back to article Anti-gay Indiana starts backtracking on hated law after tech pressure

The governor of Indiana is quietly backtracking on a law that threatens to legalize discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people – after growing pressure from tech companies. Business portal Angie's List, which is based in the state, has halted its expansion after the law was passed last week. Its CEO …

  1. dncnvncd

    Politics. politics....and duplicity

    The cast of characters criticizing this is interesting. If these companies really wish to boycott Indiana they would route their freight around Indiana and pay the extra cost. Many of them got tax breaks which in many cases they will incur liability if they leave. Angies list is currently asking for an $18,000,000.00 grant that will be made up by straights and gays. NCAA really hammered Penn State over the Sanduskey affair. In all the gay lawsuits against businesses, it appears only those of the Christian faith have been sued. Wonder how Moslem caterers would deal with finger food with pork or baked goods with lard? But, Christians have survived lions and Roman centurions and they will survive this. This couldn't possibly connected to Pence's interest in a Presidential bid and the need for a special law for him to run for both offices in 2016.

    1. E 2

      Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

      Don't you know: there are no Muslimn gay, nor Japanese gays, nor Chinese gays. I know this because my Muslim, JP, CN friends assure me it is the case.

      There are gays in Africa but in most African countries they are targets for state sponsored murder, kinda like pogroms against the Jews in eastern Europe in the past.

      The "West" has faced the fact of homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals. We've mostly changed our laws and attitudes to respect homosexuality. We still have some troglodytes, sadly.

      I suggest we kill the troglodytes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        "We've mostly changed our laws and attitudes to respect homosexuality"

        The laws may have changed but this article is proof that attitude has not changed. You cannot change attitude quite so easilly with a pen.

        "We still have some troglodytes, sadly."

        So if I understand your logic the Muslims, Japanese and Chinese are all troglodytes and that they should all be killed ?

        I don't think that most your so called Troglodytes actually want to kill homosexuals but it appears as though you want to kill the troglodytes. Now, where does that put you on the pyramid of evolution, understanding and acceptance. ?

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: normal people that don't want to tolerate others sexual perversions

            1) in what way do you have to "tolerate" what other people get up to in their own beds?

            2) I hope you've only ever had sex in an attempt to create children. You do it for pleasure? Pervert.

            3) Normal? Where I come from it's normal to respect other people, whatever their sexual orientation.

            4) "At least "Troglodytes" can breed." Unfortunately they tend to breed more troglodytes. Evolution anyone?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: normal people that don't want to tolerate others sexual perversions

              Dilemma : What should be done about the homosexual troglodytes ?

        2. E 2

          Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

          Observe the paragraph structure: troglodytes refers to the "West".

          Oh, I get it, you're twisting my words.

      2. Stuart 22

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        "Don't you know: there are no Muslim gay, nor Japanese gays, nor Chinese gays. I know this because my Muslim, JP, CN friends assure me it is the case."

        May I suggest you widen your circle of friends or read something like 'A Case of Exploding Mangoes' by Mohammed Hanif. Wonderfully subversive story of homosexuality and much else in Pakistan.

        Yes, the west (well east of Indiana) are ahead but not that far ahead. The Thatcher Government's Section 28 was only repealed in 2003. Many of its strong supporters are still very active in the current (well until May 7) government.

        Anybody my age should understand the cultural issues on LGBT in those societies. But have hope that the rapid transformation we have seen in the last half century can be repeated elsewhere, And not be too superior about it.

        1. Madge

          Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

          Hi Stuart 22, I was wondering what to read next. Sounds interesting, thank you

      3. Afernie
        Facepalm

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        "I suggest we kill the troglodytes."

        Do me a favour, don't be on my side. Ever.

      4. Curly4
        Devil

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        I suggest we kill the troglodytes. . . .

        Well, since it is illegal to kill (people) I suggest that we start using the laws and power of the state to force these troglodytes to become like the rest of us. One way that can be accomplished is to use the laws to force people respect the rights of the LGBT and not be able to discriminate against them even if ones religious belief say it is wrong. Religious right are find as long as they don't interfere with modern lifestyles.

      5. fearnothing

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        E 2: Have an up vote. People seem to have missed your sarcasm, despite it being massively obvious.

        1. E 2

          Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

          Thanks for seeing the sarcasm.

      6. dncnvncd

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        Homosexuality has been on Earth since mankind began. Leviticus ch.18, vs. 22-30 deals specifically with the practice. The whole chapter is about sexual practices. According to Biblical accounts, the promise God made in Leviticus about engaging in those practices were fulfilled in Sodom and Gomorrah. However, due to pressure from the gay lobby, preaching against homosexuality is seldom practiced and indeed many churches are allowing gay ministers. According to the Freudian psychology and the later Kinsey report I studied, homosexuals are anything but gay. They are usually miserable. They have went from the closet to openly gay to forced acceptance and are on the verge of forced participation. The executives of these companies demonstrate this by using their economic power. The business definition was to prevent an attorney from saying the law only applied to a person. It is now illegal to teach gay conversion therapy. My old abnormal psychology books are now illegal because they called homosexuality a mental disease. Ironically, under Indiana law a person with mental deficiencies is a protected class. Earlier, Indiana had enacted a law against same sex marriages. It was struck down by the federal courts. RFRA only protects against government action. Due to other states experiences with gay marriages, Indiana enacted a law to protect business owners in a lawsuit and give courts guidance. If a business refuses services, they can still be sued under the law and must demonstrate proof the request for services was injurious to their religious beliefs. Gov. Pence signed the law in private with three anti-gay activists. There is an HIV outbreak in Southern counties of Indiana. It is being blamed on drug users. Gov. Pence declared a medical emergency in that area. That means causes must be defined. HIV studies makes the gay community nervous. There is an acknowledgement of a gay agenda and growing resentment as basic institutions are attacked. Churches are the most basic moral institutions and therefore the most subject to attack. Those that serve God will survive and prosper. Those that serve mammon will fail as they should. Corporations should think twice before making economic threats about who could be the larger offended population. God might provide superior technical knowledge in computing and health fields that would make the knowledge and products of the companies protesting the law obsolete. By law those benefits would have to be made available to the whole population. The gays would probably abandon their current defenders in droves. The Indiana law protest is just another ratcheting up process. Many of those same companies are supporting a bill to reduce wages on government projects. Their protests are more about corporate greed than lifestyles.

      7. Dr Andrew A. Adams

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        There are gay people in Japan, and the gay rights movement is beginning to get some traction.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32130599

    2. Ralph B
      Boffin

      Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

      If we accept that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, then homophobic religeous groups should actually welcome gay marriage because it must inevitably lead to a reduced occurrence of the genes responsible for homosexuality, since gay couples tend not to produce offspring, whereas gay individuals, forced by conventions of society into different-sex marriage, may nevertheless produce offspring.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        "If we accept that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality..."

        So we should nominate all poofs for the Darwin Awards you mean?

      2. phil dude
        Thumb Down

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        That article is too weak to mean anything.

        Consenting adults is just that, consenting.

        P.

      3. Dan Paul

        Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        And the Presbyterian Church just made a point of doing exactly that, proving that not all religions are "homophobic". By the way, for the uneducated folks out there, the Presbyterian Church is considered Christian.

        Even that word homophobic is baloney because other Christians don't "fear" homos, they just don't like being told what they can do much. It's more like the LGBT people are all theophobics. By the way, they have plenty of derogatory words that describe us "breeders".

        However, as much as there may be mutual dislike, there are many individual churches (even Catholic) that have welcomed gays for years. But you'll NEVER read about that here because it does not result in thousands of clicks when you report the real story.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

      Yep nobody is persecuted in the US like white Christian males huh? Tebow proved that eh?

    4. Roger Pearse

      Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

      Well said. It's depressing to see El Reg stirring up hate and bigotry. All the law does is to stop gay activists using the courts to torment ordinary people going about their daily lives. The lying claims of "hate" and "bigotry" from those visibly salivating at the thought of blood make sickening reading. Shame on you all.

      Still ... once you've established all the legal precedents, a future right wing government will use them all gratefully against you. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

      Live and let live.

      1. fruitoftheloon
        Happy

        @Roger Re: Politics. politics....and duplicity

        Roger,

        El Reg 'stirring up hatred and bigotry', I seem to have missed that bit of the article.

        Feel free to clarify my omission (and I am not being sarcastic).

        Regards,

        J

  2. Hud Dunlap
    Boffin

    So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/

    So why the hoopla now? In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the Federal Law that the State laws are based on.

    1. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      Maybe the others have "religious freedom laws" that serve to guarantee religious freedom, and not "religious freedom laws" that serve to discriminate against minorities and using religion as an excuse.

      1. Michael Thibault
        Holmes

        Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

        Religious freedom != religious beliefs

        Conflating the two is duplicitous. (Ahem to that!)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

          > Religious freedom != religious beliefs

          Worse - the article implies that this law says a business can have religious beliefs, which, if that is the case, conflates corporates as human constructs with the humanity that devised it.

