Mike Pence chooses commerce over God in Indiana


Late last week, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, surrounded by some of his state’s most hate-filled homophobes, signed into law a piece of legislation called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, giving those who claim religion conviction the right to withhold goods and services from individuals they find, for whatever reason, to be morally repugnant.

At the signing of the bill, Pence said, “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.” And, with the signing of this bill, the people of Indiana were once again safe. Pence had stood up for persecuted Christians across Indiana and ensured that they would no longer have to compromise their deeply held religious beliefs by having to do things like make sandwiches for people who look as though they could possibly enjoy non-heterosexual intercourse.

The executive director of Indiana-based Advance America, who was with the Governor for the bill signing ceremony, explained on his website why this legislation was so critically important. “Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women),” he wrote. So, clearly this wasn’t just about bakers not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. This was about “protecting” god-fearing Christian bigots from “men who dress like women,” among other things.

Thankfully, the tyranny of the homosexuals, and those with “gender identities,” whatever that means, ended last week, when Governor Spence provided much needed protection for the terrified Christian majority of Indiana, so that they would no longer have to confront the likes of a man in a dress, which would surely drain them of all religious conviction that they might have.

It was a proud day for Indiana. Nineteen other states had passed acts in the name of “religious freedom,” but theirs was the most aggressively anti-gay, and people were ecstatic.

But then something odd happened. Pence, started walking back from this great legislative accomplishment of his, which, just days ago, he’d referred to as a victory for “religious liberty.” This morning, he called for the legislation to be “clarified,” saying that the intention of the act, contrary to the quotes given by everyone at the signing ceremony, was never to enable discrimination. “I don’t support discrimination against anyone,” said Pence to the press.

Why the sudden change of tune? Why is it that this man, who, just days ago, felt it necessary to “empower” the good Christian people of Indiana to defend their “religious liberty,” now doesn’t seem to care that they’re at risk? Did God’s views on homosexuality change? Did the Christians of Indiana suddenly become strong enough to serve a sandwich to a gay person without being recruited into homosexuality? Or did Pence just decide that he hates God?

The truth… and I hate to break this to you, my readers in Indiana… is that Pence never really cared about God in the first place. What he cared about were votes. Pence, I’m fairly certain, never gave a fuck about those poor persecuted bigots who were begging him for legislation that would protect them from cake-loving homosexuals. He knew how to read a poll, though, and he knew that, in a solidly Republican, predominantly Christian state like Indiana, he’d be better off playing along. What he wasn’t apparently counting on, though, was the immediate and overwhelming backlash from America’s gay corporate mafia, led by Apple CEO Tim Cook.

It would seem that, when push came to shove, the votes of a few loud, bigoted florists don’t really amount to much when compared to the prospect of losing the NCAA basketball playoffs and $40 million corporate expansion projects. So, today, Pence isn’t talking about “religious liberty,” but declaring that he abhors discrimination. “I don’t support discrimination against gays and lesbians or anyone else,” Pence said today. “I abhor discrimination.”

And this, to me, is twice as disgusting as straight-up bigotry. I could accept it if Pence believed what he’d been saying. It would piss me off, but I could accept it if I thought he really cared about wanting to “empower” Christians to turn away gays from their places of business. I could accept it if he really felt that this was what God wanted, and stood by it. What I can’t accept, though, is someone who says that it’s absolutely imperative one one, and then, the very next… once it’s explained to him that no one will do business in his state any longer… says that’s not what he meant. And that’s why I hope the religious right that he’s courted these past several years now turns on him, and devours him whole. And that’s why I made the graphic at the top of the post. I’m hoping that some group out there that loves God as much as they hate men in dresses, might want to use it for their “Recall Pence” campaign.

One last thing… The gay rights ship has sailed. It’s been 20 years since Ellen started making out with women on television, and over a decade since folks everywhere welcomed the crew from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy into their living rooms. And young people don’t give a fuck about sexual orientation. I can appreciate that some people are horrified by this, but there’s no turning it around. They might be able to push back with bills like this one that passed last week in Indiana, but, as the subsequent backlash has demonstrated, it won’t hold up. The world has already made up its mind to move on. If the folks in Lansing were smart, which they’re not, they would have passed a state-wide civil rights bill on Monday, and gotten on the phone immediately with folks at the NCAA, Angie’s List, and every other group threatening to walk away from Indiana, welcoming them to Michigan. Instead, though, we’re talking about pushing through our own legislation. Yes, we’re apparently that stupid…

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    Arkansas passed a similar law this week, Georgia could also do so before the end of the week. Michigan has enough votes to get it done this term as well. Once the media circus dies down, Pence isn’t going to change anything of substance.

