fbpx

Type to search

Indiana ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Lets Businesses, Individuals Decide Who Gets Equal Treatment

Memo Pad Politics Tribune News Service

Indiana ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill Lets Businesses, Individuals Decide Who Gets Equal Treatment

Share
Mike Pence, Civil Liberties, Religion, Discrmination, Gay Rights, GOP, Indiana, Hoosier, RFRA

By Dick Meyer, Scripps Washington Bureau (TNS)

Indiana’s state motto is “The Crossroads of America.” This week, two important roads in American politics and jurisprudence are crossing in Indiana.

One of those roads is the ongoing quest to give real protection to the rights and liberties of racial and religious minorities, women and gay people.

The other path, a reactionary one, wants to vastly expand one particular American right, the free expression of religion, to allow businesses and individuals to pick and choose who they think deserves equal treatment.

Indiana’s House and Senate have passed an Orwellian-named “religious freedom” law that Republican Governor Mike Pence said he would sign [Ed. note: Pence signed the bill into law on Thursday morning]. The bill protects businesses and individuals from having to do things — and to obey laws — that would be a “substantial burden” on their religious freedom.

Gay marriage is the most visible and politicized arena where this rights conflict is being fought. Some businesses and individuals say it would violate their religious freedom if they had to, say, provide flowers, pastries or appetizers to a gay wedding. Indiana’s new law agrees and would protect them.

This is a radical new understanding of the right of religious expression that would trump the civil rights of others.

The Indiana law is the wholly predictable and unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell last summer. In that famous case, the Supreme Court said that by forcing Hobby Lobby to provide its employees with health insurance that covered some forms of contraception, the Affordable Care Act violated the company’s religious rights.

One odd facet of the decision is that for-profit companies have the same religious rights as individuals, something common sense has a very hard time with.

More importantly, the court majority in Hobby Lobby said religious freedom no longer only meant protecting how one worships in private and in church, but also means protection from any compromise of beliefs that may come up in the public world of business and everyday life. “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent.

Dissenters correctly predicted that the decision would set the table for a continuing course of new litigation, new laws and new ways to justify old discrimination. That is exactly what is happening.

If it is legal for a company to refuse to cover contraception in its insurance plan, couldn’t a Christian Scientist company refuse to provide health insurance at all? If it’s okay to refuse catering services at a gay wedding, what about at an interracial marriage? They violate some religious beliefs, too. What if a corner store owned by Muslims didn’t want to serve Jews, or vice versa?

It isn’t hard to make this a long list. Indiana is on the verge of sanctioning and empowering this very un-American mutation of a fundamental American principle.

Earlier this week, Senator Ted Cruz launched his presidential campaign at a convocation service at a Christian fundamentalist university. What a powerful message that sends to Americans who aren’t Christian — Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and, the biggest category of all, “none of the above.” The message is simply: We don’t want you.

Indiana is at a crossroads and is about to send that very same message, enshrined in a law.

Dick Meyer is Chief Washington Correspondent for the Scripps Washington Bureau and DecodeDC (www.newsnet5.com/decodedc).Readers may send him email at dick.meyer@scripps.com.

Photo: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Tags:

279 Comments

  1. Lynda Groom March 26, 2015

    I’m old enough to remember when ‘equality under the law’ and ‘all men are created equal’ actually meant something in America. Believe it or not, republicans used to believe in those words as well. Here we are in the early 21st century and we seem to be moving back on those words. These are indeed strange and frightening times we are witness to.

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

      You’re right. It’s becoming harder and harder to remember Republicans – aside from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – believed in anything but selfishness and bigotry.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

        Bill was certainly no bigot. Anybody who showed up with a camel toe he would grab.

        Reply
        1. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

          Trust you to latch on to something totally irrelevant to his political actions. Got nothing better to say?

          Of course, his opposition consisted completely of saints pure as the driven snow who would never consider any sexual or ethical misconduct, such as: Ted Haggard, the famous “wide stance” Larry Craig, the congressman whose name escapes me who released carefully edited transcripts of conversations that totally changed what was said, but made his victims sound guilty, four-time bridegroom and “Defense of Marriage Act” author Bob Barr, and too many others to name without writing a book, only they add a special brand of hypocrisy along with their misconduct largely missing from Bill’s inability to keep it in his pants.

          Not to mention the bumper sticker I saw on the back of a pickup with a Marine Corps sticker on the other side: “When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died.”

          You are a fine example yourself: whining about the allegedly bad language here while freely availing yourself of the gutter / open sewer ethics of those you defend.

          Reply
          1. ps0rjl March 27, 2015

            Love your post about the bumper sticker. I am a marine and a Vietnam veteran. I am also a proud liberal. Another great proponent of the Defense of Marriage Act is blowhard Rush Limbaugh who has been married and divorced three times.

            Reply
        2. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

          Now I have to give you credit for that one.
          LOL

          Reply
      2. rvn_sgt6768 March 27, 2015

        That’s because they are NOT Republicans or Tea party or Libertarians but John Birchers. From the John Birch website:

        Core Principles
        Mission
        To bring about less government, more
        responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing
        leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with
        moral and Constitutional principles.

        Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence
        “These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
        Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
        Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
        certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
        Pursuit of Happiness.”
        — Declaration of Independence, 1776

        The Declaration of Independence
        established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies
        and the United States of America that they together formed a decade
        later.

        The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.

        The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the
        Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and
        expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world
        government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national
        independence.

        Restoring the Constitution
        “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
        deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” —
        Declaration of Independence, 1776

        The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.

        The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and work.”

        Reply
    2. highpckts March 27, 2015

      I also am old enough to have lived through the worst of it and thought we were finally seeing some light but with the SCOTUS decision essentially saying there was no racism in America the floodgates were opened! If the voters allow these “people” get away with such laws, then we are doomed to repeat all our hard won ideals.

      Reply
      1. idamag March 28, 2015

        I remember when Civil Rights was signed into law. I was so happy. We were evolving into a more civilized nation. Now, we are devolving.

        Reply
  2. @HawaiianTater March 26, 2015

    I always thought we looked back on the “whites only” restaurants (for example) as a bad thing and we were all better off for ending that practice. Now, here we are in 2015 starting the same concept up all over again. *sigh*

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy March 26, 2015

      The bigotry in America was only suppressed, not resolved.
      Lucky racism doesn’t exist any more (according to the Republican Supreme Asshats), or this would be going to get nasty, immoral and horrifying.

      There’s nothing like a white bombastic Christian ideologue businessman aggressively and self-righteously discriminating against anyone they like, including African Americans, with the full support of the laws passed by White Republican Politicians in power, to set the scene for International derision and mockery.
      U! S! A!
      U! S! A!

      Reply
      1. @HawaiianTater March 26, 2015

        And they’re the ones who claim moral superiority because God. *facepalm* Add the climate change deniers and young earthers into it and we’re becoming the laughing stock of the world.

        Reply
      2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

        I would say the moral authority of the US disappeared through the zipper opening of the Bill and Monica adventure.

        Reply
        1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

          The private adventures of a president have nothing to do with the moral authority of a nation in terms of human rights, and you know it. You merely want an excuse to hate Democrats.

          Actually, it reminds me of Yugoslavia on a larger scale. As long as that collection of mutually hating ethnic, linguistic and religious groups were under a communist dictator, they “seemed” to get along. Once Tito and the Soviet Union died, they split up. Serbs and Croatians (who actually SPEAK almost the same language, but Serbs are Russian Orthodox and write it in Cyrillic, while Croats are Catholic and write it in Roman letters) and Muslims of both Serbo-Croatian and Albanian ancestry, fighting each other over centuries long feuds, until Western nations came in to try to stop it. Which, incidentally, was done under the moral authority of, in part, President Clinton.

          Reply
        2. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

          Sex? Really? They didn’t invent it.

          Reply
        3. j.martindale March 28, 2015

          Are you talking about the destruction of the government through the years long witch hunt of the Starr Commission? That was a real vulgar political show, I agree.

          Of course, Clinton wasn’t the first president to have mistresses. There was Jefferson, Harding, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson.

          But for me, the moral authority of America was lost by W when he killed tens of thousands in an unjustifiable war. I am sure to you, though, a blow job is far more weighty a matter than mass murder.

          Reply
    2. Eleanore Whitaker March 27, 2015

      I will not contribute one dime of my taxes to any state that is returns to plantation mentalities or bigotry. No American has to pay taxes for religious ideologue fanatics.

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

        Regrettably, you have little choice, other than refusing to pay Federal taxes at all: all those hardworking, self-reliant, self-made red states are slurping them up faster than you can say “religious bigotry.”

        Reply
    3. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

      And Rand Paul has openly advocated for a return to segregation.

      Reply
    4. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      How about polite adults only restaurants. No screaming, crying,running, farting little immature future bigots

      Reply
  3. Daniel Jones March 26, 2015

    “My Country”, words they see,
    not meaning liberty,
    just “me, me, me”.
    ~~
    Prejudice justified,
    flag-wrapped and country-fried.
    state-sponsored “other”-cide–
    faith loss in-deed.