          1. ChrisCabbage

            Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

            The Supreme Court just did something similar with Hobby Lobby.

            Hobby Lobby is an organisation which can with-hold contraception on medical insurance from its employees, due to its religious beliefs.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/22/the-ongoing-hobby-lobby-battle-who-else-can-get-an-exemption/

          2. Sherrie Ludwig

            Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

            Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room (the elephant is the symbol of the Republican party, not known in the last forty years for being on the side of "truth, justice, and the American Way" to quote the Superman legend). Republicans have been eroding the rights and privileges of our country by terrifying low-information voters, granting corporations rights that supersede those of the citizenry, and giving credence to the Golden Rule - that is, those with the most gold make the rules.

            I'll believe that a corporation is a person when it can be drafted or imprisoned. I have never seen a corporation praying in a church, synagogue or a mosque, or being baptized, circumcised. They do not get to have religions.

            The Republicans are twisting the religious freedom part of our Constitution to mean everyone must be compelled to respect fundamentalist Christianity by law, but no other religions or beliefs are valid enough to be respected.

            1. dogged

              Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

              > I'll believe that a corporation is a person when it can be drafted or imprisoned. I have never seen a corporation praying in a church, synagogue or a mosque, or being baptized, circumcised. They do not get to have religions.

              Well said.

              1. asdf Silver badge

                Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

                >They do not get to have religions.

                They do sadly when your country is partially founded by religious crazies the UK and the rest of Europe kicked out. (The other big early faction is also still found in the GOP (bipartisan actually) the questionable ethics get rich quick crowd).

            2. Mike VandeVelde
              Devil

              I'll believe that a corporation is a person when it can be drafted or imprisoned.

              How about executed?

              http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1810

              http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02oct-nov/oct-nov02corp1.html

              http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

              https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/corpo.html

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

              Sherrie, you're obviously one of the "Gruber Democrat's". You know, the ones so stupid they have to be lied to to so that laws that will really benefit them (really !) can get passed without knowing what's really in them.

              No politicians are on the side of "truth, justice, and the American Way", despite what they say, so open your eyes for a change.

              Apple happily sells to States like Connecticut that have more restrictive laws than Indiana on this matter, without complaint. And the Governorship is held by whic party (go on, have a guess). This is just another dog-whistle beatup. Apple also happily sells in Saudi Arabia, very "gay friendly" are they not ? So Tim Cook can take his hypocrisy and shove it where he likes.

              1. sabroni Silver badge

                Re: Sherrie, you're obviously one of the "Gruber Democrat's"

                Hey, AC. Hiding your name while insulting other people is pathetic.

                You have a user name, use it or fuck off.

              2. fruitoftheloon
                WTF?

                @AC: Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

                AC,

                wuss....

                J

            4. Dan Paul

              Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government @Sherrie Ludwig

              Read some history and comprehend it. The REPUBLICANS are the party that promoted racial equality back in the 60's. It was the Southern Democrats that were the party of the KKK.

              The Republicans are not twisting anything, especially the Constitution. It is in fact the shouty LGBT minority that has hijacked justice in this case by vilifying Christianity everywhere without cause or similar criticism from the media.

              You and your people are Theophobes and Bigots yourself. NOBODY has ever tried to twist the laws and Constituition of this country as much as the Liar in Chief and his group of Democrat Flunkies. The fact that they would try to overthrow the division between Church and State does not surprise me. You people want an Atheocracy.

              It was under his watch that the Supeme Court decided that a corporation had the same Federal rights as a person.

      2. Craigness

        Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

        @gnasher it turns out they all offer the same protections. The controversy is not what they want you to think it is.

        "four federal courts of appeals and the Obama Justice Department have all taken the position that RFRA can be used as a defense in private suits involving the enforcement of laws that substantially burden free exercise of religion"

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman

      3. Dan Paul

        Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

        So read the other laws, even the one in Illinois that Obama helped put in place.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      Not true, Dunlapse.

      Did Barack Obama vote for Religious Freedom Restoration Act with 'very same' wording as Indiana's?

      The Big Lie The Media Tells About Indiana’s New ‘Religious Freedom’ Law

      The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – An Analysis of Its Controversy

      Anyway, if Native Americans get to use peyote, everybody should be able to use marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, etc. Until I can ingest the drugs I want when I want, fuck the petty religious discrimination bills.

      1. Hud Dunlap
        Boffin

        Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government@the coward

        First off Native Americans have a very special legal status based on over two hundred years of various treaties. The fact that you don't know that means you have a very limited knowledge of American History.

        Secondly the article clearly states the law is based on the one that Bill Clinton signed in 1993, not an exact copy. Different authors are going to use different language based on their backgrounds or perhaps court rulings in their state. Since the Federal law was passed in 1993 I am sure there are a lot of court cases to look at.

        As far as your comment "Dunlapse". Really? I haven't heard that one since fourth grade.

        1. Striped Lungi

          Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government@the coward

          That is the least USA can do for the Native americans .. the word "NATIVE" says it all.. it was their land that was taken forcibly from them by the eurpean sea farers.. HUGE land with HUGE riches and now they are given a insignificant part of it as their "reservation'..(btw reservation is a term used for wild animal/endangered species conservation). Well the argument that "was it correct" is not important here. Just a point to keep in mind. Stop bringing them in the equation. They are not bothering anyone and are still busy licking their woulds centuries later.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      I need "substances" to offer to Based Snoop Godd and Willie H. Nelson. Indiana has completely prohibited such "substances". Only the "gay rape" can "save" the "souls" of our state's "Christian" shop managers. Therefore the Anti-Tim Cook Act of Indiana is a travesty that must be "eliminated".

      You feel me?

    4. Six_Degrees

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      Clinton also signed the odious DoMA into law - which was gutted by the Supreme Court on its first visit, as the Indiana law will be.

    5. kierenmccarthy

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      So I tried to answer that exact question in the story: why now and what is the big difference?

      The difference is three things:

      1. Changes made to the federal law that increase the chance of discrimination (gone into in some depth in the article)

      2. The Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage that have been the spark to much of this legislation

      3. The things said and the arguments put forward during the passage of this law - which, admittedly very little of which have been included (although some were in the last story). These arguments point to the fact that despite the wording of the law not looking that bad, the clear intent has been to give legal defense to people who wish to discriminate against others (in this case, gay people). While this is not as tangible as words passed as law, it is the reality and people are reacting very strongly to it.

      On some levels this saga is the epitome of the human experience and here-and-now. People know what it is and what it means. And so it can only be captured by capturing people's feelings and reactions. If you look purely in terms of the content of laws passed, then it looks like nothing very much.

      But then the same could be said for just about every major political event in history - at least those that haven't involved violence.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what about the other nineteen states and the U.S. Government

      Clinton signed DOMA also. What's funny is many in the US actually think Bill NAFTA Clinton governed as a progressive liberal. Whats different as far as the politicians are concerned is %60 of America now support gay marriage.

  3. skeptical i
    Thumb Down

    Welcome, Indiana, to the 19th century.

    There's another state swirling further down the bowl than Arizona? Arizona, you may recall, is the home of Sheriff Joe "Bustin' Illegals" Arpaio, former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, State Senators who say, on camera and in seriousness, that the world is only 6000 years old, and other shining intellectual lights, yet the previous governor had the sense to realize that bigotry does. not. pay. and vetoed the bill (granted, this was done after an embarrassing preamble about how every time someone can not refuse service to denizens of LGBT Nation, religious freedom dies). Indiana could not even do this?

    1. thomas k.

      Re: Barry Goldwater

      Senator Goldwater was very vocal in both his condemnation of the Religious Right (repeatedly warning against their attempt to take over the Republican Party) and his support for gay rights.

      http://bluenc.com/content/barry-goldwater-religious-right-and-gay-rights

      1. asdf Silver badge

        Re: Barry Goldwater

        Evan Mecham on the other hand. Arizona is the land of bat shit crazy politicians. Every year they have at least one bill that makes national news and makes the whole state look like ass hats.

      2. skeptical i

        Re: Barry Goldwater

        True. He is alleged to have said about LGBT people in the military "I don't care if they are straight as long as they can shoot straight". However, he his held up as a beacon of Conservatism(TM), and many of his followers oppose LGBT equality, which is why I listed him. Perhaps I should have given that more thought.

  4. Steven Roper

    A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

    If you want to piss all over the democratic process, take direct control of legislative and governmental processes, and turn your democracy into plutocracy:

    1. Wait until a government passes a law or regulation that pisses off the tolerance crowd.

    2. Threaten sanctions against said government unless it falls into line with the demands of said tolerance crowd.

    3. Smear anyone who calls out this attempted political takeover as racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/xenophobe/[insert PC buzzword of choice]/etc.

    4. Enjoy the political precedent you've set in the popular consciousness that big corporations are the good guys and should be allowed, nay encouraged, to meddle in political processes.

    5. ???

    6. PROFIT!

    1. asdf Silver badge

      Re: A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

      You mean like in the south in the 1960s?

