Gay Marriage

Mike Pence: Our Religious Freedom Law Ain't Broke, But We'll Fix It

Indiana's governor calls for a RFRA amendment clarifying that the law does not authorize anti-gay discrimination.


Office of the Governor

This morning Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, reeling from nationwide criticism of his state's newly minted Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), promised "legislation that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone." Pence did not specify what language would accomplish that goal, but he said he has been consulting with legislative leaders and is determined to sign a corrective bill this week. "This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples," he said, answering a question that he repeatedly dodged in an ABC News interview on Sunday. Yet Pence continued to obfuscate the issue of whether the law can be used as a defense against discrimination complaints.

According to Pence, an amendment is needed not to change the substance of Indiana's law but to address "misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization" casting it as a vehicle of anti-gay bigotry. "I was pleased to have signed it, and I stand by the law," he said. "I don't believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to [create] a right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anyone else, and it certainly wasn't my intent. But I can appreciate that that's become the perception, not just here in Indiana but all across this country, and we need to confront that…The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not about discrimination. As I said last week, had this law been about legalizing discrimination, I would have vetoed it. This law does not give anyone a license to discriminate….It is simply a balancing test used by the federal courts and jurisdictions across the country for more than two decades."

That much is true, but Indiana's RFRA does give bakers, florists, photographers, and anyone else who refuses to participate in a gay wedding a possible defense against complaints brought under local antidiscrimination ordinances. Under RFRA, they can argue that forcing them to assist gay couples "substantially burdens" their "exercise of religion." If a court accepts that claim, the burden is then on the government to justify the imposition by showing it is "the least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling governmental interest."

Social conservatives who supported Indiana's RFRA clearly hoped the government would not be able to satisfy that test. But University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious liberty who supports gay marriage but is sympathetic to the claims of conscientious objectors who do not want to facilitate it, notes that "nobody has ever won a religious exemption from a discrimination law under a RFRA standard." Laycock hopes that people who run "very small businesses providing wedding services or marital counseling services" can use laws like Indiana's to avoid being conscripted into work that violates their religious beliefs. But he says he is "not optimistic," noting that "so far, the religious claimants have lost all of those cases."

RFRA's impact on such cases is currently relevant only in Indianapolis, Bloomington, and South Bend, which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. State law does not, so the "license to discriminate" that worries RFRA opponents already exists in most of Indiana. Today Pence reiterated his opposition to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying, "I've never supported that. It's not on my agenda."

Furthermore, even while insisting that RFRA has nothing to do with discrimination, Pence hinted in the ABC News interview that he is sympathetic to the religious freedom claims of people who balk at baking gay wedding cakes or photographing gay weddings:

The issue here is, you know, is tolerance a two-way street or not? I mean, you know, there's a lot of talk about tolerance in this country today, having to do with people on the left. And but here, Indiana steps forward to protect the constitutional rights and privileges of freedom of religion for people of faith and families of faith in our state.

"When you say tolerance is a two-way street," ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked, "does that mean that Christians who want to refuse service, or people of any other faith who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians, that it's now legal in the state of Indiana? That's a simple yes or no question." It was a question Pence persistently refused to answer, to the point that the interview is uncomfortable to watch.

To be clear: There is nothing wrong with thinking that people should not be forced to do work they do not want to do, whatever their motivation might be. But rather than forthrightly defend that principle (or a more limited version of it, based specifically on religious freedom), Pence has repeatedly assured us that Hoosiers are nice people. Today he declared them "the greatest people on Earth" and regretted that their reputation for hospitality had been sullied by the RFRA controversy. "I abhor discrimination," he said. "I believe that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe, and I believe every Hoosier shares that conviction." I do not know whether the legislative fix Pence has in mind will assuage his critics, but I hope it does, if only so he will stop going on and on about Hoosier hospitality.

NEXT: You Want the IRS to Tell You How to Navigate Complicated Tax Forms? That'll Cost You.

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. “This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples,”

    We shouldn’t need license to exercise an inviolable right such as of free association/contract. But all the same if the law isn’t facilitating that purpose then it’s value is what exactly?

    1. It will protect a number of various minority views, just not where they conflict with antidiscrimination laws. Which is what, as the post notes, every court has found that the balancing test requires. (Though I certainly understand the arguments against.) OTOH, it won’t necessarily do much at all since Indiana courts have AIUI continued to apply the Sherbert test even after the US Supreme Court (Scalia) abandoned that Warren Court precedent.

