POLL: Should Indiana Fix It Now?

[BoilerMadness]

And yet


they do function as interpreters of the constitution. In other cases, depending on how many activists we have in the court, they actually litigate from the bench - Roe vs Wade.

The system isn't perfect, because there will always be people with agendas to corrupt it, but it's still the best one currently in existence. Unfortunately, the people lining up to corrupt and destroy this country is getting longer and more rabid.

 

[bodog57]

Originally posted by YourBuddy:

Originally posted by bodog57:

This was a totally unnecessary bill to pacify his base. First time I've ever heard of the Indy Star being liberal media before.

Keep in mind that liberal media equals any media outlet that I disagree with on a given day, never mind what 90% of their editorial leanings are.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

LOL

 

[YourBuddy]

Originally posted by mfj:
You don't know the Star then do you? It is a total... and I mean total liberal rag.

Again there is no merit to this. It is laughable. Look who the editorial team backs for elections or the overwhelming positions they take. Please.

They aren't extreme right which is what I think many folks these days need in order for them to not classify the entity as a commie mouthpiece.

Talk about conspiracies...
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[YourBuddy]

Originally posted by rsomm:
is black and a representive of the KKK wants him to bake a cake with KKK on it that baker can not refuse to do it?

I love these analogies.

Being in the KKK is like being gay to some people. Solid perspective.

This does explain why some folks are so scared of gays, they literally view them in the same light they would the KKK.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CalBoiler]

I think even...

five years might be optimistic.

You certainly won't have it in the next two years and after the next Presidential election, I'd rather doubt you'd be able to get a Democratic majority in both houses let alone a 2/3 majority to do a Constitutional Amendment. Ten years is probably a better time frame.

 

[BoilerSmac]

Re: so clearly

Originally posted by qazplm:
even that breaking it down doesn't break through to explain it well enough to you either.

So, no, you don't have to put KKK on a cake just because someone wants you to, nor do you have to put dead babies on an abortion cake.

What you can't do is say I don't sell wedding cakes to gay people. You don't have to put "I love gay weddings" on the wedding cake, you can propose a simple cake without decoration if you want to, what you cant do is say, no, no wedding cakes for gays.

I mean I can't make it any simpler even as I realize you may need simpler.

I disagree with this. As a lawyer, you don't see the possibility of lawsuits sprouting up from the example you describe? That situation clearly does not provide gay people with the same level of service as everyone else, because they're gay. How is that not discrimination?

 

[kevindub]

Typical Reply from an informed individual

This entire fake controversy was about providing cover for Obama's Iran Nuclear deal / getting Hillary's email mess out of the news. Much like Treyvon Martin etc, it's a media brush fire ginned up to take people's attention away stories that the media and their political puppet masters would not like them to see.

If you are getting your news from the mainstream media, you are being manipulated.

 

[CalBoiler]

So it...

was just a random post?

 

[qazplm]

they do so

because they effectively called Jefferson's bluff.

Marbury was ACTUALLY "judicial activism."

Everything AFTER that, every time the Court does judicial review is "judicial activism." The Constitution has never been updated to explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.

When people like you talk about "litigating from the bench" or "judicial activism" it's code for "I don't like this decision."

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think it should be clarified - if indeed it is true - that this law is not intended to enable discrimination by private entities based on sexual preference. The problem some have is that they believe the omission of certain language was done intentionally for precisely that reason. If that's the case, someone who sponsored the bill should come right out and say so, and then try to argue why that's a valid concept for a law.

Good luck with that.

They should clarify the law to bring it fully in line with other state and federal statutes, IMO.
This post was edited on 4/1 2:05 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[hamcoboiler]

Okay Your Buddy...a new analogy

The baker is Jewish, the cake buyer is a Nazi.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

a "random post"

would have no ties to the post that it replied to.

My post continued your point with another example, so thus it was not "random."

Do you need me to type "yes I agree Cal" as a precursor next time?

 

[hamcoboiler]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
I think it should be clarified - if indeed it is true - that this law is not intended to enable discrimination by private entities based on sexual preference. The problem some have is that the omission of certain language was done intentionally for precisely that reason. If that's the case, someone who sponsored the bill should come right out and say so, and then try to argue why that's a valid concept for a law.

Good luck with that.

They should clarify the law to bring it fully in line with other state and federal statutes, IMO.