    The lies told by those who oppose this type of legislation are numerous. Any campaign to attempt economic backlash against states that pass RFRA laws will only serve to justify more states enacting such laws. For homosexuals and their allies, tolerance only applies to those who promote their ideology and anyone who believes otherwise is targeted for attack.

    These laws do not protect anyone who would deny goods or services to individuals merely because they disagree with their morals, but they do allow individuals and businesses to decline to participate in what they consider to be immoral activities. That’s a significant difference.

  2. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 4:21 am | Permalink


  3. Chelsea
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    And this surprises you, Mark?

  4. John Galt
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    Selling a sandwich to a “gender identified” person makes you complicit in their sin. You are literally providing the fuel for their evil anti-American escapades.

  5. Holly
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    Religious freedom seems to mean Christian freedom. But … there are plenty of religions, including religions that aren’t so fond of Christians. If this law were to pass in Michigan, which has a concentrated Muslim population, I’m inclined to think their sick “protection” would backfire.

  6. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Nothing in the law that would allow anyone to refuse to sell a sandwich to anyone else. Don’t believe the lies!

  7. Bob Krzewinski
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    Nothing like the teachings of Mrs Betty Bowers, America’s Perfect Christian, in these times – http://www.bettybowers.com

  8. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    These laws do not protect anyone who would deny goods or services to individuals merely because they disagree with their morals, but they do allow individuals and businesses to decline to participate in what they consider to be immoral activities. That’s a significant difference. It’s a shield, not a sword – protection not oppression. Let’s get RFRA passed in Michigan this term!

  9. kjc
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    “These laws do not protect anyone who would deny goods or services to individuals merely because they disagree with their morals, but they do allow individuals and businesses to decline to participate in what they consider to be immoral activities.”

    don’t act like drawing the line is so simple and obvious or that it doesn’t leave the door wide open to discrimination. personally i’m confused and i’m certain i’ll never need a baker or florist for my gay wedding. i know one thing you’ve made clear: no wedding cakes for gay couples (endorsing sin). what if you buy a birthday cake for your partner? if the baker thinks it’s for a friend only, is that cool? if the baker somehow knows it’s for your partner is that endorsing sin? or are birthdays totally fine but wedding cakes totally sin? what if someone decides, based on the difficulty of ascertaining such details, that simply not serving gay people at all is the only “protection”? What if not serving them is the only way to “decline to participate”? Based on your shifting definitions, i can certainly see a “christ follower” such as yourself absolutely refusing to provide sandwiches for a meeting of the gay students association. why not?

  10. kjc
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    the top part is a quote from EOS, obviously.

  11. Frosted Flakes
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    IN THEORY, I agree with the idea that individuals should be able to choose for themselves how to live and act in accord with their religious beliefs and those same individuals should be able to choose to decline participation in activities those individuals beleive to be immoral. However, I fear that sort of freedom will be abused. The example of the baker refusing to cake a bake validates that fear. It really is a line drawing issue and unfortunately, I for one, do not trust individuals to draw the line of what constitutes “participation in sin” in a reasonable way. If the law is so broad it protects the baker and pediatrician then I do not support it.

  12. anonymous
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    “Nothing in the law that would allow anyone to refuse to sell a sandwich to anyone else. Don’t believe the lies!” -EOS

    EOS, did you read the quotes from the men in the room for the signing ceremony, the men who helped write this legislation and get it passed? This is about much more that protecting bakers from having to make cakes for gay weddings and you know it.


  13. Frosted Flakes
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    oops, I read kjc’s comment after I posted. I didn’t mean to repeat kjc’s ideas. Apparently we agree on the reasons the “religious freedom laws” are so impractical and potentially dangerous.

  14. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,

    “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

    Ben Franklin

  15. Dan
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    If this is truly about protecting religious freedom, I wonder if the good christians of these states support the jewish practice of Metzitzah B’Peh


  16. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    What, are you thinking of converting to Judaism Dan?

  17. Dan
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Nope. Just hope that the Christians that paid/begged for these laws are aware of the ridiculous practices of the other religions they claim to want to protect.

  18. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    I’m good, so long as they don’t force me to endorse or participate.

  19. kjc
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    who’s gonna bake the metzitzah cake??

