Colts, Irsay issue statements on Indiana law

Getty Images

Earlier today, the NBA and the Pacers addressed the controversial new Indiana law that potentially permits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the guise of religious freedom.  Coincidentally (or otherwise), the NFL and the Colts have now done so, too.

“The Colts have always embraced inclusiveness, tolerance, and a diverse fan base,” Colts owner Jim Irsay said on Twitter. “We welcome ALL fans to Colts Nation.  ONE FAMILY!”

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” the NFL said in a statement.  “We are continuing to analyze the implications of the law.”

If that sounds familiar, it should.  It tracks the language of the statement issued last year as Arizona was considering the passage of a similar law.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” the NFL said at the time.

While both the Colts and the NFL have made it clear that they oppose discrimination of any kind, neither the team nor the league have indicated whether and to what extent they’ll push back against the Indiana law.  With the Scouting Combine an annual fixture in Indianapolis and the city handling the Super Bowl so well that it could return, the Colts and the league have leverage to force the kind of change that will honor the concepts articulated above.

162 responses to “Colts, Irsay issue statements on Indiana law

  1. It’s not uncommon for businesses to push back against lawmakers and laws. In this case it would be to ensure that all employees and fans are treated with equal respect. I’d like to see the Colts and NFL take Gov Pence to the woodshed.

  2. I have been doing a lot of Colts bashing since deflategate but kudos to Irsay and the Colts on this one.

  3. I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.

    Be consistent, guys.

  4. “While both the Colts and the NFL have made it clear that they oppose discrimination of any kind, neither the team nor the league have indicated whether and to what extent they’ll push back against the Indiana law. With the Scouting Combine an annual fixture in Indianapolis and the city handling the Super Bowl so well that it could return, the Colts and the league have leverage to force the kind of change that will honor the concepts articulated above.”

    Florio, well said.

  5. you folks are woefully misinformed…that, or intellectually dishonest about what the law really does…

  6. I think it’s important for people on this site understand that the citizens of Indiana DID NOT want this. These Republicans ran on “economy economy economy” and the first thing they did upon seizing power is shove religion down our throats.

  7. coltscamp says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:40 PM
    I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.

    Be consistent, guys.

    —-

    It’s actually only 19 other states. But simply because “other people do it” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attacked vitriolically (word? apparently).

    It’s a terrible law that should never have made it passed whatever bigot submitted the bill and claims it has something to do with religion.

  8. “I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.”

    *19

    Also, read the specific laws, Indiana’s is far more onerous than a vast majority of the other 19.

    But, you know…don’t let facts get in the way…

  9. I fail to see how some of you guys can support this law. It blatantly discriminates against someone based on their sexual orientation. Some people hide their hatred behind religion, and it’s sad.

  10. Isn’t there like 20 States with similar laws?

    Including all the States from the other three teams in the AFC South division.

    Not that I know the nuances of each law.

  11. Coltscamp said: I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.
    ———————————————————–

    Except this is a bald-faced lie. The other religious freedom laws prevent the government from imposing actions on individuals (e.g. not letting an inmate celebrate a religious holiday), they do NOT allow for business owners to discriminate against other individuals. Indiana is the only state to pass such a bill (Arizona was the first attempt, but of course the governor didn’t sign it).

  12. I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.

    Be consistent, guys

    ______________________

    An easy mistake to make, but this is actually not true. The iteration of the law at the federal level and most states provide that it cannot be used as a defense to discriminatory action. Indiana’s version, however, specifically provides that it can be used as a defense if you get sued for discrimination, thus de facto allowing it. That’s a huge distinction.

  13. This is only an issue because of the “R” in front of Pence’s title.

    So if you’re a muslim screen printer and I order 100 “Death to Allah” t-shirts you should print them no questions asked?

    No. You shouldn’t but you shouldn’t get sued for it either.

  14. Whatever happened to a business’ right to refuse service to anyone. Remember “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? If a business owner chooses not to do business with a segment of the community based on whatever belief then that should be his right as a business owner. If the market place makes that a bad business decision for the business owner to make and his business suffers, so be it. This is America, people are supposed to be free. If you don’t like how a business is ran, who they serve etc…go someplace else to do your business. That is what this law is about. Businesses should not be taken to court over the owner’s beliefs, the market place should dictate what happens in these situations.

  15. Business owners should be able to deny service to anyone in any situation. If you have too much sugar in your tank go elsewhere.

  16. FREEDOM of RELIGION,,Accept all,,,,,except for my christian religion right? My religious rights don’t count right? If a child molester walks into my shop, I have to make a cake for his wedding regardless of my beliefs…RIGHT? RIGHT? Because the courts thus far have ruled that regardless of my values and morals,,,I have to accepet theirs and work for them RIGHT?
    It’s like that nasty little thing called the 1st ammendment,,,freedom of speech,,, right,,,for everybody right? Except conservatives and then it’s called hate speech, because we express our opinion for traditional values.

  17. Well, the combine is definitely out of LukasOil stadium now and they won’t be winning any Super Bowl bids any time soon. Had that law passed in AZ, they wouldn’t have played it there either.