    2. sabroni Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: pisses off the tolerance crowd.

      Yeah, those tolerant bastards, with their lack of prejudice. What a bunch of cunts!

    3. John Bailey

      Re: A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

      "If you want to piss all over the democratic process, take direct control of legislative and governmental processes, and turn your democracy into theocracy:"

      1. Listen to idiots on forums and in the media, who know nothing, but proclaim their opinion loudly enough to seem like a majority.

      2. Be stupid.

      3. Let someone else do your thinking for you.

      Little historical fact.

      The Islamic world was generations ahead of the western world in science, medicine, art, culture, and engineering.

      Then they got religion.

      Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

      1. launcap Silver badge

        Re: A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

        > The Islamic world was generations ahead of the western world in science, medicine, art, culture, and engineering.

        >Then they got religion.

        If they didn't have religeon before then how come they were (to use your words) 'The Islamic world'?

        Hint: Your statement is utter nonsense - the Islamic renaissance was in the 8-th to 14th centuries, well after Islam itself arose. And was in huge contrast the the reactionary and backward-looking 'Christian' west.

        Then after the 14th century, the situation flipped around with the Renaissance starting in the west and increased resistance to scientific thought in the Islamic world.

        Nothing to do with "getting religeon".

        1. dogged
          Headmaster

          Re: A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

          "religion". Please.

          Otherwise you're doing quite well. But it's a religion, not a pigeon.

        2. asdf Silver badge

          Re: A very clever piece of social engineering by these corporations

          >Nothing to do with "getting religeon".

          I think he meant to say getting right wing fundamentalism disguised as religion.

  5. Matt_Lohr

    How does this boycott thing work again?

    I endorse the Indiana legislation, for which the author calls me a bigot. If The Register does not apologize for the author's slander, or fire the author, I will remove The Register from my RSS after years of faithful readership.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Good bye and good riddance

    2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      Go

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Don't let the door etc. etc.

    3. Craigness

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Just adblock them.

    4. E 2
      FAIL

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Make sure you do not expose yourself to anything else that you disagree with either.

    5. kierenmccarthy

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Actually, the article does not accuse you of being a bigot at all, even if you "support" the legislation. It highlights the fact that any application of the law in order to discriminate against people is likely to be seen as un-American since it would act as a barrier to commerce.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

        Sorry Kieran, the cat is already out of the bag and the article does nothing to clarify, counter or balance the obviously vitriolic comments it engendered.

        You should have said the last sentence of your apology above in the first paragrah of the article when it vaugely hinted at in the last part of the article

        There are two sides to every story and yours only covered the side of the theophobes.

        Gays or any sect do not have any MORE rights than Christians do and thats what these laws protect us Christians against. All these clickbait articles do is perpetuate a victim mentality that does no one good.

    6. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: I will remove The Register from my RSS

      OOOh! I bet they're shitting bricks! Handbag icon please!!

    7. BoldMan

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Bye, you won't be missed.

    8. unwarranted triumphalism

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      OK then. Bye.

    9. fruitoftheloon
      WTF?

      @ Matt the bigot: Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Matt,

      Thanks for your contribution, please remem to close the door on the way out.

      Ooi if you have young-ish kids, and one of them was brave enough to stand up for their beliefs re exiting the closet, would you then disown them, help them to be 'cured', (good luck with that), or stick your fingers in your ears.

      Or love them for whatever they and support them through the many challenges they will be facing?

      I am not all religious, and couldn't care less about what religious folk do UNLESS they starting foisting their views on others or using their beliefs to actually or metaphorically treat whole swathes of society like something fragrant your don't want to tread in....

      Ymmv.

      J

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Matt the bigot: How does this boycott thing work again?

        Hi J,

        You seem quite happy to foist your views on Matt.

        Hmmm,

        AC.

        1. dogged

          Re: @ Matt the bigot: How does this boycott thing work again?

          > You seem quite happy to foist your views on Matt.

          I think there's a sizeable difference between somebody writing down their beliefs in a form you don't have to read and somebody making their beliefs into the law.

        2. fruitoftheloon
          Stop

          Ac: me foisting: Re: @ Matt the bigot: How does this boycott thing work again?

          Dear Ac,

          Thank you for your contribution (which I do not say in jest).

          I am a little perturbed as to the means by which I have the ability to foist and (legislate) my opinions on anyone.

          I have never met the aforementioned gentleman (and would happily share grog given an opportunity).

          The (any) law has several potential outcomes, based on:

          - what it says

          - how it may be interpreted (which is the challenging bit...)

          - whatever either side can get away with...

          Ymmv!!!

          J

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ac: me foisting: @ Matt the bigot: How does this boycott thing work again?

            Yeah, sorry. I had a shit day at work and was just lashing out. The fact is I actually fancy my boss and he's the same sex as me and it's getting really difficult to deal with. Then I come on here and everyone's trying to make out that homosexuality is ok but I know in my heart it's a sin so I just lashed out.

            Sorry again everyone. I'm just in a really tricky place right now....

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      Expose yourself to viewpoints other than your own bigotry? How dare they!

    11. Thomas Duffin IV

      Re: How does this boycott thing work again?

      OK, then. Bye bigot.

  6. Dagg
    Mushroom

    Freedom From Religion

    I wonder if the Indiana "Freedom of Religion" also includes "Freedom from Religion"?

    If it doesn't then we have classic religious hypocrisy...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The biggest problem facing humanity...

    ..is religion. The sooner the great unwashed start to think for themselves and wise up to the fact that it's all smoke an mirrors and dogma only serves to make good men do evil things, the better or all of us.

    1. E 2

      Re: The biggest problem facing humanity...

      Sophistry.

    2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Big problems for humanity... are exploitable vulnerabilities/zeroday trading opportunities?

      The biggest problem facing humanity....is religion. The sooner the great unwashed start to think for themselves and wise up to the fact that it's all smoke an mirrors and dogma only serves to make good men do evil things, the better or all of us.

      Hi, AC,

      It is difficult to impossible to disprove and not realise that religion is a phorm of vapourware and just as effective and rewarding.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: Big problems for humanity... are exploitable vulnerabilities/zeroday trading opportunities?

        "The biggest problem facing humanity....is XXXXXX. The sooner the great unwashed start to think for themselves and wise up to the fact that it's all smoke an mirrors and dogma only serves to make good men do evil things, the better or all of us."

        XXXXX could be replaced by several things

        Religion, Politics, Publicity, Money, Royalty, etc etc take your pick.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The biggest problem facing humanity...

      Yeah - cos it's well known that only the religious can be bigots and psychpaths. LIke those well known leaders of religion like Pol Pot and Stalin..

      Religion is an excuse, not the root cause. Just like politics and money.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The biggest problem facing humanity...

        The root cause is very well known, it's called "Greed" and all of the major institutions practice it with zell.

  8. Criminny Rickets

    Religious Freedom vs Persecution

    Let me see if I have this straight, If a Chrsitian criticizes me for being gay, it's called Freedom of Religion, if I criticize the Christian for doing so, it's called Persecution. Sound about right?

    1. E 2

      Re: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

      What if the Christian is a pedophiliac Catholic priest?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

        "What if the Christian is a pedophiliac Catholic priest?"

        Then likely he's a gay pedophiliac Catholic priest....

        1. BoldMan

          Re: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

          Sorry that does not work - you don't have to be gay to be a pedophile, try again and use a proper dictionary/brain

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

            "you don't have to be gay to be a pedophile"

            But it seems to help. Most Catholic priests go for boys as I understand it. Makes sense to a degree - if you can't repress one perverted sexual preference, why not another?

      2. fruitoftheloon

        @e2: Re: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

        E2,

        Priests that fiddle with kids?

        Nah, surely any respectable church wouldn't condone such behaviour, I mean they wouldn't hide the evidence, ignore the protestations, move the evil feckers (sorry, priests) or let them keep their Church titles would they now?

        Moral guidance, ethics, leading by example?

        F'ing right....

        J.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @e2: Religious Freedom vs Persecution

          Dear Mr Rickets

          You seem to have got it the wrong way round. If a Christian says that homosexual acts are wrong they are charged with a hate crime. If a homosexual says that Christianity is wrong then that's freedom of expression.

          Cheers,

          AC.

  9. E 2

    Mike Pence is so polished and shiny, he's gotta be gay. Deep closet, terrified of being outed... reminds me of that NYC mayor back in the day. Hiding his orientation from the voters by being the biggest gay basher in the state.

    1. asdf Silver badge

      the ultimate closet

      Like Bachmann's husband who always seems to have a male escort around?

      1. nichomach

        Re: the ultimate closet

        Escort? I see what you did there...

  10. Richard 32

    Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

    Much has been written about the florist and photographer who refused to service a gay wedding because it offends their religious beliefs. Regardless of what you may think about their beliefs, why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing? Or rather, what sort of person, when told that what they requests offends a deeply held religious belief, rebuffs, reproves, and then uses force of law to compel servitude? The answer is a narcissist. Only someone who cares not for others and only thinks of themselves would do such a thing.