  20. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 10:23 am | Permalink


  21. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    It would be foolish for Michigan to pass a similar law. Which means that they might.

    I just try to remind myself that this law is a backlash to a loss of privilege. In the past, such businesses could not only discriminate in this way but they would have been able to do it without any serious criticism. There was no reason for such laws. Not so anymore. I, for one, thing that is a good thing.

    They are probably going to change the law which is actually too bad because going forward, I could really see this law being used more to protect minority religions than to discriminate against homosexuals. And of course this law may have just made pot legal in the state. It kind of makes me laugh to consider all the many different ways this law could be used against the very people who passed it to strip away even more of their privilege.

  22. Frosted Flakes
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    I am still learning about this, but my understanding is the “state rfra” in Indiana and Texas are worded differently from the federal rfra that was put into play in 1993. The Indiana rfra includes for profit businesses in the same protected class as individuals and religious organizations. Also, the Indiana and Texas rfra both offer protections from lawsuits from discriminated against parties who might want to sue the baker and the pediatrician….

  23. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Could anyone name a single case in any jurisdiction over the last 20 years where a RFRA law was successfully used in order to allow anyone to refuse service to homosexuals for no other reason except that they were homosexual?

  24. Kim
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    EOS, please tell us how you like it when the owner of the local market asks you to cover your skin before coming in because a woman, according to scripture, isn’t supposed to be seen by men.

  25. Meta
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Texas doesn’t want to be left behind by Indiana.

    “Texas measure cuts HIV funds, boost abstinence education”

    Texas would cut $3 million from programs to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and spend that money instead on abstinence education under a contentious Republican-sponsored measure tucked into the state budget Tuesday night.

    The GOP-controlled House overwhelmingly approved the budget amendment, but not before a tense exchange with Democrats that veered into the unusually personal.

    Read more:

  26. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    It is not about imposing one’s personal beliefs on others. It’s about the freedom to follow one’s own religious beliefs. A woman can cover herself if she chooses. RFRA would defend her right to do so.

  27. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    This is totally about imposing one’s personal beliefs on others!

    In Michigan, LGBT people are not protected by the civil rights act. There is no need for such a law here except to override local ordinances such as Ypsilanti’s. Remember that whole bruhaha over the printer who refused to print the gay student groups pamphlets? Our city rightly responded with an ordinance which forbids discrimination based on many things including sexual identity and sexual orientation. I think that has made our city better and I don’t like the idea of people in Lansing trying to override what the people of Ypsilanti clearly want.

    I get torn with these things. On the one hand, I would love to see the sorts of Christians who would discriminate against homosexuals start to feel the same sort of discrimination against themselves and their families in the hopes that they would learn some empathy and how it feels to be on the receiving end of real discrimination instead of the faux persecution they claim whenever their privilege is restricted. However, I also feel strongly that discrimination is wrong and that even horrible nasty disgusting immoral people such as the Christians behind these laws should enjoy the same rights to public accommodation as everyone else.

  28. Stoner
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    If a religious freedom law gets passed in Michigan, I think it would be fun to form a church whose “services” involve smoking lots of pot outside of churches on Sunday morning while yelling obscenities.

  29. XXX
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    This is what it’s like to watch an animal inflicted with rabies die.

  30. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    In Ypsilanti, with the new ordinance, they still can’t force the printers to print materials that endorse homosexuality. You are mistaken – again.

  31. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Really? Because it is my understanding that all businesses in Ypsilanti are forbidden from discriminating against groups based on sexual orientation (among other things). I guess it is a good thing that no other printers have tried such shenanigans but I am not sure you are right. It may be true that a printer could make a case if the material was offensive but as an example, if they print heterosexual wedding invitations, they can’t make a claim that wedding invitations are offensive and thus must print wedding invitations for gay couples too. i.e. they can choose not to print wedding invitations in general but if they choose to print them for one group, they must print them for everyone.

  32. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, you are wrong. Call City hall if you need more explanation.

  33. Slippery Slope
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Today it’s gay wedding ceremonies. Tomorrow it’s not wanting to sell houses to gay couples. And the next day it’s not allowing them in your restaurants.

  34. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Well, I would call but it hardly seems important. I can’t imagine that a printer could get away with not printing materials for a local LGBT group in Ypsilanti these days. I mean, I know that if I became aware of such thing, I would do everything in my power to drive them out of business and because so many people in this community support LGBT people, I don’t imagine it would be difficult. Internet word of mouth would probably take care of it at this point.