  18. jsm08 says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:52 PM
    This is only an issue because of the “R” in front of Pence’s title.

    So if you’re a muslim screen printer and I order 100 “Death to Allah” t-shirts you should print them no questions asked?

    No. You shouldn’t but you shouldn’t get sued for it either

    No, you should ask your Imam to issue a fatwa calling for the death of the person that blasphemed Allah.

  19. Indiana’s version, however, specifically provides that it can be used as a defense if you get sued for discrimination,

    ———–

    Can you please show me which part of the bill you are referring to? I must be missing it. Thanks

  20. I’m a strong fiscal conservative but laws like this Re bD for everyone and will be the undoing of the Republican Party. And for anyone that is claiming that a law like this exists anywhere else in the country is either lying or don’t have a clue what they are talking about. There is no question this law will be struck down by the courts but by then the dance will be done to the Republican Party unless the national party comes out strongly against it.

  21. Should a black owned and operated establishment need to serve members of the KKK? Nobody should be forced to serve others – even if you disagree with the premise. There is nowhere in the constitution where it says a person is forced to serve others.

  22. patriottony says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:57 PM

    FREEDOM of RELIGION,,Accept all,,,,,except for my christian religion right? My religious rights don’t count right? If a child molester walks into my shop, I have to make a cake for his wedding regardless of my beliefs…RIGHT? RIGHT? Because the courts thus far have ruled that regardless of my values and morals,,,I have to accepet theirs and work for them RIGHT?
    It’s like that nasty little thing called the 1st ammendment,,,freedom of speech,,, right,,,for everybody right? Except conservatives and then it’s called hate speech, because we express our opinion for traditional values.
    _________________________________

    I concur, but I still hate the Patriots lol

  23. If atheists came up with a similar law allowing for businesses to refuse to serve the faithful, the Christian Right would be screaming bloody murder, and everyone knows it. Do unto others…and go Colts.

  24. ONE FAMILY simply means that Roger Goodell will cash checks equally from any race, creed, or color (and pay no federal taxes to boot ). Please don’t bite the diversity cheese that the NFL is dangling…they simply want…mo money.

  25. People often fear most in others, that which they fear most in themselves.

    Legislators who pass and voters who vote for these sorts of laws, obviously have skeletons in their “closets”.

  26. This World Was Made For All Men – Stevie Wonder 1972 album Songs in the Key of Life. Lyrics are still appropriate today.

  27. I don’t blame people for not understanding what this law is really about because gay activists do not tell the truth about it. They want you to believe any bigot can deny service at a hotel or a restaurant just because an individual is gay. That isn’t true at all. If this bill is really so bad, why can’t they just tell the truth about it and allow people to make an informed decision? You know why.

  28. Indiana law differs from the federal law and from the 19 states with related statutes in not just allowing individuals protection for religious practices (such as for smoking peyote) but also in allowing a BUSINESS to claim rights to “the free exercise of religion.”

    It’s one thing for me to say that I don’t want to shake hands with a member of a certain minority for fear of getting cooties or some other nonsense, but it is another to extend such bigoted policies to my business (a policy to be enforced by ALL of my employees, just because I say so)

  29. While the NBA and the NFL make statements,, what will the NCAA do? Their headquarters are in Indianapolis and their biggest annual event is playing out there this weekend.

    Long story short, while the NFL could threaten to pull the combine without wreaking to much havoc upon itself, the NCAA is heavily invested in Indiana, just the way former Indy mayor Hudnut envisioned. They should grow a pair and push back against the ALEC acolytes that infest Indiana’s, and many other states, legislatures.

  30. Remember “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service?”
    ===
    That’s typically a health code thing.

    You’re thinking of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” which pretty much doesn’t exist in public accommodation thanks to the CRA of 1964 and subsequent court decisions.

  31. Irsay didn’t say squat maybe a or person made that statement irsay is too busy gettin drunk & popping pills, getting loaded high enough to last till his next aa/na meeting

  32. erod22 says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:54 PM
    Why does Freedom of Religion only seem to apply to people aren’t religious?

    This is flat-out wrong. You just only notice when it applies to people who don’t share *your* religion. That doesn’t mean they aren’t religious. And it doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect atheists as well.

  33. I seriously don’t think anyone talking about this law, understands this law.
    ===
    Three hundred word or less. Go!

  34. Unpopular indeed, but this country was founded in a great majority because of Religious Freedom. Just Sayin.

  35. Whatever happened to a business’ right to refuse service to anyone. Remember “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? If a business owner chooses not to do business with a segment of the community based on whatever belief then that should be his right as a business owner
    ———–
    You are missing the point. People choose to come into an establishment with no shoes or shirt, they don’t choose to be gay. Its not a choice and its no different than discriminating against someone for the color of their skin.

  36. I should add that “No Shoes, No Shirt, No service,” can be legal even it’s not health code-related if there’s rational basis for the rule and it’s not arbitrarily applied.

  37. I reserve the right to discriminate against the religious for being brainwashed sheep who put the slightest hope of personal salvation above all else, including common sense.