    Reply
    1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

      Very good satire!
      (for the poetry impaired, sung to the tune of America, or God Save the Queen)

      Reply
  4. Sand_Cat March 26, 2015

    I believe a wise man said that when Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross (or a Bible; offhand, can’t recall which, but does it matter)? So after – actually, it’s continuing – all the ignorant braying about Sharia Law and how lots of people “heard” they were doing it somewhere in the US, or Obama was secretly – or openly – pushing it, this is where we end up, courtesy of the same hypocrites feeding the Sharia hysteria.

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy March 26, 2015

      Well put.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

        Just another bigot.

        Reply
    2. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

      The Sharia Law idiocy apparently originated in a satirical article appearing in the National Post, that has been bounced so thoroughly through the right wing blogosphere that they no longer care how or where it started, because it so perfectly fits with their bigoted, xenophobic, paranoid world view.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

        That would not be a bigoted statement would it.

        Reply
        1. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

          Perhaps. But also true.

          Reply
        2. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

          Perhaps. But true. The National Report, from which the lies about Sharia law have been so widely distributed, is a SATIRICAL publication, and acknowledges as much. But such things so perfectly fit with the worldview of right wingers desperate to validate their conspiracy-theory addled notions that the reality of things no longer matters to them.

          “National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. National Report is not intended for children under the age of 18.”

          http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/

          Reply
  5. Eleanore Whitaker March 27, 2015

    Well, at least now we know how the okee doke states will violate the Civil Rights Act so blatantly….they will use Freedom of Religion as the basis of their bigoted violation. These people in the south and midwest have something seriously wrong with their mentalities. Do they really think in 2015, they will return the US to a plantation nation?

    When they start to impose their “religious” fanatic values on the rest of us, we return to the 1930s, when the south and midwest was so desperate from the Great Depression, all they clung to was fanatical religion in tents and revivalist meetings under the tutelage of the worst snake oil salesmen in US history. Jim Jones, David Koresh and Warren Jeffs…here they come!

    Beware the men who hide behind religion. They only “GET” religion AFTER they sow the wildest of their wild oats.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Speaking of bigotry how do you feel about republicans?

      Reply
      1. Frank KIng March 28, 2015

        Republicans–where did they go? Right wing conservatism has been evolving into Fascism since the dolt, Reagan and his Trickle down, voodoo economics. That’s not bigotry–it’s history.

        Reply
    2. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

      “Beware the men who hide behind religion. They only “GET” religion AFTER they sow the wildest of their wild oats.”

      Brings to mind the group “The Promise Keepers” The founder had all his fun before he got religion. They also have a low opinion of the abilities of women and long for a return to the “good old days”. We know what that’s code for.

      “There’s coming a day when the strongest voice in America will be that of a Christian male,” thundered former football coach Bill McCartney to a packed stadium in 1992. In male-only stadium events like that one, Promise Keepers, the Christian men’s movement which McCartney co-founded, will attract 1.5 million men to its conferences in 1996.”

      Born agains, same thing.

      If people want to do that for their own personal reasons more power to them but they then want to force it on other people and start imposing judgments. Maybe everyone else wants to catch up and have all the fun they did before they “see the light” too. 🙂

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 28, 2015

        I so agree. When you study the mentalities of men like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs and other fanatics, you see how they originate mostly from a “snake oil salesman” base. Like Hitler, they seek not religion. They seek power. It’s the reason I call them “power drunks.” Because, a power drunk, like an alcoholic sees life on only their terms. The problem with this mentality is that no matter how hard they try to garner ALL the power, they never manage it for long because they live in a society they cannot possibly remain ahead of.

        When you are part of a society, you have either to remain in it or you can be out of it in some insular world of personal misery. The old saying among today’s middle aged males holds true, these miserable cretons are unwilling to live in the misery they create all by themselves. They want to share it with as many in society as they can.

        Only the strong survive. These are not strong men. These are weak kneed miserables, drunk on power. When they manage a sober moment on the rare occasion, you see the real cowards they are.

        Reply
        1. idamag March 28, 2015

          And when those nuts got backed up against the wall, they took their own lives and a few more with them.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 28, 2015

            Ida, you and I both know that as women, we know why men do what they do. They push push push the envelopes until they are no longer useful. They expend every last foot pound of energy and wonder why, when they reach their limits, women observe this freakish behavior with disdain.

            When you consider that the world’s most heinous crimes and criminals are attributable to mainly one gender that comes up with these bizarre neurotic power games, women wonder why they don’t police their own. But no. They look across the fence at the flaws in women first. Sociopathic vampires never see a mirror reflection. Any woman would tell them why: It would scare them to death.

            Reply
  6. MaeScott March 27, 2015

    Republicans = Matthew 23

    Reply
    1. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

      True enough, but…
      Personally, I think the description of the last judgment in Matthew – I don’t remember the chapter, but the one about the sheep and the goats, “as you did it to the least of these my brothers…” is a far more eloquent indictment of the GOP, and particularly its “Christian” wing and these protections of “religious freedom.”

      Reply
  7. stcroixcarp March 27, 2015

    This law show be called the Bigotry Protection Act.

    Reply
    1. anothertoothpick March 27, 2015

      Great Post scdroixcarp.

      A truck load of thumbs up.

      Reply
    2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      By god bigots have rights. This is a free country were people are allowed to dislike any body they want. Fat people, short people ugly people, .and most of all Liberals.

      Reply
      1. Grannysmovin March 27, 2015

        Yes bigots have the same freedom of speech. You have the right to express your opinion, but people have the same freedom to comment on your opinions. You can dislike anyone you want to, but we can not discriminate against people because of their race, religion, gender, age or life style. What makes this law so disengenenious is that these religious zealots profess to follow God’s teachings and do everything contray to his teachings. Your comments are a reflection of you and therefore people can draw conclusions about your character or lack thereof, you integrity or lack there of. Have a nice weekend.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          So you are not a bigot in any sense, well maybe religious bigots I guess that is Okay, We will strike that one. How do you define someones integrity with out personally knowing them? Every person born of woman is some kind of bigot and no amount of legislation will change that.

          Reply
        2. idamag March 28, 2015

          If Jesus actually came to see them, they would turn him away.

          Reply
        3. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          Every one is a bigot in some form or another. It usually fluctuates with incoming information. Being a bigot is like breathing, it is part of human nature. I am bigoted against strangers approaching me until I know their intentions. I am a bigot, do I care? what difference does it make? My bigotry can change with the inflow of information. Bigotry is related to self preservation..

          Reply
      2. midway54 March 27, 2015

        At some point you should expressly disclose whom you like and are supporting and defending against those liberals and those you name as bigots.

        Reply
  8. bobnstuff March 27, 2015

    Who do you think is spinning in their grave faster Lincoln or our the founding fathers?

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      They aren’t spinning at all. Back in the good ole days it was men were men and the women were glad of it. I doubt if George Washington ever wore a thong.

      Reply
      1. bobnstuff March 27, 2015

        I hate to break your bubble but they had gays back then. I don’t think that George was one but you never know.

        Reply
        1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

          Benjamin Harrison was rumored to be a “man’s man” as a possible explanation for never marrying. If you don’t remember your history, he was the lame duck on whose watch the Rebel states seceded because Lincoln was elected.

          Reply
          1. midway54 March 27, 2015

            Were you thinking about Buchanan?

            Reply
          2. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

            Oops, sorry. I had a brain slip. I was indeed thinking about Lincoln’s predecessor, not the man who split Grover Cleveland’s two terms a few decades later. I just typed the first name that popped into my head. It was James Buchanan.

            Reply
          3. midway54 March 28, 2015

            I thought so…welcome to the club from one who is close to being a charter member,

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

          What bubble?

          Reply
      2. Wedge Shot March 27, 2015

        George owned slaves and made most of his money making whiskey.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

          Now their is a man who I would vote for. He also grew pot, a real American hero.

          Reply
        2. idamag March 28, 2015

          Even though George Washington owned slaves, he wanted to abolish slavery. When his slaves reach a certain age he freed them.

          Reply
  9. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

    Enshrining bigotry, one Orwellian step at a time…

    Reply
  10. anothertoothpick March 27, 2015

    I thought this bill had ALEC written all over it and it does.

    Will ALEC ever learn? Dozens of huge companies have stop supporting the very extreme ALEC. Due to the Stand your Ground laws that have recently past various states and directly due to the George Zimmerman case.

    Here is an interesting read.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corporations_that_Have_Cut_Ties_to_ALEC

    Reply
  11. Kris Weibel March 27, 2015

    Texas has has this law since 1999. So sad.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Good for Texas.

      Reply
      1. Kris Weibel March 27, 2015

        My what a bigot.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

          So are you. You are judging me and you don’t even know what my gender is.

          Reply
          1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

            Gender has nothing to do with it, Sir or Madam or whatever. Bigotry is defined by hate. If you think a bigoted law is good, that makes you a bigot.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

            I am no more a bigot than you are.

            Reply
          3. idamag March 28, 2015

            I get the feeling he or she belongs to one of those organized hate groups or neo nazi.

            Reply
          4. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Is being a bigot supposed to bother me? Bigotry is defined by hate. Making things up again to suit yourself.

