a compelling state interest? Does it use the least restrictive means?

You tell me.


About Deplorable Myiq2xu™

I'm a basket case.
This entry was posted in LGBT Rights, Same-Sex Marriage and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to The New Jim Crow?

  1. Myiq2xu says:

    Your federal deficit at work:

    Batgirl only worked part time and she got her job because her dad was the police commissioner.

  2. Myiq2xu says:

  3. Myiq2xu says:

    • votermom says:

      Is it me or is he seriously over estimating Rubio’s chances?

      • Lulu says:

        It reads like a “wish” list rather than a serious ranking. I don’t see how Rubio overcomes his amnesty stance with most Republican primary voters. It was Rubio’s bad luck that Obama made a mockery of any effort for trying to work out a way to work on immigration policy. Obama has done the same thing with Middle East policy, health insurance, etc. Part of Obama’s intent was to push everyone as far right as possible and then mock them. It is probably going to backfire.

      • Myiq2xu says:

        I don’t see Rubio as a major contender this time around. Down the road, maybe. He could be a good VP choice.

        • Lulu says:

          Agreed. I think he should run so he can build up his profile, get his name out there, make a network of contributors, etc. This will be Jeb’s swan song and next time Rubio can pick up his Florida contributors. But then again Jeb will crater early (no primary votes) and Rubio may go up then. It really is wide open at this point.

      • 49erDweet says:

        Kraut socializes with too many gopE’s.

    • DeniseVB says:

      I like them all, I don’t care who wins❤ The Hammer seemed tough on Walker (gaffes are expected, see: Obama, Biden, HRC !) and I don't see the base worried about stupid media gotchas either. Walker/Cruz is still my favorite ticket so far. I could see the rest of the field running more for the VP slot. But, sigh, politics. Cruz is from a solid red state, will the VP have to come from purple or blue ?

      • piper says:

        Walker would be a good candidate who will remain standing after taking beatings from the unions and other lefties bent on his destruction.
        Please dear goddess in heaven, under no circumstances rename O’Hare – Obama international where I fly out of which would mean traveling 350 miles to the Twin Cities instead of 80 miles to ChiTown.

  4. Myiq2xu says:

  5. Myiq2xu says:

  6. Myiq2xu says:

  7. Myiq2xu says:

  8. Myiq2xu says:

  9. Dora says:

    What a surprise! NOT!

    GERMAN NEWS REPORT: Co-Pilot of Germanwings Airbus Was MUSLIM CONVERT …’Hero of Islamic State’?

  10. lildoggy4u says:

    I feel the law passed in Indiana, as in other states is generally a nothing burger. Just like the baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake (needless hysteria), the market will sort it out. There will be plenty of other bakers who will gladly take that money. If any hotel, landlord, employer refuses accommodation, that could be another story and maybe used for expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT as a minority group. You lawyers have to tell me if this will be the appropriate avenue, I don’t know. Its been unsuccessful in the past and the last time I think it was challenged was with the Boy Scouts. Societal pressures like your daughter’s and the courts, not the legislatures will finally figure that out as we’ve seen in gay marriage cases all across the country. My friends and I of my age thought we’d never see this happen in our lifetime but its happening.

  11. DeniseVB says:

    If I had my own business I wouldn’t refuse service to anyone for any reason, unless it was a liquor store, I wouldn’t sell to minors because it’s against the law. It’s a business not a church.

    There was a big flap in nyc over a hair stylist who wouldn’t do hair on women over 40. A bunch of older ladies tried to sue him for ageism or something and lost. It would have been easier to find another stylist, or ask a peer with a great ‘do for the name of hers😉

    • 49erDweet says:

      Years ago we had a lesbian vet, except we just called her our vet, who refused service to the animals of a gay guy. We thought nothing of it bc he was a jerk, who was always creating drama. But thinking of it now…….