It is not discrimination, it is consciously objecting because of a world view.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

can you find me

a lawsuit where someone was willing to bake a cake for a gay person but the gay person didnt like what was on it and sued successfully (or even sued).

Can you point me to a KKK cake? Or anything remotely similar?

 

[qazplm]

which is why i said

legislative OR judicial.

It could as easily come through the federal courts just like gay marriage has.
Once a critical mass of states pass those kind of laws, it's pretty much game over.

 

[qazplm]

clearly better

I mean who wouldn't put NAZIs higher than the KKK?

anyone?

 

[qazplm]

it's subsided because

the Republican governor sent it back and refuses to sign it.

 

[qazplm]

that's 1984 speak

Racists and sexists have a world view too.

There are folks who believe their religion forbids race mixing. They have a world view too.

 

[CalBoiler]

Yeah,...

that would help. 😄
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[hamcoboiler]

No but I can't put you to a Colorado case that resulted in a court order for a baker to make wedding cakes for gays and lesbians and forced him to receive sensitivity training.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BoilerSmac]

Re: can you find me

Originally posted by qazplm:
a lawsuit where someone was willing to bake a cake for a gay person but the gay person didnt like what was on it and sued successfully (or even sued).

Can you point me to a KKK cake? Or anything remotely similar?

I don't know of any that exist, but isn't that just the logical evolution of the recent "baker" lawsuits, if the baker just did as you suggested? Wouldn't it be obvious to a gay couple standing in a bakery, filled with elaborate cakes that have been done for traditional marriages, and they are shown that the only one available to them says "Good Luck" on it?

Wouldn't that fit the current definition of "discrimination"?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The law itself does not patently authorize discrimination, but it also doesn't expressly prohibit it amongst private entities. That's the issue, that there is a perception that this law implicitly condones discrimination by private entities on the basis of religion.

As I said, Gov Pence said this was not the intent of the law. If that is truly the case, then it should be clarified. If it is not the case - if it is indeed the intent of the law to allow a legal path for religion-based discrimination based on sexual preference - then someone should have the fortitude to stand up and say so, and then defend it rather than hiding amidst the tidal wave of uproar.

Here's the hypocrisy I struggle with as it pertains to many fellow conservative Christians: many want the Muslim religion to change in order to assimilate into American society, and indeed most Muslims that live here do. When asked to alter their own religious belief or behavior in order to assimilate into society, there's outrage. In both cases, there is a perception of violation of rights: in the Muslim case, we worry that their beliefs about infidels and free society and how some fundamentalists treat women; and in the Christian case, we want to lean on that religious belief in order to impact the rights of folks who don't believe the same things we do. It's hypocrisy. If you can justify it in your own head, good for you. I can't.

If we're truly a secular society, then we can't discriminate against anyone (choice or natural) based on religious views - even of the majority.

 

[tippco333]

I'd like to ask a question.

How in the world does baking a cake for someone violate your religion? Where in the bible does it say that you can't provide a service for a "sinner"?

This was the crux of the issue correct? Genuinely curious.

Further why in the world are homosexuals singled out as a group? All sins are equal in the bible- this is an undeniable fact, so why does modern Christianity differentiate and assign severity to various sins? Being a homosexual is no different than being a habitual liar, but will you also deny them service?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[stout1]

And....

 

[abastnag]

Exactly. I'd much rather have the conversation be turned to the validity of the "discrimination" rather than having to deal with the thin facade that it wasn't an intentional omission. At least it's an honest debate on tangible values.

A few short minutes on the American Family Association website (http://www.afain.net/links/) told me everything I needed to know about the intentions.

 

[HartPU]

Originally posted by tippco333:
I'd like to ask a question.

How in the world does baking a cake for someone violate your religion? Where in the bible does it say that you can't provide a service for a "sinner"?

This was the crux of the issue correct? Genuinely curious.

Further why in the world are homosexuals singled out as a group? All sins are equal in the bible- this is an undeniable fact, so why does modern Christianity differentiate and assign severity to various sins? Being a homosexual is no different than being a habitual liar, but will you also deny them service?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I don't think baking a general cake for someone violates a religion, but I could see why a religious baker would not want to bake a cake, stick two plastic grooms on top of it, and write "Congrats, Bill and Steve" on it. I would think that the baker would feel more like a participant in that scenario.

