NFL still not talking about Indiana law

Getty Images

Plenty of institutions that pump millions into Indiana by staging events there have expressed concern about the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing law that ostensibly protects religious freedom by giving business owners the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers.  The NFL inexplicably has not.

Last year, the NFL spoke out as Arizona closed in on passing a similar law.  Arizona eventually opted not to proceed with a plan to legalize the shunning of people who live their private lives in a way that others feel compelled to care about, and to condemn.

This time around, the NFL has said nothing.  The league office had no comment on Thursday when PFT specifically asked for a reaction to the new Indiana law, and in nearly 24 hours since then, nothing has emanated from P.R.-obsessed 345 Park Avenue regarding the passage of a law that provides a license to discriminate in a state where an NFL franchise is located, where the Super Bowl has been played and likely will return, and where the Scouting Combine is staged every February.

Others have opted for something other than silence.  The NCAA, which soon will hold one of its marquee events in Indianapolis, had this to say about the situation:  “The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events.  We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees.  We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill.  Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”

Likewise, the major gaming convention known as Gen Con threatened to take its business elsewhere if the law passes:  “Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds.  Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.”

So why has there been nothing from the NFL?  “Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” the league said last year regarding the Arizona proposal.

The NFL’s failure to reiterate that position in relation to the Indiana law suggests that maybe the NFL’s position has changed.  If that’s not the case, the sooner the NFL says so, the better.

102 responses to “NFL still not talking about Indiana law

  1. The NFL doesn’t need to say anything. Nor should they. Put on the games, and leave the social stuff outside. Thank you.

  2. Ever notice the holy rollers always want to impose their “values” on you? They love their “freedom” but don’t respect yours. As long as no one is harmed, I don’t give a rats behind what you are or what you do.

  3. People, show your distaste for this bigoted, intolerant legislation in this bigoted, intolerant state. Email roger.goodell@nfl.com and let him know the growing money-maker known as the combine will lose viewership. Money talks. Ratings talk.

  4. Oh hey, it’s the 1950s all over again. Will there be water fountains that say “straights only” too?

    This and the war on drugs are so pointless to me. It’s not going to change people, they are who they are.

  5. Didn’t know the judicial branch included the NFL…. Seriously though if the nfl wanted to make social statements the ferguson/garner cases would be more appropriate considering the demographics of the players…

  6. The NFL would be foolish to jump into the culture wars. Silence is a better policy than taking sides. The law in question simply protects people from governmental attempts to compel association, ie it upholds the First Amendment vs the forces of political correctness.

  7. “The law in question simply protects people from governmental attempts to compel association…”

    Jim Crow says hi.

  8. The law was modeled off of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and has similar laws in 19 other states. Liberals making much about nothing. The laws is to protect the rights of business owners because they have rights too.

  9. SparkyGump says:

    Ever notice the holy rollers always want to impose their “values” on you? They love their “freedom” but don’t respect yours. 

    ————————————————————–
    We are not all that way. Those who are using the bible to hurt people are using it wrong. There are many of us us Christians that are tired of being represented by the Christian Reich.

  10. States that have a RFRA law:

    Alabama
    Connecticut
    Florida – 3 teams
    Idaho
    Illinois – 1 team
    Indiana – 1 team
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana – 1 team
    Mississippi
    Missouri – 2 teams
    New Mexico
    Oklahoma
    Pennsylvania – 2 teams
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    Tennessee – 1 team
    Texas – 2 teams
    Virginia

    13 teams (41% of the league) play in a state with a RFRA law.

  11. Why does the NFL have to say anything. It does not effect them. It just allows the NFL to choose who they let into games IF THEY WANT. NOTHING will change for the NFL if this law passes. I do not see why they should stick their heads into this discussion.

  12. “shunning of people who live their private lives in a way that others feel compelled to care about, and to condemn”

    If it’s so private why do we hear about it day in and day out 24/7 everywhere?

  13. @sparky: It is a license to discriminate.

    It is shameful that Indiana passes such garbage.

    I weep for the future of our Nation and those who can not put the Bible down and start thinking for themselves.

    Sheep, the whole lot of them.