            Reply
          5. Wedge Shot March 27, 2015

            I know who you are, you were very clear about your beliefs in some of your other postings.
            From what I have read, you are a right wing Tea Party member that has very selective thinking. You don’t like anyone telling you what you can and can’t do, you don’t like the Affordable health care law and make rather odd arguments about why you should have to have health insurance if you don’t want it. I’ll bet you have Auto insurance, and home owners insurance even though you won’t collect a dime if you never have an auto accident or fire or incident in your home.
            I for one say that you don’t have to have health insurance as long as you agree to pay for all of your health care needs with cash and when the cash runs out you agree to go without.
            As for people that don’t want to provide a service or good to someone or something that that goes against their religion i say they should post a sign on their place of business about who or what they will not serve. This would prevent people from inadvertently patronizing their business and would let everyone know how their religion works and what hey think about fellow human beings.
            I say, blow your horn and let everyone know who and what you are and then let the crowd decide if they want to do business with you or even respect your “religion.”

            Reply
          6. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

            Wedgy, Good afternoon. Good to hear from you again. I agree with you except for the right wing tea party accusation . I am not political affiliated unless she makes it worth while During the time of my retail business if someone really irritated me I just made them pay the full retail price. I got my revenge and got paid for it. The only sign I posted was if you don’t have any money go away. I have spent my whole sweating over what the crowd thinks.

            Reply
          7. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

            What has your gender to do with anything, dogshit for brains?

            Reply
          8. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

            What a fine example of your grade school education.

            Reply
          9. idamag March 28, 2015

            Hate us not gender sensitive.

            Reply
    2. idamag March 28, 2015

      But look at what comes out of Texas.

      Reply
  12. R Michael Maddox March 27, 2015

    “IGNORANCE IS BLISS’!! I certainly hope someone will challenge these laws in court. So I guess this means that I can ignore POT Laws, cause my religion says so. Or I don’t have to serve “Ignorant Old Fat White Men” cause MY religion says so!! And these people say Islam is the evil religion.

    Reply
    1. oldtack March 27, 2015

      Sharia law is nothing compared to CHRISTIAN LAW – go back in history to the time of the Puritans in Massachusetts. Pizzaro in his conquest of the Inca Nation. The Catholics in France 1573 when they massarred those that dared question the dictates of Rome. The Antebellam South (read some of the “sermons” preached from the Pulpits of the Churches justifying Slavery as punishment for Ham’s Transgression). Christian Law was attempted in early Pennsylvania. We cannot condone any Religious Laws in this country that deny the people of theirs liberties. Be it Sharia , Christian or whatever.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

        This really happened. I didn’t know that you must really be smart.

        Reply
        1. oldtack March 27, 2015

          Surely you jest. Not smart – just old.

          Reply
        2. oldtack March 27, 2015

          Pizarro went to the Inca Nation in search of gold. Atachaullpa was the new emperor having defeated his brother in a test of Power. He met with the Emperor and several hundred Incas. Pizarro brought along a Catholic Priest who proceeded to “preach” Christianity to the Incas and direct them to accept the Christian Faith. Atachuallpa told Pizarro and the Priest that they had their own religion whereupon he threw the Bible to the ground. Many were killed and the Emperor was arrested , tried and sentenced to death with a choice – he would be burned at the stake or IF he accepted Christianity he would be spared burning alive and be garroted. There is a letter in the Archives in Spain that Proclaims “On this day In the name of God and the King we slew 475 of the Godless Heathen .

          In the mid 1500’s many citizens in France embraced the teachings of john Calvin and were very outspoken against the Catholic Church. They were called Huguenots. St Bartholomew’s Day 1573, Paris, France Catherine De Medici ordered an attack on these people and in the ensuing months thousands of Huguenots died because they dared question the Catholic Church teachings because Catholicism was the National Religion.

          Massachusetts Bay colony 1654. The Puritans attack the Pequots at a place called Mystic Fort and over 500 Pequot men women and children were burned to death. In the Archives in London is a letter that say “On this day in the name of God and the King we slew 525 of the Godless Heathen” Their “sin” they failed to forsake their religion and accept the teachings of the Puritans.

          All of this is boring facts but what the point is is that Christian Law is every bit as bad and dangerous as any other oppression under someone’s idea of “Religious Law”.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

            You are preaching to choir. I don’t think it is boring at all. If everybody knew this maybe religion would go away. I don’t care for religion but I have to tip toe around it. You like to read? Read the frontiersmen by Allen Eckert. Read the forward and you will not put it down till you are finished reading it. It is a history of the beginning of the USA, There are 5 more, one is A dark and bloody river. Once I started reading I could not stop till I had read them all. They are not fiction. The next time some one talks about the poor native Americans you will probably go after them with a 2X4. They liked to eat the people they killed.

            Reply
          2. ps0rjl March 27, 2015

            They usually only practiced ritualistic cannibalism. They would eat the heart of a warrior they admired for his bravery so they could achieve his bravery. If you have any facts about any native American Indians practicing real cannibalism, please provide me with your source as I would like to know about it.

            Reply
          3. idamag March 28, 2015

            I have done extensive reading about the different Native American tribes and no where do I see where they practiced cannibalism. One way people can justify their crimes against people is to vilify them by making ups something.

            Reply
          4. idamag March 28, 2015

            On a tour, one time, in Southern Arizona, we went to the old mines of the Spanish Conquistadors. The holes dug into the side of the mountain and were very small in diameter. The history of the region was that the Spaniards worked the natives to death as there was a steady supply of more when some died. Also, in Tacna, Mexico, the mines were deep into the ground. The Indians were made to walk down steps that were not even wide enough for two feet. There were no handrails and they brought out the silver ore i baskets on their heads. The mortality rate was 75%.

            Reply
          5. oldtack March 28, 2015

            Ah yes! Our loving benevolent forefathers..

            Reply
      2. idamag March 28, 2015

        Actually, there were two papal heads during the French inquisition. One was in Italy and the other was in Paris. Don’t forget there was also a Spanish inquisition. In both, people who were not considered religious enough, were cooked alive. They threw babies into the river. If they drowned, they were heretics. This sanctimonious religious hypocrites need to read, “Fox’s Book of Martyrs.” Stoning? Shows up in the Bible.

        Reply
        1. oldtack March 28, 2015

          You are correct. I find it rather Ironic with all these Evangelical “Christians” They sing the praises of God and venerate the Apostle called Paul as a Saintly man. Ignoring the scripture in the Epistles where Paul says ” I held the cloaks of those that STONED Stephen to death”. Nothing has really changed in any of the Three Religions that sprang from one source. Judaism , Mohammadism, and Christianity.

          Reply
          1. idamag March 28, 2015

            The three most violent of religions originated in the Mideast.

            Reply
    2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      SO you are bigoted against ignorant old fat white men are you also bigoted against smart young skinny white ladies?

      Reply
  13. phylin March 27, 2015

    I’m going to have a hard time as a Druid.

    Reply
    1. Irishgrammy March 27, 2015

      LOL, now that’s a good one!! You have to admit, the unbridled bigotry from these far right cretins is really, really wearing thin……..and Mike Pence is right there at the top. As horrifying as it sounds, when he looks in the mirror he sees “President Mike Pence”, God help us all…a president for “SOME” of the people…..wonder what he thinks he will do with all those he doesn’t approve of……hummmm.

      Reply
      1. phylin March 28, 2015

        I think they are already beginning to regret it.

        Reply
  14. highpckts March 27, 2015

    What a Pandora’s box they have opened! The consequences are just too many to think of!!

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Just take an aspirin and go back to not thinking.

      Reply
      1. highpckts March 27, 2015

        Oh go to Hell with your inane rants!!

        Reply
  15. latebloomingrandma March 27, 2015

    So 2 women walk into a bakery and want to order a cake for their wedding. This public business offers a product for sale and the 2 ladies have the $$ to pay for it. How does this translate to the idea that the baker cannot practice his religion if he/she sells the cake to those customers? Even if it could be challenged that the baker is too fixated on peoples’ sex lives, how does this effect the practice of his religion? If he is Catholic, maybe he/she should go to Confession for those “impure thoughts.” That’s about the extent of it.
    SCOTUS opened a can of worms for their Hobby Lobby decision, as they did for Citizens United. There was NO consideration of potential consequences of such decisions. I thought the Supremes were supposed to be very smart, astute people.

    Reply
    1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

      They’re smart, all right. They know who bought them.

      Reply
    2. fawlty March 27, 2015

      Nevermind that the business, the store, has no feelings or beliefs.

      Reply
  16. moodygirlmb March 27, 2015

    Well if a business can now discriminate according to their religion, I can refuse to do business with them according to my right to choose who I do business with.

    Reply
    1. idamag March 28, 2015

      Do you think it could escalate into you would need a note from your religious leader before they would serve you?

      Reply
  17. Bob M March 27, 2015

    So I guess my business can ship arms to Jihadist’s based on my religious beliefs.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Only if they comer in your store.

      Reply
    2. mike March 27, 2015

      No, same for those who want to fight for ISIS being detained by the federal govt..

      Reply
  18. noonloon March 27, 2015

    I’m going to open a business there and refuse to serve bigoted, narrow-minded, ignorant, intolerant and pea-brained people who like cats because they infringe on my religious freedom. I know, I know…I won’t be in business for long.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Where are you going to find someone who is not a bigot? It certainly won’t be in the liberal camp.

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat March 27, 2015

        ;>)) (laughing). Certainly not you, either.

        Not just a hypocrite, you’re a outstanding projector of your own faults and a liar as well.

        Take that and cram it in your little holier-than-thou sewer ethics world.