Yes, all sin is equal in the Bible. I don't think that a majority of Christians think homosexuality is "more wrong" than other sins. Homosexuality is just the hot button issue of the day. Legalizing gay marriage, the lawsuits about bakers, and the constant bombardment in the media with this topic I think makes many feel that society is endorsing and condoning something that many see as wrong. It's not more wrong than any other sin, but we aren't seeing other sins so eagerly endorsed as homosexuality seems to be.

Just my attempt at an answer.

 

[abastnag]

This is using Christianity as a way to justify values. I am Christian myself. Jesus (if you believe in that kind of thing) lived amongst prostitutes and sinners. I am pretty damn sure he wouldn't shy away from baking a cake.

And to answer your question specifically, the main supporters and authors of the bill the AFA and The Family Research Council have a very clear agenda that aligns with the evangelical base.

 

[HartPU]

Originally posted by abastnag:
This is using Christianity as a way to justify values. I am Christian myself. Jesus (if you believe in that kind of thing) lived amongst prostitutes and sinners. I am pretty damn sure he wouldn't shy away from baking a cake.

And to answer your question specifically, the main supporters and authors of the bill the AFA and The Family Research Council have a very clear agenda that aligns with the evangelical base.

Would Jesus bake a cake that says "Congrats, Ace and Gary"? True, I don't think Jesus would refuse service to gays, but I think baking them their wedding cake is condoning the wedding, and I don't think Jesus would do that. That's the big distinction here.

There is a definite difference in a baker refusing service to gays at all versus baking something that is clearly for their wedding. I don't think a religious baker should be forced to participate in a gay marriage in that way. Gay couple comes in to buy a cookie? Serve them.

 

[Yoderboy89]

Originally posted by tippco333:
I'd like to ask a question.

How in the world does baking a cake for someone violate your religion? Where in the bible does it say that you can't provide a service for a "sinner"?

This was the crux of the issue correct? Genuinely curious.

Further why in the world are homosexuals singled out as a group? All sins are equal in the bible- this is an undeniable fact, so why does modern Christianity differentiate and assign severity to various sins? Being a homosexual is no different than being a habitual liar, but will you also deny them service?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I believe it's the crossroads of gay marriage. That alone puts all this in a very unique light that differs from every other circumstance that has been thrown out to contextualize this.

You don't just bake a cake. You deliver it to the wedding. So, if someone doesn't want any part of a gay marriage, you're forcing them to attend, in affect.

It's very narrow. And why this whole outrage is mostly manufactured for political sucker punches.

Outside of very narrow circumstances, you won't be able to use the law to defend what would otherwise be pretty obvious discrimination. That is why this is all out of proportion. People are projecting. Not thinking.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[uptownboiler]

Re: It's simple....

It is not the same as those drafted in other states and certainly not the federal law. It actually gives broader power to corporations. There are also a couple of words that have been added (such as "likely burdened") that makes interpretations much broader. I've attached a link.

What's truly disingenuous about Pence's statements and supporters of this bill as written is the fact that people such as Eric Miller of Advance of America have been quoted as saying how people and churches now won't be punished by refusing service to the gay community. (How is that not discrimination in and of itself) The AFA-Indiana on the homepage of their website says that gay marriage is a violation of religious freedom. (Really? Whose? Why does it matter to them?) These groups were the ones hellbent on pushing this initiative. Pence also had a chance on the Sunday morning news shows to clearly state he was against discrimination against the LGBT community and instead he stammered and sidestepped it. It's really a simply question to answer the way it was phrased to him. Only Tuesday did he get clarity on the issue that he says he in fact is against discrimination of all types. Seems like he could have answered it pretty clearly on Sunday. So it's pretty easy to see by the supporters and the initial reaction that the intent clearly was to try to discriminate against people's sexual orientation and now they are hiding behind the vagueness of the law. It's almost Jim Crowe all over again. Perhaps these people should start putting signs up as to who is welcome ala pre-1965 South.

So the outcry from not just the far left but moderates such as myself and even many Republicans (ie 4 of the last 5 Mayors of Indianapolis are Republican, Dan Quayle even, and many CEOs) should not be surprising.

Some of these religious groups should realize that the separation of church and state does go both ways. Many of us object of churches and these organizations imposing their religious view of the world onto the rest of us. I prefer to get my moral guidance from my priest on Sunday and not the government. Having their views imposed upon me violates the separation of church and state, IMO.