      In the meantime we get people who apparently think that the USA is in favor of anti-Semitism and racism and blasphemy because we refuse to prosecute people for committing it.

      1. In the meantime we get people who apparently think that the USA is in favor of anti-Semitism and racism and blasphemy because we refuse to prosecute people for committing it.

        I have zero fucks to give about those people.

  2. It’s signaling all the way down.

  3. Indiana’s governor calls for a RFRA amendment clarifying that the law does not authorize anti-gay discrimination.

    How easily he caved.

    1. If he signed the law, there isn’t really shit he can do at this point unless the legislature caves too.

  4. If people are going this FULL RETARD with KULTUR WAR and signalling bullshit over something this stupid and this early in what promises to possibly be the most fully retarded presidential election season in all of human history, what is next year going to look like? What about next week?

    I’m close to just getting stoned all day, ignoring every form of news and social bullshit, and watching Bojack Horseman and Broad City all day. Holy fuck the outrage machine is just too fucking much at this point.

    1. I was just thinking about how much cultural war bullshit we’re going to see in the upcoming election. It’s all the Democrats have, and the GOP is happy to play along, because if that’s the whole issue, they can spend money like crazy without worrying about people focusing too much on the massive debt.

      1. And here I thought the culture war might actually start to wind down. Not because the true believers are any less willing to fight, but because everyone else was just going to want a break.

        I am far too optimistic sometimes.

        1. Enjoy the ghafla as our country and freedoms continue their decline.

        2. It’s the perfect way to deflect attention from the systematic theft and enslavement. I can’t think of a time in history when it didn’t work.

          1. What’s sad now is that most of it is open and easily known. And we have the power to change it all in a relatively short time. Instead, we argue about nonessentials while America burns.

            1. Fuck you cut spending?

          2. Fucking bread and circuses.

          3. It’s the perfect way to deflect attention from the systematic theft and enslavement. I can’t think of a time in history when it didn’t work.

            I don’t think a certain libertarianish candidate will fail to capitalize on the failures of the entrenched establishment on both sides. If he’s smart, he’ll harp on the real problems and point out when his opponents are attempting to distract us from them. It could be a terrific play for him.

            1. That’s exactly what I’d do, dismissing the Issue of the Day? and focusing on core problems.

      2. Let’s be honest: Reason absolutely loves these culture war issues.

        1. Reason likes thinking only other people are bigots.

        2. Reason likes thinking only other people are bigots.

    2. If only they outrage addicts could spend a fraction of their energy fighting against, I don’t know, real problems like 3rd world starvation, the lack of clean water for poor nations, kleptocracies, murderous tribalism, etc.

      Nah, cray cray talk. There are non-existent problems to fight against here!

      1. Why would they ever do that? They don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves and filling whatever horrible hole exists inside them. Don’t ever think this is about anything but them.

      2. Good God man, do you want to make it even worse for the developing world?

        1. Anyway, all of those starving people are racist homophobes.

      3. Come on, people, let’s prioritize!


      1. I feel awful for having laughed at that.

        Okay, not really.

    4. Is Broad City “won’t turn it off if it comes on” good or “I insist that my friends watch at least one episode” good?

      1. It’s “I can’t believe they just said that and did that” good. Seriously, check it out.

        “It’s 2014, anal is on the menu.”

      2. Broad City is “fuckin hilarious” good. Not as good as Always Sunny when it was in its prime, but better than its current incarnation. Definitely my favorite comedy show right now.

        1. Plus Ilana Glazer is a cutie. But yeah, it’s my favorite new comedy show. I’m almost at the point of rewatching all the episodes again already.

      3. “won’t turn it off if it comes on” good, or “go watch bojack horseman first if you havent yet” good.

    5. I just want a moon base or a man-made island or a gulch or even a city under the sea where genetically modified psychopaths are trying to kill me JUST SO LONG AS I CAN GET AWAY FROM THIS SHIT.

      1. The most insidious thing about the people who engage in this shit is they don’t want you to be able to get away from their shit. They revel in making the rest of us have to hear and see it. It’s another form of power.

        1. *sobbing knowingly*

        2. It’s not that they revel in making the rest of us put up with their shit, it’s that they’re children who throw a hissy fit when we don’t want to play with them.

          That’s also why leftists are so angry about the possibility of secession. The idea that people could leave the increasingly authoritarian state that the left has worked so hard to create makes them awfully pissy.