    However, I still don’t think I am wrong. You are, of course, free to do your own research and call city hall to get someone there on record saying that the ordinance allows printers to refuse to print materials such as wedding invitations for homosexuals. I don’t care enough to do the research myself and am perfectly ok with thinking that I am probably right on this issue. Not to mention that until a printer actually decides to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, there is hardly a point in pestering the folks at City Hall about it.

    I might pester them about their crappy website though. I was curious about the exact wording of the ordinance and tried to look it up. I haven’t found it. It seems to me that city ordinances would be something that the city would want to make easily accessible to citizens.

  35. Meta
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    No pizza for the gay in Indiana.


  36. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    I was able to find the city ordinance eventually. I think the issue is that the search function was returning too many results.

    Anyways, this is the relevant part:

    “No person shall discriminate in making available full and equal access to all goods, services, activities, privileges and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. ”

    If your business is printing wedding invitations and you refuse to print wedding invitations for same-sex couples, you are not making available full and equal access to the service of printing wedding invitations.

  37. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    They passed the anti-discrimination ordinance in 1998. A week before the referendum vote to revoke the ordinance, the mayor announced that the printing business that refused to print raffle tickets for a LGBTQ group on Eastern’s campus could not be considered in violation of the ordinance. The mayor said that the printing company had constitutional rights to refuse the printing job and that their action could not be considered discrimination under the local ordinance. The printing company never accepted the job, never was issued a citation, never were called in for questioning by the Human Relations Commission, and never paid a cent in fines for their refusal. In fact, there has never been a single person in the City of Ypsilanti that has been cited for violating the local anti-discrimination ordinance in regards to sexual orientation. The local ordinance has yet to be tested in court.

  38. stupid hick
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    “Could anyone name a single case in any jurisdiction over the last 20 years where a RFRA law was successfully used in order to allow anyone to refuse service to homosexuals for no other reason except that they were homosexual?”

    EOS, I’d be interested to know what RFRA laws actually have been successfully used for. Any examples?

  39. stupid hick
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    EOS, do you think Indiana Christians will abandon Pence now that he has chosen money over righteousness?

  40. Dan
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Is eos allowed to put to death any man who lieith with mankind as he lieith with womenkind? I have papers that say its ok

  41. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    EOS, …and is that former mayor a lawyer? Or were you taking legal advice from a doctor? What she said is not relevant.

    Didn’t the print shop leave town? If so, that is why they never accepted the job. They weren’t fined because the incident happened before the ordinance was passed. Anyways, I didn’t know that no one has ever been cited for being in violation of that ordinance. That makes me happy. Most of the Ypsilantians I know are the sorts to get very vocal in the face of discrimination which means that they must not have experienced the sort of overt discrimination covered by the ordinance. That’s great! See? These laws work!

    Also, iirc, when the referendum to repeal the ordinance failed, it caused Tom Monahan to leave town in a snit taking his Ava Maria University to Florida. THAT was the real win.

    Anyways that was 17 years ago. Attitudes towards homosexuality have changed substantially since then. I wouldnt count on the courts favoring a business which is discriminating based on sexual orientation.

  42. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Stupid Hick,
    I posted 10 cases earlier in this thread. Click on the Federalist link.

  43. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The print shop remained in business for several more years before they retired. The mayor repeated information given to her by the city attorney and the lawyers who wrote the ordinance. If she could have fined the print shop, she would have. The 1st ammendment is still valid in our country.

  44. Stupid Hick
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Thanks EOS. Those cases all seem pretty reasonable.

  45. Lynne
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Yes, but the first amendment has limits, which have been well tested in courts. I am not going to start looking up case law but I would be flabbergasted if a similar case hasnt arisen with other groups who have been discriminated against. Since it would be illegal for an an atheist to refuse to print raffle tickets for a church on the basis that they believe praying to be a sin, I can’t imagine that the law would be somehow different if the shop owners were the Christians.

    Anyways the laws are ridiculous anyways. Passing them has now been shown to have backlash with real financial consequences. Not to mention the huge potential to use the laws in ways likely to really make life miserable for those passing the laws. There are several already well established religions which have practices abhorrent to the Christian right. If Michigan passes such a law, I am going to start a religion where birth control is a holy sacrament. And access to abortions is a sacred right to be provided by qualified doctor/priests at our clinic/temple.