The Difference

 

[Yoderboy89]

Originally posted by BoilerSmac:

Originally posted by qazplm:
even that breaking it down doesn't break through to explain it well enough to you either.

So, no, you don't have to put KKK on a cake just because someone wants you to, nor do you have to put dead babies on an abortion cake.

What you can't do is say I don't sell wedding cakes to gay people. You don't have to put "I love gay weddings" on the wedding cake, you can propose a simple cake without decoration if you want to, what you cant do is say, no, no wedding cakes for gays.

I mean I can't make it any simpler even as I realize you may need simpler.

I disagree with this. As a lawyer, you don't see the possibility of lawsuits sprouting up from the example you describe? That situation clearly does not provide gay people with the same level of service as everyone else, because they're gay. How is that not discrimination?

If you go shopping for a new car, do you get the same level of service if you're buying a Lexus as you would a Corolla?

There are all sorts of business who treat customers differently every day. That's why you and pick and choose who you do business with. I was in a Lutheran fraternity. It wasn't formed to piss Jews off. It was formed for Guys who shared a Lutheran faith. Which is why there was a Jewish fraternity, a Catholic fraternity, and so on.

This is the land of opportunity. Not the land of everyone must think and do the same thing.

But you could say our house discriminated, which is basically true, but that's not the point of its founding.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCBoiler]

Re: It's simple....

Originally posted by nat100:

Originally posted by rsomm:

You can not discriminate against anybody or anything except Christians. This law which is the same as federal (Bill Clinton signed into law)and same as many states in the union, but the left, far left wants to destroy the constitution and our past changing the fabric of our country. They know the glue to our constitution is God. They need to minimize the religious aspect of our country so we can destroy our nation. Of course the sheep in this country are falling in lock step with this movement. We are flushing our rights down the tube!

Lol. The Constitution was written and signed by white protestant men, some of whom owned slaves. The composition of the US changed and as such, the constitution should change. It was never intended to be carved in stone. It was intended to adapt as society adapted.

Wow! Scary because it used to be just looney liberals that hated our country say things like that.

Nat, we live in a constitutional republic, if you wanna change the Constitution you gotta pass an amendment. So until that happens, we can't forget about the 1st amendment, just because some people are offended and don't feel loved.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BoilerSmac]

Originally posted by tippco333:
I'd like to ask a question.

How in the world does baking a cake for someone violate your religion? Where in the bible does it say that you can't provide a service for a "sinner"?

This was the crux of the issue correct? Genuinely curious.

Further why in the world are homosexuals singled out as a group? All sins are equal in the bible- this is an undeniable fact, so why does modern Christianity differentiate and assign severity to various sins? Being a homosexual is no different than being a habitual liar, but will you also deny them service?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I think you'll find that this is being blown out of proportion on the liberal side of the arguement. They have to have a focal point to get the media, and anyone else who will listen, outraged. You would think by listening to them that the bakers first denied them service and then strung them up in the front yard. We're not talking about breaking actual laws where someone is harmed, but it's hard pressed to discern that by listening to all the outrage.

I believe you'll also find that people that support this bill overwhelmingly believe that their rights as Americans should be infringed on as little as possible by the government. The country was built on securing freedoms for all Americans, not just special groups, and with capitalism as it's economic structure. The government was designed to stay out of the day to day lives of the citizens as much as possible. The current trend, is for the government to dictate as much as possible, whether it be if you want to have healthcare, or deny service to a group of people that you might not want to professionally associate with. Every time a new law is passed under the guise of "what's the big deal, why can't they just bake them a cake?", or some other seemingly innocuous premise, it chips away at the freedoms that we all enjoy. A business owner should be able to reverently decline to provide their service to anyone. If everyone is so enlightened, they will obviously pay for their decision with less profits. That's on them. Conversely, if a gay couple is refused service, they should tell everyone they know and just not do business with that company. It's as easy as that.

Why can't homosexuals be tolerant of people that don't agree with them? It's because "tolerance" has morphed into "acceptance" in today's world. Forcing everyone to accept something? That's very dangerous ground, and an extreme infringement on individual rights. What if Christianity was forced on everyone? As a Christian that would be absolutely unacceptable!

This country cannot and will not be everything to everyone. It's impossible. The next best thing is for it to be as vanilla as possible in its governing and allow people to disagree and coexist despite those disagreements. The liberal agenda is dividing this country way more than all of the "discrimination" that is being trumpeted as the downfall of our "progressive" society.