          1. Or children who follow you around and scream and heckle and poke and prod and who I’m not allowed to punch in the the goddamn trachea because they will call their parents.

            I remember once trying to have a discussion about secession being a retained power of the states and an integral part of the separation of powers. It took less than five seconds for it to devolve into screams of “neo-confederate” and “racist.”

            1. If you don’t want to be part of their shit, they take it as a personal rejection. Because they are pathetically insecure. Like, cripplingly so.

        3. What fun is moral preening if no one is there to watch?

    6. the outrage machine is just too fucking much at this point.

      You are officially an old fart. You should never have done my mom.

      1. I feel exactly the same way. If I had actually paid her I’d want my money back.

    7. Then I entourage you to go to DU and experience FULL RETARD.

      I keep asking myself would I stop doing everything I can to boycott the state of Indiana even if this law were repealed? It will still be the same state..same bigoted governor, same bigoted, fundy legislature, same rednecks who elected all of them. Why let up on them when this is just a very small change in all of that?

      1. It’s all an excuse to have an other to hate. Once they have the excuse, it’s FULL HATE. Because that’s what they really wanted in the first place.

        1. Me, I’m boycotting corn.

          And soybeans,
          and pork,
          and chicken,
          and poultry,
          and dairy.

          Aw fuck it, I’m just going to boycott farmers, because Indiana has a lot of those, right?

          1. Exactly. What the coasters don’t realize is that they exist only at the pleasure of the fly-over state people who grow their food and meat. That damn greed for money and profit allows a Manhattanite to go out tonite for a great steak and potato and yuck it up about the hicks and cowboys who provided his meal.

            1. Manhattanite…steak and potato

              Manhattanites are above steak and potato. And even if they weren’t, it would come from some organic farm in Woodstock, not the Midwest. Carbon footprints, and all that.

          2. On the bright side, it means everybody has to boycott John Cougar Mellencamp too.

            1. +1 Pink House

            2. But..I was born in a small town
              And I live in a small town
              I’ll probly die in a small town
              That’s probly where they’ll bury me

          3. Jesus fucking Christ, White people, if you’re going to boycott a state, do it right.

      2. Do they no longer care that all 9 CEO’s are white men, or is this their penance?

    8. what promises to possibly be the most fully retarded presidential election season in all of human history

      So what, you expect the earth to explode before 2020? It’s always the most retarded election season until the next one.

      I have to get on Broad City. Everyone praises it, but every time I see discussion of it, it sounds like middling shock humor (like what I’ve seen of Amy Schumer). Review is my Comedy Central program of choice. And Bojack Horseman is really great.

  5. Obviously you can’t deny service to the Kings men. You uppity serfs are out of control.

  6. I guess it’s KULTUR WAR week at reason

    1. Until Indiana stops their wanton slaughter of homosexuals, we will not rest

  7. Did something happen in Indiana?

    1. Gays are starving in the streets unable to get basic food and housing services. But we are fighting the power by refusing other services.

      1. Gays are starving in the streets unable to get basic food

        *narrows gays*

        (That never gets old!)

      1. Goes to show, be careful how you manipulate your gun…

        1. That was almost a Darwin award.

          1. (and by that, I mean almost shooting himself in the dick before he had a chance to procreate. I have no idea if the shot was near fatal)

            1. however it is accomplished, removing ones self from the breeding pool is all it takes to qualify for a Darwin. however, I will entertain debate as to whether breeding prior to the removal disqualifies.

  8. Great. When the dust settles, the end result will be the government deciding what speech and association will be allowed, and what will be prohibited, based on what’s popular at the time. So as usual in cases like this, the people who value freedom lose.

    1. This is what I worry about. Compulsion for thoughtcrime never ends well.

    2. I’m starting to believe that TEAM OUTRAGE and the SJWs just want to turn the world into a massive perverted version of high school where they aren’t massive dorks and actually have some power and popularity. Of course, that would be the power to mob-bully people to death.

      1. Don’t be like peaked-in-high-school Epi. Ditch cable and buy Direct TV.

        1. “Peaked,” Dee? Let me tell you something. I haven’t even begun to peak. And when I do peak, you’ll know. Because I’m going to peak so hard, that everybody in Philadelphia will feel it.

          1. Could you find a dumber show to quote?

            1. Do they have streaming video of your cable access show?

              If not, then no, he is stuck with that quote.

