Gay Marriage

Connecticut Issues Hypocritical Travel Boycott Against Indiana Over RFRA

Boycott everyone.


Public Domain

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy announced on Twitter that he would issue an executive order later today prohibiting state-subsidized travel to Indiana. In practice, this would prevent state employees from taking trips to Indiana on the taxpayer's dime, even for official government business.

Speaking as a libertarian, I'm not exactly worked up about that. Still, Malloy's reasoning is tortured. He wrote:

Because of Indiana's new law, later today I will sign an Executive Order regarding state-funded travel.

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can't sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won't be tolerated.

Malloy is speaking, of course, about Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which critics believe would provide cover to Christian businesses that wish to discriminate against gay people. I wrote last week that most boycotts are hypocritical (since the boycotters inevitably fail to sanction all immoral actors), but this one is especially hypocritical: Connecticut also has an RFRA in place, albeit one with some meaningful differences.

I pointed out this hypocrisy to Malloy's office and asked for clarification on the extent of the travel ban. I received an email from one of the governor's press people informing me only that "We will have more information this afternoon."

If Connecticut is going to prohibit government-subsidized travel to RFRA states, perhaps they should respond in kind and prohibit travel to Connecticut? (A libertarian can dream, I suppose.)

All snarking aside, this refusal to engage people with different moral perspectives in exactly the kind of thing that Brian Doherty and I warned would be bad for social progress in a classically liberal cosmopolitan society.

Seattle and San Francisco have approved similar travel bans, according to The Huffington Post.

UPDATE: The Federalist's Sean Davis argues that Connecticut's RFRA is actually more expansive than Indiana's. The Indiana law prohibits the government from substantially burdening religion; Connecticut's law does not inclue the word "substantially," meaning that all government-enacted burdens on religion are illegal—in theory, at least.

NEXT: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear First Amendment Case Challenging School Ban on American Flag Shirts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Dannel Malloy and my home state. Personal travel ban in effect immediately. You can expect to hear from my mother, Governor.

    1. Did I ever ask you where in CT you grew up? I went to high school in Ridgefield. Haven’t been back since I graduated.

      1. Directly south of there on the coast.

        1. You southwesterners are an embarrassment. You’re practically New Yorkers.

          1. Better than Jersey, guy.

            1. I was only born there! Vaffanculo!

              1. My mom once told me I was conceived in New Jersey.

                The idea of my parents fucking is horrifying enough, but in NJ of all places?

                *sobs into lunch*

                1. I believe they call it “smooshing” out there.

                  1. That is the scientifically correct terminology, if I’m not mistaken.

                  2. I believe it’s called rape! PIV Oppressor!!!

        2. I encountered a guy from Wilton working at Park City ski resort last month. I told him we used to have a skit in our pep rallies called “The Wilton Whiners”.

          Not that Ridgefield (or any town in Fairfield) is different.

          1. Related:

            1. We won’t be going back to UT, despite the fact that I quite like the state in general. We’re gonna hit up Copper Mountain or Beaver Creek in 2016 (that is, if my Pa and I are still on speaking terms – long story). If it’s just me, I’ll be going to VT and praying for a season like this one.

              1. If the snow on the East Coast is going to continue apace, they should definitely build a bigger garbage hill to ski on.

                1. I went to Stowe in Feb. Even with record-breaking snow in the East and a relatively bad year in the West, skiing in the East sucks.

                  1. I like skiing in the east. It’s a battle of survival with heft doses of skill and daring thrown in for good measure.

                    I just hate skiing with NYers but you end up with them and LA dickheads in the Rockies.

              2. If you are paying to go to Beaver Creek and you really want to have some great skiing, spend extra and go to Aspen. Less kids, less snowboarders, less crowds in general and the mountain (Ajax) is awesome. I was there a month ago and it was the best I’ve had in years.

                Just my two cents.

                1. Fewer, fewer, and fewer.

                2. Less kids, less snowboarders, less crowds in general

                  Even less in…wait for it…Telluride!

              3. Kaptious Kristen|3.30.15 @ 12:45PM|#

                We won’t be going back to UT, despite the fact that I quite like the state in general. We’re gonna hit up Copper Mountain or Beaver Creek in 2016

                No, No, No.

                Telluride. That is all.

            2. my two cents:

              Taos, NM

              great skiing/snowboarding, don’t remember ever waiting in line

              1. Also a two month season.

        3. Greenwich or one of those incorporated towns? Or do you mean Stamford?

    2. Malloy is such an unbelievable fucktard I can’t even take it. And just when I was planning a trip back this summer.

      Maybe this explains Malloy (from his wikipedia page): “As a child, Malloy suffered from learning disabilities and difficulties with motor coordination. He did not learn to tie his shoes until the fifth grade.”

      1. Nah. I had the same problem. He’s just a dumbass, full stop.

      2. My favorite thing about the Malloys.

        I know both people involved in that crime personally.

        1. Nicole is Malloy’s girlfriend, that’s how she knows. She was there.

          1. Actually, the guy and the girl are both gay. The reporting on that was hilariously wrong.

            1. Sure he was gay. But the girl was a lesbian. There’s apparently a difference, otherwise the LGBTQ movement would be the GT movement. And that’s not nearly long enough an anagram to make an impact.

              Serious question to the gay Reasonoids: why can’t it just be the gay rights movement? Transgendered people have little in common with you guys, right? Other than the fact that they’re human. I don’t understand how they got lumped together. And as for the LGB portion of it…isn’t that all basically the same stuff? AFAIK, bisexuality requires gay sex. So it should be covered by the G. As should lesbianism.

              Am I wrong?

              1. I always felt like metrosexuals got a bum wrap.

              2. Hey, sloopy, check this out. I think you will find it fascinating. Seriously.

                1. I went cross-eyed reading that and actually feel like I might have ruptured a blood vessel.

                  Also, I gotta go. I think Banjos is burning toast in the other room.

              3. This is, like, the gayest question ever.

                1. Should two man luge be an Olympic sport?

              4. You’re obviously completely Cis-minded.

                … and your post made complete sense to me. I’ve been meaning to ask Tonio (who seems to know what he’s writing about) similar questions for my own edification.

              5. I believe the term is now LGBTQQIP2SAA ? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, 2S for Two-Spirit, Asexual, Allies. I’m not sure why they exclude Furries.

                1. Simpler to just call them perverts and be done with it.

        2. Stamford?

          Is this part of some scam? Sort of like the company that sells Somy TV’s?

          “I graduated from Stamford University”

      3. In first grade I was tying other people’s shoes at a sixth grade level, whether they wanted it or not.

        1. In sixth grade I was masturbting at a 12th grade level.

          1. Yeah, but you were 15 years old.

      4. “As a child, Malloy suffered from learning disabilities and difficulties with motor coordination. He did not learn to tie his shoes until the fifth grade.”