Are there idiots that hate homosexuals? Yup. Are there idiots that hate Christians? Yup. There will always be people that hate.

 

[uptownboiler]

Let me ask you this, why is it that the supporters of this law are so much against granting the LGBT community the right to marry or get a civil union, let along having equal rights? How does having a gay or lesbian couple getting married infringe upon their (or anyone's) rights? They still have the right to practice their religion. Let's be honest, the biggest backers for this bill (such as AFA for example) make no bones about where they stand regaridng the LGBT community. Just look at their webpage.

it would seem that if government infringement is an issue, then there would be no question regarding the ability for gays and lesbians to get married or get a civil union and go about their lives. I would argue that keeping them from doing so is an infringement on the LGBT's rights, correct? And if the response is because "it's not in the Bible" then what about the separation of church and state? which means you are forcing the religious beliefs of Christianity on a secular nation... I agree the law may be somewhat innocuous, but there is an agenda behind the groups pushing this bill. You don't have to dig far to see what the AFA had to say after it was passed and what their stance is on the issue....it is discriminatory.

By no means am I liberal (actually still tend to vote Republican)...perhaps that's the Libertarian in me.

 

[nat100]

Re: It's simple....

Originally posted by SCBoiler:

Originally posted by nat100:

Originally posted by rsomm:

You can not discriminate against anybody or anything except Christians. This law which is the same as federal (Bill Clinton signed into law)and same as many states in the union, but the left, far left wants to destroy the constitution and our past changing the fabric of our country. They know the glue to our constitution is God. They need to minimize the religious aspect of our country so we can destroy our nation. Of course the sheep in this country are falling in lock step with this movement. We are flushing our rights down the tube!

Lol. The Constitution was written and signed by white protestant men, some of whom owned slaves. The composition of the US changed and as such, the constitution should change. It was never intended to be carved in stone. It was intended to adapt as society adapted.

Wow! Scary because it used to be just looney liberals that hated our country say things like that.

Nat, we live in a constitutional republic, if you wanna change the Constitution you gotta pass an amendment. So until that happens, we can't forget about the 1st amendment, just because some people are offended and don't feel loved.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I know how it works.

 

[BoilerSmac]

Originally posted by uptownboiler:
Let me ask you this, why is it that the supporters of this law are so much against granting the LGBT community the right to marry or get a civil union, let along having equal rights? How does having a gay or lesbian couple getting married infringe upon their (or anyone's) rights? They still have the right to practice their religion. Let's be honest, the biggest backers for this bill (such as AFA for example) make no bones about where they stand regaridng the LGBT community. Just look at their webpage.

it would seem that if government infringement is an issue, then there would be no question regarding the ability for gays and lesbians to get married or get a civil union and go about their lives. I would argue that keeping them from doing so is an infringement on the LGBT's rights, correct? And if the response is because "it's not in the Bible" then what about the separation of church and state? which means you are forcing the religious beliefs of Christianity on a secular nation... I agree the law may be somewhat innocuous, but there is an agenda behind the groups pushing this bill. You don't have to dig far to see what the AFA had to say after it was passed and what their stance is on the issue....it is discriminatory.

By no means am I liberal (actually still tend to vote Republican)...perhaps that's the Libertarian in me.

The goal of the liberal agenda is to get sexual orientation sanctioned as a protected class, which basically trickles down to whether you think it's a choice or not. All of these seemingly innocuous laws just inch that closer to reality. This bill was designed to prevent laws like those from being installed.

 

[abastnag]

I appreciate that perspective, Hart. I would much rather the conversation be honest and discuss the scope of protections that the freedom of religion should encompass. I think there is a legitimate debate in there, but no one wants to address it.

 

[uptownboiler]

Ok if you'll use that tone and rhetoric, then the goal of the Conservative agenda is to make us into a lilly-white, intolerant, Christian society. A very large number of Americans, if not the majority (look at the recent Presidential elections) don't subscribe to that ideology nor appreciate having it shoved down our throats. I'm also a Christian (Catholic) by birth but take a more tolerant tone and have done pretty well over 45 years. And the Religious Right scares me sometimes.

Now on a more rational tone, why is it that the groups that pushed the hardest to get this bill passed are the ones who are most resistant and intolerant to the LGBT community? Upon passage their comments were more about exclusion than tolerance, so the backlash shouldn't be surprising. The goal for them ultimately is to be able to discriminate. You don't need to dig far to find comments from the AFA-Indiana leadership on this...look at their website. I've attached a link for you...to me this sounds fairly intolerant.