      • DeniseVB says:

        The vet I worked for refused to do ear crops because of ethical reasons that it was unnecessary and a cruel cosmetic procedure to perform on puppies (like boxers or dobies). We also didn’t declaw outdoor cats, even if they were let inside to shred the furniture now and then. Or euthanize animals for treatable illnesses that the owner didn’t want to pay for. We referred to other vets who did these things all the time.

        And this was a vet who loved money maybe even more than animals😀

        • 49erDweet says:

          Yeah, the point is businesses have always discriminated for all sorts of reasons yet only recently have customers been so tender they can’t abide hurt feeewings.

  12. cynic says:

    Just reported on Morning Joe that Harry Reid will not seek reelection. Did it cross anyone’s mind that Harry’s recent injuries were due to being beaten up? Exercise equipment, yea, sure.

  13. cynic says:

    Leslie, did you watch James Woolsey on Morning Mika? WOW! Straight and to the point, and disturbing. Once it’s accessible, I’ll post the link.

  14. HELENK3 says:


    Harry Reid, US Senate Democratic Leader, will not seek re-election – @nytimes

  15. Lulu says:

    Harry Reid is retiring in 2016!!!! Yeah! He says the accident did not bring this on he says. Uh uh. He knows he is going to get beat.

    • mothy67 says:

      What price? Several of my little brats friends have seen grades fall to C’s. Third grade and being slapped upside the head with an untested education method. One not used in private schools. Common Core was introduced to them in third. Not gradual. Just boom here’s how it is now. I saw it coming and took action. Thankfully, one report period left but looks like it’ll be all A’s.
      These educatos have fucked with children’s futures. That is to high a price to pay. Imagine being an 8/9 year old diligently doing homework and being unable to succeed. Will turn you off school, but its okay because feelings and no one is doing any better. My big issue has been that I could not understand the questions. Pup’s school does not send home text books just assignments with no reference. I got the text by going to the school. Wonder how many parents just C’s now.

  16. HELENK3 says:

    what ever happened to those signs in different businesses ” We have the right to refuse service” or no shoes, no shirts, no service?
    just say no is no longer allowed?

  17. Myiq2xu says:

  18. Dora says:

    This is ridiculous. What if there aren’t any gays in the school?

    Canada: Every School In Alberta To Have A Mandatory Gay Students Club, Islamic School Won’t Say If They Will Comply…

    • Somebody says:

      Well after they stone them to death, I don’t think the islamic school is going to have any.

    • Anthony says:

      Then the entire student body would have to be no more than 9 people according to current statistics that have found that (minimum) 1 out of every 10 people are gay. (link below).

      And in the event that the imaginary school you are defending actually exists, then nobody would feel the need to join the Gay Students Club, so people who find this idea intolerable have nothing to worry about.

    • elliesmom says:

      The high school I taught in had a club called “The Gay Straight Alliance”. While there may have been gay students in the group, they all claimed they were straight. The point of the club was to make it easier for kids to come out. I had a long talk with an openly gay student about why he didn’t belong. He said in this particular high school, it wasn’t very difficult to be openly gay. The hard thing for most teenagers is telling their parents. You can’t be openly gay in school until you’re openly gay at home. Since the club refused to discuss that issue, he figured it was just another group of misguided kids building up a resume for college. He was already headed for Yale.

      • Anthony says:

        “The hard thing for most teenagers is telling their parents.”

        Bingo! Trust me. It was hard in the 1960s when I came out, and still not easy now.

        • lildoggy4u says:

          It wasn’t hard for me at all. I left notes on my each of my parent’s car dashboards so they read it when they were off to work. My poor parents. I was a mean kid to them. They were great about it. I still feel guilty.

        • Anthony says:

          In my case, I was outed by my sister who just wanted to start trouble for me. I wouldn’t say my parents were the worst in the world, but my journal was called “The Diary of Anthony Frank” (if you get my drift). That was a weekend to remember……

    • mothy67 says:

      I am suspect of any group that would have me
      Paraphrasing but who famously said something like that?