        Wow, that’s actually on there? I fondly remember a time when if you saw something like that, you knew someone just edited the wiki to mock the subject of the page. Now it’s a badge of honor that his political advisor made sure was included in his wiki.

        1. “However, at the age of twenty-two he decided to use Velcro exclusively in order to save time.”

        2. I remember hearing Jim Rome lose it once when reading Stan Van Gundy’s wiki entry that said he was “the first successful recipient of a pubic hair to scalp transplant” and that he “has occasionally been a stand-in for Ron Jeremy in non-sexual scenes”.

  2. I think it’s great that Connecticut has so few problems that the Governor has time to worry about what’s going on in Indiana.

    Hey, Gov. Malloy! Here in California, we’ve got a drought–among other problems. Anything you can do about that?

    ‘ppreciate it.

    1. I’m in KY, I’d appreciate it if CT, San Fran, and Seattle would also kindly stay the fuck away from my state as well.

      /A progressive movement I can get behind.

      1. I believe we summarily execute those people upon deplaning at Bush Intercontinental. !Viva la Revolucion!

        1. Wow, I think they give those people a welcome basket and a blow job up here at DFW.

  3. Shouldn’t he ban travel to the entire United States, since the text of the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act is pretty much identical:

    1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

    “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

    “A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.

    1. I was wondering about the difference between the 1993 law and Indiana’s law, too. If there really is no substantive difference, this seems like a non-story. I hadn’t noticed “gays not welcome” signs in front of too many businesses over the last two decades.

      But then again, why did Indiana enact a law that mimics an existing federal law? Just for symbolism?

      1. But then again, why did Indiana enact a law that mimics an existing federal law? Just for symbolism?

        As a hedge against the existing law being repealed. Which is dumb, because laws never are.

      2. Because the federal law doesn’t protect people against burdens on religious freedom imposed by states and localities. See City of Boerne v. Flores.

        1. ^^ This.

          It’s funny. We studies RFRA in the context of Hobby Lobby literally two months ago in my Religion and Law class. The professor made the point to show that Connecticut had some of the broadest protection for religious views out of all the states. Today, to see the gnashing and wailing from the progressives in the class was downright hilarious… we literally studied this in February, and it wasn’t a problem then, but now it’s the devil!!!

          1. We’re trying to get RFRA passed. In my home state of WA. It’s an uphill battle against our Marxists.

  4. Why would a CT employee need to go to Indiana for work? Just ban all out of state work travel for CT employees.

    1. You can’t punish your enemies that way.

    2. UConn faculty probably give papers at IU or Purdue occasionally. NTTAWWT

    3. There must be an exception.

      For example, a CT auditor needs to audit an Indiana company who files a return in CT.

      1. So now if you’re planning to defraud CT, just incorporate in IN.

        1. +1 All Yankee version of Dukes of Hazzard.

          I’m looking forward to the scene where the Dukes jump their car over a river to escape the clutches of Boss Malloy.

  5. IIRC there’s about 20 states that already have RFRA with the scary discrimination language just like Indiana. Why is it an outrage all of a sudden?

    1. Because a Midwestern Republican state did it and people like to show off how tolerant and open-minded they are on Twitter.

    2. Because people are gay now! There were no gays when those other laws were passed. Good grief, use your brain for a second.

    3. Because they are stupid. That’s why everyone does everything.

    4. Because they want CAKE!

      1. All of them?

    5. Because the Democratic Party passed those?

    6. All good answers, but I was looking for FYTW.

      1. That’s always the answer.

        The Progressive Theocracy marches on. With state recognition of gay marriage in the bag, it’s time to enforce ideological approval of gay marriage on all businesses. You got a problem with the Commerce Clause, comrade?

    7. “IIRC there’s about 20 states that already have RFRA with the scary discrimination language just like Indiana.”


    8. Because now the media can bash the ‘R’ team.

  6. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated.

    That’s so comically close to “intolerance will not be tolerated!” it’s absurd. What a joke these people are.

    1. Certain kinds of intolerance won’t be tolerated.

      I’m all for tolerance. Just not mandated tolerance or legally favoring one group’s rights over others, which is what they really want.

      The core issue, that people are being compelled to do business with people they don’t want to do business with chills me. What’s next, Holocaust survivors having to do business with Nazis? Prostitutes having to have sex with anyone who asks (and pays), regardless of race, creed, gender, religion, or sexual orientation? End of the day, these laws aren’t broad enough, as the real issue isn’t religion, it’s freedom of thought.

      1. That’s why the progs can’t legalize prostitution. Given their beliefs about trade(and the corresponding laws they’ve enacted, they would be legalizing rape.

      2. It’s a lot easier to avoid giving your money to bigoted assholes when the bigoted assholes operate in the open.

        1. Yeah, exactly. If a business person is willing to turn away customers based on some practice or belief of the customers, including like-minded and sympathetic customers, then so be it. It’s not like many businesses succeed by intentionally turning away customers.

          1. The current liberal dogma is that it’s ok for a Jewish baker to get offended if someone wants to buy a Heil Hitler cake; or for a black baker to get offended if someone orders a KKK cake; but devout conservative Christians are intolerant bastards for getting offended is someone orders a wedding cake with two grooms on it.

            So liberals think that government should be actively involved in policing emotions and feelings. But more importantly, only emotions and feeling that are acceptable to liberals can be deemed acceptable for society as a whole.

            1. I get that, but it’s highly illegal when the government starts pushing viewpoint discrimination. Or, well, it was illegal. Now that rule of law is openly dying, maybe not. Who knows?

              1. it is supposed to be highly illegal for the government to push viewpoint discrimination. That’s why it is so important for liberals to create one aggrieved minority group after another.

                1. I’m getting pretty fucking aggrieved myself.

                  1. There may be an angle here for us. Are there any lawyers that hang out at H&R?

                    1. If only…

                  2. My ass hurts, maybe I’m gay.

            2. Yep.

              With the Progressive Theocracy, any argument is merely a rationalization for more power for the Progressive Theocracy.

        2. This is very true. But the progs have a religious fervor themselves to convert the nonbelievers. It’s not enough to tolerate behavior you find repugnant; you must celebrate and be a part of it. You must love Big Brother.

          1. Yeah, I can’t stand that bit of bullshit either. If I tell people I support their right to be gay then I start getting lectured about how I should be pushing their agenda.

            1. This is pretty much why I became a Libertarian. I grew up in a Unitarian Universalist Church, and even though our branch was the least SJW of all the local branches, I was taught up close and personal how SJWs think, and why they think it. It’s remarkably clarifying that when you have a youth retreat, the SJWs use their ideology as dogma in order to solidify their clique and make it in charge of the whole trip. The worst part, to me, was that there were some of the actual freedom riders and other 60s radicals that were true liberals in those churches, and the SJW kids couldn’t learn a thing from them about protecting the rights of individuals since they were so close minded to it, even at age 15.