    So, at least in the application of compelling service for a gay wedding, why is the state enabling narcissism and persecution something to be applauded?

    1. E 2
      Alien

      Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

      The history and power of "Go along to get along" should be enough explanation.

      Mom & Pop florists or photographers who ARE willing to do the work for gay marriages will become targets of extremist hate filled anti-gay lobbies. This happens all the time. Shows like Ellen Degeneris's were break throughs because big TV grew the stones (pardon me) to tell the Moral Majority et co to get lost. Don't assume pressure tactics from the right wing religious nuts has stopped because big TV found some profit.

      Making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation protects the majority who do not have a problem with homosexuality from abuse by the zealots.

      Alien because only a space alien could so poorly understand Human politics.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

        Ellen would still be on TV if religious people were not compelled to work for her or to watch her.

        1. E 2

          Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

          That makes no sense.

          1. Craigness

            Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

            Do you need me to write it slower?

    2. Lysenko

      Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

      "why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"

      Because it is not a matter of exercising faith it is a matter of imposing it on others. e.g:

      1) Jewish Doctor refuses to prescribe medication because capsules in question have a gelatin component derived from pigs.

      2) Jehova Witness Doctor refuses to authorise\recommend a blood transfusion.

      3) Muslim Doctor refuses to prescribe medication containing ethanol.

      4) Buhddist Doctor refuses to kill ANYTHING ...including MRSA.

      5) Hindu Doctor refuses to prescribe anything derived from a bovine byproduct.

      6) Politicians insist on passing bovine byproduct legislation.

      ...in all cases bar '6' the perp in question is going to be summarily shut down for indulging in dangerous, superstitious obscurantism. Arguing that Doctors deal in lives and florists don't is irrelevant to the principle. Relevant religious freedom would be:

      1) Freedom to have a Christian Cross (or other equivalent) as part of your corporate branding and insist ALL cakes you bake must carry this brand.

      2) Freedom to print W'boro Baptist Church slogans on your company uniform (1st Amendment issue) and PERSONALLY wear said uniform to ALL events.

      3) Freedom to refuse to borrow any money at interest due to ursury.

      4) Freedom to personally refuse to ACCEPT any medical treatment listed above (but not to extend that to become an imposition on anyone else).

      5) Freedom not to include pork, beef, alcohol, meat of any kind or anything else on your restaurant menu.

      6) Freedom to "judge not, lest ye be judged".

      Essentially, your right to exercise superstition ends at the same point that your right to exercise racism does ("Curse of Ham" anyone?).

      1. Striped Lungi

        Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

        Sorry sir. Your argument is totally misplaced. If a doctor has hangups as to blood tranfution or bovine produucts, his patients will reflect his preference. You as a CUSTOMER have a choice to go elsewhere. It is not discrimination. But if it is a monopolistic service which cannot be got elsewhere without undue hardship then it is a different matter and the state ought to step in. Those are extreme conditions as in mathematics we call it "outside the limits of an equation" i.e this equation fails when conditions like infinity are to be calculated. for example zero divided by zero...

        Howver if a heart surgeon refuses you heart surgery because you choose to use some parts of your body below your heart line for purposes than it was naturally intended for (in his opinion) then that is discrimination..

        I bet no one would refuse a specialized surgery from a doctor of different faith or sexual orientation if he happens to be the only one available on hand. Or if an accident victim is spotted and your offer to help is based on their sexual preference.. that is discrimination.

        Just for the sake of argument, giving extreme examples is not smart. All equations fail at extremes.. including the ones used by NASA.

    3. Florida1920 Silver badge

      Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

      "why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"

      Persecution would be when they are punished or otherwise harmed for practicing their religion. As in praying, going to church or wearing a cross. Since when is discrimination "excercising faith"? If the FSM doesn't know you're faithful already, discriminating against LGBTs isn't going to help. Try praying harder. Let us know how that works out after you're dead. Oh, wait...

    4. lorisarvendu

      Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

      "Much has been written about the florist and photographer who refused to service a gay wedding because it offends their religious beliefs. Regardless of what you may think about their beliefs, why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"

      Because if that religious belief involves you descriminating against someone who is not breaking a law then you should think long and hard about what you are doing. If your religious belief says you should not service someone who is a murderer, or a thief, or a paedophile, then I would understand, because those people have committed illegal acts. But being homosexual is no longer an illegal act, so you are descriminating against somebody who has committed no crimes against the law of the land (or State) that you live in.

      If you are Jewish you should not descriminate against Gentiles; if you are Muslim you should not descriminate against Jews; if you are Protestant you should not descriminate against Catholics, so long as being a Gentile, a Jew, a Muslim, a Protestant, a Catholic...or even an Atheist, is not against the law of the Country or State you live in.

      The real answer of course is that you shouldn't discriminate against anyone just because a Holy Book says so. If you do, that makes you a Religious Bigot, and Completely Wrong.

      I'm from the UK so it would appear I have a far more tolerant and far less polarised view towards same-sex relationships and marriages than certain people in the US. It still astounds us that a US politician can stand up and state publicly that homosexuality is wrong and will be punished by God. None of our politicians would be stupid enough to do that.

      1. E 2

        Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

        @lorisarvendu

        I dunno, didn't the UK use "chemical castration" on male homosexuals as recently as the 1970s?

    5. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Why is compelling servitude "freedom"?

      > why is the state enabling narcissism and persecution

      It isn't, it's just setting minimum standards of acceptable behaviour in a community.

      The only people being persecuted here are the ones God is terrorising into being shitbags. Blame her.

  11. Michael Thibault

    Seen this before

    >developing legal workarounds that would enable individuals and businesses to potentially withhold their products and services.

    A variant on Jim Crow laws. Not surprisingly, a few conservative strains are being consistently resistant to evolution. Peace, love, ... and thinly-disguised supremacist malevolence and hatred.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. Craigness

    Inconsistent

    "America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business,"

    That's why Apple doesn't discriminate against Saudi Arabia, which religiously uses its freedom to act like ****s towards anyone they want.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Inconsistent

      It's very inconsistent. If I went to a Jewish delicatessen and insisted (by invoking the current laws) that they had to serve me a pork sandwich because the law said they couldn't discriminate, I'd be literally tar and feathered by both the right and left. Or what about a Muslim going into a restaurant and demanding (followed by a lawsuit) over the restaurant's lack Halal?

      It works both ways... or should. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on customers and vice versa.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Inconsistent

        Or if you want to force a muslim publisher to print pictures of Mohammed...

        (that would be interesting because unlike christians they're a "protected group" so might already have religious freedom)

        We can't all have rights when government is expected to decide them. The fight is to decide who should be allowed them, and christians are losing. It's one set of bigots against another.

        <waiting for downvotes from both sets of bigots>

        1. Striped Lungi

          Re: Inconsistent

          UP votes or down votes.. what has this got to do with muslims or ANY religion for that matter.. two guys want to be romantic irrepsctive of their own gender or what the people think about them.. if they are adults and of sane mind, it should be none of the state's business.. They do whtever they want to do in the privacy of their home.. who is anybody else including the state to dictate? On one hand "privacy' or violation of it is wrong.. then you go about OKing discrimination.. and when asked bring in other religions into it?

          P.S I am not a muslim or christian or jew or any other religion. I am an atheist but I think religion is a private affair and no one has the right to drag anyone else's religion as a valid argument for anything..

        2. lorisarvendu

          Re: Inconsistent

          "Or if you want to force a muslim publisher to print pictures of Mohammed..."

          Surely you can't have a Muslim publisher? How can a corporate entity have a religion? You could have a Muslim who works for a publisher who would refuse to print your photos. The publisher should then find another worker who isn't a Muslim who would be happy to do it. If they can't (because all their workers are Muslims) then you go find another publisher.

          1. skeptical i
            Unhappy

            Re: Inconsistent

            Hi, Lorisavendu:

            re: " How can a corporate entity have a religion?"

            I haven't read the ruling, but apparently the U.S. Supreme Court figured it out for Hobby Lobby. Maybe they saw the Catholic Church as long-established precedent?

            As I type NPR is reporting that Indiana Governor Pence is asking the State Assembly to amend the law to "clarify" its intent by week's end.

      2. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Inconsistent

        "It's very inconsistent. If I went to a Jewish delicatessen and insisted (by invoking the current laws) that they had to serve me a pork sandwich because the law said they couldn't discriminate, I'd be literally tar and feathered by both the right and left." -- Mark 85

        Read Lysenko's post above. The Jewish delicatessen is perfectly entitled to not have pork in the shop (would you insist on a pair of Levi's from the building supplies store?) but they are not entitled to refuse to sell you a Bagel *because* you are non-white, female, disabled, LGBTI, a marine, etc. They are perfectly entitled to not serve you because they don't want to, but they can't put up a sign saying "no Irish" even though they can, If they feel like it, refuse to serve you when you walk in and say "Top o' d' morning to yer!" A wedding photographer can simply refuse all gay wedding assignments, but it is unacceptable for them to say "no gay weddings" or even, I would contend, to say "no, because you're gay". All they have to do is say "No". It really is that simple.