              1. I’m assuming you are the host of “The John Pr0n Power Hour”

      2. The problem is that they won’t be the ones in power. I mean, that’s the problem from their perspective, not from the rest of ours. They’re not a majority and lack the ability to really achieve lasting political power.

        1. I never said they weren’t incredibly, mind-blowingly stupid, ProL.

          1. Stepping back from the current horrors of what’s to come, history is a great guide to this. With the exception of the one that got this country going, most revolutions end up being co-opted by someone other than the initial revolutionaries. And in less revolutionary regime changes, the guy who seizes power often isn’t the one who made such seizure possible in the first place.

            1. “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
              ? George Orwell, 1984

            2. Dude, you have to understand that these people aren’t going to cause a revolution. This is mob behavior from the meek, the losers, the unambitious. They can only gain power with the mob, and they’re learning that the internet will allow them to gain some modicum of power when they mass together on it.

              This is the thrashing about of a group of people who have never had power in their lives but always wanted it, and are finally getting a little bit of it by mob-bullying people. I’m not sure where it’s going to go, but remember that these people, at the end of the day, are losers. And what do losers always do?

              1. And what do losers always do?

                Get lucky sometime?

              2. I agree, they aren’t revolutionaries. But people like them may think seizing power is an option. It is, given the state of affairs, but not by them.

            3. And a whole bunch of people die, and no one learns a goddamn thing from it.

            4. “So this is how liberty ends. With one great, big, thunderous temper tantrum.”

    3. I wonder what would happens if we ever got a politician with a set of balls.

      1. The media would destroy him as he made the leap from Town Council to County Rep.

      2. The media would denounce his privilege.

    4. No, it does not. Because when most people say they are against discrimination, it means discrimination against people and views they agree with.

      The best thing to do would be to just strike the law from the books. But now we will have a law that “fixes” another law, then we will have lawsuits, then more laws…

      1. The logical conclusion of fixing bad legislation with more bad legislation is having every minutia of daily life legislated and subject to government force.

    5. the end result will be the government still deciding what speech and association will be allowed, and what will be prohibited, based on what’s popular at the time.

      Keep in mind, this is all about an exception to those requirements. An exception that is being beaten down.

  9. Fuck! I am officially proposing a cap on RFRA articles.

    If that doesn’t work, I will boycott them. Consider this your final warning.

    1. I just wish Reason would take a position by refusing to service Indiana IPs. I feel like my views would really be validated.

    2. Sorry, but you’re not important enough to boycott. Only important people (at least those important enough to have their lives displayed in Us magazine) get to boycott, not mere mortals.

      1. Whatever, I’ve been boycotting Indiana for 33 years.

    3. Reason can obsess on a topic like no other outlet I know of. Days upon days of obsession over “what do Millennials think?”, our future robot overlords, etc., on top of multiple articles essentially saying the exact same thing on the same hot topic of the week (the Hilary email snafu, SCOTUS’s review of Obamacare, etc.).

  10. [George Stephanopoulos] “does that mean that Christians who want to refuse service, or people of any other faith who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians, that it’s now legal in the state of Indiana?

    It was always legal to refuse service. I can say “Sorry, can’t. Scheduling problems.” and tell the customer to take a hike.

    1. He should have said “I wouldn’t expect a Christian baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding anymore than I’d expect a Muslim baker to bake a cake depicting Mohammed for an atheist meetup or a Jew baker to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi rally”

      1. But Christians already have enough privilege. You can just smell it on them. Jews and Muslims don’t have as much privilege, so it’s OK if we give them more.

        1. Perhaps we need some sort of scoring system, updating annually, that designates your level of privilege. Other than the one where they take a third of your money away.

          1. Maybe we denote said privilege (or lack thereof) by a system of stars emblazoned on everyone’s clothing.

          2. Horrible news for me:

            1) White guy
            2) Private boarding school for HS
            3) Private school for undergrad
            4) Fraternity in undergrad
            5) Lawyer
            6) Paid off law school loan with inherited oil money.
            7) Married
            8) One male child

            1. I am 1, 4, 5. I am jealous of your 6 and will disguise this envy by denouncing your +5 privilege and demanding that you pay off my school loans under the rubric of “fairness.”

              You may or may not have a counter-claim against me for 7 and 8 depending on the degree of 7s hotness and 8s willingness to let you sleep through the night.

