Forcing people to have gay sex would be “violating their religion”. Forcing people to sell a wedding cake to someone they don’t like is not.
On NPR this morning Cokie Roberts was asked this exact question, and her response was part this (society has changed dramatically in the last 20 – shoot, the last 2 – years. She likened Indian’s act to someone in 1985 trying to reinstate racial segregation); and part Indiana’s absence of any legislation protection gay rights.
Excellent, thanks! I’ll look up both of those right away.
Almost a third of Republicans think Obama is a greater imminent threat to the US than Putin. Words almost fail me at the stupidity of people. And the borderline treason inherent in Fox News and their ilk encouraging this kind of thinking.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/30/us-usa-threats-poll-idUSKBN0MQ0AV20150330
Imagine Ted Cruz were president. Then imagine someone asked you to say whether Cruz or Putin were a bigger threat to the US.
I bet I’d say Cruz.
Well, I don’t know that Putin is an imminent threat to the USA either.
Florida state legislator wants the state to subsidize discrimination
This is the same guy who wanted to fine psychiatrists if they asked their patients if they have a gun in the house.
Or in other words almost a third of Republicans when given the opportunity to use a poll to bash Obama took that opportunity. I’m actually more surprised that it was that low.
ETA: the article doesn’t match your claim. There is no direct comparison between Obama and Putin in the poll. It’s just that 33% of Republicans perceived Obama as an imminent threat as compared to 25% who saw Putin as an imminent threat. It is actually possible that as few as 8% of Republicans rated Obama higher than Putin.
So you’re saying it will breeze through the legislature with hardly a peep against it.
Putin’s threat is extreme but remote, while Obama’s is significant (even without paranoid delusions, it’s easy to see how a president, any president, could make a major mistake) and likely.
Calling Obama the bigger threat can be rational if one calculates the potential damage times its likelihood.
Arguably an even greater threat is a large asteroid landing in U.S. territory and destroying a large swath, but since the probability is low, it can be ignored.
How much training in military strategy, or personnel management, for that matter, does an Eagle Scout get?
DeWine used to be a reasonable, responsible-appearing adult. Now he’s got Kool Aid poisoning like all the rest. Pity.
The Onion’s take on Indiana’s fearful new law, and Indiana’s childish denial of the law’s intent.
“…emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place.”
And here I thought The Onion was a fake news site.
See there? We can agree on something.
Oh godenhemel, not this stupid old chestnut again. I already debunked that shit on these boards nearly 10 years ago:
So no, multiple marriage is not currently legal in the Netherlands, you dipshit. I personally wouldn’t care in the least if it were, but it so happens that it isn’t. The fact that three Dutch people a decade ago were legally allowed to sign a non-marital samenlevingscontract that they chose to view as symbolizing a marital bond among them does not mean that they are legally married.
Honestly, there ought to be some kind of “DoperSnopes” app that we could use to check up on people posting silly old urban legends as factual cites.
You know it occurs to me that one unintended consequence of these RFRA laws that states like Indiana are passing is that it might just end up legalizing polygamy.
Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if someone were to argue that multiple marriage is a religious requirement, and the law can’t prevent it, and win?
Same sex marriage doesn’t in any way imply polygamy, but a strict reading of the RFRA just might.