  38. How are the Colts going to “push back” against Indiana law? They are subject to it, not the other way around. The only way they could push back would be to leave the state. The Scouting Combine as leverage? Give me a break. I love the NFL but these guys have way to high an opinion of themselves.

  39. 20 states have RFRA laws, but Indiana’s law is substantially different. While other RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

    Indiana’s law also differs from the federal RFRA, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993, for the same reason.

    The Indiana law could result in employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so.

  40. All this means is that a bakery doesn’t have to make a gay wedding cake and a church doesn’t have to do gay weddings. Bfd. Go to another church or bakery. It’s not a big deal. Recreational outrage is a sport for some people.

  41. pkrlvr says:
    Mar 30, 2015 6:04 PM

    I reserve the right to discriminate against the religious for being brainwashed sheep who put the slightest hope of personal salvation above all else, including common sense.
    _____

    This from a guy who worships a football team.

  42. coltscamp says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:40 PM
    I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.

    Be consistent, guys.
    ———————————————————————
    No, the law as written does not exist anywhere else in the US. The Indiana law is the only one that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. It is that difference that allows for the unfettered discrimination that is causing all the commotion.

    Please take a few minutes to investigate and understand the issue before rendering an opinion.

  43. “I think it’s important for people on this site understand that the citizens of Indiana DID NOT want this. These Republicans ran on “economy economy economy” and the first thing they did upon seizing power is shove religion down our throats.”

    Maybe it’s true that the citizens of Indiana didn’t want this. But the citizens of Indiana allowed these idiotic republicans to take office and pass this discriminatory bill. The citizens of Indiana either voted for these republican miscreants or else they stayed home and didn’t vote at all. Either way, and by commission or omission, the citizens of Indiana made it possible for the republicans to legislate bigotry. This is the kind of thing you get when you put republicans in charge. Learn your lesson yet, Indiana voters?

  44. I’d like the NFL and the Colts to express their views on the 2nd Amendment, ObamaCare, their thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid paying the women that work for them less than the men, military plans in Afghanistan, and while they are at it inject themselves into the Iran nuclear weapons fiasco. And, by the way, what’s their position on Israel and the Palestinian question? Do they favor a two-state solution?

  45. This is just like that time chick fil-a refused to serve gay people!! Except they didn’t. All that fuss over nothing. Why should a Christian church have to hold a wedding celebrating something they find immoral? There are plenty of churches out there. Find one that does. Idiots act like they’re approving lynching gays on streetlamps.

  46. And how does this effect the Colts? Nobody says they can’t continue what they’re practicing, (or what they say they’re practicing.) Much ado about nothing.

  47. While I am opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation I have to wonder if a business owner was willing to discriminate based on sexual orientation on a personal level, why would anyone from the LGTB community want to patronize their business and support them financially?

  48. Legalized discrimination does exist in other areas like housing. Fair Housing Act is not applied to private individuals with their own house or less than 4 rentals. If I run a catering business, I can refuse to take a job for a Muslim couple or even a gay couple. Doctor? Same thing.

    The problem here is a business serving the public doesn’t have much leeway unless it would be disruptive to a business (topless, too drunk, etc). I would think that a design firm, which has a public office, could refuse to take a gay couple wedding. But a restaurant could not refuse to serve them food. (Probably could refuse to rent space for private party tho) I’m not sure the law was needed.

    If you operate a restaurant or a grocery store, you really lack any reason to refuse a gay couple or a Muslim from buying food….I don’t see how that could affect YOUR religious beliefs.

    As a former Indiana resident, I hate the publicity this received and question the need for this law. How many people really needed to be able to defend a discrimination suit anyway? Protecting the few while impounding the majority. Not needed.

  49. The Religious Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It was passed by a unanimous Democrat House of Representatives and a near unanimously it is THE SAME AS THE BILL IN INDIANA

  50. While I am opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation I have to wonder if a business owner was willing to discriminate based on sexual orientation on a personal level, why would anyone from the LGTB community want to patronize their business and support them financially?
    ———————————————————
    Exactly. i am opposed to all discrimination. We have the freedom to choose where we spend our money. This should be a market based solution. If consumers don’t like the way a business behaves, don’t support them. But we are a country founded on liberty. As a business owner, if I want to limit my market that should be up to me. Why hasn’t somebody claim discrimination over senior discounts? Because it should be up to the business how they market themselves!

  51. Hilarious… All these “tolerant” people calling for Indy to be boycotted and their sports teams to move. Must be a different set of rules for your discrimination.

  52. Whatever happened to a business’ right to refuse service to anyone. Remember “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service? If a business owner chooses not to do business with a segment of the community based on whatever belief then that should be his right as a business owner
    ———–
    You are missing the point. People choose to come into an establishment with no shoes or shirt, they don’t choose to be gay. Its not a choice and its no different than discriminating against someone for the color of their skin.

    You are missing the point, this is America, it is my business/company, I should be able to choose to do business with whom I do or do not wish to do business with. It could backfire and cost me money or even my business due to the backlash of customers but it is my right as an American. For those of you who do not get it, its a principle called freedom. Most of you libs are for choice right?

