“I went to school in the 80s in Texas and a neighboring town still had a sign “Blacks unwelcome after sundown” at the city limits. It sounds like what you are proposing would lead to something like that again. Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?”
Well, crispy, like Harvey Dent said: “It’s not about what I ‘want’, it’s about what’s fair”.
If a business doesn’t want to serve Black people, that’s his/her right. I don’t “want” it nor do I agree with it, but it’s their right; I have no place in it. Just like that one White Supremacist, Craig Cobb, who wanted to buy land in North Dakota to turn into an all-White neighborhood. I didn’t “want” him to do that nor did I agree with it; I just simply believe it’s his right to use his money however he wanted. And if he wanted to live with other White Supremacists, then more power to him.
 March 29, 2015 at 12:36pm
Isn’t he the same guy who helped monitor the Republican presidential debate back in 2012?
 March 29, 2015 at 12:26pm
“This law also allows Muslim business owners to discriminate against gays if they wish.”
So? Muslim business owner should that right as well. Same with Jewish business owner, Buddhist business owners, Hindu business owners, Shinto business owners, etc.
And why just Gays, though? Why is it only Gays that think they’ll discriminated against? Won’t those same Muslim business owners be able to discriminate against any Jewish and Christian customers? Won’t they also have the right not to sell pork at their restaurant, since it’s against their religion?
 March 29, 2015 at 12:08pm
I hope Mr. Pence doesn’t back down, if not simply because I’m getting tired of spineless Republicans constantly kowtowing to their opponents, refusing to stand up for their beliefs.
Of course, I’m sure the militant Gays are just upset that they’ll no longer be able to sue any owner out of business that refuses to cater to them. Like there aren’t any others bakers or florists in Indiana that’ll have no problems serving Gays. But of course, I doubt it has anything to do with “equal treatment”; just simply trying to bully others into accepting them.
 March 29, 2015 at 12:41am
Whichever one the shop owner is a part of?
 March 29, 2015 at 12:35am
Not quite, binky. If ‘I’, the business owner, am part of a religion, then by proxy, my business is technically part of that religion as well. Therefore, I should be able to mix my religious beliefs with my business practices, without fear of my beliefs being restricted by the government.
Don’t like it, then shop elsewhere. That’s how a free society should operate.
You have a wild misunderstanding of the law, then, because no. Your business is not some extension of you and your religion. That is literally not how it works.
Now, how a society "should" operate and how a society "does" operate are two different arguments. You're free to wish for a different society, but that doesn't mean you get to avoid the rules of the one we have.
Not according to the law.
And if your religious beliefs let you discriminate against gay people, can somebody else say their religious beliefs let them discriminate against black people?
Those two above this comment are consummate business and Constitutional lawyers, They know the law, it's not their opinion, just ask them.
 March 28, 2015 at 11:22pm
You seem ignorant of the bill’s true purpose too, Ruuuuurl. It doesn’t give the “religious reich (typical language from an Atheist troll)” the right to “tell anyone how to live anymore”; it simply gives religious business owners the right to be able to practice their religion, even if that means refusing to do business with certain people.
Of course, the First Amendment should’ve already given them that right, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to reaffirm it.
 March 28, 2015 at 10:27pm
Agreed. It shouldn’t matter what reason, whether it be religious or non-religious; as long as they own property, people should be able to refuse who they want coming on it. If a business owner doesn’t want to do business with a certain group of people, that certain group of people should just go elsewhere; let the Free Market do the rest.
Government shouldn’t be allowed to force businesses to provide service for people they don’t want to.
I went to school in the 80s in Texas and a neighboring town still had a sign "Blacks unwelcome after sundown" at the city limits. It sounds like what you are proposing would lead to something like that again. Is that what you want? Is that what America is about? On the other hand, please try and make me bake a gay wedding cake. Please try.
If the law had been couched in those terms, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it is, it is pandering to the religious reich, who consider themselves persecuted because they cant tell everyone how to live anymore.
You seem ignorant of the bill's true purpose too, Ruuuuurl. It doesn't give the "religious reich (typical language from an Atheist troll)" the right to "tell anyone how to live anymore"; it simply gives religious business owners the right to be able to practice their religion, even if that means refusing to do business with certain people.
Of course, the First Amendment should've already given them that right, but I guess it doesn't hurt to reaffirm it.
What religion involves running a business again?
I agree, but I think you have it wrong about not wanting to do business with a certain group of people. The issue is not wishing to provide a service which violates your principles. The issue with the bakers and florists is not centered around selling a product it is about providing art to that product. The cake or flowers themselves speak nothing of ones sexual orientation. It is when the cake is decorated or the flowers delivered and arranged that an issue arises.
"I went to school in the 80s in Texas and a neighboring town still had a sign “Blacks unwelcome after sundown” at the city limits. It sounds like what you are proposing would lead to something like that again. Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?"
Well, crispy, like Harvey Dent said: "It's not about what I 'want', it's about what's fair".
If a business doesn't want to serve Black people, that's his/her right. I don't "want" it nor do I agree with it, but it's their right; I have no place in it. Just like that one White Supremacist, Craig Cobb, who wanted to buy land in North Dakota to turn into an all-White neighborhood. I didn't "want" him to do that nor did I agree with it; I just simply believe it's his right to use his money however he wanted. And if he wanted to live with other White Supremacists, then more power to him.