          2. You can’t build your Utopia until you tear down the existing society. It’s the same with the hard-left anti-capitalists, and the hard-left environmentalists, and the hard-left everything esle. It’s not about building them up, it’s about tearing us down.

        3. This x 1000

        4. Why do you even have to be. Bigoted asshole? The poor woman the WA AG is suing for not doing the flowers for a gay wedding isn’t a bigot. The gays in the lawsuit were even long time customers of hers. She even offered to sell them the flowers. She jut didn’t want to be involved in the wedding itself, which would hve been necessary for wht the couple wanted. She saw that as a conflict with her religion.

          That isn’t exactly the sme thing s having a ‘no faggots’ policy, is it? It’s no different than foring a Jewish caterer to offer a roasted boar. Which I the who,e point of RFRA.

          As a real estate conultant, the way it is now here in WA, I can be sued by a homosexual if I refuse their business. All they have to do is claim ‘homophobe’ and the AG will come after me. Which is a potential concern, as I turn down a lot of new business from people I dont know. And I would like to remain free to do so.

          1. “And I would like to remain free to do so.”

            You think you’re *free* to do so now?

          2. This law does not allow people to discriminate. What is does do is raise the bar for successfully suing someone to “strict scrutiny”. In the examples given from Washington state, that means that merely offending someone is not enough for the government to come down on you, the plaintiff has to prove actual harm.

  7. One of the links above does show there are some significant differences between the 1993 and 2015 laws. However, that same article states that in order to have the “privilege” of running a business, you have to sometimes be uncomfortable.

    I’m kind of torn here, because while I think it shouldn’t be ok to lock people out of your restaurant because of their ethnicity, I still think there are times when you should be able to decline someone’s business on the grounds of your personal convictions (not necessarily just on religious grounds).

    Here is my example. You are pro-choice, and own a video company. A local pastor show up and wants to make a documentary about how abortion is evil, and is murder, and should be banned. Should you be forced by the law to make that documentary? What if were the other way around – you were pro-live, and someone from Planned Parenthood came to you to make a video? I would argue that in both cases, you should be able to say, “Sorry, I strongly disagree with your message and I can’t do business with you.”

    1. I’m kind of torn here, because while I think it shouldn’t be ok to lock people out of your restaurant because of their ethnicity,

      And are you speaking about how you would arrange your affairs, or are you expressing a willingness to use violence in order to prevent other people from doing so?

    2. If a business owner can be forced to do business with people he doesn’t agree with, can those same people be forced to do business with him?

      The argument that always comes up is that there is only one provider of a service in a given area so users of that product are forced to get it there. These people can’t be asked to either not use that service or be inconvenienced to travel more than 30 minutes to acquire it elsewhere. Oh no, time for the government to step in and make the business serve them.

      1. If a business owner can be forced to do business with people he doesn’t agree with, can those same people be forced to do business with him?

        Now there’s an interesting experiment…have someone dressed in clergy clothes go into a variety of businesses that cater to “alternative lifestyles” in Indiana and see what happens. Or, have someone in a blatantly neocon t-shirt (maybe with some Toby Keith lyrics) do the same.

        1. That’s the problem with framing it as “religious freedom”. Because 9 times out of 10, that means “conservative” or “Republican”, and it’s just a dog whistle. If they had passed a law stating that people can refuse to do business with someone for whatever reason, and used your Toby Keith shirt as example, the debate might be a bit different.

          1. They can’t pass such a general law because of the public accommodation provisions of the CRA.

          2. It is religious freedom doofus.

            Justice is a two-edged sword; it cuts both ways. You cannot give religious freedom to people you like and withhold religious freedom from people you don’t like.

            Regardless of whether or not religious belief is valid, the practice of homosexuality is clearly contrary to several strains of Christian doctrine.

            It is fundamentally evil to force devout Christians to serve gay and lesbian customers if they don’t want to.

            1. “You cannot give religious freedom to people you like and withhold religious freedom from people you don’t like.”

              You haven’t been paying attention to the Progressive Theocracy.

          3. None of the laws just let you blatantly discriminate. If you’re a photographer, and a gay hires you to develop pictures from his trip to the Grand Canyon, it’s cool,early different that being hired to photograph a gay wedding.

      2. If a business owner can be forced to do business with people he doesn’t agree with, can those same people be forced to do business with him?

        Also, if a baker can be forced to sell his labor to somebody, why can’t McDonalds conscript people into flipping burgers for them?

        1. “Aw man, I got a draft notice from Jack-in-the-Box!!!”

        2. They can, but only if the people conscripted refuse to do business with gays or other special classes first.

        3. “… why can’t McDonalds conscript people into flipping burgers for them?”

          Wait. What?
          You mean I could have quit at any time?

          *grips spatula in glares at manager*

          1. *so angry that I used “in” rather than “and glares”*

            1. “Grips spatula and glares glares at manager” hardly makes more sense.

              1. Twas a glare of the second power.

              2. glares glares

                Seems like a type of disease or malady you would get if you narrowed your gaze too much in a Swiss type manner.

        4. progressives can’t comprehend litmus tests.. trust me i’ve tried.

      3. If a business owner can be forced to do business with people he doesn’t agree with, can those same people be forced to do business with him?

        Nobody’s being forced since there aren’t people with whips flogging them for not working or tossing them in gulags!

        /actual prog response

        1. Thus revealing his true preferences.

    3. Sparky, I do keep going back to that. We have the Internet now, it should be easy for anyone to find a business that will accommodate them. Conversely, it should be easy for people to find out that “this baker does not do same-sex wedding cakes, so take your business elsewhere.”

      1. Further, I bet that if you called the every bakery on this page and asked them to make a wedding cake for Steve and David, 90% of them would quote you a price.

      2. That’s not the point. The point is conformity.

        In the past, a white person could call a bakery and find one that only served whites. Jim Crow made sure that all bakeries that served whites served only whites.

        Now, you could call a bakery find one that served homosexuals. Current law makes sure that all bakeries serve homosexuals.

        The government’s still deciding that there are people you can and/or can’t serve… just who you can and/or can’t serve has changed.

        1. oh did I get flamed on Twitter a few months back for pointing that out

    4. The two differences noted in that article don’t seem to be differences at all.
      1) It explicitly says it applies to for-profit businesses. Most RFRAs are just silent on this, but many (including the federal one) have been interpreted to apply to them.
      2) It explicit says it applies even where the government isn’t party to the lawsuit. Most RFRAs are silent on this, but I don’t know of any that haven’t been applied to discrimination lawsuits by private parties (and the article doesn’t point any out).