        Reply
        1. Irishgrammy March 27, 2015

          BRAVO Sand_Cat!! I mean really, kudos, love your response! There are a few here on TNM, hicusdicus right there at the top of that infamous list, that are so outrageously and provably liars and hateful flame throwers, you just have to love it when someone “tells it like it is” with this group of trolls.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

            Can’t you speak for yourself? Without us trolls, this this web site woulds be so boring it would put the servers to sleep.

            Reply
          2. Charlotte Sines March 27, 2015

            I would be willing to take that chance.

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

          I see, you are being a bigot again.

          Reply
      2. Jmz Nesky March 28, 2015

        Everybody’s a bigot.. Some more, some less but the one’s we’re complaining most about are your hypocritical christians and airhead politicians.. They wrote the book on bigotry.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          You won’t get an argument out of me on that account. The only people that have no bigotry in them are dead people. The worst bigots are the ones who constantly call other people bigots.

          Reply
        2. idamag March 28, 2015

          Some bigots keep it to themselves and others try to force their bigotry on everyone.

          Reply
    2. Jmz Nesky March 28, 2015

      And THAT’S the crux of the matter for these wackos.. Do they for one minute think the people these ‘businesses’ turn away will just shrug it off? Certainly not! They will spread the word and as many customers these places had before this attitude came up (and coincidentally many are gays or other religiotized ‘vermin’) will desert these places and soon a ‘For Sale’ sign will pop up and then I’m betting someone will have that last laugh. A Business is just that, it sells and takes in profit and who passes those bucks should be inconsiquential so long as it keeps the business afloat.. Cut your clientele and eventually you cut your own throat. Their not thinking about those subtle consequences, only what they choose to enforce but if someone refused service to me because I smack when I eat, I’d be on that cell to all my friends and they theirs so fast that their b’ness would soon be in the dumps. That’s exactly what will happen and from what I read earlier, George Takei has personally already started toppling those dominoes. But because there are actually few bigoted, narrow-minded, ignorant, intolerant and pea-brained people in this nation, I can applaud your intentions (but cats? you might aught to back off on that one).

      Reply
    3. idamag March 28, 2015

      People, like me, refuse to patronize those bigoted businesses. I never liked Chik-file anyway. I can get tastier chicken in the grocery deli.

      Reply
    4. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

      You completely missed the point. What has your comment got to do with religious freedom. If you are going to fabricate some mythical analogy try to get it correct.

      Reply
  19. Canistercook March 27, 2015

    You are free to choose their business they should be free to choose you, This is much ado about nothing.

    Reply
    1. Grannysmovin March 27, 2015

      “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

      — by Martin Niemöller,

      Reply
    2. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

      The problem is they are not required (an amendment to do so was voted down by Republicans) to ADVERTISE their prejudice, so they are free to welcome shoppers, receive inquiries, and even accept deposits, THEN refuse to provide the product or service at the last minute, and even refuse to refund the deposit.

      And in addition, people who have religious compunctions against discrimination have no way to know IN ADVANCE which businesses discriminate, particularly if they are not members of the discriminated group, but believe in fair play (e.g. a straight couple who approve of gay marriage shopping for their own wedding cake).

      Besides, this was the Lester Maddox argument in the 1960s. Back then, in the south, a freedom to discriminate against black customers was, in practice, a COMPULSION to discriminate, since a white owned business would lose all its prejudiced white customers to competitors if they CHOSE to serve blacks, and go out of business (or have to cut back and relocate to black neighborhoods). The purpose of the civil rights public accommodation laws was to remove the ability to solicit business from bigoted customers by being the business that shared their bigotry, thus protecting non-discriminating business owners from boycotts by bigots.

      Reply
      1. Wedge Shot March 27, 2015

        I doubt that this law precludes legal action for not providing something that was paid for. the business could not accept payment and then refuse to provide the service or good.

        Reply
        1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

          Technically, yes, UNLESS the contract you signed had one of those mandatory arbitration-by-OUR-arbitrator clauses (not likely for a small business, but this law and the Hobby Lobby decision allow AT&T or Verizon or Carvel to claim a religious belief). In most cases, the only leverage the customer would have would be word of mouth boycotting. And if their ads all CLAIMED they didn’t discriminate, even though they did, the boycott effort would be difficult to sustain.

          And if they were taken to court, they could always say that you didn’t TELL them you belonged to a group their religion would refuse to serve until the last moment, so YOU would be guilty of defrauding them, in their opinion.

          Reply
    3. browninghipower March 27, 2015

      Are you actually able to see the utter vileness and hatred in your comment? The utter lack of any moral compass?

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

        You left out evil, disgusting nasty,hateful, despicable, repulsive, loathsome, heinous, depraved, execrable. He is also a rounder a bounder and a pea whole pounder but a pretty fair cook on the side.

        Reply
    4. johninPCFL March 27, 2015

      “What if a corner store owned by Muslims didn’t want to serve Jews, or vice versa?”
      Excellent. It’s far better if society walls up little enclaves of bigots to live amongst themselves.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

        I new York City they had problems with Muslim taxi drivers refusing to let blind people in their cab because they had a service dog or were carrying Alcoholic beverages they had just purchased from a liquor store.

        Reply
    5. springerj March 27, 2015

      Have you ever lived in a small town? Often there is only 1 choice for a particular service, i.e. NO choice.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

        I live close to a small town that has a good number of gays living there. they also own some retail businesses. There are no problems maybe it is because they act like normal people and are courteous and don’t scamper around wearing dildo hats. This is also bible belt country and if there is any discrimination it stays under the radar.

        Reply
  20. Kris Weibel March 27, 2015

    A reminder to all you bigots: a biblical marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, 1 son, who kills his brother and fucks his mother.

    Reply
    1. Allan Richardson March 27, 2015

      No, it’s one man and as many women and girls as he wants and can support. And the man can choose the girls and they have no right to refuse, or to refuse him the right to get another. And the man can choose one of his daughters as an additional wife. And the man has the right to divorce any of them, but they have no right to divorce him. THAT is a biblical marriage. A lot like the Mormons before they reformed in order to gain statehood, and some fundamentalist LDS sects operating illegally today.

      Update: since Greeks and Romans idealized monogamy (even when they didn’t practice it), the Christian church frowned on “official” polygamy, so it died. The Jewish community wasn’t practicing it either, but one (more) reason for their being persecuted by Christians was the fact that technically, the Old Testament said it was OK. So in 984, Europe’s chief rabbi issued an edict banning Jewish men from having multiple wives for 1000 years (why the time limit? perhaps to avoid claiming it was an infallible commandment from God, only a piece of good advice from a sage). Since that ban expired in 1984, and there is no worldwide or regional hierarchy of rabbis to renew it, as far as I know there have been no polygamous Jewish families (there may be some in Muslim countries, but I have not heard of any). But there is still one vestige of the old days: a husband has to be the one officially asking for the divorce, called a GETT, in order for the divorce to be official in Jewish law. So even if an orthodox Jewish wife got divorced from her husband in civil court (as in the US), she cannot get an orthodox wedding unless her ex-husband gives her a gett. So if he is not really anxious to remarry (but perhaps he could anyway, since the ban on polygamy expired), he can hold the divorce hostage for a cash payoff from his ex-wife.

      Which raises an interesting question: if an orthodox Jewish couple go into civil divorce court and they HAPPEN to get an orthodox Jewish judge, can the JUDGE dismiss the divorce because it goes against HIS religious beliefs?

      Can a prosecutor refuse to prosecute, or a judge dismiss a case against, or a police officer refuse to arrest, someone charged with a crime which that law enforcement person’s religious beliefs say it’s OK? Like killing a gay person for being gay? Or lynching a black person? Or performing an Aztec style human sacrifice? Or an honor killing of a promiscuous (or raped) daughter?

      The courts will be busy in the coming years. It’s a great time (at least from the profit standpoint) to launch a law career!

      Reply
      1. charleo1 March 27, 2015

        I ask my wife about your first paragraph. She was not amused. Go figure!

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

          You have a wife? God bless her for taking care of you. I have one of those also and every morning upon awakening she put my helmet on my head so I can go out and play.

          Reply
    2. idamag March 28, 2015

      Let us take a look at the first murder recorded by the Bible. Imagine two children who are making fathers’ day presents in school. One makes a booklet and the other makes a tie holder. Each one is putting all his effort into it and anticipating the joy on his father’s face when he opens his present. Fathers Day _ dad opens the tie holder and the booklet. He praises the tie holder and overtly expresses displeasure with the booklet. Has he fostered enmity between the two boys?

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

        Why would you even bother to answer this unknowledgeable, uncouth, foul mouthed person who degrades your beliefs?

        Reply
  21. nomaster March 27, 2015

    It is a sad day that such politicians are allowed to change the constitution and give to certain institutions the right to violate the freedom of choice and right of others. As a liberterian I find no solice in government being used to allow government, private business or religious institutions to choose which rights the free sovereign citizens of America can live by, or subscribe to. Have we become a religious-fascist government that tells us what to do and think?

    Reply
    1. Andrea Walton March 28, 2015

      “As a libertarian….” LMAO! A libertarian would respect and seek to protect the religious liberties embodied in the First Amendment, and oppose using the police power of the government to force people to violate their religious beliefs.

      For an example of fascism, look in the mirror.