  46. Meta
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Indiana lawmakers admit “No Gays” signs will be allowed.

    During a joint press conference, Brian Bosma, Speaker of the House and the Senate’s Pro Tem David Long acknowledged that homophobic shop keepers will be allowed to display “No Gays allowed” signs.

    Here’s the exchange between the lawmakers and a reporter, as reported by Raw Story.

    “You guys have said repeatedly that we shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anyone, but if you just ignore the existence of this law, can’t we already do that now? Can’t so-and-so in Richmond put a sign up and say ‘No Gays Allowed?’” she asked. “That’s not against the law, correct?”

    “It would depend,” Bosma replied. “If you were in a community that had a human rights ordinance that wouldn’t be the case.”

    “But most of the state does not have that, correct?” the reporter pressed.

    “That’s correct,” Bosma admitted.

    Read more:

  47. EOS
    Posted April 1, 2015 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Repeating false claims doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong. Atheists are not required to help raise money for religious groups. The laws apply to everyone equally. Everyone is entitled to live by their own belief system whether or not either of us agrees with that belief system. Do whatever you want, so long as you don’t harm anyone else or attempt to force them to participate against their will. The role of government is not to determine what our personal choices might be, but to protect our right to those choices of our own determination.

  48. kjc
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    such a propagandist. you can’t even answer queries about the details. you ignore and bloviate.

    i’m happy to see this play out, actually. once these businesses start discriminating in how they offer their services, and their choices are publicized, we’ll see how long they stay open. (the pizza joint in indiana was closed last night i noticed. i guess their position didn’t keep them “protected”.) if you don’t want to serve the public, don’t open a business. you guys who worship the market and so-called free expression probably aren’t gonna like how this turns out for you. i’m laughing over here.

    (what gay people have pizza at their weddings?)

  49. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    They were stupid questions. Wedding cakes – No, Birthday cakes – yes, Gay students meeting – yes

    Keep laughing, you’ll need your sense of humor!

  50. Lynne
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Yeah. I am a little torn about that pizza place. On the one hand, I think internet outrage has gotten out of hand. People regularly ruin people’s lives over relatively small mistakes. However, in this case, I am angry at the owners of the pizza shop so I admit that while I didn’t personally participate, I enjoyed more than a little schadenfreude while reading the Yelp reviews of the place.


  51. Frosted Flakes
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    One of the greatest things about our economy is that people from different groups come together to buy, sell, and trade with each other. I would like to see trade to continue to move in the direction of inclusiveness. Look at it this way: When you take money from those people you think are doing something sinful you a) get their money; and b) you get an opportunity to express your opinion to them–face to face.

  52. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,

    I have no problem engaging in business transactions with all types of sinners. But I won’t attend a homosexual wedding or contribute my efforts to facillitate any aspect of it. That’s where I sraw the line. You draw the line differently and I won’t condemn you for it or do anything to interfere with you. I’m just asking for the same respect for my viewpoint.

  53. Dan
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    TheBlaze has raised over $100k for the pizzeria in less than a day.


    (also, pizza as a “late snack” or midnight snack at weddings is probably what they were referring to, as it’s probably the most popular choice)

  54. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 9:52 am | Permalink


  55. Frosted Flakes
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    EOS, I understand where you are coming from. We are actually not that far apart….Because I definitely support allowing some exceptions on religious grounds.

  56. Lynne
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Dan, see? There is plenty of schadenfreude to go around!

    FWIW, I also have no problem engaging in business with sinners. In fact, I work with many Christian businesses whose morals are surely not in alignment with my own. And fwiw, those same businesses would think me a sinner for sure and probably would have major problems with the left wing bent of the company where I work but to their credit, they still work with us. However, as a consumer, I think it is fair to expect all businesses not to discriminate and so I favor strong anti-discrimination laws and in the absence of those laws, I think that boycotts (while seldom effective unless most people are on board), silly yelp reviews, etc are perfectly reasonable ways of expressing displeasure. I am not ok with legally protecting bigotry though.

  57. Lynne
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    I might also point out to EOS that anti discrimination laws don’t force anyone to participate in activities they don’t want to. They only must do that if they want the privilege of operating a business of public accommodation. They can close their business at any time.

    This whole thing reminds me of an Onion article about a Christian Scientist Doctor.

