Great (backwards) sign in the window!
Wow, that is so funny and clever! I wonder how long it took you to come up with it!? You are now insulting Hoosiers and you’ve probably never even been to Indiana. How much time have you spent traveling around our great state talking to people? How many examples of discrimination towards anyone can you cite from Indiana? You’ll find it’s no different than most other states. Do you think Hoosiers are going to change who they are and how they believe because of a law that is passed in Indianapolis? You liberals really make yourselves look silly sometimes.
If your republican lawmakers pass a discriminatory law wrapped up in the guise of “religious freedom”, many people, liberals, independents and conservatives, might think you are bigots and uneducated boobs.
Including the republican mayor of Indianapolis, who thinks the law is stupid.
So yes, Indiana SHOULD lose business and conventions, etc. until they repel this bigoted law.
Says who? What gives you the right to make those accusations? Are you so much higher than me and others that you can judge us at will? Sorry, but I don’t recognize your position of authority to make the claim you made. Maybe what you and others should do is respond to actual cases of discrimination if it actually happens. Maybe the sky will not fall in Indiana! LOL
I did not say I’m higher than you, I IMPLIED that Hoosiers who support this governor appear to be bigots and uneducated boobs to the outside world.
And you are doing nothing to dispel this notion.
This ‘comic’ and your responses are all coming from the self-prescribed position of moral superiority. It’s Hoosiers who are ‘bigots’ and ‘boobs’ oh and let’s add ‘uneducated’ now as well. Conversely, those who agree with you must, therefore, not be those things. If that is not an example of a superiority complex, then what is? Honestly, there are so many fallacies (stated and implied) in your position that it’s hard to imagine that in there somewhere is an honest desire to understand this issue from the perspective of the people who support this legislation. I understand and support this legislation and I’m pretty sure I am not a bigot and I am certainly not uneducated. I may very well be a boob, I guess, so I’ll give you that one. I invite you to come down off that high horse and get to know people and try to understand what the motives are. You might just be surprised.
I am sorry Trent…a majority of your fellow Americans has decided we will not allow civil rights abuses against lesbians and gays…period. Your legislature has decided to defy the national mandate. Even states that have passed similar laws added provisions to their civil rights laws to protect these groups. So I am sorry that all in your state are perceived as wrapped in the same cloth….that is the unfortunate state of human development at this point…groups are all accorded with the same beliefs and stereotypes. Welcome to the wrong side of public opinion.
Alvin, many in this country do not form their moral belief systems based on what the majority currently espouses. Your assertion that I am on the wrong side of public opinion is a subjective judgement. I might hold views that are not shared by the majority, but in this country that is a right we all have. I believe it is wrong in general to discriminate against people, especially for things that they cannot control. However, I also believe in freedom and to the extent you are not infringing on other’s freedoms, you should be able to exercise that freedom how you wish. Why should a baker or photographer be forced to serve anyone they don’t want to serve for any reason? Let the free market work it out. There are others who are willing to provide the services; let them get that business. That’s called freedom. That’s called capitalism. That’s called living by one’s moral convictions. These are all pillars of this country and are not wrong. Of course there’s a limit to all of this and it appears that some of that is being addressed right now in the Indiana legislature. However, the motivation behind the law is sound in my opinion and in the opinion of most Hoosiers. That’s why we have both state and federal governments. Federal (majority) does not always represent all of the people. Liberals should especially be happy for this as they were/are a minority in many issues.
All the furor over the Indiana Religious Freedom act comes down to one thing…for me….and this is a tough one. Who makes the laws in this land. The people or the church. Gay and Lesbian marriages have been been made legal by the mandate of the majority and made law by the federal government. Yet, somehow states have decided that they can make their own laws that supersede those of the federal government, when their states contain a vocal religious majority that disagrees with the laws of the majority for religious reasons.
I believe we tried this once before, this wanting to have the benefits of a federal government without the need to follow the federal mandates….and just the thought that the federal mandates might change things caused civil war.
I believe that a business owner should be able to serve who he wants…within reason. Civil rights protections withstanding. Gays and Lesbians have been afforded unalienable rights to certain protections federally. Your religious beliefs should not exempt you from those laws. Some believe only those that are subsidized by the government we all pay into must follow the laws to make their services available to all….like churches (which do not see it that way still, but we allow them to get away with it). I would submit that having a business in a community means you are subsidized. After all…do not the gays and lesbians pay taxes that help to subsidize police and fire departments and other services. If the taxes gays and lesbians pay are helping to protect your business from criminals and fire, do they not have a right to expect you will serve them. I personally would not pay to protect someone who will not even provide me with the same services as others just because he has religious objections to my lifestyle, that by the way is constitutionally guaranteed ….or racial objections …or just does not like the way I look….or I might say: hey, I will not serve you….I object to that religious holier that thou attitude. We are a ridiculous species, we humans.