  14. Some years ago we heard that Indiana had been a hot bed of activity for the KKK in the first part f the 20th century; that seemed odd because it had not been part of the CSA.

    However, the politics there have degenerated seriously, since about the time Richard Lugar lost a primary election.

    Roger Goodell needs to grow a pair and tell the Hoosier powers that currently reign that legislating hate will cost them. The Combine, which probably generates several million/year for Naptown, is as moveable as the draft.

    Ditto for the NCAA, although they are located in Indy. If they have learned nothing else from the Ed O’Bannon litigation, they know the cost for taking too lightly the feelings of their athletes.

    Both organizations have an opportunity to hold the feet of the Ted Cruz wannabes in a fire to help them see the serious flaws in their thinking and they should do so.

  15. Ever notice how Leftist Democrats always want to impose their “values” on you? They love their “freedom” but don’t respect yours.

  16. There should be less politics and your stubborn fixation to jump into the socialistic, communist re-programming of America to where Americans have less Freedoms of Speech and Religion and to where the government is a dictatorship who can force you to vote, pay more taxes, and can decide that football takes up too much of the government’s money and is too dangerous for the public to follow (just because the government can decide it to be so).

    Yup, that is where we are headed and deranged lawyers are leading the way to America’s demise.

  17. The NFL is under absolutey no obligation to comment on every single social political thing that happens in every single state. Since they are not religious organizations, this law does not apply to them.

    Regardless of what you think of the law, it has literally zero impact on the NFL regardless of how sexy of a story it might make.

  18. Using religion as an excuse to discriminate is disgusting…I for one will never watch the combine or knowingly support anything that draws revenue to the state of Indiana….the NFL is 100% wrong supporting this type of narrow minded thinking & by not commenting against it is a blatant statement in itself that they are not who they say they are when the make statements of being intolerant & supporting diversity as was stated above in this article
    SHAME ON THE NFL!!!! & Indianapolis as well!!!

  19. ” wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing law that ostensibly protects religious freedom by giving business owners the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers.” If your a business that rejects gays, straights, blacks, whites, yellow etc.. I think you have a right to do whatever you want in a “Free” country. I as a consumer can tell my friends and choose not to go there, your not a free American if there is laws that force you to do something against your will. The state or the federal government shouldn’t tell us how to run our lives no matter who is offended.

  20. Be careful what you wish for Christians…..this Law will allow Muslim shopkeepers to ‘deny service’ to a Christian who doesn’t have her head covered….and I guarantee you they’ll be screaming to high Heaven!!

  21. the law is not imposing any values on anybody only protecting those of the Christian faith, against those who want to impose their values on them. ever notice how liberals are all for tolerance as long as it supports their views? it is amazing to me that with all the businesses that have to do with weddings the liberals and their gay agenda feel the need to pick on small businesses with Christian views and demand they see the world the same as them. as for losing gen con. what a loss for the state. a bunch of adults walking around in costume playing pretend games, yeah somehow I think the state will survive without it. the bill just protects the rights of people who do not believe the same as you, they are not trying to force anything down you unlike the lgtbs or whatever they are called. they should not have the right to destroy peoples lives by being able to force people to accept believe the same way as they do. stop reaching with the civil rights laws, nobody is denying the access to anything they can work with other business who will gladly take their money to take pictures or bake their cake. let’s see if this site believes in tolerance and publishes this .

  22. The NFL is wise not to immediately jump into the debate.

    As noted, there are or may be similar laws in other states and they need to do their due diligence before issuing a statement. Then they should determine how to address the situation. The last thing the league needs is a PR nightmare where they blast a state only to find half the teams play in states with a similar law that was never addressed.

    I have no problem with the league issuing a diversity statement. The league is a high profile business with its success built on diversity. It is strangely compelling that this particular diversity issue that many, not all, conservatives oppose may ultimately find leadership and widespread acceptance thru the actions of big businesses.

  23. How about we not jump on ‘indiana’ for this legislation. As a resident of this state I’ve yet to meet a person that’s applauded RFRA. When you think of Indiana RFRA think of Mike Pence and the other hard line conservatives trying to make a name for themselves in preparation for a 2016 White House run.