      1. The specific reason it applies to lawsuits where the government isn’t a party is to cover cases like that wedding photographer in New Mexico, who was successfully sued for not photographing a gay wedding, since the courts ruled that the New Mexico RFRA doesn’t apply to private parties suing one another. The other part that people don’t get about this, and I’ve brought it up only to be shouted down, is that A) most businesses will not discriminate because they want to make a profit (and no, it’s not like Jim Crow, because Jim Crow relied on government enforcing the discrimination), and B) the most the RFRA can do for you is provide you a defense during a lawsuit. You are still getting Sued, with all the attendant publicity, which given the media’s views any likely case brought before a court (gay person discriminated against by [insert villain here]), means your business will likely go under. Practically, this will probably only assist very small businesses that are privately held, and mostly apply to craft businesses of the type that have been sued for not selling their services to gay marriages before in other states. I sincerely doubt that many other cases of discrimination are going to be allowed by any jury, and since the social and economic penalty of being sued for this kind of discrimination is so large, I doubt that many businesses will change their operations at this point.

        1. Made this exact argument to two FB friends yesterday and today. Also threw in that a gay couple or person(s) from whatever minority group could cause all sorts of issues or hurt the business by passing the word around about how they felt mistreated. Don’t see why the government needs to be involved at all with all the other ways of handling the situation.

          1. but, but…we need a law to make sure that no one acts like a fucking moron!

    5. The way I look at it, even if there is a compelling interest in making sure black people aren’t refused service on the basis of their skin color and that gay people have access to flower arrangers, you should make damn sure a law is completely necessary before passing one. At this point, so few people want to actively discriminate against gays or blacks that it seems like it should be a non-issue. If the occasional dickhead wants to make a point by refusing to serve someone because of their race or sexual orientation, it really isn’t going to harm anyone (except maybe the dickhead himself). There really is no danger of returning to racial segregation or exclusion of gays from mainstream society.

      The only reason to get upset about a law like this one is thoughtcrime.

      1. Which is a huge reason, Zebulon. Why is it okay for me to turn away someone for one reason but not another? Giving legal sanction to that sort of discrimination is one thing, which should rarely be done, but banning it? Not a hallmark of a truly free society.

        1. My last sentence was a bit ambiguous.

          The only reason to get upset about the RFRA law is because you want people to be punished for thoughtcrime.

          1. Supposed the government is a representative body. Anti-discrimination laws are passed in retrospect to the actual social change, because that’s the only time that anti-discrimination politicians will be elected. They are merely used to punish those who don’t hop on the new bandwagon fast enough.

        2. It’s ok because one thing is based on demonstrable, deeply held theological beliefs, And the other isn’t.

    6. The differences between the Indiana and federal (and other states’) RFRAs are that Indiana has declaratory language ruling out certain retarded interpretations of the statute. Specifically, Indiana makes clear that for-profit corporations are protected – which is the way the US Supreme Court interpreted the federal RFRA. The Indiana statute also specifies that if a private person sues you, eg. for “discrimination” you can invoke RFRA in your own defense. This latter clause also seems implicit in the federal statutory language.

      The progs have now revealed how they *want* RFRA to be interpreted – (a) that if you’re making eeeevil profits RFRA shouldn’t protect you, and (b) you shouldn’t be able to invoke RFRA if someone sues you to demand you make them a cake.

      1. Progressives believe that religion is something that you pick up when you walk into church, and you drop when you walk out. They don’t realize that there are many people who literally center their identity and lifestyle around their faith. Just because the vast majority are only religious for an hour a week doesn’t mean that everybody has that form of vapid religiosity.

  8. “Seattle and San Francisco have approved similar travel bans”

    There is no pandering too blatant for SF’s city gov’t.

    1. …or Seattle’s either.

    2. “Seattle and San Francisco have approved similar travel bans”

      I wonder if they can talk Portland into joining in…

      (living in Indiana)

  9. It is really strange how people keep talking about this as if there are tons of people out there just waiting for permission to start discriminating against gay people. There are probably some religious assholes out there who need to make everything political who will make a point of refusing to serve gay people or provide flowers for gay weddings, or whatever. But the fact is that no mainstream religions forbid people from doing business with gay people or racial minorities or whatever. The vast majority of people of all religious bents will continue to be happy to do business with or employ anyone if it appears to be to their benefit.

    1. That is a very good point. I don’t see there being rampant discrimination from now on. First, it’s bad for business. Why turn away a paying customer or risk bad press? But apparently in Indiana we are all racist homophobic rednecks. We are a very red state, after all.

      1. Sure, that’s why we only voted for President Obama in 2008, not 2012 too.

        If there were rampant discrimination happening, stories would be plastered all over the news every day. This is basically a proxy war between the hard left and the neocons; we’re just stuck in the middle of it.

      2. Your respect for other people’s beliefs is impressive.

    2. I think this is one case where people really fear the slippery slope. You can’t just favor gays in these cases, you have to basically extend this across the board. So “no shirts, no service” will probably get you a lawsuit on some absurd grounds.

    3. I also question how, in 80% of instances, you’d even know the person is gay.

      I guess if he’s out with his boyfriend for dinner or wants you to provide something for his wedding you could, but on an average day if some dude just walks into your burger joint or hardware store, it’s not like you can tell the way he eats a hamburger is super gay.

      “I tell you what, Cletus, the way that man is eyein’ that there ladder in the hardware aisle strikes me as mighty homosexual.”

      1. But what if you’re the gayest monster since gay came to Gaytown?

        1. That’s a good point. There are some people where everything they do is mighty gay.

          For example, one time I saw Jesse try and nail a picture to a wall, but the instant he hit the nail with his hammer the hammer changed into a rainbow, the nail changed into a disco ball, and the painting turned into a hot guy who proceeded to have sex with Jesse.

          So I can see how someone might be made suspicious in that sort of instance.

          1. Uh oh. How did you know the guy was hot?

            1. I didn’t mean ‘hot’ as in good looking, I meant ‘hot’ as in running a pretty serious fever.

              The guy must have had malaria or something and was running a fever of at least 103. I don’t know why Jesse had sex with that guy. It was pretty gross and I almost regretted the fact that I stayed to watch.


              1. If he had a fever of 103, he’d be classified as being “hot blooded”. Being “hot” has a completely different meaning, and you know it.

                1. So he was a Foreigner?

                  1. I’ll bet he did more than dance.

                  2. We should check it and see.

      2. Yeah, that too. I have had fairly close acquaintances who I haven’t realized were gay for a long time. Just didn’t think about it (though probably should have guessed in most cases).

        Though I think that the worries are probably more about employment and housing than public accommodation stuff (even bakers and florist shops). But even then, almost no one has a genuine religious opposition to employing or renting to gay people. It’s just not much of a thing outside of certain specifically religious contexts.

