this makes the "protesters" look rather silly, actually.
they were told from the outset that this bill didn't permit discrimination, and the swift clarification simply proves that was correct.
What is the point of the law now?
LOL....what good is it if we can't discriminate against gays!
What is the point of the law now?
Wrong. Nice try though. The additional language is what makes it so it doesn't permit discrimination.
What does the law actually do now?
matches the federal religious freedom act, but applies to the state. Now it doesn't allow private companies to discriminate and then claim religion as a reason for it when they're sued.
Personally, I think all these laws should be overturned, but at least now indiana is no worse than the fed'l govt
What does the law actually do now?
it was never a permit to discriminate... not ever.
y'all were told that from the beginning.. and then Pence and the Indiana legislature had to go back and spell it out for the mental midgets.
congratulations, the only thing of substance you accomplished was making a pizza parlor family richer... well done.:lamo
Riiiiiiiiight. If you believe that....then explain why Pence refused to answer the point blank question. There is no doubt that the law was intended to allow private businesses to deny services to gays. All you have to do is look at he timing and the people behind it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool or a liar.
Riiiiiiiiight. If you believe that....then explain why Pence refused to answer the point blank question. There is no doubt that the law was intended to allow private businesses to deny services to gays. All you have to do is look at he timing and the people behind it. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool or a liar.
Don't know why he's complaining anyway, since he is giddy at any such discrimination
This is politicians trying to save face and claim some kind of justification for their position even existing, after they passed a law that nearly (and still might) wrecked havoc on the state's economy
If they wanted to "clarify" that it doesn't allow discrimination, they could have easily done so from the start
Are you disappointed now that it can't be used to discriminate against gays?
if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.
from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.
Well what's interesting to me about it is the religious right is crying that this neuters their discriminatory law, while dems are crying that it doesn't go far enough...
I think the latter refers to the fact there still isn't a civil rights law for lgbt in most of indiana. What "rfra" aimed to do was remove the protections in the 12 cities, because even that was too much for the religious right
.. it's called a clarification... it's been all over the news that they were adding in words to clarify what the bill does and doesn't do.Um, if it wasn't a permit to discriminate, they wouldn't have to amend it, would they?
if it was intended to allow discrimination, they wouldn't have added a clarification that resulted in the exact opposite of it's intent.
from day 1, they were saying it was not a permit to discriminate... now we know they were telling the truth.
you admitting as much in inconsequential to the fact.
They were back peddling away from the original intent because of the publish uproar. Do you seriously not understand this or are you trolling?
ahh... so you too believe they changed the law to the exact opposite of it's alleged original intent?
I believe they clarified the bill along the lines of what they were saying since day 1
Well it all turned out good in the end. No discrimination and everyone is happy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?