    Yes, the politics in this state suck. Yes, there are a lot of rednecks and bible thumpers in this state but even a lot of them are second guessing this.

    There is massive public outcry against this bill within the state. Pence hid away, signed the bill, and then issued an HIV state of emergency in a southern county to attempt to distract from RFRA.

  24. It’s fun to demagogue, but if people really understood these laws I don’t think they would be so outraged. This law doesn’t give you the right to refuse service willy-nilly. You have to have a darn good reason, just as the government would have to have a darn good reason to force you to do something that violates your private values. If a photographer doesn’t want to take pictures at a gay wedding, the photographer should have that right. The couple can easily find another photographer who would be happy to celebrate their union with them. Can’t you see some people deliberately trying to force certain bakeries, photographers, or florists into providing services at their wedding just to make a social statement?

  25. I commend Arizona for having the guts to take a stand against illegal aliens. They have been fighting a losing battle against illegals because the federal government — including our Presidents — have given them no help.

    As for your article, you tell us this law in Arizona allows discrimination against gays, but you don’t tell us how it does that. Why not enlighten us?

    Finally, I am in agreement with not discriminating against gays. But — I draw the line when they try to tell the rest of the population how they should feel about their lifestyle. No one has the right to do that, and that’s discrimination in and of itself.
    Gays scoff at people who are religious and believe that it’s a sin to do what they do. Well — too bad. Just as they want to be accepted, so should they respect the beliefs of good people who abide by the beliefs of their religion.

    My view is, the sooner we all accept that there are gays among us, the better it will be. And the sooner we don’t have to hear about this stuff anymore, the better I will like it.

    As for the NFL, they should feel no obligation to have to bow down to pressure from anyone on this. The last time I looked, Arizona is a part of America and the NFL should not have any reservations about playing there.

  26. SparkyGump says: Mar 27, 2015 9:40 AM

    Ever notice the holy rollers always want to impose their “values” on you? They love their “freedom” but don’t respect yours. As long as no one is harmed, I don’t give a rats behind what you are or what you do.

    ————————–

    Change the words “holy rollers” to “liberals” or “democrats” or “the media” and you’d have a factual statement.

    Most Christians are simply fighting back against the government trying to force them to violate their beliefs, in clear violation of the first amendment.

    But let’s ignore the facts because it doesn’t match with your “tolerance.”

  27. I don’t want some religious nut or nonreligious nut telling me what to do. Period. I want them to extend dignity which the human life deserves (and do the same to them). You have the right to your beliefs regardless if you are wrong. This goes for every side of religious debates. Listening to an atheist pontificate about how absurd religion is, is the most ridiculous religious argument ever. We are talking football here, right?

  28. So, this law will allow cable companies in Indiana to choose whom they want to provide service? Allow grocery stores who have pharmacies attached the ability to deny somebody medications and food? Car dealerships can deny selling somebody a car based on their gender, race or sexual preference? A restaurant can choose not to allow potential patrons an opportunity to eat in their establishment?

    What a terrible law for any state.

  29. how can a business, other than those involved in religious affairs of some sort, even have a religious belief?

    I can see how the owners of a business may have a particular belief, but I don’t see how a business can. Of course, unless you believe businesses are people.

  30. I have lived in Indiana for almost eight years now, and I can unequivocally say that is the crappiest state in the country. You can’t even buy a freaking bottle of wine on Sunday. Working hard on getting the heck out of this place.

  31. Florio Believer says:Mar 27, 2015 10:37 AM

    Be careful what you wish for Christians…..this Law will allow Muslim shopkeepers to ‘deny service’ to a Christian who doesn’t have her head covered….and I guarantee you they’ll be screaming to high Heaven!!
    ________________________

    Actually I am perfectly fine with that. You assume they are the only shop in town. We live in a free – market which means I am free to find someone else who would like to take my money. If you turn too many folks away, then you go out of business. Funny how the free market lets the customer make the real choice…

  32. Love the comments from those outside of Indiana that haven’t even taken the time to read the law in question. This new law puts “religious belief” above the law of man. It literally says no law or statute is exempt from the religious freedom law unless the state explicitly says so. That’s a mighty large can of worms to be opening.