      3. Oh thtop it!

        1. You know, people make fun of this–the ‘gay accent’. But I really gotta say, I know two guys who were my friends all through childhood–little kids, big kids, teenagers–and neither one talked like that.

          Then they ‘came out’ and all of a sudden WHAM

          1. And then there are the people who do talk like that their whole lives and end up being not at all gay.

            I suppose that when you are gay, it can help to affect certain signaling behaviors to let people know you are gay. I bet that has something to do with stereotypical gay mannerisms.

      4. Selling a burger to someone who happens to be gay isn’t a violation of any one’s religious beliefs. Being force to Cher a gay wedding to which you are theologically opposed is.

        1. ‘Cater’ not ‘Cher’. Ducking shitbag cunt autocorrect.

    4. People don’t seem to understand that businesses don’t stay in business by refusing to do business with people. That’s why I’m all for allowing discrimination for any or no reason. Let businesses go under because they tell customers to screw. Fuck ’em.

      1. There are a number of businesses where a high degree of selectivity is absolutely necessary, and entering into agreements with the wrong party can be a costly mistake (example: contractors).

        I’m with you – 100% freedom to discriminate.

      2. Maybe that’s because leftists (in general…there are always exceptions) don’t make profit by actually satisfying customers. They make their profits by crony deals with government.

    5. Zeb, thanks for providing a textbook example of a correct but clueless libertarian. Yes, you people are absolutely right that this is a freedom of association issue and that you are in the right about that. Having said that, you people are absolutely clueless if you think everyone is going to roll over and go “freedom of association, yay.” This bill just kicked up a hornets nest of opposition.

      1. “Zeb, thanks for providing a textbook example of a correct but clueless libertarian.”

        So what you’re saying is that everything Zeb said is true but you’re going to insult him anyway because reasons.

        1. Well, yeah. Libertarians are right, but unpopular. That makes them clueless, because if they had a clue then they’d be more popular. Or something.

          1. You forgot the “compromise their principles” part in exchange for popularity.

      2. Yes, you people are absolutely right that this is a freedom of association issue and that you are in the right about that.

        Which people? Who said everyone was going to roll over and go “freedom of association, yay.”? It definitely wasn’t me. I am not surprised at all by the reaction. I still think it is strange.

        I am, as always, saying what I think about the issue at hand and not giving much of a shit about the practical politics of the situation. That is not the same thing as “clueless” and you should damn well know that.

      3. In point of fact, I think most here are acknowledging (or figure it is implicitly understood) that a ton of people (some gay, mostly progressive) are not going to be all “freedom of association, yay”.

    6. In the cases which have actually arisen, what the “assholes” want is that they not be forced to assist at gay weddings.

      I am not familiar with any case where a business owner said, “you’re just too gay for me to sell you a hamburger,” or “I’d love to sell you that appliance, but first prove you’re straight.”

      1. Yes, I think you are an asshole if you believe that your religion forbids you from selling flowers to be used in a gay wedding. I think you have the right to be an asshole.

        1. The thing with flower arranging and cake decoration is that they are expressive arts, often uniquely produced for occasions like weddings. If they were baking 100 identical cakes or 100 identical flower arrangements, and just refused to sell one to a gay couple that would be assholish.

          But if they are doing a custom decoration or arrangement for that specific wedding I can totally imagine how intolerably humiliating it would have to be to sit there doing this flower arrangement, just hating doing it because they think the wedding is immoral. I can totally understand why someone would absolutely balk at the idea of being forced to do it.

          1. Who wouldn’t want Liberace to perform at their parents’ 50th wedding anniversary?

            1. My parents aren’t into the zombie culture, not that there is anything wrong with that.

      2. I am not familiar with any case where a business owner said, “you’re just too gay for me to sell you a hamburger,” or “I’d love to sell you that appliance, but first prove you’re straight.”

        Trigger warning: ThinkProgress

        The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.

        “Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it,” he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”

        Not exactly being open about discriminating, but this one example must mean that “Straights Only” signs will be popping up in every storefront in Indiana.

        /proglodyte argument

        1. assuming it was legit

    7. It is really strange how people keep talking about this as if there are tons of people out there just waiting for permission to start discriminating against gay people.

      This has been a cornerstone of the gay rights movement nearly from the beginning. Every advocate ‘had a gay friend’ who’d been denied access to their partner in the hospital. As though every doctor and RN were part of some rabid fundamentalist hoard seeking to save a gay person’s life only so long as they could trample their rights and kick their partner in the gut.

      In my experience, this sort of attitude/notion well after even many of the non-secular hospitals had policies on the books stating said types of discrimination were not allowed. People with no medical training couldn’t conceive of a reason why a professed atheist doctor at a secular hospital would deny a patient visitation save that they had a closely-held belief in the Christian interpretation of homosexual morality.

    8. It is worth pointing out that where people have been sued, they did not refuse because the customer was homosexual, but because they did not agree with the ideological contention that two people of the same can be married. In many of those cases the store had been doing other business with that customer in the past.

      1. That was specifically the case in State of WA V. Arlene’s Flowers. Our AG is a real SJW.

  10. Connecticut, for when Massachusetts is just too conservative.

    1. Why does a suburb of NYC get to boycott real states?

  11. Did you guys know that Connecticut, despite having one of the best educated populations in the country, has actually had the lowest rate of economic growth in the United States since the recession started?

    Maybe if Malloy spent a bit more time dealing with his own state than worrying about other states, Connecticut wouldn’t be totally stagnant and in economic freefall.

    Just a thought.

    1. Maybe if Malloy spent a bit more time dealing with his own state than worrying about other states, Connecticut wouldn’t be totally stagnant and in economic freefall.

      Maybe his turning his attention towards pointless gestures and abandoning governance is precisely what is needed to end the stagnation?

      1. Malloy is the most obnoxious and “progressive” governor CT has ever seen. Previous governors had the presence of mind to stay out of bullshit like this. It’s fucking embarrassing. This is what happens when you let Mick papists into positions of power!

        1. “Begorrah, I’m Governor Gerald Fitzpatrick, and this is my chief of staff, Patrick Fitzgerald. I’m here to talk about my plans to make South Boston *fabulous!*”

      2. Agreed. Instead we here in CT get aggressive, intrusive government, tax increases and public officials concerned with campus sex (Blumenthal), other state’s laws (Malloy) and guns/ammo/magazine size (Murphy).

        The Republicans here suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and would be considered Democrats south of the Mason-Dixon line.

        It’s so bad that I dream of moving to Maryland or Mass.There has been no private-sector job growth here since 2001.