            2. Even I am awed by your privilege.

            3. No private boarding school. No male child.

              No loans after law school (no idea where the money came from to pay my tuition. Not asking, either. Some things, there’s no statute of limitations on.)

              Other than that, spot on. Plus, I actually managed to join a frat in law school (Lincoln’s Inn Society. Parties there were always well stocked with high-class tail from the little colleges around Boston, looking to land a lawyer.)

              1. No loans after law school (no idea where the money came from to pay my tuition. Not asking, either. Some things, there’s no statute of limitations on.)

                Ah, I see, so it came from selling your black orphans to Koch-owned cotton plantations…

            4. Ha! I beat you, because I’m a Southern white male lawyer!

              1. I’m from SC…

              2. Texan white male lawyer. Started practicing in the capitol of the Confederacy. Currently hold 4 law licenses in various states of activity.

                Do try to keep up, Pro.

                My old man paid my law school bills. He was astonished that I wasn’t in jail and had gotten into a good school. Its how he got the money that I don’t want to know. Trust me, if you knew Pa Dean, you wouldn’t ask questions either.

                1. I was addressing my new blood enemy, RBS. I know your quasi-Southern lineage. I mean, we’ve been commenting here since Reconstruction.

      2. All you bases are belong to us, no trouble.

      3. You can’t do that! It’s not discrimination when those people do it.

        Seriously, I read this argument. Might have been one of you dickheads who linked it, and I say that with all due insult because reading it was about as enjoyable as a migraine. The gist is that bigotry isn’t just a matter of holding bigoted thoughts, but of being the wrong person to hold bigoted thoughts. You’re the wrong person if you enjoy a power asymmetry over others (e.g., if you’re white, heterosexual, male, or Christian). Which is why blacks hating whites isn’t bigotry, just a reaction to their historical disempowerment. Same with gays hating straights, women hating men, or religious (and irreligious) minorities hating Christians. They’re just responding to their natural inclination to hate their oppressors, like some sort of protosentient creature lacking moral agency or intellectual rectitude.

        1. I love how the people who have enlisted the literal millions of armed agents of the state to enforce their opinions are the ones on the short side of a “power asymmetry.”

          1. I like that Charlie Hebdo got attacked by certain leftists for ‘punching down’ given that it seems like the people with the assault rifles were the ones on the powerful end of a power asymmetry.

            Progressives don’t know what power is and they base their arguments on their own ignorance. It’s just like that article in the New York Times where an ACTUAL SURVIVOR OF THE CHARLIE HEBDO ATTACK had been criticized by a Muslim student at a school because the phrase ‘Je Suis Charlie’ made the Muslim student feel bad. Then the student newspaper criticized the Charlie Hebdo survivor for not making enough of a safe space because she had power and the student didn’t.

            Got that? The person who was almost murdered by crazed gunmen needs to check her privilege.

          2. Apple is iconically counter-cultural despite being a corporate juggernaut, Google is the savior of internet consumers because it’s not Comcast, and federal policy doesn’t factor into race relations because hey, Jim Crow and neo-Confederate much?

    2. Bigot!

    3. You’d think this is a problem that could have easily been solved with Yelp reviews.

  11. OT: I mentioned the random drug & nicotine testing that started here at work.

    Well guess who drew first straw in the test? Me!

    I had a hard time complying with this; thinking that if they want to lose a 13 year employee over this, then they shall reap what they sow. But as it stands my current situation – helping my wife start her law practice and the freedom of time & movement this job gives me, I ended up caving. I feel sick to my stomach for doing so. I let my displeasure be known to my manager and he said he will put it up the chain but I imagine nothing will happen.

    When I can move on to another job, I’ll let them know it was the drug & nicotine policy was my main reason for leaving (okay, it’s only one of many but they don’t know that).

    1. Re: Lord Humungus,

      Well guess who drew first straw in the test? Me!

      My most sincere condolences for having to close your underground pot and cigar shop. Land of the free – my ass.

      1. According to my liberal friend this type of testing is the libertarians fault… something something that’s what corporations want to do.

        1. Just like banks handing out mortgages like candy to unqualified borrowers. All those plans canceled when the ACA took effect were the fault of corporations, too?those corporate fatcats insist that people take on more coverage than they reasonable need.

    2. Nicotine testing?

      I can sort of understand why they don’t want you to be drunk/stoned while at the work… but nicotine?

    3. Could be worse. I got another juror questionnaire in the mail yesterday. Once you do jury duty, you get six years before you can be called again. The last time I was called? September 2008. Six and a half years ago. Fuck.

