Last edited by zip98053; 03-31-15 at 07:29 PM.
The crux of the matter:
A Perfect Storm of Hysteria and Legal Ignorance - Rich Lowry, NRO
". . . The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate ó Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people ó say, a baker or a florist ó using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad.
Why? Itís a large, diverse country, with many people of differing faiths and different points of view. More specifically, the country has an enormous wedding industry not known for its hostility to gays. The burgeoning institution of gay marriage will surely survive the occasional florist who doesnít want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding for religious reasons.
As a practical matter, such a dissenting florist doesnít make a difference; the affected couple might be offended but can take its business elsewhere. But for the Left, itís the principle of the thing. For all its talk of diversity, it demands unanimity on this question ó individual conscience be damned. So it isnít bothered when religious wedding vendors are sued or harassed under anti-discrimination laws for their nonparticipation in ceremonies they morally oppose.
Itís not clear that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will shield these kinds of business people (they havenít, to this point). It might be that more specific exemptions are necessary. But the mere possibility that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect a baker opposed to gay marriage is enough to create a furious, unhinged reaction.
Yes, there is intolerance afoot in the debate over Indiana, but itís not on the part of Indianans."
Even this is overstated IMHO. There has been no recorded case of denial of service to LGBT in Indiana.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
Harm: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.Could you please define no harm?
There is nothing about being refused service that causes physical or mental damage or any sort of injury at all. Sure, someone might die if they don't get medical care, and sure, someone might starve if they don't get food, but that was not caused by someone refusing to provide a service, but in the case of medical care, some sort of ailment, and in the case of food, hunger.
Yes, the position is insensitive, and yes, it is rather cold, but it is the truth, and in this case that is all that matters.
On the otherhand...if you are wrong about their lies.....then your statement "They have won" would have more meaning. Because they will have won something. If their attacks were truthful....then what they have won is a change in the law changing the law from being discriminatory.
So what is it? Why are you concerned about them "winning" if you really believe that what they have won is nothing? Its all about logic.