      Reply
  22. Wedge Shot March 27, 2015

    Were is the ACLU? Where are the Federal Judges that put a hold on this law pending a challenge on its constitutionality?

    Reply
    1. anothertoothpick March 27, 2015

      Somebody will challenge this hateful law. And maybe get it removed.

      But then tomorrow they will come up with something even more bigoted!

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

        Life is just a bitch is it not?

        Reply
    2. Andrea Walton March 28, 2015

      So gays will be “irreparably harmed” if they deliberately target (which is what they always do) and are turned down by the one Christian photographer out of 100 in the area who won’t “do” a gay wedding, and have to use one of the 99 other photographers that will “do” a gay wedding? That is the standard for an injunction.

      The whole intent behind the gay marriage movement is to single out and punish that one guy in 100 who won’t accept the gay lifestyle as “normal” and “good”, and drive Christian orthodoxy into a dark closet.

      Reply
  23. fawlty March 27, 2015

    It’s worth pointing out though that the SC decision in the Hobby Lobby case restricted it to “closely held” corporations. However, a legal entity like a corporation has no soul, and can have no beliefs. That we allow this is beyond ridiculous.

    Reply
    1. Andrea Walton March 28, 2015

      That is a ridiculous argument. Corporations ARE the people that own them. If I own a business as a sole proprietorship, I obviously have my full set of First Amendment rights. Just because I incorporate doesn’t mean I automatically lose all my rights.

      Reply
      1. midway54 March 28, 2015

        So tell us what happened to the ageless legal rule that corporations are entities created by state statute having their own existence that is distinguished from the investor shareholders who are the owners and whose individual rights are their own and personal. Shareholder suits are brought not against the roster or body of shareholders but against the corporate entity itself. This is true, a well, in litigation brought by other corporations or by governmental agencies or by members of the public claiming against the corporation.

        Reply
        1. Andrea Walton March 28, 2015

          The law creates a “legal fiction” that a corporation and its owners are not one and the same, for purposes of limited liability. In reality, however, the corporation and its owners are one and the same. Forfeiture of the owners’ constitutional rights is NOT the price of limited liability.

          In fact, shareholder suits are proof that the shareholders ARE the corporation and that their agents (the corporation’s officers and directors) who run the business ultimately must do what the shareholders want.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            You are correct but the system is too ponderous to work well.

            Reply
          2. midway54 March 28, 2015

            I have a goodly number of shares in a major corporation which I shall call the ABC Corporation. I am obviously an investor looking for a good dividend return and my shares certify that I own them and entitled to the dividends being distributed by the corporation. I am not a component of the corporation itself, which was created and licensed by the State on application of the originating parties.
            The corporation is a legal entity, referred to by Chief Justice John Marshall as an artificial person. Its governing body is the board of directors and its managers are the executives and officers whose duties are described by law and who serve as fiduciaries to the stockholders by maintaining the value of their investments and the reputation and good will of the corporation.. Moreover,the powers and responsibility of the corporation are found in state law and in its charter and by-laws plus other documents that may be required by statute. Among the rights held by the corporation are the power to sue and to defend against lawsuits against it. The officers and managers conduct the day to day operations of the corporation using good business judgment and are not required to schedule a vote of the stockholders on some action unless required by law or by the provisions of the official documents of the corporation. This because stockholder values are at stake in some risk incident to the proposed activity.

            For any breach of the fiduciary duty to the stockholders by those charged with this duty an action against the corporation is available. In rare cases where the breach is egregious (self-serving, fraudulent etc for financial gain, for example) the directors and officers may be personally liable for damages through “penetration of the corporate veil” to reach their personal assets for liquidation if necessary. The bringing of such a suit does not prove that the stockholders are a component of the corporation itself; rather it shows that the stockholders retain the individual right to sue the corporation whose stock certificates they own just as they could sue any other party for damages sustained.

            I probably have said too much, given that I assume we both have more to do than spend a lot of time on posts. I just thought I would reply with my understanding of this topic. I respect your own position, and would say that perhaps one day the courts will decide that there is one huge pool of people all of whom are THE corporation in toto without distinguishing roles and components.

            Reply
      2. fawlty March 28, 2015

        Of course YOU still have your rights.

        Reply
    2. highpckts March 28, 2015

      Oh but SCOTUS says corporations are people too!!

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

        SCOTUS really dropped the ball on that one. I wonder how much money was involved to get that decision? We are losing to the super rich and powerful. Enjoy your life, I doubt your great grand children will be so fortunate.

        Reply
  24. Joseph R. Davis March 27, 2015

    That business license on your wall says you have to serve the public, and “no shirt, no shoes, no service” is just about all you can justify. And I’m not sure that would stand up to judicial review, if it was pushed.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Having owned 3 retail businesses You are wrong.

      Reply
      1. Joseph R. Davis March 27, 2015

        Where did you own these businesses? Oooga Jabooga, Nigeria? Come to Maryland and try refusing to deal with someone when you have a business license. You’d be jacked up in a couple of days.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

          Washington state the land of the liberals. What is jacked up? Is that something you do when you have a flat tire or watch to much porn.

          Reply
      2. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

        I bet they were all under a bridge and involved tolls.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

          you bet they were all under bridges and involved toll. A bridge that charges a toll to go underneath it? Only a liberal would charge a toll to go under a bridge.

          Reply
          1. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            Your hideout troll. No doubt you hired someone at substandard pay to collect the tolls to cross the bridge.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

            I will let you cross for free.

            Reply
          3. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            I’ll take the high road but thanks for the offer.

            Reply
          4. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

            I like the high road myself, I just wish it was legal. But that might take the fun out of it.

            Reply
      3. charleo1 March 27, 2015

        I’m curious. Did you ever refuse service on religious, or other personal
        grounds? If so, can you share what those refusals of service were about?

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

          Why would I care what religion somebody was? If they brought their wallet they were welcome in my church. St cash register always had its door open for the faithful.I have never had a problem with homosexuals except some super butch lesbians. Those gals or what ever they were could be mean enough to comment on NM.

          Reply
          1. charleo1 March 29, 2015

            The answer is, you wouldn’t care. Because I imagine you’re probably not a religious zealot, or like most people, you’re not especially prejudiced against Gay people. And making money is a primary goal in business. Now the Zealot sees things differently. His, or her primary goal in life, is promoting their ideology. And the discriminating, or shunning, in their minds, is punishing people. In the case of Gay people, it’s about their lifestyle. But it could be anyone, who looks different, or believes in a different religion that they. And doing so openly, under the guise, or auspices, of exercising their religious freedom, is the way Zealots feel they are making their views known to a sinful World. And also sends a message they want those they disagree with to receive. By having it blessed with an accommodating law, written just for them. It says, we’re in charge around here. You want to be Gay, or Muslim, or wear thong underwear, whatever? We have the Rights, and enforce the moral code. Now does that sound to you like America? The way you’ve always thought about how things should be in this Country?

            Reply
      4. highpckts March 28, 2015

        Oh for God’s sake! Is there anything you haven’t participated in or know everything about???

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          Why does it bother you so much that I have experienced more of life than you have? Their are a lot of people who have experienced far more than I have. Just because you are trapped

          in a gaggle of sheet rock boxes with widows does not mean everybody else is. Again, what do you know how to do?

          Reply
  25. springerj March 27, 2015

    When will the human sacrifices begin in the name of religious freedom?

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      What do you mean , when will they start? They have never stopped.

      Reply
  26. DKevitt March 27, 2015

    It may not be related at all but this seems to be an offshoot, a morphing of Citizens United.

    Reply
  27. Andrea Walton March 27, 2015

    This Dick Meyer guy is a complete moron, and Scripps should fire him on the spot for incompetence. The first rule of journalism is to get your facts straight and know what you are talking about. Here, Meyer fails miserably.

    The Indiana bill is simply a state version of the 1993 federal Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA), which was the brainchild of Chuck Schumer and passed unanimously by a Democratically-controlled House, passed with all but 3 votes in a Democratically-controlled Senate, and signed into law by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. The law was enacted in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling that was widely viewed as severely restricting religious rights under the First Amendment, and was intended to overrule that court decision and “restore” religious freedoms to the position they had previously enjoyed.

    Yet, even though it mirrors a 22-year-old federal law conceived and enacted by liberal Democrats, Meyer calls the Indiana bill “reactionary” and claims it would “vastly expand … free expression of religion”. And though it bears the SAME EXACT NAME as the federal law (“Religious Freedom Restoration Act”), Meyer declares the name “Orwellian” and claims the bill embodies a “radical new understanding” of the balance between religious freedoms and laws that might conflict with those freedoms. Horse pucky!!!!

    Finally, despite Meyer’s hysterics, neither the Indiana bill nor the federal law it is based on guarantees that those who have religious objections against gay marriage will win in court. The state and federal laws only require that the objectives of a law and the means it uses to achieve those objectives be weighed against the burdens the law imposes on religious objectors.

    Meyer gets and “F” for not doing his homework. But since he’s a liberal and part of the mainstream media, he will no doubt get a pass and not be held accountable for his breathtaking incompetence.

    Reply
    1. palsifar March 27, 2015

      I don’t recall the RFRA passed in 1993 as giving corporations rights to religious expression …

      Reply
      1. Andrea Walton March 27, 2015

        So if the business is a sole proprietorship, it’s OK?