WE are heading down a slippery slope here. We left England for religious freedom, that is not disputed. We then formed a Republic that separated church and state with the state holding the trump card. When the state makes laws the majority approve that should be the end of it…we have spoken…or do we give EVERY Religion the right to do what they want whenever the law does not suit them. Almost all religions believe that killing is an affront, yet it is taking pharmaceutical companies to shut down lethal injections…..where are the religious and their “new” laws now…or is being gay worse than murder…seems a bit hypocritical.
Their will be law suits up the ying yang over this. I would not be surprised to see gays and lesbians suing to have their taxes withheld from departments like fire and police because those who discriminate against them are receiving benefits from their tax dollars. They could win that you know. This is going to be a big mess in the courts costing who knows how many dollars and wasting who knows how much time…there will be one beneficiary….Lawyers.
When the economic sanctions of corporate business and other minorities are brought to bear on Hoosiers you will buckle…you will find baking a cake for a gay couple is not worth not being able to feed your families…..being the pariah of corporate business. Believe me corporate business has no choice but to abandon you….it has started already…they have no choice…there are more gay and lesbian customers in the other states than all the hoosiers put together…it is a numbers game and you will lose. Somebody in your state needs an abacus….and please do not listen to those supporting your “cause” from out of state …they will egg you on, but they already caved and fixed their laws to avoid what they want you to stand up for…but they will not suffer the consequences….only Hoosiers will.
Trent … a bit defensive, are we? There would be nothing to defend against if Indiana had a public accommodations law that included LGBT as a protected class. Instead, REPUBLICANS in Indiana have gone out of their way to make it possible for business owners to discriminate, at will, in the operation of their business against just about anybody that their religion implies or suggests is somehow not quite as equal as they are, and to use their religion as a defense should the person(s) to whom they deny service object. These same people would have felt quite at home with a law that gave them a religious excuse to discriminate against women … against couples of mixed race … against cripples … or against people of a particular color. They would defend the law, just as REPUBLICANS are defending it now.
Really? Can you please explain to me how one is able to predict/guess what others would do and then use that guess as a basis for one’s own argument against something that hasn’t even happened? Do you know these REPUBLICANS of whom you speak? Do you know their life goals, their aspirations, their hopes, etc? Surely you can cite plenty of examples that would demonstrate the deep rooted bigotry you suggest is so pervasive in our state… I mean to throw out all that you through out, you must have a lot of terrible examples to support such accusations, right? You people are hysterical!
Indiana has just emerged from a long, drawn-out battle over recognizing same sex marriages. It lost in the courts. Many of the same Christian Conservative voices that led the fight to prevent recognition of same-sex marriages also led the fight to change the nature of the battle from opposing gay marriages to “preventing people from being forced to participate if they oppose them on religious grounds” (as Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana and one of the chief authors of the bill told Indianapolis Star reporter Tim Evans, on March 28, 2015). Standing with Governor Pence when he signed the bill into law were many leaders of conservative groups who had opposed same-sex marriage. There are 40 Republican Senators in the Indiana Senate. All 40 of them voted “yes” (on a 40-10 vote) There are 68 Republicans in the Indiana Assembly. All but five of them voted “yes” (on a 63-38 vote). Every Democrat in both houses voted “no.”
If it smells like dog poo …
As to the rest of your question, I do not need to personally know the bigots who supported this legislation. Given the tremendous amount of publicity and controversy surrounding this bill, if a single one of them had given a rat’s patootey about civil rights and equal protection under the law, they would have offered up an amendment or a companion law to make sure that members of the LGBT community were offered legal protection. They refused. Even after all the threats (and actual steps to boycott your state), your governor doubled down and stated that he is not considering additional legislation to protect the LGBT community.
I suggest you look in the mirror, then hold up a photograph of Lestor Maddux or George Wallace alongside your image. I bet they look like innocent human beings with Godly life goals, aspirations and hopes.
And one more thought, Trent. The RFRA was initially enacted to protect the religious beliefs of religious minorities in this country … specifically, Native Americans and their ritual use of peyote. Another relatively famous case from Minnesota involving Amish people underscores the true intent of the RFRA. A state law requiring lights on vehicles traveling roads at night was changed to bring Amish buggies into the fold … it would have required them to be equipped with fluorescent signs so they could be seen. Public safety definitely provided a compelling interest for the state to regulate and require Amish buggies to be so equipped, but the same end could be accomplished using less restrictive measures by allowing the Amish to attach silver reflective tape and kerosene lanterns to their buggies. A compromise.
Why can’t the well-intentioned and public-spirited Republican Christians find a similar, least restrictive compromise to protect the so-called religious beliefs of their citizens?
shays01, I appreciate the earnest and civil exchange. It’s nice to debate with someone who does not resort to simple name-calling and mud-flinging. This is a topic that is obviously dear to you and I can respect that. All the best.