  58. Dan
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    sounds like they are going to modify the law to specifically state that only churches and their affiliated schools are allowed to refuse service or goods to anybody


  59. Meta
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Snyder isn’t stupid.

    Freep Headline:
    “Snyder: I would veto a religious freedom bill”

    With the national furor swirling around Indiana’s recent decision, Gov. Rick Snyder said Thursday that he will veto a Religious Freedom Restoration Act bill if it makes it to his desk.

    “Given all the events that are happening in Indiana, I thought it would be good to clarify my position,” he said in an interview with the Free Press. “I would veto RFRA legislation in Michigan if it is a standalone piece of legislation.”

    The statement was a highly unusual one from a governor who has avoided such definitive positions. When he has been confronted with legislation he doesn’t particularly like, he has said it’s not on his agenda or that he’s focused on issues of economic importance to the state.

    Read more:

  60. Mr. Y
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    I guess not being able to eat pizza is better than being beaten to death. Senator Cotton has a point.

    …..Appearing yesterday on CNN, Senator Tom Cotton (R) urged critics of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law to get “perspective,” suggesting the treatment of LGBT people in Indiana compared favorably to countries where gay people are executed.


  61. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Michigan doesn’t need Snyder. They have more than enough votes to override any veto.

  62. kjc
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    I hope The Blaze can raise enough money for all these businesses day in and day out to offset their lost revenues. (Boycotting costs nothing. Pretty sure people can keep that up longer.) I also enjoy this image of the same people who typically hate “handouts” taking money to keep their businesses alive. Sorta hilarious. Martyrs come cheap these days.

    “I might also point out to EOS that anti discrimination laws don’t force anyone to participate in activities they don’t want to. They only must do that if they want the privilege of operating a business of public accommodation.”


    EOS needs a gay friend. Like yesterday.

  63. Dan
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    I highly doubt they have enough votes now, considering the shitstorm in indiana. and they and even arkansas are changing the wording so you have to bake a cake for a gay wedding regardless of your ridiculous “beliefs”

  64. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    If this is true, then it sounds like Arkansas got it right. No discrimination allowed against individuals while individuals are not required to endorse messages that they don’t agree with.


  65. EOS
    Posted April 2, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Over $314 thousand collected for the pizza parlor – so far. All the hatred and threats of violence were a response to an answer to a hypothetical question. Not a good way to change the hearts and minds of those who hold a different opinion. America did get a good glimpse of the discriminatory tactics of the homosexuals and are better able to recognize the need for RFRA laws. Thanks for all you did to help show the level of hoostility to religious beliefs.

  66. EOS
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 4:37 am | Permalink

    Stupid Hick,

    Yes, I think Pence has lost the support of his constituents. In a Harris poll taken yesterday, 70% of Americans do not think that bakers should be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexuals.

  67. EOS
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 6:07 am | Permalink


    These laws protect the rights of Muslims also.

  68. stupid hick
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    I don’t think bakers should be have to be forced to make wedding cakes for gays either. They should stop being bigots and do it willingly.

  69. EOS
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Never gonna happen.

  70. EOS
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    It’s bigotry to force others to adopt your views, tolerance when all views are allowed. It’s obvious who the real bigots are.

  71. jcp2
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    So it’s bigoted to be bigoted against bigots? How does that work?

  72. Lynne
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    It is entirely possible to be bigoted against bigots. Some of the response to the pizza parlor was bigoted to be sure but I still find it amazing that anyone who would support an actual law to protect their bigotry would then try to spin the story so that somehow they are the victims.

    But *this* statement takes the cake:

    “It’s bigotry to force others to adopt your views, tolerance when all views are allowed. It’s obvious who the real bigots are.”

    I am just going to assume that means that EOS will never force me to adopt her views about abortion, marijuana, treating everyone like humans even if they aren’t Christian, etc. and will continue to support keeping or making all of those things legal. j/k but I cannot wait to hear the argument for why forcing a bigot to bake a cake is different from forcing someone to stop growing a plant in their own backyard. I love the crazy hypocrisy of the right as it is very entertaining.

    Anyways, I am glad that all of this is over for now. I hope maybe the boycott of Indiana can continue though. They just convicted a women for having a miscarriage but you don’t see them passing any laws which protect pregnant women.

  73. Jcp2
    Posted April 3, 2015 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    That would be bigoted because it wouldn’t protect pregnant men, just ones that are questioning.

One Trackback

  1. […] subject, I’d like to address something that I’ve heard from a few folks in the wake of my last post about Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some, it would seem, feel as though this isn’t a big deal, as it’s just one single […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Josh Tear Header