  53. Use your brains people. This bill won’t cause businesses to turn people away simply because they’re gay. That’s not how the real world works. It just protects bakery’s and Churches from having to perform services for gay weddings. As a Christian, I’d hate to lose my business because I refuse to go against my faith. We should all be tolerant of one another. That includes Christian business owners. 99% of all businesses won’t need to use this law anyway. So all the hysteria is much ado about nothing. Liberals always seem to be up in arms over something.

  54. you folks are woefully misinformed…that, or intellectually dishonest about what the law really does…
    ————————————————————

    Just once I would like to see a statement from an owner about how they are in support of the freedom of religious expression. But the so called “sports journalist” (the ones here included) are of the liberal mindset of “social engineering” rather than simply covering sports. If I owned a news/sports organization I would never hire a journalist that wants to “make the world a better place (as they see it)”.

  55. Leftwing Godphobes attacking the very first Amendment – “Freedom of Religion and the expression thereof”.

    At least their commie masks are off now…

    Never mind Sick Willie Clinton and Comrade Obamatollah signed national versions of this law.

  56. I thought we figured out in the 60’s that a business owner can’t just refuse service to anyone-I believe it is called civil rights. Change the subject of this law from “gays” to “blacks or Mexican Americans” and very few people would buy the religious freedom argument.

    As for our founding fathers, they were far more interested in freedom “from” religion than freedom “of” religion. They didn’t want to throw off one tyrant just to substitute another in its place.

  57. Find out what the law really says… it is not a bunch of anti-discrimination hogwash.

    President Clinton signed similar legislation into law in 1993 with only 3 dissenters. And then-state Senator Barack Obama was one of the signers of this law. And yet, now the media and others are making this out to be something it is not.

    Indiana Governor Pence said, “There’s been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books for more than 20 years. It does not apply to disputes between individuals unless government action is involved. And in point of fact, in more than two decades, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never been used to undermine anti-discrimination laws in this country.”

  58. This law is BS.

    Who is supposed to play QB for the Pats next time they play at the Colts???

    #B.Bonds
    #L.Armstrong
    #T.Brady

  59. Wonder what the right thing is to do? Make the Amish enlist, and start a country that is based on respect for religious freedom. I thought we did that!

  60. “I think it’s important for people on this site understand that the citizens of Indiana DID NOT want this. These Republicans ran on “economy economy economy” and the first thing they did upon seizing power is shove religion down our throats.”

    Well how many times are you going to let them do that crap until you stop voting for them?

  61. coltscamp says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:40 PM
    I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.
    _______________________________________

    It’s already been established that you conveniently lied about the number of states that have passed this (19). If you knew anything about what you are stating (other than what’s on Fox Noise) then you would know that Federal law and the other statutory laws are nothing like Indiana’s sanctioned discrimination. The Federal law protected Native Americans from being prosecuted for using peyote in their religious practices. It’s NOTHING like this law and those are the facts! Of course, your sanctimonious “be consistent guys” is everything one would expect from a Colts “fan”.

  62. I live in Indiana. I have talked to ALOT of fellow Hoosiers about this law and not ONE of them like it.
    I have no freakin idea how this thing was ever even tabled in legislative committees.

  63. cajunaise says:
    Mar 30, 2015 5:08 PM
    If atheists came up with a similar law allowing for businesses to refuse to serve the faithful, the Christian Right would be screaming bloody murder, and everyone knows it. Do unto others…and go Colts.

    ——-

    Except that “atheists” or humanists as I prefer to think of them, wouldn’t come up with such a law. They actually believe in a moral and ethical responsibility to one another – ALL one anothers – because of a common bond we have called our humanity. The problem is, the Christian church I was raised in ALSO has this as a tenet. Not divisiveness and lack of inclusion.

  64. “I have no freakin idea how this thing was ever even tabled in legislative committees.”

    Simple. Billionaires are filling the government with bible thumping morons in order to protect their tax breaks and pollution profits. Stop voting for their candidates.

  65. Why is it not intolerant for Gays and Irsay to deny a Christian their choice to live and operate their business within their religious lifestyle of their choosing?

    What do lawyers expect when this goes to the SCOTUS and lawyers argue that Freedom of Religion is not just for a religion’s day of worship, but includes their lifestyle and from their lifestyle, how they run their business?

    Does the Constitution trump the Gays and Irsay’s automatic condemnation of other’s to exercise their constitutional right to Freedom of Religion?

    What about Liberals crying out that Islamics should not be pre-judged on the acts of a few, but Gays and Irsay can condemn every Christian as ready to discriminate as well as Gays and Irsay feel they have the right to cancel out another person’s right to Freedom of Religion?

    In Constitutional Law, there is a primacy consideration that the NFL would be wise to take heed of, as well as the backlash of loss of revenue from “Christians” who do not appreciate Irsay and the NFL trampling on their Freedom of Religion right.

  66. Uh, Mike, you may think that the universe swirls around all things NFL, but you are dead wrong. Indiana’s population in general don’t wake up and go to bed every day worrying about their sports teams, let alone whether those teams promote inclusiveness, tolerance and diversity. And your assertion that the Colts and the NFL somehow have enough leverage to force a state to change a law it downright ridiculous. Let the NFL move the SuperBowl, the combine and anything even the team. The state and its representatives are NOT going to bend down and kiss the shield, even though it sounds like you’d like them to.