    Murdering your cheating wife and her lover can be deemed as “exercising religious belief”. The bible practically demands the killing of adulterers…. Just one twisted, albeit probably unintended consequence, of this new law…

  33. Just another reason the nation will cheer when the Pats do absolutely unspeakable things to the Colts next season when they play.

  34. Mormons don’t accept African-Americans along with LGBT individuals. So now in Indiana could a Mormon business owner refuse service to an AA customer as well? This is a slippery slope and that’s whey the separation of church and state needs to be defended.

  35. I’m certain all the good folks in Indiana are all obeying those Ten Commandments set forth in the Old Testament …

    That’s why their state’s rednecks feel they’re ready for an 11th.

    Surely they wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to practice Selective Enforcement now, would they? … You know, just obeying the ones they want .. and ignoring the rest?

  36. Strange how only biblical verses against groups are important. The other stuff like ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’, ‘we’re all made in God’s image’, etc. are irrelevant to those who want to discriminate.

    The Bible was regularly used against women and African-Americans at one time. I guess it’s now time to use it against gays. Really sad stuff.

  37. As a former professor of New Testament I can attest that this bill is profoundly un-Christian. First, Jesus mandated that we treat others as we would have them treat us [the so-called Golden Rule]. Second, Jesus made a deliberate and concerted effort to socialize and befriend the spiritually marginalized. Examples include prostitutes, drunkards, and the notoriously corrupt Roman tax collectors who would took far more money from people then the tax demanded. Jesus was condemned for this action, but he knew these were the people who needed his message. If Jesus were here in person today, I believe her would condemn the actions of these so-called Christians.

  38. Businesses and business owners serve people they may not like, agree with, trust or want to associate with everyday. I fail to see the point in allowing religious beliefs to determine who can receive service. It’s nonsense. Unless the customer walks into the store naked or is causing some sort of disturbance, be a freakin’ professional and DO YOUR JOB. Millions of people get up and deal with crappy customers everyday. Otherwise, take your store out of the public marketplace and go service a commune of like-minded tribesman. This is beyond silly. If you’re a baker, you just might have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Get over it. Be a professional. Bake the stupid cake and move on. Geeeeesh!

  39. You do realize that 20 other states have a law like this right?

    So, when is ESPN packing up and leaving Connecticut over this type of law?

  40. The bill simply says that local community relations commissions can’t force businesses or social groups to serve or interact with people they fundamentally disagree with. It protects the First Amendment right of association vs claims of discrimination. If it didn’t then local government agencies could order the local Catholic parish to stop discriminating against women by not letting them become priests. I think everyone would agree that’s a clear cut example of discrimination but it’s also constitutionally protected. Same thing with the right of a photographer to take the jobs he wants.

  41. Should the NFL speak out against any state with such a law? I think so, but these laws are not affecting the business aspect in any real way. People of all race, creed and orientation use the same currency and that is what the NFL and its owners really worship.

  42. This is just politics at work. 99.99 percent of the time that a LGBT customer walks into a Christian owned business there are no problems or issues that arise on either side. The .01% of the time usually starts with either party being overly dramatic and trying to push either their agenda or just trying to create a story to get the medias attention. Politics and the media get involved and try to insight a riot. They want the pitchfork wielders to come on on both sides. Our two political party system runs on hating the other side more than trusting your own side. So they find a small issue and make it huge, and tell you how the other side is trying to take away your freedoms. At some point we are going to figure out that the actual public is not at odds with one another, it is just the media doing its bidding for the political parties that are pushing this agenda.

  43. “If it’s so private why do we hear about it day in and day out 24/7 everywhere?”

    Because people are being oppressed, and that’s wrong. Some people have to hide aspects of their life in fear of being shunned or penalized by the majority based on aspects of their being which they are powerless to change. Until that is no longer the case, the roar should be loud.

    The NFL should speak out against this law because they have stated support towards inclusiveness and tolerance. They also have a loud, far reaching voice. They can do something against this ugly law, and therefor they should.

    And let’s all just quit the “I should have freedom to restrict the freedom of others, and the freedom to treat whoever I want as a second class citizen” b.s.