        1. In alphabetical order, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont are all must avoids.

    2. Wait, so is it stagnant, or in freefall?

      1. Don’t question my bad English, Nicole. We’re not all ‘literate,’ ‘eloquent,’ or ‘capable of collecting our thoughts.’

        1. And we aren’t all the worst, either. I have to protect my tiara!

      2. “Wait, so is it stagnant, or in freefall?”

        If’n I freeze, I can’t rightly hit the ground, and if’n I hit he ground, I’ll be in motion.

        1. I suggest you move furtively.

          [snickers, waits for hail of bullets]

  12. Malloy’s actions here make me sick. Or, should I say, his inaction. This namby pamby response to the crisis is nothing short of, well, namby pamby. If it was me, I would Connecticut’s gates and allow no one in or out unless they can prove they’ve at least experimented with a sorority sister in college or engaged in a little harmless sword fighting with a HS buddy or male sibling during those formative years. I might even blow out a section of I-80 just to be sure.

    Any gay business owners in Indiana will just have to take the hit and get their out of state dollars from some other state. For the cause.

    1. That’s the funny thing. OF the dozen caterers I know in my area, 10 of them are gay. It’s difficult to find a straight cake baker here in Hoosierville.

      1. What, no lesbians?

    2. Maybe some sort of combo glory hole/toll booth on the freeways leading into CT?

      Pull up, drop the toll money and prove you are down the with gay agenda by also blowing the toll taker?

      I think we can give the women a pass on this. Since they are already victims of the patriarchy, I don’t think we need them to prove that they are willing to eat at the Y to get into CT.

    3. I-80 ends in NJ. The ignorance of you clueless libertarians is horrifying.

    4. Fist, there’s a debate in CT now about a proposed “aid in dying” bill. The legislation would allow patients with less than six months to live seek a doctor’s help to end their life (which of course the Catholic church is against). Perhaps we could apply this new law to Malloy and “aid” him.

      1. “…patients with less than six months to live seek a doctor’s help to end their life…”

        That’s already the law in OR and WA.

  13. So… What’s the best line ever from a song?

    I’m going with “Little old lady got mutilated late last night.”

      1. First record album I purchased with my own money.

        1. Mine also. I would have went with;

          Turn around bitch, I got a use for you
          Besides you ain’t got nothin’ better to do
          And I’m bored

    1. I think you need to establish categories, sarc.

      That way we could argue across several genres/fields at once.

      1. Go for it.

    2. Bowel shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse
      Assail him, impale him with monster truck force

      1. Next you’re going to say you can have your cake and listen to it too.

    3. Hair on your nipples
      Zits on your box
      In Oklahoma city
      You’re considered a fox
      What did you have to do
      For that backstage pass
      ‘Cause I found a Poison laminate inside of your ass

    4. You limit me to one line! It can’t be done.

      Jerry Curlan is nice…

      From then on it has been downhill for civilization.

  14. This whole issue gives me agida because the squeeze and I had a big 3am “debate” (as much as one can debate anything at 3am) on the principles surrounding this law. He kept presenting a moral argument why this law was bad, and I was presenting a principle-based argument why the law was not as bad as portrayed. Round and round it goes.

    This coming from someone who is on the ADL’s shit list. I gotta think he was just playing devil’s advocate…

  15. these bans only hurt bussiness run by gays in the banned cities, did these morons ever think of that.

  16. The Moral Relativeness of blaming Indiana for all discrimination is unfathomable.

    You have the CEOs of Apple and Salesforce saying they will not do any business in Indiana because of this law, but will do business in 19 other states that have substantially the same law on their books. PLUS—

    IN ADDITION, they manufacture and/or create and sell and have nexis in countries that have atrocious civil rights, worse than what we are talking about here. Where is the integrity there?

    Good for me, but not for thee? Please!

    1. …and the cluelessness over how this is going to backfire badly is also unfathomable.

      1. We’re not clueless; we’re astounded at the rank hypocrisy and stupidity.

        1. So true!

      2. You’re right, the first thing I thought when I read the Apple CEO press release was “Fuck you, I don’t think I’ll be upgrading to the iPhone 5s after all.”

        Mostly because the asshole thinks the country was founded on telling other people who they have to associate with.

        1. Nah, I think Cook just knows that if he doesn’t say something, the progs will treat him like an “Uncle Tom”. As I said below, Apple is a “right” company, and Cook is a “right” corporate exec. Signaling your “outrage” is the right thing to do!

          1. We desperately need to find a y to ressurect Steve Jobs and boot this SJW CEO.

    2. So, the CEO of Apple is going to shut all the Apple stores in Indiana, pull all Apple software from every store in Indiana, refuse to ship anything to Indiana?

      The downloads will be tricky to police, but I suspect Apple can do an OS update that will query the GPS and block any downloads to an Apple device located in Indiana.

      Or is he just woofing out his boxers, here?

      1. When social signaling is the main [read: only] goal (remember, Apple is an example of a “right” company in PR relations), inconveniences like other states passing similar laws or internal limitations mean little when the smart thing to do is pander on your hands and knees to show much we care about the prog talking point of the moment.

      2. That’s religious discrimination. I hope every single Christian Apple user in Indiana sues the shit out of him, personally, if he really does that. And it is possible to pierce the corporate veil on that one, as it is the product of his personal animus.

    3. It came across my Twitter feed that some band I never heard was cancelling their concert in Indiana. I tweeted them back the map linked above “for planning your tour dates”

  17. All snarking aside,

    Bite your tongue, Robby!

      1. I’m stealing that.

  18. Pence, a Republican, said the legislation that he signed last week prohibits Indiana laws that “substantially burden” a person’s ability to follow his or her religious beliefs.

    You gotta hand it to the Muslims for dealing forthrightly with the “religion” vs “secular law” problem.

    1. What a bullshit statement. It’s an ocean of different between protecting people’s rights to not have their religious belief infringed versus forcing everyone to follow thoe beliefs or be executed.

  19. Look at Connecticut acting like it’s a real state. That’s adorable. It has a governor and everything!

  20. As John has said before, being pro-freedom often means having to defend uncool people. Defending the 2nd amendment means defending it for neo Nazis. Defending freedom of religion means defending Scientology. Defending free speech means defending feminist musicals. Defending due process means fair trials for mass murderers.

    And so on. Once you decide it’s OK to outlaw harmless but unpopular things, there won’t be much freedom left.

    1. Once you decide it’s OK to outlaw harmless but unpopular things, there won’t be much freedom left.

      “Well, if they’re truly harmless why would anyone object to outlawing them?”

    2. Why are you equating devout religious people to all those other things. They represent the majority of Americans, not progs, gays, or anything else you’re talking about.

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ?????????????


    The dumbest, most corrupt, most falling-apart part of Ohio is the part that used to be Connecticut. Therefore, I know all I need to be able to categorically state that Yankees are subhumans and Connecticut sucks.