  67. If Irsay feels so strongly about this, the colts should refuse to play in a state with RFRA laws. By my estimation that would give them two games in 2015, @Buffalo, @Atlanta.

    These laws are everywhere and have been upheld by the courts for 20 years. Why the sudden ‘outrage’?

  68. jerrod777 says:
    Mar 30, 2015 8:25 PM
    Find out what the law really says… it is not a bunch of anti-discrimination hogwash.

    President Clinton signed similar legislation into law in 1993 with only 3 dissenters. And then-state Senator Barack Obama was one of the signers of this law. And yet, now the media and others are making this out to be something it is not.
    ________________________________________

    This is simply a lie. Try reading the Federal law. It protects Native American Indians from being prosecuted for using peyote (a Federally banned substance) in the religious practices. It’s nothing like the Indiana law (did you read it?), which is far more onerous than the other 19 state laws. Read the information and form own option instead of cutting an pasting your governor’s twisted view of equality and freedom.

  69. Political commentary from football fans so entertaining.

    If it isn’t about discrimination add the language but then they’ll withdraw the law like in GA.

    Add the language and these “small gub’mint” conservatives are just adding redundant layers of beuacracy. Either way they’re idiots. But hey it’s Indiana.

  70. bigsam64 says:
    Mar 30, 2015 7:01 PM
    The Religious Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It was passed by a unanimous Democrat House of Representatives and a near unanimously it is THE SAME AS THE BILL IN INDIANA
    ________________________________________

    No, it isn’t. If you would read it, then you would know that.

  71. abqpacker says: Mar 30, 2015 5:01 PM

    Indiana’s version, however, specifically provides that it can be used as a defense if you get sued for discrimination,

    ———–

    Can you please show me which part of the bill you are referring to? I must be missing it. Thanks
    ————————————————————-
    The Indiana Law includes the following:
    “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
    In this phrase, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government.

  72. Sorry folks both sides here have a constitutionally protected right being violated. Seeing as none of us, florio as well, are constitutional lawyers, none of us have anywhere near the intellect to decide who’s rights are more important. Sorry Florio, but your thinly veiled attack is flat out wrong. There is a large sect of the population that believes that participating, in any way, is the same as committing the sin. It’s not up to you or me to determine if they are right or wrong, it’s between them and God. It’s their faith not yours, these are long standing religious beliefs, backed up by their ministers and centuries of precedence. On the other hand this law creates very real discrimination, that is without question. What the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide is who’s rights mean more.
    In a perfect world the gay couple doesn’t sue, or run to the government, the leave and form a boycott, allowing the free market to decide. Never gonna happen in today’s society.

  73. I think this needs to head to the Supreme court. While they did find in the Holly Hobby case that even a closely held corp is exempt from doing something that would infringe on their religious freedom, there has to be a set line that one can not cross.
    We can take the case where this reaction came from, the gay couple wanted a wedding cake, the bakery refused due to their faith. But I have to ask, baking a cake, even decorating it, that is art, how does that effect your faith?
    Now if this had been a photographer, a caterer, the had to be int he wedding and be part of it, that I can understand, but this is putting a person in the middle of something they find sinful. The same as asking a Muslim to go photograph a shoot at a gay strip bar, I think that would be equally problematic to them.
    I would like to see a law where going to a even that would cause issue with a persons faith could be in place, but baking a cake? Come on, lets get real.

  74. This is for all you republican haters. Plz learn your history and understand economics and the constitution before commenting. It was a republican lead congress that pushed the civil rights movements of the early 60s against southern democrats. Fact. It was a republican president that gave his life to free the slaves. its easy to watch Jon Stewart and think that is actually news and form your opinion based on the fact that the audience laughs at us silly conservatives that actually believe in the constitution. Easiest thing in the world to be is a liberal. “I care so if you disagree, you must be evil!”

  75. This is a law created by bigots for bigots. NC is passing the same bill and even their Republican governor is against it. For those of you who may be passing through NC, the bill was from a Morganton, NC state senator that lives there, Warren Daniels. My plan is to boycott any city or county who would elect someone that would enact such a bill. I hope that all readers will do the same. We are equal in the eyes of God and it is about time we are equal in the eyes of our government.

  76. I seriously don’t think anyone talking about this law, understands this law.
    ===
    Three hundred word or less. Go!’
    ===

    smasonsmith: I suppose 300 words is a lot for some people to read.

  77. A lot of these commentator are total hypocrites. There are 31 other states that have theses laws and they are boycotting this. These states include PA, VA MI, WI and IL no ones is calling boycotting their states. If a person doesn’t want to serve you, take your business else where.

  78. As a business owner, I can understand the sentiment of refusing service to someone. But, how idiotic is it when the decision to enforce such law is left to the average citizen who runs a business? This will breed more hatred and leave things in chaos. As others have pointed out, the Indiana law is different from the other 19.