      1. You get six years? We only get two. Obligation-privileged shitlord!

  12. “so far, the religious claimants have lost all of those cases.”

    Sometimes because the courts limit the scope of the RFRA laws in retarded ways, which hopefully the Indiana law will preclude.

  13. “RFRA’s impact on such cases is currently relevant only in Indianapolis, Bloomington, and South Bend, which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

    Yeah, whenever there’s a story about a RFRA controversy where they proclaim that the state doesn’t have a “public accomodations” law, it soon turns out that some important cities and towns in the state have such laws.

    I wonder – what proportion of Indiana’s population lives in Indianapolis, Bloomington and South Bend, taken together?

    1. I just checked and it’s about a sixth of the state’s population. There are 6.5 million people in Indiana and a little over a million in South Bend, Bloomington, and Indianapolis.

      1. Thank you!

    2. Population of Indiana — 6.6 million.

      Pop of Indianapolis — 0.8 million.

      pop of Bloomington — 0.1 million

      pop of South Bend — 0.1 million

      So, about 15%. Not counting the metro areas, which I assume aren’t covered by the laws.

  14. I’m still waiting on greater clarity on the following exchange from yesterday =

    “Rhywun|2015/03/30 22:53:23|#5192245

    I’ve been gay-refused by a NYC taxi before. I was mighty pissed and given that taxis are a quasi-public service here

    GILMORE|2015/03/31 00:37:38|#5192285

    unless “gay” is a color i’m unfamiliar with – how exactly is a cabdriver supposed to determine your sexual orientation by looking at you?

    Rhywun|2015/03/31 10:20:37|#5192835~new~ ~toMe~

    Well, I was with someone. I think the driver thought we were doing something that we weren’t doing.”

    Because I’m still waiting to find out precisely the moment when the “rampant bigotry” reared its head and the cabdriver went, “yeah, i’m not having that”.

    regarding ‘freedom of association’…

    cab drivers in NY have long and famously gone “Where?”
    and you go “BROOKLYN”… and they go
    SCREEECHH…. as they peal out getting away from you ASAP

    The @#*$& rule is *get in the cab first*

    1. If indeed this story is true, dollars to donuts the cabbie was an alcine appendage, if you know what I mean…

      1. “an alcine appendage”

        ….ah. Moose limb.

        that took googling.

        Really, do you think *only muslims* object to certain ‘behavior’ in their vehicles…and only by people of certain sexual orientations?

        I’m retaining the official position of “Calling Bullshit” on the idea of cabdriver gay-discrimination until Rhywun clarifies exactly how said driver made that precise determination.

        1. “Well I was sucking my friend’s cock, so the driver assumed I was gay.”

          1. Well, *that’s* certainly presumptuous.

            I mean…. what if he’d been bitten by a snake!?

  15. Come on Mike – Show some
    Hetro-normative backbone.
    Queers walk all over you.

    1. ….


      that’s not a Haiku.

      (pulls out extra-large, razor sharp Haiku)

  16. I think the driver thought we were doing something that we weren’t doing

    Sounds to me like he probably didn’t want you doing whatever you weren’t doing in his cab.

    1. Clearly he’d have been okay with a straight couple banging in the back of his cab. It’s only because it was gay sex that he thought was about to happen!

  17. The Romans were fucking amateurs. ‘Bread and circuses?’ Really? That stuff costs the state money. All you need to do is periodically get the public outraged over fucking nothing and it has the exact same effect as bread and circuses, it’s entirely free, and it has the added bonus of dividing the public into competing tribes who don’t care whatsoever as they’re pillaged by the ruling class.

    1. Of course, dude. Why do you think the politicians and particularly the media love KULTUR WAR? It’s an incredibly obvious divide-and-conquer scheme, and the public is the enemy. And it works so well.

  18. There is difference between an off-the-shelf product and custom product or service. If there isn’t, I am just going to make one up for argument’s sake.

    If I go into a T-shirt store and pick a shirt off-the-shelf I should be able to buy it at the price-tag value with no conditions from the owner. This would be consistent with the 1964 CRA. But if I ask for a custom T-shirt with a hammer and sickle print, a swastika print, or a photo of migrating geese, it is within the owner’s discretion to refuse my request.

    It’s a crazy compromise for sure.

    1. If the owner doesn’t like the look of you and wants to prevent you (to the extent he can, directly) from wearing his shirts, he should be under no compulsion to sell to you. Much like you’re under none to buy from him.