    1. Honestly. Have these assholes stopped to consider all of the decent people in Indiana who have nothing to do with this law who would be harmed by a boycott far more than any politicians?

  23. FWIW, Maurice’s Piggie Park Barbecue (mentioned in the “meaningful differences” link) is bad barbecue irrespective of Bessinger’s rampant racism (which was pretty damned vile).

    There is so much better barbecue to be had in South Carolina, that I don’t understand how he stayed in business.

  24. It’s gays all the way down.

    1. *** narrows gays ***


      Appy polly loggies to Swiss.

    2. ISWYDT

  25. Heard NPR report on the law this morning. Whathisname Indiana governor apparently said that it was no different than laws that Bill Clinton signed an state-legislator Obama voted for. The NPR reported added “though there are some differences”

    When asked what the differences were, the answer? Mostly timing.

    I get so tired of repeating the principals not principles mantra, but it never ends.

    1. I get so tired of repeating the principals not principles mantra

      You better not stop. NOT GIVING IS TAKING

      1. I didn’t give at the office.

      2. Wait, so not giving a shit about something is the same as shitting on that thing! Genius!

        1. Spitting poison,
          With a head full of piss,
          Then you raise the stakes,
          By raising your fist,
          I could waste my time on giving a shit,
          I’m walking out of here.

  26. OT: What’s the best brand of nicotine vapes out there? I got some Blu rechargables but I’m not particularly thrilled with them. Any recommendations?

    1. Marlboro Reds.

    2. The kind that doesn’t look like a cigarette and has a little tank for the liquid are the best, I think.

    3. I get my stuff from

  27. The easiest way to find out the truth is to assume that it’s the opposite of whatever liberals say it is. You’ll rarely go wrong. Meanwhile, the re-election of Obama and his ability to continue imposing his will without regard for such trivialities (to him) as the Constitution is increasingly freeing liberals to be open in their naked fascism.

  28. How will proggs who love to throw out the labels of being an islamaphobe and a homophobe reconcile if a muslim florist/baker refuses to do a gay wedding? Their heads might explode and I will love every minute of it

    1. That would never, EVER get any coverage in the MSM.

      So it didn’t happen.

      1. Probably, but the current minority rankings have Muslim trumping gay, so that is how it would go down if hey had to.

        1. I wish they would put together a chart of what trumps what so I can consult when issues arise:

          Sexual orientation, race, religion, gender

          For example…straight white christian male would have no trumping ability.

          Thoughts on the highest? Maybe:

          Lesbian black aetheist woman?

          1. They could, but it shifts daily.

          2. Lesbian black aetheist woman?

            Eh… more like Pansexual Black Mexican atheist non-gender-conforming entity

  29. Ann Althouse:

    Indiana has focused attention on RFRA laws, but it’s stupid to focus on Indiana. These laws are all over the place. Understand them. Understand how they apply in many different scenarios and how they are limited by courts in their application. Understand that if we’re going to relieve religious believers of the burdens of generally applicable laws, courts are going to have to avoid preferring one religion over another. You can’t accommodate the religions you agree with or think are sweet and fuzzy and say no to the ones who seem mean or ugly. We need to figure that out. If, in the end, you think the Indiana RFRA is a bad idea, check that map and see if your state has RFRA (or a RFRA-like state constitutional provision) and push for repeal in your state. And get after Congress. Congress started it. Unless you’re Hoosier, leave Indiana alone. Stop otherizing Indiana.…..-dont.html

    1. “Understand that if we’re going to relieve religious believers of the burdens of generally applicable laws, courts are going to have to avoid preferring one religion over another.”

      The progs have a problem with this. I expect that when the 1993 federal RFRA was passed, they thought that the beneficiaries were going to be cultural minorities with non-Christian religions – like the peyote religion followed by some Native Americans. A nice, multicultural way to flaunt one’s superiority to those Christian hicks.

      Then the Christian hicks started saying that *they* were entitled to religious freedom, too! The progs are shocked and appalled by this.

      1. And the Christian hicks (and others) were appalled that people other than the peyote eating Indians might use the law so they could take drugs. Very few people really want religious freedom.

        Religious freedom laws are shit as long as they allow the courts to determine what is and is not legitimate religious belief.

        Until the Church of Hookers and Blow is allowed free use of its holy sacraments, there is no religious freedom.

        1. The courts’ only task is to see if a person sincerely holds the religious views he does, or if it’s just a gag religion invented for litigation purposes.

          The courts don’t rule on the “legitimacy” of religions.

          What they *do* rule on, once the sincerity of the guy’s religious beliefs is established, is whether the government has a compelling interest in restricting the guys activities, and if there is some less restrictive means by which the government can accomplish its objective. Observe that this requires an analysis of secular, not narrowly religious, factors.

          1. The courts’ only task is to see if a person sincerely holds the religious views he does, or if it’s just a gag religion invented for litigation purposes.

            The courts don’t rule on the “legitimacy” of religions.

            What you describe is exactly the courts ruling on the legitimacy of religions. Who said religious belief and practice can’t be a gag? And why aren’t religions invented for litigation purposes any good? Restricting any of that is restricting religious freedom.

            I contend, and I am being completely serious, that there is no religious freedom unless the joke religion I just made up is protected as vigorously as any other. Unless it works that way, then the courts do in fact have the power to decide what is or is not legitimate, sincere religious practice.

            1. You’re right. Any state involvement in defining religion undercuts religious freedom. See: most of Europe. Hell, in Germany you have to incorporate to be considered a religion. In some of the Balkan States, they pull the whole Marihuana Stamp Act bullshit, but for religion.

            2. That is pne hell of a catch you have come up there. You effectively cannoy ckaim a law violates religious freedom, because the court determining what religous freedom is, is a violation of religious freedom. Therefore , your right to religious freedom is moot.

            3. In a country whose constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion, courts (and citizens, and other government bodies) will have to decide what constitutes the free exercise of religion. So first they have to decide what constitutes religion.

              Same with, say, the right to trial by jury. Just what *is* a jury?

              And what, exactly, are “arms”? (2nd Am.)

          2. I believe that a lot of the issues tangential to ‘what is a real religion’ and ‘what is belief in a real religion’ were dealt with extensively in courts during WWI in relation to the issue of conscientious objection. I don’t know much about the precedents set, but as I recall a lot of Quakers got sent to federal prisons where guards beat the shit out of them every day.

        2. “the Church of Hookers and Blow”

          I believe! Help my unbelief!

    2. Understand that if we’re going to relieve religious believers of the burdens of generally applicable laws, courts are going to have to avoid preferring one religion over another.

      What a great argument for getting rid of the oppressive laws!