    Like someone else said, how will it feel when the shoe is on the other foot and you’re refused service because you wear some sort of religious artifact around your neck and the business owner is atheist?

    Sometimes as an owner, the customer is always right, even when you know it shouldn’t be that way. The owner and business should be two separate entities, or else risk the back lash of your stance in today’s social media ruled world.

    If you refuse someone service because of their sexual orientation, you shouldn’t be in business. You should live in a bubble. How does someone’s orientation affect your business?

    “Always be closing!” – Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross

  79. Too many people are unable to separate their personal rights from those of a corporation. We all the same set of individual rights and we can discriminate legally all we want (if that is the kind of low-life we choose to be). However, once you enter into the business world, and incorporate, you leave those individual rights behind and are playing by a new set of rules. This (and similar laws) are trying to blur that line – make corporations people.
    To respond to some of the more asinine comments, not serving someone because they do not have a shirt on is not discriminatory. It is a dress code and can be reasonably expected. Now, if the business wanted to refuse service because of some other inherent characteristic (like bald, or blonde)…that would be a different story – like sexual orientation.
    Also, to the comment about a t-shirt company refusing to print “Death to Allah” shirts. That might be too extreme of an example and someone might be able to refuse to print something in bulk that encourages illegal activity. But we get the point…and that business owner should have to print t-shirts that say “Allah Stinks” if they are compensated adequately to do so. Those are the rules of the game in which they have CHOSEN to participate if they run a business.
    You can choose not to have a business…then you can choose not to serve anyone you want.

  80. Just as no U.S. citizen should be forced to do something he or she doesn’t want to do, no company or business owner should be forced to do something it, or he or she, doesn’t want to do,

  81. “I think it’s important for people on this site understand that the citizens of Indiana DID NOT want this.”

    Perhaps all the die hard libs don’t want it, but they do not constitute all the citizens ( though they think they do).

  82. roggsucks says:
    Mar 30, 2015 10:03 PM
    This is for all you republican haters. Plz learn your history and understand economics and the constitution before commenting. It was a republican lead congress that pushed the civil rights movements of the early 60s against southern democrats. Fact. It was a republican president that gave his life to free the slaves. its easy to watch Jon Stewart and think that is actually news and form your opinion based on the fact that the audience laughs at us silly conservatives that actually believe in the constitution. Easiest thing in the world to be is a liberal. “I care so if you disagree, you must be evil!”
    _______________

    And those Democrats became Republicans right after slavery. Open a book that isn’t made up of 2000 year old fairy tales and try to learn something. Keep you are fairy tales in your home and in your church.

  83. You are missing the point. People choose to come into an establishment with no shoes or shirt, they don’t choose to be gay. Its not a choice and its no different than discriminating against someone for the color of their skin.

    ———–

    Talk about fairy tales… And you have the nerve to criticize someone for belonging to a church.

  84. ”Governor, rescind that law here and now, or in 24 hrs the moving trucks will be here and we’ll move to….somewhere. Don’t mess with us, you can’t afford to lose us,” said no owner of any professional team sport based in Indianapolis.

  85. So it’s ok not to sell birth control pills because of religious beliefs.

    Wait until someone doesn’t sell a gun to someone because of their religious belief.

    Will the law be ok then ?

    I don’t think ice cream is good to sell to people……It’s a religious belief, YA KNOW !

  86. roggsucks says:
    Mar 30, 2015 10:03 PM
    This is for all you republican haters. Plz learn your history and understand economics and the constitution before commenting. It was a republican lead congress that pushed the civil rights movements of the early 60s against southern democrats. Fact. It was a republican president that gave his life to free the slaves. its easy to watch Jon Stewart and think that is actually news and form your opinion based on the fact that the audience laughs at us silly conservatives that actually believe in the constitution. Easiest thing in the world to be is a liberal. “I care so if you disagree, you must be evil!”

    ========================================
    Ironic that you tell people to learn history before commenting when you don’t even understand the basic development of the modern day Republican party.

  87. mnvikingsfan says:
    Mar 30, 2015 5:27 PM
    Any law that allows discrimination of ANYONE is beyond stupid!!!

    73 58

    Yep… 58 people voted down this comment… The PFT comment board never fails to amaze! Congrats bigots!

  88. “It was a republican lead congress that pushed the civil rights movements of the early 60s against southern democrats. Fact. It was a republican president that gave his life to free the slaves.”

    ———————————–
    So what happened then, because they’re the laughing-stock of the free world now?

  89. captlouis says: liberal crap about owning a business is new ballgame.

    ———————————————-

    Owning a business is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    Not pandering to liberal ideals. It’s food on kid’s plates.

  90. I still dont understand why its so important to let everyone know which sex you want to have sex with??? Is it not supposed to be private??? Im straight but im not pulling for billboards to show breast in my front yard???? I respect equal rights but are some things just not other peoples business????

  91. coltscamp says:
    Mar 30, 2015 4:40 PM
    I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states.