        Reply
    2. charleo1 March 27, 2015

      Religious, “Freedom?” Or, a religious based excuse for discrimination against Gays, and Lesbians in Indiana? If it walks like a duck, as they say. The signing of the law was private. (Invited guests only) And the Family Research Council, the number one anti-Gay lobby in the Country, was well represented with no less than three chapters present. Previously Gov. Pence had rebuked Democrats in the overwhelmingly Republican State Assembly, by refusing to include in the bill an exclusion against discrimination for same sex persons as a result of the bill. Explaining, that was something, “That was not on his agenda.” What it amounts to actually, is a consolation prize for the religious bigots previous failures to get a State Constitutional Amendment on the books barring same sex marriage by referendum. As well as a thinly disguised, GOP middle finger to the Courts all across the Country, that have been nullifying theses little pieces of hate state by state over the past two years. And, if the experts are correct, all will be nullified Nationwide, when the Supreme Court takes up the matter later this year. And, speaking of the free market of ideas. After the secretive ceremonial passing of the certainly not about discriminating against Gays, Bill. The Capitol’s phone system was inundated to the point of collapse, from calls by Indianians opposed to such an obvious, and blatant attempt to institutionalize discrimination in their State. Most notable among the callers were the CEOs of some of the Country’s largest corporations, and hospitality companies. Promising to pull their people, and future conventions out of the State. As reported by the Indiana Star, today. The Governor said he would talk to them.

      Reply
      1. Andrea Walton March 27, 2015

        So passing a bill that duplicates a 22-year-old federal law sponsored by Chuck Schumer does all that? You need to punish Chuck Schumer for such treachery! That Chuck Schumer guy is such a homophobic bigot!

        Reply
        1. charleo1 March 27, 2015

          Well, let’s just see how many cases come up about the use of sacred Indian Lands, and the use of ceremonial peyote, in Indiana. Okay? So why are you such a fan? You from Indiana?

          Reply
          1. Andrea Walton March 27, 2015

            Actually, it’s more complicated than that.

            State laws, such as those that outlaw use of peyote, were ruled beyond the constitutional scope of the federal RFRA statute. That’s why states have to pass their own RFRA statutes.

            I think there is a balance between gay rights and religious rights. This Indiana state law is an attempt to establish that balance.

            I’m not a Hoosier.

            Reply
          2. charleo1 March 28, 2015

            The law attempts to balance, if that’s it’s intention, what is already balanced. There is no premise to balance, unless the
            Rights of the LGBT Community, or another such minority are first deemed to be at once, greater than, and less deserving of,
            the same equal protections under the law, as the Rights of other minority groups. And there is absolutely no value shown, in looking at the Rights of other minorities already specifically protected, and the Rights of LGBT minorities differently. And this goes far beyond the asserted religious Rights of the baker to refuse to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. It could also be applied to the gas station owner’s Right to refuse to sell fuel to a group by claiming he overheard a party’s intention to travel to attend such a wedding. Or was, “tipped off,’ to a party’s, ‘inclinations,’ by the affects, and mannerisms of an individual, or individuals within the group. And gathered they were traveling to be married, and so offended his Religious Rights. As you may, or may not know, a majority of States have laws that still allow refusal of service in restaurants, and hotels, to Gay people, for no other reason than the owner of the business believes the person to be Gay. This should offend all Americans irrespective of their religiously held beliefs. That discrimination for any reason of law abiding citizens should be tolerated. It’s not who we are. And certainly not what this Country purports to represent. And it’s actually no more or less complicated, than equally protecting the Rights of all, especially our minorities, against the natural inclinations of a majority, to ostracize, set apart, discriminate against. And there is no protected Right or combination of Rights, that accommodates such action.

            Reply
        2. charleo1 March 28, 2015

          The law is not the same. Nor is it’s intent.

          Reply
      2. idamag March 28, 2015

        Religious freedom means freedom for the so-called Christians and less for those who are not Christian, or Jewish for the present. Once they take over the country, then they will take measures to get rid of the Jewish religion. Right now, they are using them.

        Reply
        1. charleo1 March 28, 2015

          Yes, they have their agenda alright. And ridiculously enough, it’s probably in their minds, World domination! But it starts here, with their constantly trying to break down the Civil Rights protections of everyone else, along with the clearly established barriers between church, and state. Not something with which the majority agrees at all. But something Winger politicians like Mike Pence use to pander to the extreme Right. And we’re all forced to put up with. As if things aren’t complicated enough. I’ll be honest, it makes me straight up indignant. And also sorry for the many fine Christian folk, who are also supporters of a secular democracy, but wind up suffering the blowback aimed at the radical, would be hijackers of the Christian faith. The Protestant offshoot, of the Fundamental Evangelicals. Which are the nexus between their brand of intolerant ideology, and the hateful bigotry we see coming out of political Right Wing. It is important to remember these types have been around in this Country, before it was a Country. And they’ve never won. And they won’t win this round either. It’s not the Nation we’re so rightly proud of being. It’s just not. And, you know like they love to say, “God willing, it never will be.”

          Reply
  28. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

    This will be overturned.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 27, 2015

      Now we know, right from the horses mouth and then again maybe its not the horses mouth.

      Reply
      1. Carolyn1520 March 27, 2015

        Such a clever little troll.
        Oh wait, it’s not the one I was thinking of.
        You’re the one who just thinks he’s funny.

        Reply
        1. highpckts March 28, 2015

          His inane utterances mean absolutely nothing, for or against! He just likes to get his 2 cents worth in!

          Reply
      2. Wedge Shot March 27, 2015

        From your postings I know you are very fluent anal utterances.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          You left out the word in. Is your wedgie keeping you from proof reading? My anal utterances are my way of blending in I want you to feel welcome.

          Reply
        2. idamag March 28, 2015

          My term: enhanced flatulence.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            That’s better now we can be friends again.

            Reply
      3. midway54 March 28, 2015

        So your responsive post to Carolyn says what concerning the future of the statute?

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          That she is a liberal airhead and what she try’s to think is filtered by the horses tail.

          Reply
          1. midway54 March 28, 2015

            I just asked why it is in your opinion that the statute will withstand judicial scrutiny, requiring something more substantive than that Carolyn, in your words, is a liberal airhead.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            That’s what airheads do. My opinion or her opinion? Opinions by people who have no real knowledge of the situation are airhead based. I don’t know, she doesn’t know and and you don’t seem to be claiming to know. The only thing I am sure of is what I don’t know and that is vast.

            Reply
          3. highpckts March 28, 2015

            Well if there are so many things you don’t know why don’t you get off the computer and start reading up on things!!

            Reply
          4. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            That was certainly a bland unintelligible comment. What I know how to do can not be read up on it must be hands on. What do you know how to do? Can you fly an air plane , wire a building, put in a plumbing system, build furniture, build a computer, Can you stop and pick up a starving abandoned dog off a county road and give a good home and not flinch at the cost. Have ever given someone you did not need a job so they could survive.What have you ever done that is not connected to relatives? If your going to be a smart arse try and be creative.

            Reply
          5. Frank KIng March 28, 2015

            Why call her an airhead? Did she impact your “conservative” sensibilities. You may be on to something “what I don’t know and that is vast”. If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a constant state of euphoria.

            Reply
          6. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            He is. He probably just chewed off one of his own fingers without knowing it..

            Reply
          7. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            That’s a relief. If I appealed to you in anyway, I’d think I needed help fast.
            To be clear, I think of you as no more than an occasionally humorous misanthrope. Funny in a predictable way. You don’t really like anything but you like to spread your many and varied opinions and dislikes as “truth”.
            Carry on troll.

            Reply
          8. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

            When did truth come into the picture? Do you mean we are supposed to tell the truth? If I can’t lie to you why should I talk to you?

            Reply
          9. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            You mentioned truth in one of your tirades insisting you spoke it.

            Reply
  29. ococoob March 27, 2015

    Please, get those GOP tards out of office and soon!

    Reply
  30. Frank KIng March 27, 2015

    Fundamenatlist right wing religion is a threat to freedom by definition. Religion must never control the secular. One only has to research the annals of history and observe the mess in the ME and the theocracy currently imposed upon the country. For those whose belief in the supernatural fantasy they create in their own minds, go ahead and foster it as you please but leave the rest of us to enjoy our freedom without your encumberances.

    Reply
    1. Whatmeworry March 27, 2015

      Hmmmm suggest that you read the constiution

      Reply
      1. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

        Perhaps you should try that yourself. You seem pretty hazy on it…

        Reply
      2. Frank KIng March 28, 2015

        The Constitution provides for a secular nation and not a theocracy. You are are free to believe in any fantasy you wish as long as it does not interfere in any one’s free exercise of their individual rights under the document. You have trouble with equal protection under the law and the rights of all citizens. take up residence in Indiana, you would enjoy life there. if not already a party to hate crimes.

        Reply
    2. idamag March 28, 2015

      Reminds me of a religious boss I had. He was always letting people know how religious he and his family were. Then I found out he had received a television set for purchasing some poor quality chemical. When I asked him about it, he told me he had never seen anything in the Bible or his religious code about it.
      You see, I don’t have to contact a book or a code to tell me that this is wrong. My critical thinking abilities tell me this. That way patients, in hospitals, don’t have to help pay for a television set for me.