    2. Compromise and nuance have no place in the SJW worldview. It’s all Oppression and Victimization, 100% of the time.

      They really seem to believe that if it were legal to do so, gays would be tossed out of restaurants and groceries stores. They can’t grasp the concept that participating in a wedding is a very special and limited kind of service.

      They’d never ask a Muslim caterer to provide a roast pig on a spit for an event, nor would they sue if they were turned down. But gay marriage is a symbolic totem, and The Most Important Thing In The World Right Now. It’s not enough that it be allowed! Everyone must be forced to participate!

      1. What I find particularly ridiculous is that it isn’t exactly like we’re dealing with the Jim Crow south here where gays are treated as second class citizens. The worst things discrimination caused in the south at the time were horrible outcomes like the total ejection of blacks from participation in civil society.

        Today, the absolute worst that will happen to a gay person as a result of an RFRA law is that they’ll be mildly inconvenienced through having to go somewhere else for their cake.

        For this, companies are being driven out of business with lawsuits and we’re in the midst of a gargantuan shit-fit over an absolutely unimportant law.

        1. I wouldn’t say the law is unimportant, just that the horrible outcomes predicted are 99.99% bullshit. It’s partly an issue of scale: it’s not as if apartment complexes are going to say “No gay couples allowed.” But if you want to rent the in-law unit from an old Catholic lady, yeah, she might not want to. So leave her alone and go elsewhere.

      2. There are few of these SJWs though. It’s rule by shouting loudest from the rooftops.

    3. We will need to repeal the CRA for that to work, Dweebston. Ain’t gonna happen.

      1. Fair point.

  19. Memo to Mike Pence:

    The pain won’t start to go away until you stop feeding the headlines.

    Cancel all your press conferees.


    Common Sense

      1. Damn!

        I liked Common Sense.

        It was intuitive, and it was often right!

        1. No, he sucked except for that one song.

          and even that was over-rated

          1. I was expecting “The Light”

            1. I never listened to post-sense Common.

              He was one of those people that …. people who “didn’t like rap” said they liked. It was a cliche in the 1990s/early 2000s

              “I don’t like rap music…. but you know, the Fugees? and that Common guy, yeah, they’re OK”

              1. I like the Digital Underground, does that count?

                1. No, if you like the humpty dance, “rumpshaker” (wreckx n effect), or that “this is how we do it” song, you just really enjoy an excuse to dry-hump chicks in bars

                  1. *and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hell, its a whole genre.

                  2. *sobs*

                    It’s true, it’s all true….

  20. I wish there were as many threads about Hillary blowing up her email server.

  21. is determined to sign a corrective bill this week.

    What if he never gets one?

    1. The SJW’s will never notice.

  22. The alt-text is broke.

  23. Just for the record, it’s still not okay to say that Goldwater was right.


    Because that would be wrong.

    1. Turning the nation into a cultural panopticon with the lunatics manning the turrets wasn’t a good idea?

      1. Depends.

        If you’re manning a turret, its frickin’ awesome.

        1. Man, I have to wonder. Look at the self-appointed cultural martinets presiding over the lunacy. Women like Suey Long, who made her name punching up at Stephen Colbert in a fashion that caused everyone who isn’t psychotically devoted to the cause either to roll their eyes or laugh out loud. Do you think Suey Long enjoys being Suey Long? Maybe. Do you think she enjoys having that broomstick lodged so far up her ass it’s fused along her spine as much as she’d enjoy, say, not having it up there? Someone recently posted an essay by some SJW who had her coming-to-God moment and abandoned the fruitless toil as a social scold. I don’t think that’s an unusual sentiment for people who act like they’re fighting a hopeless battle against occupiers.

          1. I didn’t know what you were talking about, so i looked this thing up…

            oh, “Park”, not ‘long’

            and christ, its horrible. the first words out her mouth when the host goes, “So = “Why”?” is… “uh, ‘that’s a loaded question’….’

            these SJW people constantly describe themselves as “serious” and “reasonable”, when they’re the most unserious and unreasonable people on earth. They live on “backlash” because they say stupid shit and then flop around dramatically while people ridicule them.