    Be consistent, guy
    ——————————————————
    I was going to put this guy in his place but a few already beat me to it. I just hope the 521 people who liked this comment take the time to do their own research and don’t blindly defend something they read on a message board…

  92. This is why there is so much hate against gays and vegetarians and anti abortionist and anti gun people. TOLERATE MY VIEW BUT SCREW YOURS. So ridiculous. I could care less what people do with their lives just don’t push your views on me cause I don’t push mine on you. And on a side note religion has killed more people in history then anything else no matter what religion. I am sure God would have approved of the crusades lol

  93. It’s simple to explain: Religion and liberalism cannot co-exist. Liberals must get rid of it and everything it stands for because it stands in their way. That is why everything that deals with religion (except their beloved cult, islam) is attacked and everything anti-religion is praised and shoved down our throats.

  94. It’s funny because similar laws were passed during the era of Jim Crow. Of course, foxholes were not segregated. It appears that we are no better than the very people we are fighting in the Middle East.

  95. How can I avoid the embarrassment and humiliation of being refused service for religious reasons at a business? It would be helpful, if the business that wants to take advantage of this law would be forced to warn people with signs. If they don’t display a warning sign then they can’t use their religion as a defence.
    Because when I see a sign that says “Open For Business”, I assume they really mean it.

  96. nepatriot1 says:
    Mar 30, 2015 9:12 PM
    Let those hayseed, God fearing dopes in Indiana be. Indiana is where common sense goes to die.
    _______________________

    Another Patsie fan upset that his team cheats.
    Long live the *!

  97. You know, it’s a shame that political discourse in this country has devolved to the point that both sides do nothing but paint the other with the same, over-broad, they-all-think-the-same brush.

    Some legislators passed this law, but that doesn’t mean that everyone in Indiana agrees with it. Just like everyone on the Left isn’t a “commie” (whatever that means) and everyone on the Right isn’t some evangelical wonk.

    It’s possible to have a nuanced opinion that doesn’t slot nicely into whatever the (large, corporate-owned, not-at-all-liberal – stop believing that myth) media tells us we must believe, red or blue or whatever.

    But this is all part of the plan. We all have to choose sides and fight bitterly and make everything a matter of Red vs. Blue, right? Because if we didn’t we might start paying attention to how useless and corrupt our government is.

    I mean, we all KNOW that, but still, this constant, cartoonish battle of “lib-ruls is commies” and “publicans is gun nut Jesus freaks” gets us nowhere. And that’s exactly how “They” like it.

    Discrimination of any kind sucks.

  98. Hey Liberals who keep blaming Republicans:

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

  99. This law is not forcing businesses to discriminate against gays. It is just allowing businesses to exercise their right to deny service to whom ever they choose. I think I have seen this sign on businesses in the past. The left always screams rights for all, except peoples religious freedom to believe as they choose. I’m sure there are lots of bakeries that will bake you a wedding cake in Indiana.

  100. The Founding Fathers loved G-d’s Word (the Bible) 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 idea of 3 separate forms of governing working together to form One; Judicial, Legislative and Executive, comes from the Bible as the Founding Fathers knew.

    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 & twisted ways.

    True Separation means Government cannot dictate a specific branch of religion such as Shiites, Baptists, Catholics, Evolutionists, Atheists, Hinduism to the people. Neither shall the people be subjects of such a 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.

    Our Freedom in the USA is founded on the Sovereignty of our Creator – God & Father of LJC.

    The Lawless One in the dimwit_house is prophetic fulfillment of a nation that has turned it’s back on their Creator.

  101. chicksdigthelongballs says: Mar 30, 2015 9:05 PM

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.
    *************************************************
    I present to you the poster child of Limbaugh/Hannity worshiping right wing extremism.

    Also a prime example of why 2 people with differing political view used to be able to talk and find common ground, can no longer do so.

    It is a sad day in this country, when it takes an event like 911, for people to put down the rhetorical pitchforks, and just come together and help one another.

    RIP America

  102. STOP forcing EVERY business in Indiana to make a statement to the media about this.

    If a business adheres to the media’s PC agenda then they will leave the business alone, however if the business challenges the media on the circus-like atmosphere that they have created surrounding the misinformation being spewed about the law, then the media will start a campaign of negative publicity against the business.

    This amounts to EXTORTION by the left-wing media.

    The NFL and the Colts should call the media out on this.

  103. I’m glad Irsay and the organization made this statement, but he needs to tell this to Tony Dungy, his former coach.

    Dungy said he wouldn’t have drafted Michael Sam because of the “distraction” of having a gay player on the team.

    Irsay shouldn’t tolerate bigotry in his state, nor on his team.

  104. solo681 says: Mar 31, 2015 8:45 AM

    “…The leftist illiterate cry of…The militant leftist who hates G-d and His Moral Code…” …etc.

    —————————————-

    It is a terrible mistake to believe that “your side” has a monopoly on morality or right vs. wrong. We are all people, and people tend to believe different things. There are no evil “liberals” hiding under your bed, waiting to take your children. They are your coworkers, neighbors, possibly friends, and they’re just people.

    I know plenty of liberal Christians, just as I know plenty of conservative Christians. I know plenty of other people who aren’t Christians at all. And none of them are evil, freedom-stealing monsters.

    Just because someone disagrees with you, or vice versa, doesn’t mean you can’t find some common ground with them and recognize that you don’t have to draw battle lines and start hurling stones.