      Reply
    3. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

      Why do you equate conservatism to to religious nut breads? I am a conservative

      I think religion is the biggest con ever perpetuated on human kind. I think the constitution with the exception of one amendment is the finest piece of legislative document ever written. Why do you have so much animosity toward America?

      Reply
      1. highpckts March 28, 2015

        You are a conservative? Gee who knew!!

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          You want to change the constitution ? Its not good enough for you? Maybe you are just bigoted about anything I say. Maybe you just don’t understand what a real conservative is. My conservatism means to not change our basic freedoms or rights. Everything else are just minority group’s trying to control the food chain at any cost.

          Reply
          1. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

            Your freedoms and rights as defined by you. Sorry but you are not the final word on that, are you? And I must add that since you are not a member of the Supreme court that is all you have, an opinion, just like the rest of us.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

            I did not define anything. Your bias is overwhelming your ability to be rational.

            Reply
      2. charleo1 March 29, 2015

        There are 4/5 different kinds of Conservatives, by coalition. A lot of this is about which kind of “Conservatives,” seem to be running the operation. Obviously, in my opinion, they’ve made a gerrymandered mess out of their districts, and this what we get. Especially from a Governor considering a Presidential run in these purified primaries.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

          I am a leave the constitution alone kind of conservative.

          Reply
      3. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

        Yes, you are a conservative and I do believe that you are somewhat of a nut based on many of your postings. Some cross a few lines. You can’t decide that parts of the constitution don’t apply to you and still say you are an American. We have a Supreme court that makes that decision and as an American your have to respect the Judicial Branch of the government. The minute you decide that you don’t, you become an insurgent and a subject to prosecution. Opinions are fine but don’t lose track of the fact that our country only works because we respect our three branches of the government, and their roles.

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 30, 2015

          What are you talking about??? The only part of the constitution that needs to removed is the amendment that automatically makes you a citizen if born here. That was for the slaves only and has been grossly abused. Why don’t you remind your beloved leader about the three branches of government? My postings LOL.

          Reply
          1. Wedge Shot April 1, 2015

            Most countries have the citizenship law.
            It makes sense since many people that come here have green cards and their kids born here may never live the their parents country of birth. This is true for many people and it makes sense to just about everyone except those that personally want to pick and chose who can be a citizen and who can’t.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            I assume you are in agreement with the born here automatic citizenship amendment.

            Reply
          3. Wedge Shot April 2, 2015

            Yes I am and I gave you a couple of reasons why.

            Reply
  31. Whatmeworry March 27, 2015

    Freedom of religion is ensconced in the constitution. If gays can force a business to cater to their whims. Can I ten demand a Jewish sign maker to produce signs with the swastika or Moooslim butchers to sell pork???

    Reply
    1. Bren Frowick March 27, 2015

      No. But you SHOULD be able to actually buy a sign from him, regardless of how extreme a Nazi you are, if it’s just for your store.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

        No you are wrong. One does not have to participate in things that are dangerous, evil or go against their convictions. Its called freedom of expression. If a bakery owner is requested to write on a cake, unhappy birthday to you, you sorry POS. Does the bakery owner have the right to deny his service?

        Reply
        1. highpckts March 28, 2015

          He can if he wants go out of business!!!

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            You know this for a fact or it is what you would want.

            Reply
        2. Bren Frowick March 28, 2015

          You appear to have misunderstood me. I said he should be able to buy a SIGN, not one that promotes hatred. This law gives him the right to refuse to sell ANYTHING, regardless of message, simply because he decides he doesn’t approve of the customer’s lifestyle. Does the bakery owner have the right to deny service if a gay couple ask for a perfectly ordinary birthday cake with “Happy Birthday” written on it?

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

            I have wondered if there was more than we were told about the cake and what they wanted. I think it depends on the excuse he uses to refuse service. I have refused to sell to people who really irritated me. Since the whole purpose of me being there was to make money they really had to irritate me. I have had a lot of gay acquaintances and pretty much liked them all . I would not hesitate to sell to homosexuals unless they really got out of line. I don’t condone homosexual behavior but it is their right to live as they please. The born again Christers can be extremely irritating. The really butch diesel dykes could make Jesus homicidal.

            Reply
          2. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

            Bull diesel dykes. Hmmmmm

            Reply
          3. hicusdicus March 29, 2015

            You would like them they smell like fuel oil and have horns

            Reply
          4. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

            I almost…..almost agree with some of what you wrote. There are many ways to not have to do business with people you don’t want to do business with but passing a law….
            Too much.

            Reply
          5. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

            Usually the reason someone is in business is to make a profit. So unless someone is totally unbearable you take the money and use it to pay your bills. My monthly bills ran about $ 100000 .00 a month, So it took a lot of irritation for me to turn them away.

            Reply
        3. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

          For a Nazi just having a black person, Jew, disabled person or gypsy in their store wanting to buy something would be a violation of their religion. Should we condone that?

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

            Nazi is not a religion. Being religious is a violation of my beliefs. There seems to be something missing in your educational background.

            Reply
    2. highpckts March 28, 2015

      You are confused!! Yes freedom “from” religion is ensconced in the Constitution. Notice the difference in the wording???

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

        You got that one right. Now just get the crazy Christers to follow that line of thought. By the way crazy Christers have nothing to do with Christians. They are hold overs from the inquisition.

        Reply
        1. Whatmeworry March 30, 2015

          Never read it I see

          Reply
          1. Whatmeworry March 31, 2015

            Never read it I see porn

            Reply
        2. Whatmeworry March 31, 2015

          I only read nazi material and porn

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

            After a comment like that maybe you should start worrying.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus April 22, 2015

            fter they gas them

            Reply
      2. Whatmeworry March 30, 2015

        Your quoting from Barak’s constitution not the US one

        Reply
        1. highpckts March 31, 2015

          You are jacked up!! Another waste of a mind!!

          Reply
    3. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

      WTF are you talking about. Damn you are dense.

      Reply
  32. John Smith March 27, 2015

    It’s also important to keep in mind that neo-cons like John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Richard Perle, and John McCain have zero credibility on foreign policy issues.

    Reply
  33. browninghipower March 28, 2015

    Enough of this crap!!!! Once you own a business that serves the public you cannot discriminate…period! This crap with christians and their whining and their attempts to foist their beliefs on the rest of us and their blatant attempts to get away with discriminating others who don’t agree with them is unAmerican and disgusting and a travesty. ENOUGH!!! Enough with their BS sanctimony and willingness to destroy the foundations of this country. They are traitors, dominionists and every bit as evil and vile as the Taliban. They are scum. Worship whomever and whatever you want, but you cannot foist your beliefs on the rest of us and you cannot use your beliefs to hurt, judge and discriminate those you don’t like. Get it? Got it? No shut the hell up once and for all! YOu make me sick.

    Reply
    1. Paul Anthony March 29, 2015

      “…but you cannot foist your beliefs on the rest of us and you cannot use
      your beliefs to hurt, judge and discriminate those you don’t like. Get
      it?”

      Yes, I get it but I wonder if you do. I know it’s hard, but try to see every issue from both sides (it’s the only way compromise is possible – and it’s the bedrock of a civil society). Could it be possible that some deeply religious people feel that others are “foisting their beliefs on them”?

      I am not religious. I haven’t been in a church since I was a kid (I’m 68). I’m also not gay. My attitude toward both is essentially the same. I accept gays and I accept religious people, but conditionally. Here is my one condition: I don’t care what you do or what you believe as long as you don’t demand my approval.

      There is a BIG difference between acceptance and approval! If you are confident that you are right, why the hell do you need MY approval? Just live your life as you see fit and let me live mine.

      Reply
      1. browninghipower March 30, 2015

        Paul. On this issue there aren’t two sides. Not in America. I’m sorry. We don’t get to discriminate. Religion does not give anyone that right.

        Reply
        1. Paul Anthony March 30, 2015

          Clearly, there is only one side to YOU.

          There is always more than one side. No one’s rights are any greater than that of another. You don’t seem to have a problem discriminating against those with whom you disagree.

          Reply
          1. browninghipower March 30, 2015

            Enough. You love you right to discriminate so much move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where religion trumps all. Bye

            Reply
          2. Paul Anthony March 30, 2015

            Either you didn’t read my post or you can’t read. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS.

            I believe in freedom for everyone, you believe you’re special.

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

          If I want to discriminate that’s what I do. Some times it can be very uplifting.

          Reply
      2. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

        I also do not want to view their antics.

        Reply
        1. Paul Anthony April 1, 2015

          Then don’t look. Mind your own business.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            If I can see it or hear it then it becomes my business,

            Reply
          2. Paul Anthony April 1, 2015

            Do you believe that everyone you can see or hear must live by your standards? Even God doesn’t expect that.

            Jesus hated the sin but loved the sinner. Who are you, to do in the name of Christ, what Christ would not do? You have a choice: you can stop hating people, or you can stop calling yourself a Christian.

            Reply
          3. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            That is not what I said at all. Where did you come up with these thoughts. I guess I am going to have to agree with the Carolyn airhead ,. You are totally confused, Call myself a Christian????????????? I have never had any interest in what god expects because there is no god.

