14 thoughts on “Dear Indiana”

  1. So people don’t have the right to choose who gives them money? Since when has fascism and bigotry come to America?
    The LGBT community has gone about this all wrong. Why would they want to give their money to people that don’t want to serve them? Give it to people that believe the same as you!
    Sigh. Freedom is a concept foreign to Americans…

  2. Jarrod, It’s a funny kind of freedom that you advocate where LGBT people can only buy goods and services from other LGBT people? I hope you only enjoy movies and music that is totally created by straight people?

  3. I like how everyone is singling out Indiana on this–but ignoring the other 18 states that have the same law–plus the national law (sponsored by Chuck Schumer) the states’ laws are based on that was signed by President Clinton in the 90’s.

    And doesn’t this law also prevent someone from forcing a Muslim to go to a pig roast?

    • …and exactly what national law would that be?

      I know the governor of Arizona vetoed a similar law and other states were considering similar laws, but I am unaware of what other 18 states have similar laws that have been passed and signed into law. Please enlighten me.

        • Yeah, they mention Illinois, but Illinois’ law does not include businesses. So, yeah, they’re similar, but Indiana’s is more unconstitutional. I can’t say for sure, but it’s a good guess at least half of the states mentioned in the article don’t allow the discrimination from businesses. Texas is crazy, so I figure they made a law you have to believe in Jesus to live there.

          From what I read, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 wasn’t about legalizing discrimination. So, if your argument is that these states used this bill to create their own bill, then I’m guessing most (always exclude Texas) didn’t create it to legalize discrimination in businesses, but rather to bestow churches and the lot to be free from lawsuits of discrimination or at least to have some viable excuse to be assholes.

  4. Fascism is often used as a synonym for totalitarianism even if the economic aspect does not perfectly line up. Anyone who advocates the government using violence, and every government action is ultimately backed up by the threat of violence, to force people into actions, into contracts, into business transactions against their will has no concept of freedom or rights and is in effect a fascist People should be free to make bad choices, to make decisions we do not agree with. Everyone of us discriminates everyday, discrimination is the basis of all human decision making. Unfortunately, way too many are willing to trade essential liberties for the illusion of what they imagine to be fair. Everyone should be free to discriminate on any basis at any time on any issue against anyone one, any group. They have the freedom to discriminate against you and you have the freedom to discriminate against them. Too many want it to work one way; they want to be free to discriminate against a business unit (not purchase goods or services) but do not want the business unit to be free to discriminate against them (not sell good or services). Other people exercising their rights may inconvenience you occasionally but that does not negate you exercising your rights. Too many people are incapable of handling liberty so they seek to put shackles on the rest of us rather than tossing off their own.

    • Mussolini created fascism and defined it as: the merger of the State and Corporation. A simpler definition is a government run by corporations. Although, with corporations buying off politicians and then those politicians working to create laws that benefit said corporations, we are certainly heading in that direction….but I digress.

      I don’t see the connection to legalized discrimination and fascism. Especially because the law in question was not so much created by business principles but rather more by religious principles.

      Also when you say, “They have the freedom to discriminate against you,” it takes away the other person’s freedom (to purchase your product; use your facilities; etc.). If you are posing the idea that freedom includes the freedom to discriminate, then it creates a contradiction in real world use. That is to say, if your freedom imposes on my freedom, then it is not a value to be held in a civil society.

      • That is to say, if your freedom imposes on my freedom, then it is not a value to be held in a civil society.

        Ahh, that’s the rub though, innit. Intolerant religious extremists and Ayn Rand fanboys would claim that you want to impose on their freedom to choose who they (as a shopkeeper or service provider) get to serve. Whereas sane, rational people would claim that the freedom to use a commercially available service regardless of race, creed, gender, gender identity, etc etc is also inalienable and universal. So which freedom wins? Perhaps all things being equal, we should go with the less assholish freedom. Fret not bigots, console yourselves with the fact that you can still harbour all the hatred and vitriol you want in your black little hearts. They at least can’t ever take THAT away from you. And libertarians, console yourself with the silver lining of seeing libertarian princinples in action as the captains of industry give a hearty “FUCK YOU INDIANA” as they pull out of that sad, backwards state.

        • Funny thing about libertarian ideas…the Founding Fathers saw that as a failed experiment and thus created the Constitution. The same experiment failed for the Confederacy. And of course, every major economic crash in this country was result of libertarian principles being applied in the business world. About the only place it’s “working” is in Somolia. I use working in quotes because for whom it’s working is debatable.

          • It’s also important to note that a bit more recent history where libertarianism has been put in play, it shows signs of fascism, if Chile is to be used as such an example. Suffice it to say, libertarian icons such as von Mises and von Hayek, were enamored with the likes Mussolini and Pinochet, respectively. When one acknowledges that fascism is the marriage of corporations and state, it’s not hard to see how close the principles are to libertarianism where the corporations are free from any government regulation so that they can use and abuse both the environment and people as they see fit with all externalities paid for by the people who are inflicted upon by such a repressive ideology.

    • “Similar” is the key word. For instance, I know Illinois has a similar law, but it doesn’t pertain to business. Similar, yes. Identical, no.

Comments are closed.