  44. Kingmj4891 says: Mar 27, 2015 9:59 AM

    The law was modeled off of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and has similar laws in 19 other states. Liberals making much about nothing. The laws is to protect the rights of business owners because they have rights too.

    —————

    Those laws are nothing more than updated Jim Crow laws. I fail to see how any “Christian” is harmed by rendering their normal services to someone of a different sexual orientation.

  45. @truths4all

    Which freedom is it, that you want to protect?

    The Freedom to businesses to discriminate based on sexual preference? Or the right to be free of discrimination regardless of sexual preference?

    If you are worried about Americans having less freedoms, then whose freedoms are most important here? Somebody has less freedom at the end of the day either way.

  46. The Bill sounds good to me. It gives people a Choice. I’d rather have a choice then to be forced to do business with someone because the government says you have to. Why should a Christen be forced to marry a gay couple if they don’t believe in it & goes against their religious views, or a photographer be forced to do a gay wedding because the government says so. It’s like Gays want to be the only people with rights, force their views for social statements. They take our rights away because of their “private” life..

  47. truehoosier62 says:
    Mar 27, 2015 9:34 AM
    The NFL doesn’t need to say anything. Nor should they. Put on the games, and leave the social stuff outside. Thank you.

    ———————

    Yea sure glad they stayed out of the civil rights movement too.

  48. Kingmj4891 says:
    Mar 27, 2015 9:59 AM
    The law was modeled off of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and has similar laws in 19 other states. Liberals making much about nothing. The laws is to protect the rights of business owners because they have rights too.

    —————

    Should we pass laws so they don’t have to hire people of certain races too? Didn’t think so.

  49. This impacts the NFL’s employees and customers, so the NFL should be speaking up about this.

    This law is using religion as false cover to bring back segregation. It gives business the right to be whites only (all you have to do is say that serving non-whites violates your religion). Likewise, it legalizes discrimination based on religion, sex, blood type, you name it.

    Those state laws being cited as evidence that this law is ok … SCOTUS is striking them all down.

    Georgia just tabled their version of this law because anti-discrimination language was added to the bill. The bigots said they could no longer support it.

  50. The Bill sounds good to me. It gives people a Choice. I’d rather have a choice then to be forced to do business with someone because the government says you have to. Why should a Christen be forced to marry a gay couple if they don’t believe in it & goes against their religious views, or a photographer be forced to do a gay wedding because the government says so. It’s like Gays want to be the only people with rights, force their views for social statements. They take our rights away because of their “private” life…
    _____________________

    Oh the word “choice.”

    Choices are being narrowed here at the same time. You are happy to give the shop owner the choice. But you are not realizing you are removing the choice of the buyer to use whoever they want for a service.

    Let say a heterosexual couple go in to the local bakery for a wedding cake. In the conversation it comes out that they work for Planned Parenthood. The bakery owner is opposed religiously to what they stand for. Can the bakery refuse service to the heterosexual couple too? Or suppose they don’t work for Planned Parenthood. They are pregnant at the visit and sex prior to marriage is against their beliefs. Can they refuse service there also.

    What a terrible law!

  51. And they shouldn’t talk about it. It’s none of the NFL’s bee’s-wax. The NFL (and all Sports) need to stay out of politics. Their jobs are playing a game, which doesn’t exactly require an IQ above 70…and neither does posting on PFT. Politicians answer to voters…which is the way it should be.

  52. I may add, as a Christian who goes to church every Sunday and is progressive, and realizes that sections of the Bible that are 3500 years old cannot be taken with literal interpretation (a subject not for a Sports blog site), many conservative or fundamental Christians, only want to use those sections of the Bible they can use against gay or lesbian people. Hence the Religious Freedoms to discriminate because what you do is against what I believe in.

    These folks seem not to concern themselves with the other sins they could focus on. Perhaps those other sins hit too close to home. And if they discriminated on those basis’, they’d not have many customers.

    BTW, the bible does not define one sin worse than another. However, Jesus did define the 2 most important comandments. One of those was to Love your neighbor as you would yourself. I guess Jesus forgot to say unless he’s gay!

