The bill was passed as a way to "cancel out" municipal civil rights ordinances that specifically protected sexual orientation. The idea was that Bloomington would be unable to prove that it had a compelling interest to make Baker A provide a cake for Gay Wedding B, and thus Baker A would receive relief from the ordinance. That was not only the perception, but the intended legal effect of the bill.
Why? If Bloomington wants a strong non-discrimination law, but Bedford doesn't, that's Bedford's problem. Bedford shouldn't expect a state law to come in and remove the teeth from Bloomington's ordinance.
That's not a material difference. It's meaningless. You can't get away with refusing to cook a wedding cake for a black couple by saying, "I have nothing against black folks, I just don't agree with black weddings."
Liberals do? Indiana RFRA overrode city ordinances, NC bathroom bill overrode local ordinances, and some southern state overrode local minimum wage bills. That is 3 I came up with in 5 seconds.
And typically conservatives believe local government is best. But not when some uppity liberal town wants to protect the gays!
RFRA was written to override the ability of municipalities to prevent such discrimination. If you deny that, you're just being dishonest. Hell, the entire push for the law was explicitly based on that concept. They didn't exactly hide their intentions.
The NC bathroom bill ALSO overrode minimum wage ordinances, because of course it did.
That was the state I could not remember.
Tennessee opposition had nothing to do with federal law. Legislators wrote a bill to revoke Tennessee's tax beaks to VW. That has nothing to do with federal law but pure opposition to unions in the south.
Bullshit. I didn't hop on any bandwagon. I'm just smart enough to recognize what the actual legal effects of the law would be. And so are you, but you deny it, because you're dishonest.
LOL. Stop trying to make a point without saying anything. Explain what you mean.
Would every person on this board who had 1st hand information - that means you were there, heard the testimony, participated or had a hand in producing the legislation - regarding the purpose of prohibiting local units of government from enacting local ordinances on civil rights, please raise their hand.
I've got it right in front of me. I'm just looking for you to explain what the hell you're talking about, because as I recall, the rest of us made you look like a raging fool, and you simply backed out of the conversation rather than admin you didn't know what you are talking about. So, please, cite some law for me.
Do you know that there is a federal RFRA statute? Been on the books for years. That there are RFRA laws in 31 states? Yet you can't even accurately describe what the RFRA law in your own home state does but you rave on as if you knew your fanny from first base. You've had this explained to you. You've also been advised that there is no appreciable economic loss as the extremists predicted.
Go away, troll. I know what RFRA is, I know which states have them. I also know why states have them. Do you? Do you know why states feel the need to copy a federal law? It's because federal RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to the states.
Oh, I'm not necessarily saying Bloomington would lose the case. I'm saying that's why the bill was passed, because social conservatives were betting that Bloomington would lose the case. Or hoping. Or whatever verb you want. But that's why the law exists. It was an attempt to get around local LGBT civil rights ordinances, and they were all very quite blunt about their intentions, so if you deny that, you're either dumb or a liar.
Sigh. I forgot who I was talking to. The master of moving the goalpost. Forget it.
Or...one of you is imbibing too much Rocky Mountain air and the other is imbibing too much.
Hint: the picture with Pence and the people behind it told me all I need to know. Sorry, but you don't qualify as an objective participant, since you likely agreed with the like of Curt Smith and Eric Miller.
Weak cheese. The moderator posts a personal insult in violation of his own dictatorial rules. How many hundred such insults is that for you know, Your
Well, you're wrong as always regarding the legislative process. I had no position on the enactment but
Could not one have read Eric Miller's tweets instead of the Star? That photo combined with Miller's declaration of victory killed RFRA. I will bet right now Pence wishes he had signed that in front of others, or gagged Miller.
As I said, your opinion means nothing. Everyone here knows your bias. I saw who he invited to the photo op. I went to those people's websites and saw their words. That was enough for me. 2 plus 2 usually means 4 in the world of reality.