I’m not going to argue the finer points of the law nor am I going to argue the validity of the comparison you’d like to make between the African Americans and the LGBT community. The intent of my original post is that the cartoon is offensive and paints Hoosiers in a broad and misleading stroke. Specifically, there is no history to support the preposterous notion that this law will somehow lead to gays being denied service in a restaurant or hotel or store, etc. etc. Believe or not, there are plenty of gay people in this state who live very normal lives and who are served everyday by these bigoted, homophobic, prehistoric conservative Indiana residents. There are a few professions where, due to the nature of the services offered (e.g., related to weddings), this law will apply. In the few cases where it does apply, gay couples are free to take the business elsewhere. There will always be others who are happy to take anyone’s money. This is how things have been and will continue to be. The only difference is those few people who genuinely choose to not offer services to the LGBT community due to their personal convictions will not be subjected to retaliation via lawsuits. Or if they are, they will have a legal leg to stand on. In addition, there will certainly be a measure of scrutiny applied in the application of this law. The courts and lawyers certainly aren’t going away. Your assertions are a good example of why so many conservatives feel that the LGBT’s agenda is not just legal protection, but that it’s about trying to force everyone to condone and accept the lifestyle. Sorry to tell you but that isn’t going to happen. That’s not bigotry, that is one living a lifestyle where right and wrong are not arbitrary but defined by the God who created everything. This is why we will never agree on this fundamental issue and why these kinds of debates will never end.
In your comment, below, you imply that you are checking out of this conversation. That is certainly your prerogative, and if you don’t see this, such is life. But you have raised three points that I find a little disturbing.
(1) If Hoosiers have no history of bigotry or discrimination directed at the LGBT community, and homosexuals are served everyday in restaurants, hotels, and stores (I will assume the string of slurs were meant sarcastically) … then how does that jibe with the admission that “This is how things have been and will continue to be.” You are referring to the fact that gays can just take their business elsewhere (not exactly the American way, is it? … see below), as they always have when confronted by homophobes. In other words, this law reflects a commonly held opinion among Christians that gays should either go back into their closets, or take their business to “those” types of places. As it always has been!
(2) “The only difference is those few people who genuinely choose to not offer services to the LGBT community due to their personal convictions will not be subjected to retaliation via lawsuits. Or if they are, they will have a legal leg to stand on.” In other words, this legislation clearly enables some people to freely discriminate against a class of citizens without fear of recrimination … either through formal prosecution or through civil action based upon denial of civil rights. Watch out for the can of worms. The religious beliefs of the congregation down the street holds that redheads breed baby-killers and must be ostracized.
(3) “In the few cases where it does apply, gay couples are free to take the business elsewhere. There will always be others who are happy to take anyone’s money.” I do not live, nor do I want to live, in a balkanized society where everyone stays with “their own kind.” This is not exactly what is meant by the phrase “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Have gays broken a law by being gay? … By wishing to marry? If not, then it’s awful hard for anyone to justify denying the right to equal access and equal opportunity upon which this country is founded.
As to “bigotry” it’s definition is very clear: holding or displaying an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudicial intolerance of others, or their opinions. That seems to pretty much sum up conservative Christian intolerance and prejudicial attitudes towards gays.
Just an additional thought. Indiana did not have a statewide Religious Freedom Restoration Act until this piece of unadulterated discrimination-empowering legislation was passed. During the fight over gay rights and the recognition of same-sex marriage, there were some cities in Indiana that joined the modern world and enacted such protections. But now the protections they offer locally are threatened.
Illinois has both an RFRA (1998) AND codified same-sex marriages (2013). But its Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act specifically protects religious beliefs by explicitly saying religious officials would not be required to solemnize any marriages that went against their beliefs, nor would religious facilities be required to hold such marriage ceremonies. Republican leaders in Indiana refuse to codify and protect gay people, and also refuse to to add a simple clause such as the one in Illinois. In other words, they dismissed statewide class protection for sexual orientation or gender identity. Though, as I stated, above, some localities in Indian have enacted laws that require equal treatment of gay people, most Indiana cities haven’t. That means discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not expressly prohibited in most of Indiana.
After exposing the gap in LGBT protections and the political unwillingness to close it, Indiana’s RFRA debate begins for some to look like a pre-emptive move to block social currents. And therein lies the questions over intent. There is no reason for me … or the gay population of Indiana … to trust Micah Clark (and his ilk) or any of the 103 Republican legislators who supported the bill to have their back.
I’m still waiting to see and hear what one of our most famous Hoosiers, Dave Letterman, thinks about this law. Last night he didn’t mention it in his monologue or in conversation with Neil Patrick Harris (who talked openly about the children he and his husband are raising … in CALIFORNIA of course). Maybe the writing staff waits a day or two; I’m sure he doesn’t agree with the Hoosier in this cartoon, but I’m recording the rest this week’s “The Late Show” episodes to find out.