  19. Myiq2xu says:

    Buffoon World is a strange place:

    So the GOP won’t have Harry Reid to crap on after 2016. Well, Reid is an older guy, and he almost lost an eye falling off an exercise-cycle recently, so you can hardly blame him for wanting to retire to whatever godforsaken tumbleweed farm he hails from.

    But this is truly the end of an era. Reid could be frustratingly cautious at times and combative when warranted. Overall, Reid played the shitty hand he was dealt pretty well. It can’t have been easy playing opposition leader to a pack of rabid psychopaths.

    He was fortunate to win his last election and almost surely would have lost had the GOP not nominated a drooling loon (the “chickens for checkups” lady was the SANE one in that primary) to oppose him. What are the chances the Dems can hold his seat?

    The article linked above says Chuck Schumer is Reid’s most likely successor. That sucks. Schumer is way too cozy with Wall Street, and he’ll make a shitty standard-bearer if the Dems focus on income inequality in 2016, which they absolutely must.

  20. Myiq2xu says:

  21. Myiq2xu says:

    2,973,583 hits

  22. Lulu says:

    Obama is threatening allies to back his Iran deal. “Another Western source familiar with the talks said the White House is sacrificing longstanding alliances to cement a contentious deal with Iran before Obama’s term in office ends.”
    “The President could be hammering out the best deal in the history of diplomacy, and it still wouldn’t be worth sacrificing our alliances with France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—key partners in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf,” the source said. “But he’s blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Iran’s way to a bomb.”
    Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc started bombing Yemen without telling the US. No one trusts Obama or his flunkies.

  23. gram cracker says:

    “Reproductive Justice” The “entitlement” to have an unlimited number of children and expect “taxpayers” to pay for your children’s breakfast and lunch at school, food stamps at home, subsidized housing, healthcare and on and on — another legal topic for you to look at Myiq.

    A new casebook released in November is attempting to define a new legal field to be taught at law schools: “reproductive justice.”

    UC Berkeley Law professors Melissa Murray and Kristin Luker wrote the gargantuan 919-page tome, which features a history of cases that defined the feminist movement, including Roe vs. Wade, Griswold vs. Connecticut, and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, as well as anecdotes relating how women challenged the prevailing mores to change society.

    The book titled, Cases on Reproductive Rights and Justice, is, according to the Los Angeles Times, “the first legal textbook to focus on sex, marriage, contraception, pregnancy, birth and parenting.”

    Luker, who founded the Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice in 2013, gave an example to the Times, regarding whether it was fair for the state of California to tell mothers on welfare that they would not receive more funding from the state if they had more children. She intoned, “Reproductive justice, suggests that having a baby is just as important as the right not to have a baby.”

    • cynic says:

      Do the taxpayer’s have any rights? We’re running trillion dollar deficits. It’s the middle class that’s paying for all this stuff.

      We only had two kids because we wanted to save enough to pay for their college, and have money to live on when we retired.

  24. angienc says:

    A guy not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is bad *business* — and if those decisions cause him to lose $ and go out of business that’s his own fault. However, I don’t think the state has any business forcing him to bake the cake. We’re not talking about being denied the right to vote or go to school — we’re talking about a fucking cake that can be purchased from any other bakery in town were the owners are smart enough business people to not turn down cash money in this economy.
    Being mean to people and calling them names, etc isn’t a nice thing to do and most likely the people doing it are ignorant bigots. However it isn’t illegal nor should it be — people are dicks. Welcome to reality.
    (Oh the name calling not being nice thing goes both ways whether it is anti-gay or anti-religion speech)

    • DandyTIger says:

      Even though bad PR and boycotting work, and likely would have run that business out of business, that’s not good enough for the goose stepping brown shirts any more. They want laws to target and tag and destroy any who have different points of view.

      Note to self, find a super feminist bakery and ask them to design and bake a cake with enslaving women as the theme. I’m sure they wouldn’t discriminate.

      • Somebody says:

        I honestly don’t understand why anyone would want a cake from a bakery that doesn’t want to make it for them. I don’t care what the reason is, if for example the owners of the bakery doesn’t like brunettes or catholics or whatever. Who in their right mind would want to eat something made by someone that was forced to make whatever it is?? All I can think of is Minnie’s chocolate pie from “The Help”. Seriously who would want such a cake???