  53. Strange how people think it’s OK to force other people to work for them. You think it’s OK to force me, against my will, to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding? Or photograph it? Isn’t that called ‘slavery’?

    I think we should force white Congressmen into the Congressional Black Caucus — that’s what you’re all saying, essentially: That they do NOT have the right of free association. That someone else’s ‘rights’ trump theirs.

  54. bunkmcnulty says:
    Mar 27, 2015 1:44 PM
    “I may add, as a Christian who goes to church every Sunday and is progressive, and realizes that sections of the Bible that are 3500 years old…”
    —————

    Add another couple of thousand years, and pay attention during Sunday school classes.

  55. True FREEDOM is found in the Gods Word, the Declaration of Independence and beginning with the 1st & 2nd amendments.

  56. They’ve already stated their position. Do they really have to do each time one of these situations comes up?

  57. Businesses already have the right to deny service to anyone they don’t want to do business with.

    We don’t need laws that state its ok to discriminate against a particular group which is exactly what this law is.

    I manage a company that rarely turns down business but once in a great while we do. For example I love animals and am a rescuer. When a company involved in animal experimentation wanted to do business with us I refused. That was our right to do so and we didn’t need a law to state that.

  58. For or against, I find it interesting how Christians like to interpret what they want out of that book as literal…not much of a devotee when you just embrace the parts that reflect your own personal views anyway or what’s politically correct at the moment!

  59. Actually, we do have a Law that is irreversible and guarantees the right for a business owner to discriminate against anyone or thing that would discriminate against them.

    It is called the 1st Amendment.

  60. bunkmcnulty says: Mar 27, 2015 1:44 PM

    “I may add, as a Christian who goes to church every Sunday and is progressive, and realizes that sections of the Bible that are 3500 years old cannot be taken with literal interpretation”

    So which sections can and cannot be taken literally, and who decides?

  61. fireeyes111 says: Mar 27, 2015 1:57 PM

    “Even weirder considering Irsay has a long historic of Democratic donations.”

    Wait, are you under the impression that Irsay has the ability/power to make law in Indiana?

  62. Let’s all be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ by stomping on the throats of those who dare to disagree with the liberal media!

    Remember, all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others.

  63. Gays like to assume that JC never condemned their lifestyle choice.

    That is a serious miscalculation as they really have not accepted or embraced that JC has passed judgment on that subject:

    He said: “Before Abraham IAM” and “I did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it.”

  64. The over-the-top rhetoric in these comments are pure gold. Comparing forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding to slavery? I could not write anything so hilarious.

    Everyone loves using the restaurant or wedding photographer example. Mainly because when it is something so innocuous it fits their side of the argument. What about something that is not so innocuous? Won’t fill prescriptions because the person is gay? Won’t represent them as a lawyer because the person is gay? “They’ll just go to someone else, the free market will decide!” is the usual answer. You saw how well the free market ended racial segregation. There is not always choice for people. People need to stop thinking of capitalism/the free market as a cure-all.

  65. Three things to know about JC:

    JC fulfilled the Law so that the Law may remain in effect to judge those who are contrary to G-d.

    JC fulfilled the Law so that those who come to Him will not be judged by the Law.

    JC fulfilled the Law so that He may write the Law upon our hearts so that we do that which is right before G-d.

    JC said that if you obey just 2 commandments of G-d you will, in effect, obey the whole Law of G-d.

    Love G-d with all your heart, soul, mind & strength
    Love your neighbor/brother as yourself.

  66. Someone said……
    “Everyone loves using the restaurant or wedding photographer example. Mainly because when it is something so innocuous it fits their side of the argument. What about something that is not so innocuous? Won’t fill prescriptions because the person is gay? Won’t represent them as a lawyer because the person is gay? “They’ll just go to someone else, the free market will decide!” is the usual answer.”

    Your example changes what these laws do.
    The reason the photographer and wedding cake examples fit is because these activities cause the business owner to participate in the ceremony.
    To participate in something that is against their beliefs. That is not exactly innocuous. Especially the photographer. He has to be at the ceremony.