      3. Striped Lungi

        Re: Inconsistent

        That is a stupid argument.. you go into a jewish delicatessen and ask for pork they will say "we do not cook that here".. same as if you went into a vegeterian resturant and asked for egg or chicken.. "what part of vegeterian is not understandable?".. its like me going into a mosque and asking an imam there to do a hindu ritual for someone..

        I guess it would be like going to a butcher for a surgery or a doctor to buy meat.. wrong place. That is NOT discrimination. You need specific type of food, you either cook it yourself or go to those speciaity restaurants. You cannot DEMAND someone give you service they do not provide and then sue them for discrimination.. try suing verizon for not providing you electricity

      4. ChrisCabbage

        Re: Inconsistent

        Bad (and often used in this case) analogy.

        The Jewish delicatessen isn't serving pork sandwiches to anyone. Therefore, they're not serving to one group of people whilst refusing to serve another.

  13. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Religious bigots

    See title.

  14. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Neanderthals in and at the heart of the Homeland, is a recipe for disaster/burnt cake offerings

    Do you think such bigoted discrimination/religious business fundamentalism is what blights and prevents Northern Ireland, and by virtue of its controlling union with the United Kingdom (and boy oh boy, is that a titanic oxymoron of colossal proportions) Great Britain too, from progressing into the future with access to lucrative exotic alien and erotic foreign markets? ..... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/judgement-reserved-in-ashers-gay-cake-case-31100867.html

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Neanderthals in and at the heart of the Homeland, is a recipe for disaster/burnt cake offerings

      "Do you think such bigoted discrimination/religious business fundamentalism is what blights and prevents Northern Ireland"

      Nope - it's a positive imo. Anyway, people shouldn't be forced to have to promote such things - that are commonly considered offensive and perverted - regardless of what some imaginary being thinks of it.

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: Re: Neanderthals in and at the heart of the Homeland, .....

        Thanks for the honesty in the sharing of your opinion, AC, even though such might lead to an offensive and perverted disagreement and passionate assault against such a view being acceptable and mainstream in new ages of tolerances and respectful indifference to alternative life style choices and private practices in the public realm.

        Bravo, Sir/or Madam.

      2. fruitoftheloon
        FAIL

        @Ac: Re: Neanderthals in.....ter/burnt cake offerings

        Dear Ac,

        Those views may be common where you were brought up, they certainly were not common where I was brought up - in a grottyish bit of East London amongst a lot of other common people.

        Re your assumption about 'common beliefs', (which is what it is) are you familiar with alternate pronunciations for assume?

        Just wondered...

        J

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Ac: Neanderthals in.....ter/burnt cake offerings

          Those views are still pretty common in any the London pubs I drink in and always have been. Can't say I can think of a single male friend that would be comfortable knowing someone male around was gay. Especially around East London, where the immigrants dislike it even more than the indigenous population!

          1. Thomas Letherby

            Re: @Ac: Neanderthals in.....ter/burnt cake offerings

            You seriously need some better friends and better pubs. There's thousands of them in London, shouldn't be too hard.

            In my experience anti-gay views are treated with the same surprise as someone muttering racist opinions by the majority.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Ac: Neanderthals in.....ter/burnt cake offerings

              "In my experience anti-gay views are treated with the same surprise as someone muttering racist opinions by the majority."

              Both are the overwhelming norm in the vast majority of pubs in London in my experience - as someone who gets to a fair few... To put it bluntly, in my extensive experience, not many English people like foreigners or gays. Fergal, Iron, Ginger, Haricot and Stoke being the most common terms of reference....

  15. Rob 5

    Has it occurred to any of the shouty people...

    ...that what these folks refusing to do business with Indiana are doing is exactly what the law that they're protesting about protects people's right to do?

    1. Michael Thibault

      Re: Has it occurred to any of the shouty people...

      >...that what these folks refusing to do business with Indiana are doing is exactly what the law that they're protesting about protects people's right to do?

      Iff business is a religion. Arguably the mythical "invisible hand" is the core belief, and ... well, you can take it from there. But it's probably wisest not to refer to the elephantine sacred cow unless necessary (or useful) to do so; until either, it has its place--quietly in the background.

  16. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

    Much ado?

    I had to look up the Elane Photography vs. Willock case to justify my El Reg handle. Seems that NM has a law on its books prohibiting refusing service on the grounds of the customer's sexual orientation. The (lesbian) couple in question were, apparently, politely refused, had no problem finding another photographer at a cheaper price, and happily tied the knot. And then they still sued...

    I wonder what would happen if the photographers just said they were fully booked and could not provide the service. I suspect they would be sued anyway. Frankly, I think I mind Indiana laws much less than a law that allows that.

    I am not sure where the line is drawn. On the one hand, allowing businesses to refuse regular service to people of colour or Jews or Muslims or LGBT is out of the question in this day and age. On the other hand, somehow I don't see a Jew suing a Christian butcher for not providing kosher meat - that would not be grounds for a religious discrimination accusations, would it? And I have a bit of a trouble trying to distinguish between a steak going through a particular process and a wedding cake baked in a particular shape or form. A kosher steak would be a bigger "burden" practically, but where is the line? The "burden" in the law is not about practicalities, anyway, and there is nothing in the Christian religion that specifically prohibits kosher food, is there? And I can see how a devout Christian might consider providing a traditional cake for a non-traditional wedding as actively participating in a rite that is inconsistent with his beliefs. Point is, should this - and kosher food, too - be considered a specialized service and should the rules be a bit different?

    The "we don't like your attitude so we won't do business with you" position of Apple et al. seems a reasonable approach (compared to "let's sue the hell out of all these Christian fundamentalists!" that is so often the alternative nowadays). On the other hand, at least from a distance Indiana does not seem to say "LGBT folks are not welcome here." They say, "do come, but please respect everybody." It's not like an Apple employee on a business trip to Indiana has to fill out a questionnaire on what one does in the bedroom before sitting down for a restaurant meal.

    A gedankenexperiment: Let's say Indiana affirmed the right of individual shops and restaurants to not serve kosher food (possibly as a result of a lawsuit), and Jewish-owned businesses, starting with Facebook for visibility, said they would boycott the state. What would the pubic opinion be? [Come to think of it, the public might well misinterpret the measure as a ban on kosher products and all hell might break loose.]

    1. ratfox Silver badge

      Re: Much ado?

      A gedankenexperiment: Let's say Indiana affirmed the right of individual shops and restaurants to not serve kosher food

      That is a silly comparison. One case is letting business arbitrarily decide what they sell, and the other is letting them arbitrarily decide who they sell to.

    2. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Re: Much ado?

      You reply to a non question.

      If you want to serve only pork, that is your problem.

      If you refuse to serve pork to jeks/muslims/blacks/gays/pegasisters then it is discrimination.

      As for the "standard" service, some services are, by definition, non standard, as photography, wedding cakes, florist services, etc.

  17. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Tell me again

    How *my* beliefs/sexual preferences/weight/lifestyle affects *your* beliefs?

    The argument about someone offering a service is straight-forward to anyone who is not a lawyer: by offering the service, you implicitly offer it to everyone. No ifs, no buts (with the obvious exceptions prescribed by law such as selling alcohol to minors).

    If you don't want two blokes in the same room in your guest house, don't open a guest house.

    If you don't want to sell a wedding cake to two women, don't sell wedding cakes.

    If you don't want to sell a frock to a bloke, don't sell frocks.

    Realise that you are in business; look to the bottom line, and keep your religious bigotry at home.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tell me again

      "Realise that you are in business; look to the bottom line, and keep your religious bigotry at home."

      But that's discrimination. Their view point is no less valid than yours.

      1. squizzar

        Re: Tell me again

        How? The only discrimination is against those who wish to provide a discriminatory service in the first place.

        I don't think it's that complicated: If you run a business then it has to be available to everyone regardless. You don't _have_ to run a business at all. You don't _have_ to run a business that disagrees with your religious beliefs. You don't _have_ to work for a business that provides services that disagree with your religious beliefs. You don't _have_ to work for a business that provides services to people that offend your religious beliefs.

        What you _have_ to do, as a business, is provide the same service you are willing to offer to one person to everyone. You can't pick your customers for religious reasons. Or racial. Or gender. Or sexuality. Or appearance. Your customers can pick you - so they can maintain their own preferences - but you can't pick them. If you don't want to deal with the public with all the variety of differences between one person and the next implied by that then don't deal with the public - you're free to do that.

        Essentially your argument is that one has the right to run a discriminatory business, and an awful lot of people disagree with you there.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Tell me again

          "If you run a business then it has to be available to everyone regardless"

          Nope - your business, your choice of what you do and for who.

          1. ChrisCabbage

            Re: Tell me again

            Not according to the Civil Rights Act.

      2. lorisarvendu

        Re: Tell me again

        "But that's discrimination. Their view point is no less valid than yours."

