# What exactly did the Indiana GOP \*think\* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378 "2015-03-30T23:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/441 "2015-04-15T23:27:30Z")
I don’t think that even if the gun merchant knew of the plans, that the vendor would be “participating in a murder”. If someone told me that, I’d think they were actually at the murder, such as in the getaway car for instance. There may be other phraseology I’d object to less. Maybe “participating in the murderer’s plans.” So I equally would not object to hear that the cake vendors are “participating in the wedding plans.” “participating in the wedding” makes it seem like they’re forced to be the best man or something (just like the murder imagery above.) ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/442 "2015-04-16T12:38:41Z")
Interesting piece today on what’s happened “now that the media aren’t watching Indiana anymore”: [http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/15/3647223/indiana-epilogue-lgbt-protections-rejected/](http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/15/3647223/indiana-epilogue-lgbt-protections-rejected/) > [@](#): > > Despite the “fix” passed to ensure the RFRA cannot be used to discriminate, Hoosiers still do not enjoy statewide LGBT protections. In other words, outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state. This week, lawmakers made several attempts to begin the process of creating those protections, but Republican leadership quashed them, claiming there wasn’t enough time to tackle such a policy change. > > One amendment to an unrelated House bill was defeated 66-24 because it wasn’t closely related enough to the original bill. Another proposal in the Senate simply would have created of a special committee to study the issue, but Republicans shot it down on a 40-10 party line vote, claiming it could have been better worded. With the legislative session winding down, there likely will not be another opportunity for nondiscrimination protections to come up. In other words, despite weeks of claiming that they don’t support discrimination, Indiana’s Republican leadership just rejected all attempts to protect against it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/443 "2015-04-16T14:06:02Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Interesting piece today on what’s happened “now that the media aren’t watching Indiana anymore”: > > [http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/15/3647223/indiana-epilogue-lgbt-protections-rejected/](http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/15/3647223/indiana-epilogue-lgbt-protections-rejected/) It’s unclear to me if you’re suggesting that the Indiana RFRA had anything to do with the lack of state-wide protections against discrimination based on sexual preference. In other words, you quote with seeming approval the description of the amendment to the RFRA law as a “fix,” in quotation marks, which carries the implication that it’s not a fix. Yet the initial uproar against the Indiana RFRA law was its supposed grant of power to merchants to refuse to serve gay customers. Now you seem to be saying, or at least quoting with approval, a suggestion that Indiana’s RFRA law isn’t the problem at all – it’s Indiana’s refusal to pass a state-wide ban on discrimination based on sexual preference. Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying? I’m not sure my inferences are accurate. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/444 "2015-04-16T14:40:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s unclear to me if you’re suggesting that the Indiana RFRA had anything to do with the lack of state-wide protections against discrimination based on sexual preference. > > In other words, you quote with seeming approval the description of the amendment to the RFRA law as a “fix,” in quotation marks, which carries the implication that it’s not a fix. > > Yet the initial uproar against the Indiana RFRA law was its supposed grant of power to merchants to refuse to serve gay customers. > > Now you seem to be saying, or at least quoting with approval, a suggestion that Indiana’s RFRA law isn’t the problem at all – it’s Indiana’s refusal to pass a state-wide ban on discrimination based on sexual preference. > > Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying? I’m not sure my inferences are accurate. You seem to be implying some statements or thoughts to me that I have in no way made. I am reporting something that has appeared on the internet relevant to this thread. As far as I can see, you have no basis whatsoever for making inferences. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/445 "2015-04-16T15:05:31Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > You seem to be implying some statements or thoughts to me that I have in no way made. I am reporting something that has appeared on the internet relevant to this thread. > > As far as I can see, you have no basis whatsoever for making inferences. Well, that’s why I asked. I knew my inference was weak, since you were merely reporting someone else’s words, and moreover even that author’s meaning was open to interpretation. So my bad: it’s a foolish man that builds his house upon the sand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378.md?page=22)