What exactly did the Indiana GOP *think* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law?

So you’re not a woman, then?
ETA: For some reason I am thinking you had said somewhere that you were a woman. I don’t know exactly where it was said, however.

You know, if someone tried to poison me, but screwed up and used sugar instead of rat poison… well, I’d certainly be glad that the actual effect of the substance didn’t kill me. But I think, after I found out about it, I’d be much more concerned with the fact that that motherfucker just tried to kill me than I would about the differing chemical properties of sucrose versus arsenic. Particularly since, having failed once, he’s probably not going to give up trying.

So, if you’re right about the non-effectiveness of this law (and I’m still puzzled why you seem to be the only person on either side of this debate who’s figured that out) that’s great. It still doesn’t change the fact that Mike Pence and the Indiana legislature passed legislation that they thought would legalize discrimination against gays. And if this backlash prevents those gutless fucks from trying to sign another law that discriminates against gays, I’m not really losing too much sleep if people on my side of the argument were less than completely rigorous in their legal analysis.

I’d suggest that your not caring about the motives comprises willful naivete. Their motives are a part of the story, and, as it turns out, a highly significant part of the story. It is as dishonest to ignore the political machinations that led to the law’s passage as it is to ignore the hypothetical effects of the law as it was originally passed.

This is why the claim that the “free market” would solve the problem of bigotry and discrimination is so clearly untrue. Bigotry and discrimination are, themselves, highly marketable.

Well…it IS Bricker, who has a history of arguing the side of existing law BECAUSE it’s existing law, effect and motive be damned. I don’t, for instance, think he’s racist, but he’d probably be one of the people counseling MLK to not protest because Jim Crow is still the law, regardless of its effect, just because it WAS, at the time, the law.

I don’t believe he has personal animus, just a black and white, the law’s the law, outlook.

As much as I respect **Bricker **(and that’s not sarcasm - maybe it’s because I suspect we are both sprinkled with a bit of Asperger’s dust where viewing the world through Spock’s eyes and remaining detached ain’t that hard), I think you’ve succinctly captured my big problem with the thing. I appreciate his analysis, and trust his legal chops, but that’s not reason to welcome Indiana’s RFRA law, or any other similar laws coming down the pike, nor to express displeasure with all the inferior beings who are against the law.

Also your double spacing after a period is triggering some mild OCD thing in me.

This thread is hostile enough without introducing the single-space heresy into it.

Great, now I’m gonna have to send Miller five bucks to defend himself against your campaign of hate.

Okay, so now Indiana has amended the new law so businesses won’t be able to discriminate:

If I interpret this correctly, they’ve now tacitly admitted that discrimination was, in fact, possible under the prior version of this law, which allowed for that particular loophole without explicitly stating it in the text.

But now there’s another question: What the hell is the point of having this law at all? Hasn’t it just been a huge waste of time, money, and bandwidth?

I was genuinely curious about this part. The RFRA was originally passed for things like Indians using eagle feathers in their ritual costumes, or using controlled substances as part of their rites. I’m pretty sure it’s well established that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the sale and use of drugs, and in protecting endangered species. So, with that clause in place, how did the original law guarantee the religious use of eagle feathers and peyote?

Not from my perspective. It’s been a fantastic message to conservative religious bigots and a real blow to the alliance between the religious right and Republicans.

The sweet icing is that it has deprived idiot conservative bigots of a million bucks just because some other idiot in Indiana stepped up to avow his bigotry.

That doesn’t necessarily follow. Pence asked for an amended law because he was getting the shit beat out of him in the press for signing it. If Bricker’s right, and the law wouldn’t have legalized discrimination… well, he’s still getting the shit beat out of him, and it’s a lot quicker to amend the law to stop that then wait for a court challenge to work its way out.

Well, if the NA tribes in Indiana have a peyote right, they can now indulge without being hassled by state cops.

Which ain’t a bad thing.

An RFRA is a positive thing even if it doesn’t meet the goals of the right-wingers who passed it. It’s also a good thing even if it stops liberals from making people do things they don’t want to do. That’s the beauty of this country. Our rights trump what whoever is in power wants.

Except when it comes to abortion.

(OOh, I’ve got it. We’ll make abortion a sacrament, and the right wing will have to recognize and respect it as a fundamental religious right.)

Abortion is already a right, at least if you can get someone willing to do it for you.

I believe you.

But I contend that this is a mistake, both because it is dishonorable and because it normalizes the concept that lying to support your Higher Cause is a good thing.

But I’m not ignoring them. I have conceded their existence. I am simply rebutting the part of the story that’s false.

Nor do I contend it should be welcomed. I contend that among the acceptable tactics to fight against it, we should NOT find “lying about the effects.” (Equally true, of course, is the maxim that in order to build support we should not countenance lying about the effects.)

Then why the use of active verbs in your posts?

So Miller says that he won’t lose much sleep if people are “less than completely rigorous in their legal analysis” and you turn around and suggest that he supported “lying”, which he did not, in fact, do.

I have no doubt you feel completely justified in your own dishonesty. Higher Cause and all.