- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They're viciously dishonest for believing the proponents of the bill. Got it.
More seriously, this is from a story today, and is consistent with lots of other stories on the amendments rejected by lawmakers:
The viciously dishonest critics aren't stupid and so watched that happen. When given the chance to clarify the law to guarantee it wouldn't be a tool to overturn local ordinances, the GOP said HELL NO!!! Someone in this thread mentioned Texas attempting to use "religious freedom" legislation to overturn local ordinances dealing with civil rights for LGBT. Here's one story. Can you guarantee me that the Indiana RFRA cannot be used to overturn local ordinances?
And the bottom line is the backers of this legislation in Indiana and elsewhere aren't stupid. They're well funded, organized, headed by smart people playing a long game, and it would be a mistake to take their coordinated efforts lightly. Somehow your assurances don't mean a whole lot given the muscle and coordination on this particular issue by groups that are proudly and vocally against SSM and contemptuous of civil rights being extended to LGBT. They tell us their goals, and you expect people not to believe them. That would be a mistake.
Indiana and the Intolerant Left - David French, National Review
". . . While it’s hardly surprising to see legally ignorant sportswriters use the language of segregated lunch counters, it’s disturbing to see well-informed CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook conjuring up the specter of the Old South. Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations. . . . "