    • votermom says:

      Baking a wedding cake is a service rather than a product. When you bake a wedding cale you are committing to bringing the cake (in layers) to the site and setting it up there.
      It’s like catering, basically.
      So, it is bad business to reject a class of customers but I can understand it when the service requires you to be physically at the scene of an event.
      It’s not as if the baker is a doctor and the wedding cake is an urgent, life or death procedure.
      If my business was shooting videos, and someone hired me to videotape their abortion, should I be required to do so even though I’m anti-abortion?

      • Somebody says:

        That’s a really good analogy VM, where is the line drawn?

      • angienc says:

        I get what you’re saying about a wedding cake being more a service than product & like your analogy to the abortion video. But I still say the same: it’s a business decision. If refusing to film certain events costs a videographer $/business that is his/her decision, same as the baker’s. The state needs to stay out of it & the Social Justice Warriors news to grow up & stop trying to get Daddy/government to *make* people “be nice.”

  25. lyn says:

    From USA Today:
    “The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.
    “In Jan. 2013, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes refused to sell her and her fiancée a cake for their upcoming wedding. Bowman said Aaron Klein, the co-owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, said the couple’s union was an ‘abomination unto the lord.’ Gresham, Ore. is a town east of Portland.
    “Bowman filed an anti-discrimination complaint with BOLI later that year, alleging that the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of Oregonians who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”

    The bakery lost the lawsuit because of the OEA. The gay community also harassed the bakery and its suppliers until the bakery left its storefront and moved back into the owners’ home. The news story called this the “public backlash.” I would have baked the cake. However, I believe that tolerance and respect should extend to both sides. Sweet Cakes by Melissa shouldn’t have been harassed like that. Also from the story: “The Kleins will not be penalized for speaking about the issue on Christian television and radio programs.”

  26. 1539days says:

    Maybe they should have called the law “If I knew you were suing I would have baked you a cake.” It is a specific response to the coordinated strategy of suing businesses that don’t immediately comply with a certain world view. This also happened when lawyers encouraged disabled people to seek out businesses that had a toilet seat 1″ lower than the ADA standard to sue them.

    I’m not a fan of stupid laws, but I also oppose lawfare as a weapon of social justice. We end up fighting stupid with stupid.

    • DeniseVB says:

      We were sued for 100k by “friends” who came to our 4th of July party and two years later she lawyered up because the fireworks gave her recurring nightmares. Of course, fireworks are illegal to shoot off in Virginia and that was the keyword in the suit. Fortunately our homeowners insurance peeps were able to settle out of court for 3k which our insurance covered, most of it going to her lawyer. (we stopped having 4th of July parties after that)

      This “friend” also had pending lawsuits against a mall (slipped on a wet floor despite “caution wet floor” sign visible) and another friends home where she slipped on ice on her sidewalk.

      Years later, I was happy to see that lawyer was disbarred over unethical practices. Crappy nuisance lawsuits finally caught up with him.

  27. mothy67 says:

    The very vocal law suit inclined gay activists do not speak for everyone. Andrew Sullivan and Sally Kohn do not speak for me. They have more in common with Sharpton than me. Mediocre at best talent.

  28. HELENK3 says:


    Reid want Schumer to replace him. progessives want Warren

    Popcorn stock going up

  29. kanaughty says:

    thanks for that law reading, myiq.

    it was so confusing last night. and of course i am going to side with gay rights and non discrimination but i do see that it is pretty much already the same law in most of the land. hopefully in indiana they actually don’t use it for bad intentions though since it is a new law here. and yes, it sucks because i just moved here so i couldn’t vote for these people who put this law in place now. but according to the map i have lived in many states that already have had this law and i haven’t heard of it being used in this way that the gay rights community is talking about. i have lived in hawaii (yes), washington (yes), virginia, (yes), maryland (no), arkansas (no), louisiana (yes), and now indiana (yes). and plus since bill clinton signed it into national law, we all lived under it if we were alive then, which i was.