            Reply
          4. Paul Anthony April 1, 2015

            My humble apologies! It was an honest mistake. The attitudes you expressed are so similar to that of many so-called Christians.
            OK, you’re not a Christian. Neither am I. You’re also not a Libertarian. I am. Not that I’m likely to change your mind, but life is far less stressful if you can ignore what others are doing and give them space to do whatever they want with their lives. All I ask in return is that they show me the same courtesy.

            Reply
          5. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            I will let you hang a handle on me. Here is part of my thinking. I don’t care what anybody does as long as it does not hurt people or animals or annoy me so bad that I start reaching for my assault rifle the one with the 50 rd drum. Other than that feel free to douse yourself in gasoline and light a match, I will get the marshmallows . People who try and tell me how to live are automatically designated moving targets. I take it you are not a liberal democrat.

            Reply
          6. Paul Anthony April 1, 2015

            Well, we’re close…No, I’m not a liberal or a democrat. I’m a Libertarian, and you sound like one, too. Like I said, we’re close to agreeing. But here’s what it took me most of my 68 years to learn. No one has the power to irritate me (unless they have a gun to my head, in which case if they got that far it’s my fault). Sure, people can do stupid things, but only I get to decide if I want to be annoyed. Since stupidity seems to be the most abundant resource in the universe, there are plenty of opportunities to get annoyed. I just choose not to. Why should I waste my energy on fools?

            Reply
          7. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            I am easily irritated by human foolishness. That is why I live on 50 acres in the middle of the Ozarks.I have a 5 acre lake packed with fish and deer everywhere I don’t hunt or fish and I won’t let anyone else do it. I collect abandon dogs and some cats. I spent several years looking out after young abandoned boys at a home where they are housed. After what I saw I became pro abortion. If you don’t waste your energy on fools may I ask why you suffer the ignorance of these idiots on national Memo? After reading comments for the last few months I now realize why the US is going down the tubes. NM has proven beyond a doubt that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I am 12 years older than you and my life is an ongoing battle against physical discomfort. Old age is not for sissies. Have a good night.

            Reply
          8. dpaano April 21, 2015

            Thank you…..my feelings exactly. As I said earlier, some of these so-called “evangelical” Christians are an embarrassment to the rest of the Christian population!!!

            Reply
        2. dpaano April 21, 2015

          No one said you had to……really???

          Reply
      3. dpaano April 21, 2015

        Baking a wedding cake for a gay couple isn’t accepting or approving….it’s doing the business that you opened! If you don’t want to do that business, close it down and find something else to do!

        Reply
    2. dpaano April 21, 2015

      Correct….you’re either in business to serve the public (meaning everyone that comes into your place of business) or you’re not!! Your religion doesn’t mean you can discriminate against a certain group of people, and that’s not what the bible teaches!

      Reply
  34. jointerjohn March 28, 2015

    Never forget that the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 and deaths of thousands of innocent people was a “faith-based initiative”. We have the opportunity to return to leading the world in this advance by saying no to superstitious nonsense and the hatred it breeds. Obviously Indiana legislators are still ass-kissing their most backward constituents.

    Reply
    1. booker25 March 28, 2015

      And 1% backers

      Reply
      1. Jmz Nesky March 28, 2015

        Especially! And as far as the others are concerned (backward constituents) the legislators and representatives lean toward the 1%’s desires, other wise they would fulfill their sworn duty to listen to ALL their concerned voters.

        Reply
  35. idamag March 28, 2015

    The Founding Fathers warned us about the mike pences in this country.

    “During the almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial and what has been its fruits? More or less in all places pride or indolence in the clergy – ignorance and servility in the laity; in fact, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” James Madison, The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1785)

    “Question, with boldness, even the existence of a God. For if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr. (1787)

    “Perfection is not an original feaue in any religion, but is always the strongly marked feature of every religion always assumes is own benignity.” Thomas Painae, The Rights of Man.

    “Congress has no right to make any religious establishment.” Roger Sherman, Congress (1789)

    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eyes to reason.” Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanac.

    “I contemplate with sovereign reverence, that the act of the whole American People build a wall of separation between church and state.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)

    There is more.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

      The lunatics are taking over the asylum. I love uncle Benjamin’ s comment on faith.If this liberal, conservative line of thinking and bickering keeps up there will be an asylum lockdown from which we will not recover.

      Reply
      1. highpckts March 28, 2015

        Yeah and one of them is posting on this board!!

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

          You are bigoted against me and the truth. You don’t care that your way may not be the right way. The only selfish thing you care about is that it gets done your way. You don’t seem to understand that your rights are being bartered by the rich and powerful in both parties. Agreement is the end of innovation. As long as we don’t agree there is room for new ideas. Our whole political system needs some new ideas and quick.

          Reply
          1. Treg Brown March 28, 2015

            Bigoted. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

            Reply
          2. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            OH! Okay. What does it mean?

            Reply
          3. Wedge Shot March 29, 2015

            Stay out of My pants or I will stay out of your business. I wonder who is more human, those that profess who they love or those that contemplate, endlessly, what others, do sexually. It seems that all the bigots do is worry about someone else’s sexual conduct. Maybe it is because they have no sexual conduct of their own.

            Reply
          4. hicusdicus April 1, 2015

            Me in your pants, only if I have my blow torch and a gas mask. By the way what should I expect to find in there? Roaches ants and dingle berries..

            Reply
          5. dpaano April 21, 2015

            We’re certainly not getting any “new” or “good” ideas from the right!!!

            Reply
  36. idamag March 28, 2015

    Lord, save us from the Jesus freaks,
    Who take His name in vain.
    Who preach against, what He did teach,
    Again and again and again.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus March 28, 2015

      Please decipher.

      Reply
      1. dpaano April 21, 2015

        If you can’t figure it out, you really have a problem!!! It’s pretty easy to understand!

        Reply
        1. hicusdicus April 22, 2015

          If Jesus is the lord how does he save us from himself? How do you use someones name in vain? Would a Jesus freak preach preach against Jesus? I don’t think I am the one with a problem.

          Reply
  37. Carolyn1520 March 29, 2015

    If a business reserves the right to discriminate against anyone for religious reasons and this is upheld and becomes the law then there should also be a requirement for them to post publicly that they operate under this “religious right.”
    As a consumer, I have the right to know and to make a choice where I want to spend my money.
    I think every business who is not claiming this “religious right” should post signs stating they serve all paying customers.
    Maybe I should just start asking every store before I make a purchase, if they serve people of all religions, colors and sexual orientation.

    Reply
    1. Jmz Nesky March 29, 2015

      Makes perfect sense.. It should be mandatory that these signs be posted in order for us non-LGBT’s to decide whether or not WE wish to have them serve US. I mean, no one will have ‘gay’ tattooed on their forehead so how will these establishments detemine who to serve and who not to serve unless they go by what you wear, how you act or come right out and demand you tell them.. After all, they never knew one way or the other BEFORE this ‘law’ came into effect so how are they going to know now..? If it came down to it then I too would ask that question just to see what they’re response would be (and should I hope that it would be an insult to their ego as well).

      Reply
    2. Ran_dum_Thot March 29, 2015

      As you a consumer may choose where you shop, so should a
      private business be allowed to serve whom they choose–up to a point. I don’t
      give a rat’s butt what your religion, sexual preference, race, etc. etc. might
      be as long as you don’t interfere with my rights and privileges to live a
      peaceful existence and go about my business. A state may not dictate how I
      practice my religion beyond prohibiting me from interfering with your practice
      of yours. If someone comes into my bakery and asks me to decorate a cake in a manner I find offensive, I should have the right to refuse service whether it
      is for religious, moral or ethical reasons. Same goes if I am at a restaurant
      and the table next to me has a couple of ill-mannered brats raising a ruckus.
      I assure you that if I ask management to move me to a quiet location or
      to curb the brats and they refuse to do so, I will walk out. No law
      will change that. I know a number of people that are not heterosexual. But they don’t make an issue of it and that is the way it should be. I don’t really care what they do as long as I can do my thing. I am old enough to wonder why people have to make public their sexual persuasions. I don’t care and don’t want to hear about it.

      Reply
      1. dpaano April 21, 2015

        When you open a business, you open it to serve the public!! This means you don’t discriminate against the people that you want to come to your business. It doesn’t do anything to cause problems with your beliefs….you’re a business, for crying out loud!!! Either perform the services of your business for EVERYONE or close up shop! Ridiculous!

        Reply
  38. howa4x March 29, 2015

    It is sort of an odd law considering recent history.. Chick-a-filet tried to discriminate against gays at it’s restaurant chain. Sarah Palin actually got involved hailing it as religious freedom. Problem is gays and their supporters have a lot of money, access to the internet, and organized a national boycott of the business. In about 3 weeks the restaurant proclaimed loudly it had made a colossal mistake, and now welcomed gays and anyone else. All Pence has done is make his state the bigotry piñata that all the groups and business can hit. Now national chains want to pull up stakes in the state and the NCAA is under a lot of pressure to move it’s HQ out. This is what the Indiana Chamber of commence warned Pence about and urged he not sign it. Pence’s chances for ever running for president are now over.
    The real question left unanswered in all of this, is why are white Christians so full of hatred when their savior was so full of love?

    Reply
    1. dpaano April 21, 2015

      Why? Because they either haven’t read the bible, especially the New Testament, or they just have interpreted it according to their beliefs and NOT by what was written!! These are your typical evangelical Christians….a big embarrassment to the rest of us Christians!!!

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.