  24. This whole fucking thread is gay.

    1. So gay it’s trending on Grindr.

      1. GET OUT OF MY CAB!!
        (vaguely muslim accent)

        1. That brings me to my next point:

          If Mike Pence wants to stop all of the boycott nonsense without changing the law at all, what he should do is come out and say “this bill is about allowing the Muslims within Indiana to peacefully choose who they associate with without violating their deep and abiding faith and the conscience.” The only way to counter bitching on behlaf of a socially-approved grievance group is with another socially-approved grievance group.

          1. I have a problem with “Muslims” being plural in this case.

  25. This morning Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, reeling from nationwide criticism of his state’s newly minted Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), promised “legislation that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone.”

    ALL businesses have the right to deny services to anyone. Always have, always will have said right.

    A. Just because you pass an immoral law doesn’t mean that my rights stop existing.
    B. You, asshole, do not have the authority to grant or deny rights. FOADIAF!

    These idiots really do think they are god.

  26. A bit off-topic but I saw this article from Ben Shapiro on Breitbart about the companies who plan to boycott Indiana, do business with gay hating countries.

    1. Which are most of them once you get outside Western Europe.

      At least, if you apply to everyone else the standards the SJW’s apply to the US.

      1. Hell, I spoke too soon.

        Looks like most of Europe doesn’t even allow gay “marriage”, although they have the kind of alternative “civil” arrangements that get you called a murderous homophobic hater bigot in this country.….._in_Europe

  27. Gays are what, like 4% or the population ? or 10% at the most, if memory serves.
    So much uproar over a tiny slice of the population.
    I’m as tolerant and open minded as the next guy, but let me say this.
    Enough with the Gay already.
    Every TV show has to have a character whose whole identity is that they’re gay. Can you say token?
    My wife’s soap opera has a gay love triangle, where two are married so these guys keep refering to “my husband”…Ok Ok OK we get it, we have to accept gay marriage.
    Some other prime time show (Scandal ?) we get to see the gay guys in bed together. Ok Ok OK ! I get it, gay people sleep together.
    It’s just that a little bit goes a long way.

    Enough with the Gay already !

    1. This is clearly a sign of rampant libertarian homophobia.

      HATER!! PURGE IT!!

    2. I’ve seen 3 – 4%.

      Although, if you went by visibility in various forms of media, you’d probably guess its more like 20%.

      Yeah, there’s a lot of social signaling going on. Its the only way privileged, vapid people can pretend that they are doing something that matters.

      What they don’t get is that they are sending more than one signal. The one I’m getting on my receiver is probably not the one they want me to get.

      1. According to “Fallout: New Vegas”, 75% of the population* is gay.


  28. If your job requires the least speck of personal artistic creativity the Indiana-RFRA Act prohibits you from being forced to use your talent to promote anything. This protection will allow photographers, cake decorators, musicians, or clergy to refuse to perform a civil union when the couple involves one gender, two races, the elderly, or anything else you do not like.

    SCOTUS will soon require all States recognize “same-sex marages” as valid civil unions with all the benefits of what was once known exclusively as a marriage. Laws defining a marriage as being between only one male and only one female only will be invalidated. SCOTUS does not have the authority to redefine any word but now has the obligation to demand no U.S. State try to do this either.

    Discrimination is a fundamental human right for ALL individuals. PERIOD Get over this or get used to being unhappy.

    The New Mexico RFRA did not protect from individuals but only the State. This is corrected in Indiana’s RFRA; -I think. Individuals are covered most definitely by Arkansas’ RFRA or HB1228 till tomorrow.…..eno=HB1228

  29. The left won’t actually boycott the industries they accuse of committing discrimination (tech, Hollywood, universities, wall street, all ran by progressives), but they want to boycott a state because 20 companies might refuse to sell wedding cakes to gays.

    They’re such unapologetic hypocrites, it’s not even funny. I’ve stayed away from Apple products for years for various reasons. In the internet world you see culture warriors blast them for outsourcing jobs to China. But they line up to buy Iphones that come out every 1.5 years or so.

    I’m beginning to wonder if sexual orientation is as essential to one’s identity as an ethnicity. If radical Islam habitually executing Asians, (especially in nations with a history of persecuting them) the Asian American community might be more hawkish. Gays here seem completely unaffected by gruesome tragedies that befall their own in the stone age areas of the world. It’s not debated or discussed in any popular entertainment. At all.

  30. A modest proposal: those who live in states that have passed this law could declare that it is against their religion to be required to serve bigots.

  31. Dear Governor:
    Do you intend to amend the 1st Amendment to restrict the exercise of religion that it guarantees?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.