    so people are freaking out and it sounds like the ncaa tourney might be in jeopardy now. i hope people stop grouping all indianans into bigots because that isn’t right either especially since this law exists in so many other states including blue states like washington and hawaii. i hope this dies down once people start reading the facts of the law and see that it reflects the law around this nation and compared to other states. let’s face it they wouldn’t be freaking out if it were a blue state passing this law right now like oregon, or maryland. it’s the timing that stinks, and maybe indiana shouldn’t have done it knowing this kind of backlash is out there. they should have done it years ago when other states did it, or they shouldn’t have done it at all.

    • Myiq2xu says:

      One of the first things I noticed in all the reporting about this law is that none of the articles quoted the statute, they just talked about all the bad things that “could” happen.

      The voters of Indiana elected the people who passed this law. They can always elect new people to repeal it.

  30. HELENK3 says:

    LGBT rights
    Hackers claim to shut down Indiana state website in response religions freedom bill – @WTHRcom
    see original on

  31. Myiq2xu says:

  32. TheRealKim says:

    I kinda see where you are going with the business that doesn’t want to do a cake or film an abortion. My question is where does it stop? What if it’s the Huge grocery store closest to your house? What if Walmart decides no gays and lesbians? Does it extend to employment? All of these are unlikely scenarios, but again, where does it stop?

    • Myiq2xu says:

      That is what the constitutional test is supposed to determine. Is there a compelling state interest in generally requiring all people to be treated equally? I would say yes. Flatly refusing to do business with gays would violate that requirement because you are discriminating based on who they are – an immutable characteristic.

      But getting married is a choice, even if it is a basic right. Should the state require people to assist in a gay marriage if they object on religious grounds? I don’t see a compelling state interest.

      A comparison would be abortion – should OB/Gyn doctors be required to perform abortions?

    • angienc says:

      Using examples like Walmart and chain groceries is disengenious — the RFA only applies to closely held companies (i.e., family owned). It wouldn’t apply to a Walmart.

      So the answer to your question is: it ends at small, mom & pop type businesses.

      The government has no compelling interest in forcing those businesses to do anything.

  33. TheRealKim says:

    Oh and thanks myiq it’s great to be back! I’ve been hiding under the bed.

  34. Myiq2xu says:

    I write these posts in the middle of the night when I am sleepy and tired. I should have discussed “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means.” That is language from constitutional law cases decided by SCOTUS.

    We are all bundles of rights. One of the first things you learn in con law is that rights are not absolute. Sometimes my rights, your rights and their rights conflict with each other. There is a huge body of law dealing with how our rights interact with each other and with government power.

    Gay people have rights, but so do Christian bakers and florists. Trying to figure out whose rights take precedence can be messy and depends on the situation. “Where does it stop?” is always debatable, and people of good conscience can disagree.

    BTW – Invoking religion is not an automatic trump card. The court is allowed to consider the genuineness of such a claim, including evidence of what the religion says and whether the claimant is truly a believer. For example, if a landlord refused to rent to a gay couple on religious grounds the court could consider the fact that he rents to an unmarried straight couple. Both are “living in sin” according to his religion.

  35. Myiq2xu says:

    New thread up!

  36. threewickets says:

    Tired of the organized whining and hate marketing. My empathy has always run deep, but it’s drying up. Can’t stand the endless hating and bashing of people in the name of ‘zero tolerance’. It’s brown shirty and bigoted.

    • threewickets says:

      A credible and well-regarded liberal journalist friend who is Catholic says 50% of the priests in Western Europe and the States are gay. If that’s the case why aren’t the political atheist gays going after their religious gay brothers in the church instead of endlessly hate bashing the congregants who choose to observe a faith.

      • threewickets says:

        Hypocrite narcissist crybabies acting out. From Gawker to Wonkette, it’s the same whining and abusive trolling. The dicks of the internet.

Comments are closed.