Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[Cassius]

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?

[Cassius]

Why has it taken so long for someone to nuke this trash state

^^^I agree.

Goddamn, I mean I knew Indiana was mediocre, middle-tier, and tolerable at best, but if this asshole gets relected in 2016 and/or the law still stands, I'm done with this state. Not even Lake County or Indianapolis would be tolerable.


My own damn representative (Bill Fine) voted for it. Can't wait to vote against him and Pence next year.

Why are you surprised? 

I'm not surprised. Nothing is surprising here. We were warned about this guy in 2012. He had a record of being a SoCon when he was just a representative. The gay marriage ban originates from 2011, before he got elected, so it's not like this came out of nowhere.

It's still disappointing that he, like other social conservatives, can't see that they're losing badly, and instead of just letting it happen, they have to lash out like this.

Because you of course, would obviously do that were you and your people in the same position as the opponents of gay marriage are today, wouldn't you?

No, we would not attempt to pass a law creating a legal protection for gay people to discriminate.

Nice try though.

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?

[Cassius]

That wasn't exactly what I meant, although now you mention it that might not be a bad idea on your part given your clear distaste for the supporters of this bill. But no, I meant in a more general context. I mean, back when opposition to gay marriage was at something like 70 percent, and when majorities of those polled still said that gay relationships were sinful, would you have gone 'well, looks like society's against us, there's nothing we can do about it, let's slink off back into the shadows'? Would you have allowed yourself to be rolled over so easily?

No, again this is false equivalency.

The gay rights movement was about securing their rights that did not violate anyone else's rights, no matter how people try and spin this (Christians are not persecuted in the U.S., white people are not the minority, etc.). This "religious freedom" movement is about giving legal sanction to discrimination, violating others' rights in a country that places secular rights above religious whims. It isn't just about not giving gay people wedding cake, but that's the primary motivation for the supporters of this.

One movement was about securing rights that did not harm anyone. The other is about hiding behind religion and your business to discriminate, and deny services and protections that could have severe real-life consequences for those discriminated against, violating others' rights as people.

That's it. And that's why this law is wrong.

Well, the question of whether simply being a person entitles you to anything is a whole different debate, but again, that was not my question. My question did not petain to the veracity of the arguments of the pro and anti-bill sides on this matter. Instead, it pertained to your original point, which appeared simply to be; because they are losing, and because society as a whole is no longer favourable to them, they should just give up. Now, again, I put it to you, if you and your people were losing on whatever issue, would you just give up in order to avoid 'lashing out'?