Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

It isn't that big of a deal.

Indiana law = sanity.

America is just obsessed with victimhood. The great American pursuit is to be a victim.

Lots of states have offensive archaic laws.

Indiana just passed Jane Crow. Not 20 or 30 years ago. But last week. We're going to concentrate on them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LH2FVxr...e=youtu.be

And its working. We had no hope of stopping these Jane Crow laws being put up by right wing legislators elected on platforms of 'not concentrating on social issues' in several other states. We just killed one in Montana.

And its working. We win whenever we get to force Americans to look at this issue as one of public accommodations. Public opinion always turns to our side in these cases.

We might lose in Georgia and Arkansas. But the furor over Indiana turns those fights into possible wins, rather than hopeless cases.

Governor Pence shot himself in the foot this morning. Expect the furor to grow, not lessen.

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

The pro-gay, anti-straight spin is STRONG with this one!!

Why does the left always attack religious freedom?

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would not be pleased.

(03-29-2015 12:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

The pro-gay, anti-straight spin is STRONG with this one!!

You are free to rebut my assertions regarding the scope of the other state's bills or the impact of the law in Indiana.

I'm not doing the spinning here. I'm simply describing how the Indiana bill will work in practice. And how it differs from the other laws.

(03-29-2015 12:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Indiana just passed Jane Crow.

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

No.

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

Your intolerant spin is growing REALLY tiresome.

(03-29-2015 01:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

Your intolerant spin is growing REALLY tiresome.

So are your personal attacks on me, rather than actually responding with facts regarding the bill, the other states bills, and the impact that it will have on LGBT persons.

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

No.

Hotel refuses to rent a room to a LGBT couple in Indianapolis. Please let me know what legal recourse that couple has. Indianapolis has protections, but does a city law trump the state law? Doubtful. This is an end run around cities (local control) trying to enact legislation in what they see to be the public interest.

Its a real issue. It might be late. The other hotels might be full. The other hotels might be poor substitutes, more expensive, or not as well located.

And then there's the humiliation factor. No matter how nicely the refusal is stated, it is still perceived in every case of "you are a filthy disgusting f**got".

There might not be a market for LGBT friendly hotels in Terre Haute large enough to ensure that LGBT persons or other small minorities have equal access to commerce in many settings. So the libertarian pixie dust argument of the market will sort itself out might not play out.

Tom, number one, unless they show up dressed for the pride parade, how and why does the hotel know?

Lot of people need to fix their perception then Tom

(03-29-2015 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is an end run around cities (local control) trying to enact legislation in what they see to be the public interest

Now you care about bigger layers of government imposing on local government? That's rich!

(03-29-2015 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, number one, unless they show up dressed for the pride parade, how and why does the hotel know?

Oh, so just so long as those queers know their place (which is subservient and inferior to others), they'll be treated okay.

We've seen this before. And it didn't work.

This isn't how it works in practice.

Gay couple shows up at a hotel. Hotel employee decides that she don't like the gay and refuses them a room.

I travel a lot. The public accommodations issue is a huge one for me. Turndowns happen. The kitchen is closed (but it really isn't) happens. Its happened to me before. And no, I wasn't in drag.