    As for your Rx example. Show the connection where the pharmacist has to participate in order to fill a gay person’s Rx?
    You are still not allowed to put up a sign “no gays will be served.”
    In the famous wedding cake example, the bakery actually tried to find common ground, like making the cake but not decorating it or delivering it.

  67. tomtravis76 says:
    Mar 27, 2015 11:14 AM

    So, this law will allow cable companies in Indiana to choose whom they want to provide service? Allow grocery stores who have pharmacies attached the ability to deny somebody medications and food? Car dealerships can deny selling somebody a car based on their gender, race or sexual preference? A restaurant can choose not to allow potential patrons an opportunity to eat in their establishment?
    _________

    No, no, no, and no.

  68. harrisonhits2 says:
    Mar 27, 2015 2:38 PM

    I manage a company that rarely turns down business but once in a great while we do. For example I love animals and am a rescuer. When a company involved in animal experimentation wanted to do business with us I refused. That was our right to do so and we didn’t need a law to state that.
    _______

    That’s because the company you turned away didn’t try to sue you for discriminating against them because they are part of a protected class. You’re correct that you have the right to do business with who you choose but sometimes we need laws that do nothing more than make what is spelled out in the First Amendment more specific.

  69. pftstory–

    i agree entirely. the key distinction here is providing services as though to anyone. like at a restaurant. but compulsory participation in ceremonies like weddings are, i think, far more troublesome. perhaps some intelligible line could be drawn between the two.
    Well done on your analysis, sir/madam.

  70. Exactly. Move on. California has 3 teams and the state ignores federal immigration laws. NFL has no problem pushing to add 2 more teams there! There’s a lot of strange state laws out there.

  71. “Giving businesses freedom” is the typical GOP spin for something which hamstrings the rights of ccertain customers.
    Maybe in a big city you can go to the extra trouble of finding a different business that provides the same service. But in small towns if they say they aren’t going to serve you it can be a lot more difficult.

  72. Oh my, challenges to ones thinking. I do enjoy a debate.

    @cdollaz
    As to which sections of the Bible to take literally and which not. That is an involved answer.

    Since parts of the Bible are thousands of years old (as I have been corrected once) we go to a time when civilization was largely illiterate. Not to mention those things recorded weren’t done as easy as you and I typing this messages. You had readers and scribes and this was done by humans, in some cases in languages that don’t even exist any longer. So for me to say, the divine inspiration of God has been 100% accurately recorded over time, I just can’t go there. Obviously Christian religions practically prove this by having some many versions of Christian Bibles. Some have different books. This is hardly a debate started new here.

    So when someone cherry picks sections to say this is an absolute, I have an issue with that. I tend to rely much more heavily on the gospels where you have several interpretations of stories. Even they have differences. These are the more recent stories and less likely to suffer from accuracy of stories passed down over time.

  73. No Debate Required – Just Acceptance

    For anyone who is unsure what to accept as literal from the Bible – here is the best place to start: John 12: 44 -50

    JC said: ” …if anyone hears My words and does not accept them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.”

    “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, will be judged by that which the Father has approved -the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”

    JC & the Father made it simple for us.
    AND
    He hasn’t changed his mind, as some would have you to believe.

  74. This is what happens when xenophobic zealots make laws. Separation of church and state needs to be upheld.

    The NCAA has made stands regarding this issue.

  75. I am a Christian and I am 100% for Separation of Church and State.

    The ‘Church’ that the Founding Fathers (who read and upheld the Bible as Truth) referred to is “Organized Religion” such as the Catholic Church which persecuted Bible trusting Christians and many Scientists (who were Christians).

    The Founding Fathers loved G-d’s Word so much so that they formed the Declaration of Independence from it as well as the 1st & 2nd Amendments which are the ABSOLUTE Foundation for FREEDOM.

    The leftist illiterate cry of “Separation of Church & State is a hijacked perversion of the original & trustworthy meaning.
    The militant leftist who hates G-d and His Moral Code for FREEDOM and arrogantly scoffs at those who know G-d. These people will not stop until they seduce the minds of children with their perverse ways.

    True Separation means Government cannot dictate religion ( ATHEISM) to the people. Neither shall the people be subjects of such Religion (Sharia Law) that controls and manipulates True Government.
    Morals, Ethics, Human Rights – Marriage between a Man & Woman is a Right, owning land is a Right and so on. Murder is not a right – all children have a right to live and be protected.