        So if you don't want to photograph my gay wedding, you're discriminating against me. But if I say you can't refuse (because you'll be breaking the Law) then I'm discriminating against you?

        The bottom line here is that preventing someone from discriminating...is itself discriminating.

        Good God, where does it stop?!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Tell me again

          "So if you don't want to photograph my gay wedding, you're discriminating against me."

          Sure, I would find such an event in extremely poor taste. Largely because to me it's a joke calling it marriage / a wedding when it clearly isn't. But there are no doubt plenty of less fussy photographers who would take your business.

          Presumably in the same way, your could refuse to serve me at your hairdressers / airline / clothes store / cruise line / dance school / whatever for finding what you do rather grim. Which is just fine by me.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. frank ly Silver badge

    He needs an accountant

    "I just can't account for the hostility that's been directed at our state,"

    It's a simple audit trail.

  19. returnmyjedi

    Whatever happened to love thy neighbour? Or indeed following Leviticus to the letter? I'd wager three Easter eggs that most of the concerned Christians that root their beliefs in the bible regularly chow down on shrimps and other crustaceans, don't beat their children to death every time they refuse to put their iPad down, and probably shave as well! Heathens!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > Or indeed following Leviticus to the letter?

      "For we live not under the Law, but under grace"..

      1. dogged

        > "For we live not under the Law, but under grace"..

        So why do you keep invoking this law that you don't follow?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its miy butt not thine

    I fail to see how one person's anatomical real estate (in this case his behind) is a state business.. How that person's private life makes the law makers uncomfortable.. what ever happened to the maxim.. "its thy butt not mine.. " (or the reverse "its my butt not thine" coming from the defendant)? Two blokes, in their own privacy find it worthwhile to drool over each other's behind.. hey it is a free world.. who asked the lawmakers to be peeping toms and then get their underwear into un-disentangleable knots? These religion folks should be taught to mind their own business (and butts) instead of other's.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Its miy butt not thine

      "Two blokes, in their own privacy find it worthwhile to drool over each other's behind.. hey it is a free world"

      Try having 2 of them doing it next to you at a table in a restaurant. It happened to me recently - 2 guys slobbering all over each other and holding hands, etc. Made me feel physically sick. Needless to say I rapidly took my business elsewhere.

      1. chriswakey

        Re: Its miy butt not thine

        "Try having 2 of them doing it next to you at a table in a restaurant. It happened to me recently - 2 guys slobbering all over each other and holding hands, etc. Made me feel physically sick. Needless to say I rapidly took my business elsewhere."

        Jealous because they were getting some and you weren't, eh?

        Open your mind to new things.

      2. Martin
        WTF?

        Re: Its miy butt not thine

        "Try having 2 of them doing it next to you at a table in a restaurant. It happened to me recently - 2 guys slobbering all over each other and holding hands, etc. Made me feel physically sick. Needless to say I rapidly took my business elsewhere."

        Simple question. Would it have bothered you if they were a heterosexual couple?

        If yes, then it was probably inappropriate behaviour, and you could have asked the manager to intercede.

        If no - then you're just a bigot.

        Out of curiousity, how do you feel about mixed-race couples?

        1. Roger Pearse

          Re: Its miy butt not thine

          Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot? The bigot is you. Learn some respect for others.

          1. Martin
            FAIL

            Re: Its miy butt not thine

            "Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot? The bigot is you. Learn some respect for others."

            It's not a matter of disagreeing with me.

            If the behaviour of a couple doesn't bother you if they are heterosexual, but the same behaviour bothers you if they are homosexual, then you are demonstrating that you are a bigot.

            I'll respect you when you demonstrate you've earned respect - not just because you demand it.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Its miy butt not thine

              Right. so If I'm OK with heterosexual couples but I dislike those that engage in Bestiality and Paedophilia then i'm a bigot too?

              Exactly the same principle applies here. All are distasteful to me,

              1. Martin

                Re: Its miy butt not thine

                Paedophilia involves children, who are by definition non-consenting. It's also illegal.

                Bestiality also involves non-consenting creatures, and is also illegal.

                Homosexuality is legal, and involves consenting adults. It's rather different. It doesn't float my boat, but I have no objections to others doing it. And if they want to hold hands in public, like any other couple, why shouldn't they?

                If a homosexual found heterosexual couple behaviour distasteful, to the extent that he walked out of a restaurant, wouldn't you call him a bigot? (Perhaps you wouldn't...)

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Its miy butt not thine

                  How about Scat and water games then? I find those sexual preferences distasteful and offensive too. Am I a bigot still?

                  And no I wouldn't call him a bigot. I wold probably be glad he had left though...

                  1. Triggerfish

                    Re: Its miy butt not thine

                    "How about Scat and water games then?"

                    Well I'd probably be upset if they were trying them in a restaurant too.

    2. Roger Pearse

      Re: Its miy butt not thine

      I think you've misunderstood? The law is not to stop anyone engaging in vice. It's to make it just a bit harder for activists to bully those whose religion means that they don't approve of vice. Only a fool wants laws that encourge bigots to drag bystanders into court.

  21. Aitor 1 Silver badge

    "we cater only to white trade"

    Exactly the same. And ppl are defending that.

    I guess the the reg has KKK readers.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The underlying problem is the confusion between religion and culture; anti-gay is a cultural behaviour, not a religious one, although in some parts of the world it does use careful interpretation of religious text as a spurious justification. The same applies to various anti-female, anti-racist, etc practices around the world.

    Hence IMO religious tolerance is generally a good thing, but a naive multiculturalism that accepts all aspects of all cultures as being of equal worth is not.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion

    Last week the residents of Indiana, through their elected representatives, joined 19 other states and the Federal Government by passing a law making it illegal for the state to pass any law that compels someone to violate their religion, without there being a compelling overriding reason. The premise behind the law is that it is necessary because the supreme court has ruled that the Federal law only applies to Federal government, and not to the states.

    The law does NOT “legalize discrimination”. If anything, this is an ANTI-discrimination law, making it so that the state government cannot discriminate. The groups who are trying to say that it does are either purposely misrepresenting it, or are doing so through ignorance.

    What is different or unique about Indiana’s law is that it expands the definition of a person to include individuals, organizations, and businesses. It is quite true that other versions of the law don’t explicitly say that, but the courts have already ruled that to be the legal situation, such as with the cases of Hobby Lobby or Notre Dame against the Affordable Care Act, so that really isn't something new.

    As an individual this law means that I can put a cross or star of David on my door, and the state can’t pass a law saying that it is illegal. It means that if I am a practicing Muslim (or Amish) who wears a beard for religious purposes the state can’t make me shave it off in order to work for the state.

    As an origination it means that I can’t be excluded from state grants or funding just because the organization is ALSO religious. While the big one here are funds for schools, it also means that if a church wants to put together a team to compete in a softball league organized by the city’s parks department they can’t be excluded or told that they can’t have a cross on their uniform.

    As a business owner, what this means is that if I decide to put a nativity scene in my store window the state or city cannot pass a law preventing me from doing so. If I decide to wish my customers “Merry Christmas” I am free to do so without fear of it being banned. If someone does try to persecute me I can claim this law as a defense. It does NOT give me to right to refuse to serve someone solely based upon the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. Courts have already routinely ruled that there is a compelling and overriding state interest there.

    The law also states that if someone is an idiot and does try to do something like that using this law as a justification and the person denied service sues, that the state can come in and join the case against the business. That’s a pretty big stick.

    So what is the big deal about the law? Publicity. It seems like everyone wants to use this as a stepping stone to launch their own agenda, even if that means deliberately misrepresenting it in order to get air time.

    Be better than that. Be informed. Read the law. Note that there is nothing in there that says that a business can discriminate. The first amendment to the US Constitution states that congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, this just restates that and extends the prohibition to the state level.

    There are always going to be idiots and bigots. If a photographer feels so strongly that their religious views are offended by being there to document and solemnize a gay wedding, do you really want them there anyway? When they get to the “does anyone know why these two should not be married speak now” part, do you really want them stepping up and saying something, making a fool of themselves, and ruining the day? What will REALLY happen if ANY business tries to do something like that is that so many of their prospective customers, straight or gay, will be so offended that they won’t have enough business to keep the doors open, they go under, and disappear. That is free speech and the free market at work, and that is the American way.

    And in that situation, what about that photographer’s rights? Do we as a community or state really have the right to forcibly compel such a person to be there? Do we have the right to force them to engage in creative work that violates their religious sensibilities, even if we don’t agree with them? Is that tolerance? That photographer has every right to be an idiot, let them be one.

  24. jason 7

    Just change the word...

    ...'Religion' to 'Death Cult'. Looks far more dramatic, sinister and yet truthful.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Damnit.

    We were just about to announce the wholesale move of the Church of Holy Thermonuclear Detonation to Indiana so we can exercise our right to religious freedom with a megaton blast.

    Now then brethren, let's all spread the fallout of the lord and bask in his light...