    3. Do you think it occurs to Althouse that she is imposing her religious beliefs and morality on the country through these supposed anti-discrimination laws?

  30. This isn’t about tolerance or intolerance. It’s about signalling one’s moral rectitude on the issue of gay marriage. Or, more importantly, finding an excuse, ANY excuse, to signal one’s moral recititude. Because that’s what progressivism is really about. It is 90% signalling and about 5% actual thinking seriously about issues.

    1. It is all about emoting and signaling, and very little else. I can say this based on my personal experience with members of my family (mainly my father), who I think are mostly utilitarian types that logically live their lives with a libertarian’s mindset but react to news articles the same way that progs tend to do, with feelings of “outrage” and “pissed off” without thinking through the talking point very much at all. I think that most top men statists aren’t banking on appeasing the hardcore progs as much as they like to pounce on opportunities, when regular people momentarily call for “we must do SOMETHING” not realizing that they’re actually screaming at the top of their lungs for more statism.

      1. ^ +1

        I know Reagan said the most dangerous sentence in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” He’s wrong; the most dangerous sentence is “There oughta be a law.”

    2. ” It’s about signalling one’s moral rectitude …”

      That’s always a big personal motivation, but the larger motivation is always Power. Make it illegal to signal anything but support for the Progressive Theocracy.

      1. Social signaling is part of the power game, of course, because associating with the right party protects you from Team Blue fanatics ever giving you the scarlet letter “N”, aka. nutcase. Talk about microaggressions!

  31. Some have speculated that the only reason this is being made into a big deal is because Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is a potential 2016 presidential candidate. Georga is getting ready to pass a similar law and guess what? Not a peep about it.

    1. That probably is an amplifying factor.

      However, as we saw with the Chick-Fil-A case, the country already has a sufficient number of sanctimonious scolds to make flash-mob boycotting of whoever is the devil of the day a thing.

    2. “…because Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is a potential 2016 presidential candidate…”

      Bingo. I lived for decades just outside the Congressional district he represented in Indiana for 6 terms. It is a swing district, maybe really Democrat. Pence is smart and has potential mainstream appeal. I think the left fears him as a candidate and this is a preemptive strike.

  32. until I looked at the bank draft ov $8930 , I have faith that…my… neighbours mother was like realy receiving money in there spare time on their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this 4 only 16 months and resantly paid for the loans on there home and bought themselves a Fiat Multipla .

    official website –

  33. If a heterosexual person wanted to buy a wedding cake to used at a gay wedding, the Christian owner would also deny service. The same goes for polygamist or incestuous marriages.

    So this isn’t really even about “sexual orientation”. It’s about a religious person not being forced to associate with an event defined as offensive by their religion. If a minority store owner refused to provide materials to be used at a hate rally, the progs will quietly applaud that decision.

    As for boycotts are concerned, they don’t work or last in America. Even though the place is crawling with grievance mongers, the underlying cause for any boycotts isn’t enough to unify all the different groups. And people lose interest in things pretty quick. The sort of places that stage nationwide boycotts are super poor, nationalist, and harbor deep seated anti establishment sentiment (the west, America, Japan, China, Anglos, etc) fueled by their agenda driven the media and popular entertainment.

    1. My biggest concerns about these forms of law are whether they are entirely unnecessary because freedom of association had already been mentioned in the First Amendment. Now that I realize that it has never been explicitly written in the Bill of Rights, and have only been implied in certain SCOTUS cases, I actually understand why religious freedom laws have a purpose in state law. My one criticism of Indiana’s law at this point is this: why is the bill simply focused on religious freedom when they could make a fully standard law protecting the freedom of association AND non-association?

  34. Re: Tonio,

    Having said that, you people are absolutely clueless if you think everyone is going to roll over and go “freedom of association, yay.”

    Frame the argument around property rights. Little red Marxians tend to squirm and bloviate whenever they invoke the “public accomodation” argument which is nothing more than an appeal to force and a case of special pleading.

    1. Private property rights and the public accommodation argument clash when States hire gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to stop somebody else from exercising property rights. Let’s say homos cannot get served in your bar. You go to open a bar that will serve homos. You didn’t get picked by the bureaucrats to have a license.

  35. Look at that pic. Real brain trust, especially on the right.

  36. Folks boycotting Indiana will be exercising same right they wish to deny others: deciding who they do business with. I imagine the irony will be lost on them

  37. After reading the comments for this article, I see how much anti Christian there is amongst Reason readers. Equating Christians, to Nazis, etc.. Like Christians are the outliers. Hate to tell you all this, but YOU guys are the lutliers. As am I in many ways. At least I’m cognizant of that.

    Grow the fuck up

  38. Both States are committing a hate crime against Mr. and Mrs. Twenty:

    Nobody is hiring gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to haul homosexuals off to jail for having a gay old time, but both States hire gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to haul Mr. and Mrs. Twenty off to jail for drinking the beverage of their choice.

    Nobody is forcing Christian wedding photographers not to participate in a homosexual ceremony, but barkeepers are forced not to serve Mr. and Mrs. Twenty.

    Individuals have a choice whether to be homosexual or not. (They’re constantly accusing me of secretly being a homosexual myself, me being a man married to a woman and we have two children. By estoppel, the liberals say a homosexual can choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle.) Nobody has any choice over their date of birth.

    That’s the difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Interracial marriage laws were judgment by the color of your skin. Bans on same-sex marriage judge you by the content of your character.

  39. It’s the twitter Block Bot of executive orders.

  40. We live out west, but own a condo in Greenwich CT, it is going on the market mucho pronto. Malloy was a jerk many years before this idiot move. The whole state is now over taxed. Buh bye!! They should prohibit all travel within the USS as this IN bill looks too much like a old federal law. Idiots. Emotional idiots. PC turds.

  41. Hypocritical is about right. Talk of the pot calling the kettle black.

  42. What happens when UConn or any other state school has to travel to Indiana for an athletic event?
    Will the state refuse to pay the travel expenses if UConn’s mens basketball team plays in the Final Four in Indianapolis?

  43. I find the hypocrisy of the left hilarious, first they scream and cry about Christians “forcing their morality on us” but then turn around and want to enforce their “progressive” world view on businesses and people who might not necessarily agree with that point of view. If your libertarian you believe in a voluntary society, you should have the right to refuse service to ANYBODY just as I have a right to boycott or picket your bigoted business if you won’t allow gays and minorities into your establishment. To force somebody against their own personal beliefs to serve somebody that violates those beliefs, regardless of what they are is immoral.

  44. One of Hartford, Connecticut’s sister cities is Free Town, Sierra Leone, capital of a country where male homosexual activity is illegal and can be punished by life imprisonment.

    Checkmate, biznatches.

  45. Here is a way better story on this subject, (Reason really needs to work on its journalism)…..mg00000003

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.