  76. “All Men created Equal by their Creator” comes from the Bible and no where else on this earth.

    Evolution is what Hitler, the Nazis, the KKK, and other cults adhere to.

    Evolution is NOT fact based but only a theory, yet it is illegally forced upon children and educators.

    Evolution is a clear violation of Separation Church and State whereas the Church of Atheism has gained political control in government and is forced upon the peoples educational upbringing.

  77. I believe this law terrible, goes into territory should not be revisited and is a suicide pact of mass stupidity by IN Republicans. But how does the NFL reconcile actions based on infringement of rights against IN, which would perfectly legitimate, but consider playing games in China?

  78. rodvmunchiii says: Mar 27, 2015 7:59 PM

    Force churches to perform gay marriages, how very tolerant of the left.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This is a whole can of worms. And on the surface from a Google search nothing more than spin in the US.

    My view is that most religions are intolerable toward gays ( and those presumably are loosing vast attendance ) while some are excepting and would be sought out if the couple were wanting this type of union. However there are much easier avenues afforded for them to get married.

  79. Reminds me of the public smoking bans in my state. I don’t smoke but feel business owners have the right to allow it if they so choose. Just as I have the right to take my business elsewhere.

    I see nothing wrong these sort of laws as long as the discriminatory businesses are required to state their convictions up front on a sign that is able to be seen upon entering. I don’t want to unknowingly give my hard earned cash to bigots, racists, pro-lifers, or tea party supporters(…and no, I’m not a liberal), so it would be nice to know what kind of person is profiting from my patronage before entering. Right now I have to do my research. A sign out front would make life much easier.

    Seems fair to me. If one wants to discriminate, it’s one’s right to do so as a business owner, but you have to be up front and open about it.

  80. solo681 says: Mar 27, 2015 10:06 PM

    “Evolution is NOT fact based but only a theory.”

    Actually it IS based on factual evidence. Evolution has been proven in laboratories, in fossil records, and in nature itself. To say it’s not based on FACT, is to be biased and ignorant of the truth and the reality that surrounds you.

  81. bu2b1970 says:
    Mar 28, 2015 4:27 PM

    “Evolution has been proven in laboratories, in fossil records, and in nature itself. ”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Evolution is a Theory –

    Evolution CANNOT be reproduced in the laboratory and NEVER has, as it is IMPOSSIBLE since it does not now, nor ever existed.

    The Fossil Record is FACTUAL EVIDENCE for Creation.
    Not one single fossil record points to, nor is evidence of the THEORY of Evolution. Billions of fossils around the world are evidence of creation as each animal is distinctly it’s own species. There is not on, NOT ONE, fossil in billions that has any fact based evidence for evolution.

    G-d’s creation is adaptable. Adaption is part of G-d’s DNA coding in animals, plants, creation itself and observable scientific evidence of adaptation of species is evident around the world.

    Evolution is NOT adaptation but an UNPROVABLE theory.

    So your statement has zero factual evidence to support it and is 100% false.

    Evolution, at best, is a joke and the punch line for atheists.

  82. Our DNA as well as DNA of living things and creation as a whole is undisputable factual scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator/Designer.

    DNA is a specific intelligent coding that has been intelligently thought out and created. That is Laboratory Scientific Factual Observable Evidence.

    DNA, by itself alone, destroys the theory of evolution and proves it to be the biggest joke/scam ever accepted by the masses.

    Evolutionary theory is the factual evidence of the willful ignorance on the part of those who reject God and the evidence of God.

  83. Evolution is purely faith based and is the religion of those who reject the scientific evidence of G-d and of His Jurisdiction over creation and in particular – mankind.

    Faith in what G-d has shown to us, is fact based. He has given the factual scientific observable evidence right under our noses, under our feet, before our eyes and with our senses to discover, observe and educate ourselves with.

    Since it is everywhere we look, especially in the mirror and under the microscope, it then becomes a choice of what we do with the evidence.

    The fossil record is G-d’s record of judgment upon a world that violently rebelled against Him.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

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