  26. David 14

    Its all about "Businesses" being "People"

    Maybe my reading of the full situation is incorrect here, but is this not all related to the fact that according to relatively-new US law, Businesses are being afforded "rights" similar to people?

    While I am not American, I can see how "freedom of religion" should allow an individual be able to choose who they perform services for based on those grounds... as long as they are not causing direct physical harm, this shuld not cause concern... after all the USA is based on the concept of "tolerance" and not "acceptance" of others.

    When they start allowing a company or business to use this argument, I start taking notice. A business is not a person... they get very special treatment and have a completely different set of rules in which they operate.... they form the fabric of a free countries support infrastructure.

    What this new law can enable is a town to "oust gays" if only the key companies choose to refuse service... maybe the power company decides they wont give electricity to LGBT people... or maybe the grocery stores will choose to not allow LGBT people to buy food... heck... they would be refusing the basics of life.

    I find people who are "anti-gay" despicable... but I can tolerate them. I find intolerant businesses completely unacceptable.

    1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Re: Its all about "Businesses" being "People"

      My grandfather had to move his doctor practice because he was catholic, and after wondering what was happening, was duly informed by the protestant pastor that "they didn't like their kind there".

      No one went to the doctor, because even if they wanted, going there would mean discrimination against them.

      I'm not telling a story from northern ireland. This happened in 1935 in the Netherlands.

      And it is discrimination.

    2. Roger Pearse

      Re: Its all about "Businesses" being "People"

      You believe in the right for people to coerce you to do things you think are utterly wrong? Merely because they feel like it?

      Believe me, encourage the gay activists and you will get just that. Only a fool opposes laws that stop busybodies.

      1. dogged

        Re: Its all about "Businesses" being "People"

        Not at all. If you don't want to serve somebody, don't.

        Just don't say "because you're queer". It's really very simple.

        This law, however, is pretty much encouraging the local Westboro Baptists to hang up banners declaring "WE DON'T SERVE NO FILTHY FAGGOTS" over their shops and if you can't see the problem with that, the problem may well be you.

      2. Six_Degrees

        Re: Its all about "Businesses" being "People"

        If you're going to operate in the Commons, you have to abide by its rules, which go back at least 500 years.

        If you want to openly discriminate, feel free to form a private club. A public business, however, is not for you.

  27. Rabster

    Is it about religion?

    If so why are those people also not against all the other things condemned in the same books of the Bible as the ostensibly anti-homosexual ones? Leviticus? Are they refusing to serve people with tattoos, or who eat shellfish or wear mixed fibers? Paul's I Corinthians 6:9-10? Are they also refusing service to the greedy? Good luck with that. So if not, why not?

    1. fruitoftheloon
      Thumb Up

      @Rabster: Re: Is it about religion?

      Rabster,

      You got that right, picking the facts to match your opinion/belief/bigoted opinion.

      Nothing new here, religious hypocrisy is alive and (un)well....

      J

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Rabster: Is it about religion?

        I think there's a difference between refusing to server a greedy person, or an adulterer and taking part in furthering their activities.

        So, I think most people of Christian or Muslim faith are quite happy, for example, to serve a drunkard a cup of coffee but are not happy to create a web site promoting gambling.

        So, yes the same applies to homosexuality. There's a difference between normal trade and promoting an activity. I think most Christian/Muslim or Jewish people are happy serving a gay couple in a supermarket but would not be happy to sponsor a gay pride march. In fact for a Christian there's a kind of obligation to serve and be helpful... up to a point.

        You also seem to be having trouble understanding the relationship between the old and new testaments... but that's a discussion for another time.

        One more point, as far as I know there are many things CocaCola won't get involved in due to concern for their 'brand image'. Could that be classed as a kind of discrimination?

        1. Swarthy Silver badge

          Re: @AC: Is it about religion?

          I think there's a difference between refusing to server a greedy person, or an adulterer and taking part in furthering their activities.
          But if they are getting married, how can they be adulterers?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC: Is it about religion?

            Not sure if this is an attempt at humor or deliberately missing the point.

            I can't see that the OP said they were getting married. However, for the sake of pedantry they could have committed adultery and later got married, perhaps following a divorce.

        2. Rabster

          Re: @Rabster: Is it about religion?

          "You also seem to be having trouble understanding the relationship between the old and new testaments... but that's a discussion for another time."

          Do I? Are there other parts of either that are anti-homosexual?

          And I did notice you move the goalposts - there is a difference between providing the service you normally do as a business and actively promoting a pride rally. One is business as usual (or should be), the other is going beyond normal service.

          1. Rabster

            Re: @Rabster: Is it about religion?

            You may need an FB account to see this. I can't find it on his website

            https://www.facebook.com/kevinfrankcartoons/photos/a.717813978269108.1073741828.717276188322887/917471291636708/?type=1

    2. John G Imrie Silver badge

      Re: Is it about religion?

      Here's a goody that I use when confronted by the religious bidets.

      If my work mate works on the Sabbath am I morally obliged to kill them myself or can I call the police.

  28. Roger Pearse

    Leave people alone

    I'm very sorry to see The Register post a gay rights rant - what has this to do with tech? - and still worse, one so full of distortions; and worse yet, one calling for the removal of legal protection of ordinary people from spiteful and malicious prosecutions by a well-organised, well-connected pressure group. This law got passed precisely because of concerns about harassment by gay activists. The howls of protest, utterly unreasonable, bigoted and hateful, only make clear how much such legal protections are needed.

    Gay activists are a pest in the community. We have any number of laws passed, which forbid "discrimination" against these people. None of these laws were put to a vote: they were all passed by backstairs politics. But there is actually very little discrimination. So the laws are being used, instead, as a means to attack anybody who dares express the slightest opposition to these people and their agenda. They grant the power to gay activists to drag those they hate through the courts. And they have not been slow to do so.

    Their favourite tactic has been to bait sandwichboardmen. You remember these quaint old men in the marketplace, with their sandwichboards proclaiming "The Wages of Sin Is Death!"? They're utterly harmless, if sometimes annoying. But gay activists have got a game going, where they accost these people, demand to know what the bible says about homosexuality, get an answer from the honest man, and then run squeaking to the police and lay an information. The police feel obliged to arrest the victim, and the process of tormenting him through the courts begins! In one case I read about they didn't wait for the police, but beat the old man up first; who was, of course, then arrested and tried with "hate". He died, being old and infirm and unaccustomed to this kind of punishment, before his "case" could come to court.

    Do any of us want laws that allow bigoted activists to do this kind of thing? Because you have to hate people pretty badly to want to drag them through the courts?

    If you do - because you think it will always be YOU doing the dragging, you selfish git - then reflect on two words: MARGARET THATCHER. The 70's union barons took no nonsense from elected governments. They became such a nuisance that they produced Thatcher: who ended the lot of them. After she'd been in power for 10 years, the whole climate was different. Believe me, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Laws that allow informers, that allow harassment of anyone who disagrees, that permit and encourage the kinds of activities that we see in tyrannies ... these are not things that any sensible person wants.

    The gay activists are drunk on power and mad with triumph. Only the Christians dare say that homosexuality is wrong; and, although the activists are too wary to annoy the muslims, they enjoy bullying the Christians.

    But it is almost a fingerprint of liberty, whether a state can leave the Christians alone to their own business. That fingerprint is vanishing from Britain, and is vanishing from the USA.

    Live and let live; or live under tyranny. We must all support laws that make more difficult the task of those determined to coerce others. This Indiana law, in a very small way, is a good thing.

    1. Martin

      Re: Leave people alone

      You've made a lot of unsupported accusations against the gay community there.

      Any actual evidence?

    2. Mike Smith

      Re: Leave people alone

      "In one case I read about they didn't wait for the police, but beat the old man up first; who was, of course, then arrested and tried with "hate". He died, being old and infirm and unaccustomed to this kind of punishment, before his "case" could come to court."

      Could you post a citation, please? I'd like to understand a little more about that.

      Cheers.

  29. ElectricRook

    hypocrisy on display

    Cook is using his right to ignore others to attract the right to ignore others.

  30. Dan Paul

    Religious Discrimination

    I feel quite comfortable stating that the majority of El Reg commenters are anti-religious and atheist. And you are welcome to your opinion. However, there are many here that take that to an extreme and that is strictly discriminatory.

    What have we done to you by simply having Christian beliefs and espousing them? Is that ANY different than you doing the same? Where is the moderation when it is clear that there are extremely derogatory and intolerant statements being made against Christians?

    It wasn't a Christian that dragged out the Old Testament on these forums and started quoting ancient beliefs that are no longer mainstream, it was an intolerant atheist.

    If we have done nothing to you except express our beliefs in certain circumstances; why do you feel you have the the right to criticize and demean our beliefs?

    We have not demeaned you because you are gay or atheist. We have said nothing to that effect.

    However, both the commenters and the author of this clickbait article have taken every opportunity to present a one sided argument that we are evil just because we are Christians.

    As such, I say you are intolerant bigots because you are anti-religious.