  105. “…when two companies with influential Republicans at their helm came out against RFRA. They were Angie’s List, whose CEO Oesterle managed Republican Mitch Daniels’ 2004 gubernatorial campaign, and Kittle’s Furniture, whose chairman, Jim Kittle Jr., was chairman of the Indiana Republican Party from 2002 to 2006.”
    _____________________________________

    Yeah, so to all the posters on here who for some reason think this is some sort of “liberal” plot or people attacking the legislation because it has an (R) after it… nice try but you are wrong. Again.

  106. As I read through comments such as…

    “PC agenda”

    “This is just like (fill in the blank) Democratic bill. I know because Rush and Hannity said so on the radio”

    “I’m all for individual freedom, except when it involves what you do in your bedroom”

    “Businesses should be able to serve who they want but if you dare withhold selling me my gun, you’re dead”

    “Religion and liberalism can’t coexist”

    I think of two things.
    1. Turn off the radio
    2. Break’s over; you’re next at the drive through

  107. This is for all you republican haters. Plz learn your history and understand economics and the constitution before commenting. It was a republican lead congress that pushed the civil rights movements of the early 60s against southern democrats. Fact. It was a republican president that gave his life to free the slaves. its easy to watch Jon Stewart and think that is actually news and form your opinion based on the fact that the audience laughs at us silly conservatives that actually believe in the constitution. Easiest thing in the world to be is a liberal. “I care so if you disagree, you must be evil!”
    ———–
    The only history that libs care about is revisionist history. That is why History isn’t really taught in schools anymore. It’s understandable that the liberals don’t want people to know their history then the masses would realize that the liberals and their garbage policies are always on the wrong side of it!

  108. solo681 says:
    Mar 31, 2015 8:45 AM
    The Founding Fathers loved G-d’s Word (the Bible) 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 idea of 3 separate forms of governing working together to form One; Judicial, Legislative and Executive, comes from the Bible as the Founding Fathers knew.

    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 & twisted ways.

    True Separation means Government cannot dictate a specific branch of religion such as Shiites, Baptists, Catholics, Evolutionists, Atheists, Hinduism to the people. Neither shall the people be subjects of such a 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.

    Our Freedom in the USA is founded on the Sovereignty of our Creator – God & Father of LJC.

    The Lawless One in the dimwit_house is prophetic fulfillment of a nation that has turned it’s back on their Creator.
    ________________

    My parents created me. Link to christianity in our constitution? After you can’t find that, google Treaty of Tripoli.

  109. Michael Sam being gay wasnt the distraction.
    The media obsession and circus that followed him around was the distraction. News updates on a 7th round draft pick are a distraction.
    You can’t have a normal practice with TV crews filming and trying to interview team members about a backup OLB/DE. That’s the distraction.

  110. Here’s a mistake that many “Americans” make, that this country was “founded” on freedom from religious persecution. The reality is it was first “colonized” to escape religious persecution. The “founding” of this nation stemmed from colonial imperialism. Once factions became educated and wealthy enough, they began to envision a world where they governed themselves and ideals were developed that we hold to be self evident. If only all men honestly held those truths with the same regard. Unfortunately we are not so far from those days when no one felt the safety and security we all desire. When someone, no matter who, can be discriminated against or persecuted, it can happen to anyone. That is all.

  111. The Self-Evident truths came to the Founding Fathers from the TRUTH, G-ds Word the Bible.

    Thus, the Declaration of Independence and “All men CREATED EQUAL by their CREATOR.”
    This statement comes from the Bible beginning in Genesis all throughout the Bible to Revelations.

    The Highest form of education available to man is G-d’s Word. It is timeless, prophetic, enduring, Truth tested, has never been proven innacurate/false, scientific, historically accurate, and is the HIGHEST form of Law to govern man and establish FREEDOM & EQAULITY for All of mankind.

  112. To be clear on one thing, if a business refuses to serve someone because of the customer’s sex, religion or race, that’s discrimination.

    The business owner isn’t being discriminated against by telling them that they can’t legally discriminate.

    I would also add: whatever happened to “live and let live”, “turn the other cheek”, “treat others as you would be treated”, “let he who is perfect cast the first stone”, “judge not lest ye be judged”, and a bunch of other (paraphrased) stuff from the Bible?

  113. harryhands9 says:
    Apr 1, 2015 10:43 PM

    If we could just get rid of all the stupid people. And don’t judge!

    *********************************************************************

    When LJC returns you will get your wish. Just make sure you are on the right side of His Judgment Call.

  114. This lucky sperm-club buffoon should just learn to shut up and enjoy his unearned privileges.

  115. “I find the vitriol towards Indiana hilarious considering this same law exists at the federal level and in 39 other states”

    Especially considering that some of the people who are being the most vocal in their opposition to the Indiana law are Democrats (Obama for instance) who voted in favor of the federal law.

  116. “Businesses should be able to serve who they want but if you dare withhold selling me my gun, you’re dead”

    Are there people who are being forced to sell guns?

    Wow, what a stupid analogy.

Leave a Reply

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