Then every business should be required to post a sign explaining who they won't serve so that the rest of us can choose not to set foot in there. I for one refuse to spend money in a business that discriminates.
 March 28, 2015 at 10:16pm
Yes, how dare the governor sign a bill that allows businesses to refuse others based on their religion without fear of government interference, as the First Amendment should allow them to.
Running a business is not part of your religion. Your religion has nothing to do with your business.
Not quite, binky. If 'I', the business owner, am part of a religion, then by proxy, my business is technically part of that religion as well. Therefore, I should be able to mix my religious beliefs with my business practices, without fear of my beliefs being restricted by the government.
Don't like it, then shop elsewhere. That's how a free society should operate.
With the advent of Sharia Law headed our way and already here in some locations in AmeriKa, I am beginning to think that since we should not allow Civil Rights protections based on who people choose to fi_ick, that after the age of 18, Religious choice should not be protected as a Civil Right.
March 28, 2015 at 1:52pm
Or Rosie. Isn’t it funny how they never spew their anti-gun rhetoric on stories where the victim uses a gun to protect their selves?
 March 27, 2015 at 3:36pm
Actually, you can. If you look close enough, there’s no “u” and and “b” in “dom” as there is in “dumb”.
March 27, 2015 at 3:10pm
So, you DON’T like gays? I don’t get why you didn’t just say that in the first place, conseutope.
Did your tiny PC-sensitive brain keep you from admitting it?
March 27, 2015 at 1:21pm
Do you like gays, consman (a rather name)?
 March 19, 2015 at 1:35pm
If you truly believe in banning guns, Rosie, how come I didn’t see you calling for it on that pharmacist story?
Please show me where I said I wanted to ban guns! Please show me where I said no one had ever protected themselves with a gun! Yes, there are people need to defend themselves and carry weapons or have armed guards and there are incidents where people have defended their home or their property with a weapon. I merely said that the figure of 2.5 million uses of a weapon every year is a fraudulent finding....because it is. There are also lots of statistics that show that someone who has a gun and gets into an argument is more likely to use that gun and escalate the violence-domestic partner and neighbor fights are the big ones. It's why cops hate going into these things, they are at risk, too. But your source is The Blaze, a pro-gun, fear-mongering website that goes out of its way to run these kinds of stories, just as they run "women of color behaving badly" stories and stories about poor, persecuted Christians (who aren't but they get to whine to The Blaze.)
Read Rosie before-----not worth the read. Pass her up and read something worth your time and response.
Those on the extreme left are in general way too crafty these days to admit they want to ban guns. Back in the 70′s when they were cocky and sure of their success, people like Josh Sugarman boasted about how his goal at Handgun Control Inc was to ban all handguns. Others were the same, like Feinstein and Sarah Brady. Now they talk about “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence” when it is obvious those phrases are “dog whistles” that everyone in their ideological circle knows are just code for efforts to ban guns. When the extreme Left in America say “Nobody needs this or that gun, for this or that purpose” you can be sure they want to ban guns regardless of how much they protest to the contrary.
March 18, 2015 at 10:03pm
No I didn’t, Fux; all I have to do is look at Obamacare to see what happens when Government gets control of something. And if this bill is anything like Obamacare, it’s just going to wind up kicking millions of people off their internet provider, and increase the internet bill of millions of others.
It’s also funny hearing YOU ask me if I read the bill, when you were preening just several weeks ago about how the bill would put a stop to the monopoly Comcast had on the internet, despite the fact that the bill hadn’t even been released yet.
March 18, 2015 at 11:13am
Of course you’re going to try your damnest to defend the “Net Neutrality” bill. Your boss, George Soros, has a vested interest in it.
And you think there’s going to no Government bias. Just like GE Electric…
 March 17, 2015 at 9:47pm
“splain” what to me? Did you seriously not bother to look down to see RipeforParity’s (aka “Parrot”) post? It was only, like, one post below mine. Can’t see how you didn’t.
““Yeah, but what about the part that says “well-regulat–”
“THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!”
If you had, obviously you would’ve known that it was Ripe I was responding to. Had a feeling there would be idiots who would SOMEHOW mistake my post for being anti-2nd Amendment, when I am the furthest thing from it.
I think maybe some weren't aware of parrot being what you use for ripeforparity. I think many did understand your post though. You even had his name at the end of your first sentence so it was pretty clear. :-)
 March 17, 2015 at 9:34pm
@Sarsfield and I.B.
I hope you two know, that I’m fully aware what and who the 2nd Amendment was made for. I was merely responding to yet ANOTHER one of Parrot’s deliberately misleading posts. It was trying to insinuate that the “well-regulated” part in the 2nd Amendment, meant that the militia- which I know refers to every able-bodied citizen, not an official standing army- should be regulated in the sense that there should be restrictions for it; like what kind of weapons they should own; who should be able to wield them; etc.
I wasn’t trying to contradict Northern’s post.
 March 17, 2015 at 9:06pm
“spooky conspiracy” Parrot? First my use of above-average English words, now you find conspiracies “spooky”? Do I have to mock you again like last time?
“Yes, spooky conspiracy! Spooky conspiracy make Parrot scared! Spooky conspiracy make Parrot fling smelly brown stuffy at spooky conspiracy-saying people! Spooky conspiracy spooky! Der! Der! Der!”
Is that why you stay in your parents’ basement? Too afraid of all the “spooky” things in the outside world? What a pitiful life you must lead.