    Over 19 other states and the federal government have almost identical "Freedom of Religion" laws and there are no outcrys against them, only Indiana.

    Obama himself was instrumental in proffering an almost identical "Freedom of Religion" law in Illinois. Where is the outrage against his hypocrisy? Nowhere, because it is inconvenient to the truth that Kieran wishes to tell.

    Does Kieran Mcarthy feel she and El Reg don't have to provide all the truth but only their bigoted anti-religious opinion? Sadly, it would seem so.

    Again the left wing speaks before they bother to learn all the facts or include them in their articles. This is the same idiocy that happened in these comments about Ferguson Missouri after it became clear that Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Brown and cleared by the state grand jury and the Federal Grand Jury investigation.

    It is not considered "good reporting" to slant your article towards one side or the other. The word "Tabloid" comes to mind. Perpetuating these lies is even worse behavior.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Religious Discrimination

      You cannot be serious; sorry, you can because I know a number of people, mostly older, with similar views and feelings of persecution. Underneath it all is a huge frustration and confusion over how they and the Church have lost so much influence and control over how wider society behaves.

      I don't think this particular issue is specific to Christianity; it is just that in this case we have a cultural meme that hooks into poorly understood passages in the Bible. In other countries there are much worse cultural practices based on distortions of Islamic, Hindu, Christian, maybe even atheist, belief systems. It seems to be a natural fate for the organised aspect of all belief systems to become corrupted by their social context, and for these in turn to then distort the beliefs they started from.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Religious Discrimination

      > Does Kieran Mcarthy feel she and El Reg don't have to provide all the truth but only their bigoted anti-religious opinion? Sadly, it would seem so.

      And it sickens me to see it happening. Putting out a loaded, one-sided article that trashes people of conscience is far benaeath the standards I've come to expect here. I'm sure it was done in the knowledge that the majority here are tech-minded people with little real understanding of anything outside their specialties, and they could be counted on to jump on board, in an orgy of hatred for those they deem the 'enemy.'

      1. fruitoftheloon
        Stop

        @Big John: Re: Religious Discrimination

        Big John,

        could you clarify for me exactly how you are sure the 'the majority here are tech-minded people with little real understanding of anything outside of their specialities'?

        On record here I have stated that I couldn't care less what religious folk do as long as it does impact the lives on ANYONE ELSE.

        It is funny how religious folk here don't seem to get the fundamental flaw in their arguments about this law...

        Cheers,

        j

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Big John: Religious Discrimination

          > ...I have stated that I couldn't care less what religious folk do as long as it does impact the lives on ANYONE ELSE.

          Islamics, wanting McDonalds to serve halal food, would necessarily drive up the cost for everyone else, and that would impact their lives. I take it you would strongly oppose any encroachment of halal rules in western food preparation, right? Think very hard before you answer...

          1. fruitoftheloon
            Happy

            @Big John: Re: @Big John: Religious Discrimination

            Big john,

            Many thanks for your contribution.

            In the (unlikely) event of McDs only serving halal-esque meat, I would choose to eat elsewhere...

            Re wider use of halal butchery, in the UK I don't imagine the market is that big anyway (of course I could be wrong on that).

            Either way, I don't imagine the butchers in our village would be overly concerned...

            Also were I a McDs stockholder I wouldn't be too chuffed.

            Regards,

            J.

    3. fruitoftheloon
      Stop

      @Dan: Re: Religious Discrimination

      Dan,

      that was funny!!

      I feel quite comfortable in my opinion that you are talking ouf of your derriere...

      Espousing your beliefs is clearly your prergorative (and rightly so), appearing not to realise the implications of this law to to folk that are DIFFERENT from you is another thing all together...

      I hypothesize (feel free to correct me), that if the law in Indiana would have a significantly negative impact on your religious beliefs in terms of how you live your life you may be a little bit grumpy, such as:

      - banning all religious symbols

      - ensuring that children of religious parents are not automatically 'inducted' into the same church without having experience of other churches/belief systems

      - remove taxable benefits to all religions

      Regards,

      j.

    4. Rabster

      Re: Religious Discrimination

      I quoted from both the Old and New testaments - Paul's letters to the Corinthians are NT btw. So are you saying that christians (of your sort) are no longer intolerant of lifestyles choices such as eating shellfish (OT) or being greedy (NT) but are still intolerant of biologically determined factors such as sexual orientation?

      I suppose I am pretty much an atheist these days but far from being intolerant I send my daughter to a religious school - it fits with my wife's beliefs and she's happy there. The staff are nice people and I help them raise funds for their food bank etc. It's a shame that the RC still regards homosexuality as "disordered" but they do still say "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6648973809/

  31. Alan W. Rateliff, II
    IT Angle

    Why is this tech news?

    Because tech companies got their hackles up? If we use that test everything going on in the world suddenly becomes tech news.

    1. fruitoftheloon
      Happy

      @Alan Re: Why is this tech news?

      Alan,

      err yes, as it says in the article...

      J

  32. Paddy B

    Not just in Indiana

    They're busily trying to introduce something very similar here in the UK as well, at least in my own little backwater of it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30385535

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who's belief wins?

    As an individual I can choose who I want to befriend, a gay, a jew, a human, a christian or a dog. As an individual I can also choose not to befriend one of those above due to whatever reason I choose.

    As a business I, by law, can not choose. That is the issue.

    Does a business have an ethic? If that ethic is derived from a particular viewpoint (for instance a Christian belief that being gay is morally wrong) should it be sued if it discriminates against a gay couple?

    If I choose not to go to my local restuarant because it gave me the runs I don't try to sue it...I just go elsewhere where I am more likely to be treated better.

    It is not equal to be able to say one person's level of discrimination is worse than someone else's.

    People must be allowed their intolerances without being liable to be sued...they can be ostracised instead if one really feels the need.

  34. BornToWin

    Maybe not?

    This story implies that the legislation is gay hate but I'm not so sure that is the case. It was intended to protect religious beliefs but IMO that is secondary to the publics interest. Thus if you chose to own a business or work in one and you have a religious issue with something associated with serving the public, you should seek employment elsewhere.

    1. asdf Silver badge

      Re: Maybe not?

      >It was intended to protect religious beliefs

      Something tells me it wasn't passed like the Federal law for example to protect Native Americans who use peyote. I dare guess even with this law that forward thinking state (note sarcasm) would probably look for ways to put brown people having vision quests put in jail because only the white people's religions count.

  35. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    "He stood by the legislation, but said he would work with Indiana lawmakers to "see if there's a way to clarify the intent of the law" – something planned for this week."

    I merely meant to say that when you arrive it's a pleasure, and after you leave we only hunger for more.

    1. lorisarvendu

      Re: Bah!

      "I merely meant to say that when you arrive it's a pleasure, and after you leave we only hunger for more."

      Stevie, you truly shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

  36. Trainee grumpy old ****
    WTF?

    So WWJD?

    Given the examples provided in the Bible, do you truly believe that Jesus would refuse to have anything to do with a person who was <insert orientation here>? If He wouldn't, what gives you an opt out based on your belief in him?

    (not a follower of any "major faith")

    1. Swarthy Silver badge

      Re: So WWJD?

      When I hear/see people ask "What Would Jesus Do", I have to try to refrain from commenting that chasing bankers with a whip and flipping tables is still an option. (John 2:15)

      The attempt at restraint filed in this case.

  37. LINCARD1000
    Devil

    It amuses me how many of the self-identified Christians posting here have begun with posting what initially sound like reasoned arguments, only to descend into name-calling and self-inflicted victimization. It isn't like you're a persecuted minority, unlike many of those who you have issues with. You stand to lose absolutely nothing if the various minorities have the same rights that you do in the eyes of the law.

    I suspect that once all minorities (or whatever you'd like to call them) have all the same rights and privileges as everyone else that the activists will go away. That's all they're after - equal rights, the right to be treated like anyone. Everyone stands on their own merits after that.

    It also amuses me that the concept of my (legally recognized) gay marriage might cause someone, somewhere to have an aneurysm :-) I'll think of you the next time I kiss my husband.

    XXX

    1. fruitoftheloon
      Pint

      @Lincard

      Lincard,

      right-on, you have summarised it all much better than I did...

      Btw I think your marriage is awesome!!

      Have one (two) on us

      Cheers,

      jay

  38. asdf Silver badge

    obvious answer

    Another way to make the legislature regret passing this law is to really push the boundaries of non Christian religions. I imagine Muslims especially could get them to repeal this law in no time if only Indiana wasn't so white bred. Freedom of religion in the modern political context almost always means right for rich whites to do what they want, like they really need that codified.

  39. Rick Brasche

    there is a reason to SUPPORT this legislation

    because it lets you KNOW where you stand. As it is, forcing people to accept your business, when they would rather not, means you're paying good money against your own best interest.

    Me, I WANT to know what business hates me and why, so I KNOW not to go there.

    Forced tolerance, means hidden hate. Open that sh*t up and expose it. Don't force it to hide.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019