Having friends and family who fall into the LGBT community, I can certainly attest that for them it certainly isn't a lifestyle choice. It is who they are and I'm sorry you obviously feel it's a choice. You obviously don't know anyone nor their struggles for to not only accept themselves but to gain acceptance amongst loved ones. Granting them the rights to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (unalienable rights from the Declaration of Independence) doesn't seem like a liberal agenda but the right thing to do, IMHO.



http://action.afa.net/the-stand/news/indiana-religious-liberty-is-in-the-constitution-homosexuality-isnt/

 

[HartPU]

Originally posted by BoilerSmac:

I think you'll find that this is being blown out of proportion on the liberal side of the arguement. They have to have a focal point to get the media, and anyone else who will listen, outraged. You would think by listening to them that the bakers first denied them service and then strung them up in the front yard. We're not talking about breaking actual laws where someone is harmed, but it's hard pressed to discern that by listening to all the outrage.

I believe you'll also find that people that support this bill overwhelmingly believe that their rights as Americans should be infringed on as little as possible by the government. The country was built on securing freedoms for all Americans, not just special groups, and with capitalism as it's economic structure. The government was designed to stay out of the day to day lives of the citizens as much as possible. The current trend, is for the government to dictate as much as possible, whether it be if you want to have healthcare, or deny service to a group of people that you might not want to professionally associate with. Every time a new law is passed under the guise of "what's the big deal, why can't they just bake them a cake?", or some other seemingly innocuous premise, it chips away at the freedoms that we all enjoy. A business owner should be able to reverently decline to provide their service to anyone. If everyone is so enlightened, they will obviously pay for their decision with less profits. That's on them. Conversely, if a gay couple is refused service, they should tell everyone they know and just not do business with that company. It's as easy as that.

Why can't homosexuals be tolerant of people that don't agree with them? It's because "tolerance" has morphed into "acceptance" in today's world. Forcing everyone to accept something? That's very dangerous ground, and an extreme infringement on individual rights. What if Christianity was forced on everyone? As a Christian that would be absolutely unacceptable!

This country cannot and will not be everything to everyone. It's impossible. The next best thing is for it to be as vanilla as possible in its governing and allow people to disagree and coexist despite those disagreements. The liberal agenda is dividing this country way more than all of the "discrimination" that is being trumpeted as the downfall of our "progressive" society.

Are there idiots that hate homosexuals? Yup. Are there idiots that hate Christians? Yup. There will always be people that hate.

Very well said!

 

[HartPU]

Originally posted by uptownboiler:
Let me ask you this, why is it that the supporters of this law are so much against granting the LGBT community the right to marry or get a civil union, let along having equal rights? How does having a gay or lesbian couple getting married infringe upon their (or anyone's) rights? They still have the right to practice their religion. Let's be honest, the biggest backers for this bill (such as AFA for example) make no bones about where they stand regaridng the LGBT community. Just look at their webpage.

it would seem that if government infringement is an issue, then there would be no question regarding the ability for gays and lesbians to get married or get a civil union and go about their lives. I would argue that keeping them from doing so is an infringement on the LGBT's rights, correct? And if the response is because "it's not in the Bible" then what about the separation of church and state? which means you are forcing the religious beliefs of Christianity on a secular nation... I agree the law may be somewhat innocuous, but there is an agenda behind the groups pushing this bill. You don't have to dig far to see what the AFA had to say after it was passed and what their stance is on the issue....it is discriminatory.

By no means am I liberal (actually still tend to vote Republican)...perhaps that's the Libertarian in me.

You are mixing issues here. True, many in support of this law are against homosexuality, but I don't think there is much in this law or in this discussion thread about the legality of gay marriage. People who support this law want to be able to distance themselves from homosexuality (like the baker making a gay wedding cake) without fear of getting sued.

I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I'm undecided on whether or not gay marriage should be illegal. I lean on the sides that it's not the government's business to regulate marriage, but at the same time, I'm not sure that I want our government essentially endorsing something that I (and many others) feel is morally wrong. Besides that, if you legalize gay marriage across the board, then don't others start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon? How can you tell polygamists that they can't marry? How can you tell the 40 year old man and the consenting 15 year old girl that they can't marry? Slippery slope.