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

[astorian]

So… now it’s a GOOD thing when Big Business tries use its money and power to impose its political will?

[DinoR]

@tenacious_j

Maybe if these lawmakers believe they are doing God’s work, and that what they see as their mostly straight, mostly Christian electorate love God and the bible like they do, that that electorate would blindly support their efforts.

Have you been to Indiana? Outside the Indianapolis metro area? White, straight (at least outwardly), and Christian really is the overwhelming bulk of the electorate for a majority of the legislators. I think a lot of them do have the support of their electorates.

[Czarcasm]

@astorian

So… now it’s a GOOD thing when Big Business tries use its money and power to impose its political will?

It’s a good thing when Big Business tries to do good things, and a bad thing when Big Business tries to do bad things.
Discrimination=Bad.
Not Discrimination=Good.

[Bricker]

@elbows

Other states that have similar laws have sexual orientation as a protected class, so it’s the same, but very different. Indiana has not, and says it will not included sexual orientation with race, religion, etc., I believe that is the difference.

Which states are those?

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

@Bricker

Which states are those?

Illinois, for one.

[vivalostwages]

George Stephanopolous tries to get clear yes or no answer from Pence and does not succeed:

Indiana Governor Mike Pence Clowns Himself on National TV

[Disgscen]

@puddleglum

Given that the US has had an RFRA for 22 years and yet gays are not banned from places of business throughout the country the damage this law could cause is mostly notional.

No, that’s incorrect. The national RFRA does not protect businesses that would like to ban customers–the Indiana law does.

@puddleglum

On the other hand there have been highly published cases of religious small business people sued for not wanted to provide products for gay marriages. The damage this law prevents is entirely real.

What is the “entirely real” damage incurred by a small business person required to provide products for everyone equally?

[Chimera]

They were playing to their base. That’s it. They knew there would be a reaction, they were betting they could just blow it off.

Since nothing has changed yet, the law has not (and will not) be repealed, they’re going to squirm and shift and say all sorts of things while not doing a damned thing about the law in place.

[ElvisL1ves]

The GOP leadership in Indiana is working on a “clarifying” bill.

[ISiddiqui]

@Disgscen

The national RFRA does not protect businesses that would like to ban customers

The national RFRA didn’t need to - sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, therefore you are well within federal rights to ban customers based on sexual orientation. Some states have listed sexual orientation as a protected class, but plenty have not.

[tenacious_j]

@DinoR

Have you been to Indiana? Outside the Indianapolis metro area? White, straight (at least outwardly), and Christian really is the overwhelming bulk of the electorate for a majority of the legislators. I think a lot of them do have the support of their electorates.

Yes. I live in a similar area and realize there are plenty of supporters for religious right politicians. However, they didn’t take into account that just because someone is white, straight, and Christian does not mean they support discrimination or oppression. I’m white, straight, and was raised Christian, but I don’t go around judging people I’ve never met, and there are lots more just like me.

[Velocity]

A couple of things:

1. With any law, the backlash is always louder than the support.

2. Everyone portrays something differently based off of something that sounds good. “Religious freedom” sounds good. “Pro-LGBT” sounds good. Plenty of good sounding things clash with each other.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Chimera

They were playing to their base. That’s it. They knew there would be a reaction, they were betting they could just blow it off.

Yes, they were playing to their base, but I think they honestly thought, knowing their base, and knowing the demographics of their state, there would be no backlash and Pence would become a darling to the rabid right wing come primary time after he announces. Well, Pence has mud on his face, his chances for mounting a bid for the presidency are all but squashed, and he looks like a clueless idiot to boot.

The Stephanopoulos interview was embarrassing. Pence refused to answer George’s question with a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ even after being asked eight times. Pence should be run out of town on a rail after this mess, which is still not over.

@Chimera

Since nothing has changed yet, the law has not (and will not) be repealed, they’re going to squirm and shift and say all sorts of things while not doing a damned thing about the law in place.

I don’t know. How can they keep the law as it is with all the hullabaloo?

[Bricker]

@Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge

Illinois, for one.

Are you talking about 775 ILCS 5/1-102 ?

Didn’t that just get passed this year?

Are you saying that Illinois NOW has such law, but didn’t for the many years prior to this one?

Or am I mistaken? I could well be. What do you mean?

[Velocity]

@Onomatopoeia

I don’t know. How can they keep the law as it is with all the hullabaloo?

It’ll probably blow over in a few months. And even if it doesn’t, it won’t reach critical mass to overturn it.

[Bricker]

@Disgscen

No, that’s incorrect. The national RFRA does not protect businesses that would like to ban customers–the Indiana law does.

How does the national RFRA fail to do this? Specifically?

What is the “entirely real” damage incurred by a small business person required to provide products for everyone equally?

When the products are expressive, forcing a business to provide for everyone equally represents compelled speech.

In other words, I agree with you that requiring a motel owner to rent rooms to all travelers equally does not damage him.

But requiring a painter to paint a portrait of someone he detests does, because his portraits are expressive content into which he injects his interpretation of his subjects.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Velocity

It’ll probably blow over in a few months.

Hope is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

[Onomatopoeia]

@Velocity

It’ll probably blow over in a few months. And even if it doesn’t, it won’t reach critical mass to overturn it.

The longer Pence defends this law without amending it, the longer it will be in the news, and the worse he will look.

[Onomatopoeia]

And now…Arkansas.

[YogSothoth]

@puddleglum

On the other hand there have been highly published cases of religious small business people sued for not wanted to provide products for gay marriages. The damage this law prevents is entirely real.

There is no damage this law prevents. Doing what your business says you are going to do does not damage you unless gay gangs force you to do it for free. But you’ll have a hard time convincing rational people that someone paying you for a service you’re advertising causes harm.

@Bricker

But requiring a painter to paint a portrait of someone he detests does, because his portraits are expressive content into which he injects his interpretation of his subjects.

Is “expressive content” a class of service governed by a different set of regulations? Is there a definition?