If nothing else, this is a fantastic distraction from issues that are far more threatening to humanity as a whole , but hey…cake
Pizzagirl, the Indiana Religious Freedom bill says nothing at all about gays. It is about religious freedom. 20 other states have similar bills, modeled after a federal bill. A federal court case in 1997 ruled that the federal bill only applied if the individual state had a religious freedom bill, so Indiana was behind the times getting theirs passed. A similar bill in Illinois was voted into law by then Senator Barack Obama. It looks very much like a very vocal gay group was looking for something to jump on and they have not yet stopped yelling loudly.
Perhaps the fate of the world doesn’t depend on this issue, but since when are people not capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time? And what’s wrong with occasionally discussing issues that are threatening to oneself or one’s family and friends – or which one simply sees as an issue of principle – rather than exclusively focusing on, say, the plight of the honeybee or climate change 100% of the time? Why be so dismissive of other people’s concerns, even if this particular issue is unimportant to you?
^ Wrong. For the umpteenth time The bills are not the same. Indiana’s bill is also not the same as Illinois. It is also not the same as the Federal bill.
Here is a Fox News anchor debunking the myth that they are the same.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/30/watch-bret-baier-debunk-fox-news-defense-of-ind/203080
I am not dismissive DonnaL , but I don’t focus on domestic social issues as much as I do global issues personally. I have close friends and relatives that are either lesbians / bisexuals. We had a discussion with two married, lesbian couples just last night and they felt that why they don’t want to be discriminated against , they wouldn’t , make an issue of it personally and take their business elsewhere.
And also, I don’t see the " threat " aspect of it…it is people choosing to refrain from what they see as supporting something they morally object to , but they are not denying sales altogether . If they did, that is another issue
Without crossing into the political territory, I worry a lot more about homosexuals being tossed off of roofs and killed than being denied access to photographers and bakers who object to baking cakes for weddings.
I don’t care for people calling for boycotts and hurting businesses / states that have nothing to do with this suffering because people with an axe to grind.
I have witnessed a lot of change in acceptance of LGBT community in my area, in my circle of friends and acquaintances , in my immediate family in the last 20 years , mostly because of people interacting with some fantastic , inspiring individuals who happen to not be heterosexuals , not because it was mandated by any government entity.
What’s the definition of insanity? 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-restoration-act-arkansas-indiana.html?_r=0
They’re probably just mad they didn’t pass it first.
I kind of think the people “with an axe to grind” are the ones who passed this law. But maybe that’s just me.
KSM, if you had read this thread, you would have seen that particular lie debunked many times. As early as comment # 4, citing an article in The Atlantic. And if you were paying attention in general, you would see that there are a lot more people than some mythical “vocal gay group” who object to the law.
No, I doubt it’s just you who thinks that way, but there seems to be just as many " factual " sources from either side of the new law , at least from what I could see while searching for info from both sides of this hotbed issue. We don’t all have to agree and fall in step…I can respect either point of view, but maybe THAT is just me 
No, we don’t all have to agree. Speaking of which, with all due respect to your friends, yes, I believe that this is a real potential threat to LGBT and other people, going far beyond baking cakes and taking photographs, as I tried to explain in some of my earlier comments. (Although, would it be OK with you, and would you think it was so trivial, if a photographer who advertised his services to the public refused to photograph a Jewish wedding because he claimed it was against his religion?) However, I have no interest in getting in an argument with you or anyone else about this. I’m not here to debate the legitimacy of my concern with the issue.
Now Arkansas has passed a similar bill and sent it to Governor Asa Hutchinson. The Chairman of Walmart is begging him not to sign it.
Instead of searching for info from both sides, just look at the text of the Indiana law, compared to, say, the Illinois law. Notice that the Indiana law applies to transactions between two private individuals/businesses. Notice that the Illinois law only applies where the government is involved. Notice that’s a big difference. Treat the “the Indiana law is no different from the Illinois law” with the contempt it deserves, by doing your own investigation instead of listening to what someone else says.
Why shoild anyone have to think twice before entering an establishment to do business. Will they wait on me…or not? Will they think I’m gay, or Muslim, or Catholic, or Jewish?
Come on…folks should feel comfortable walking into any establishment…any time…without worry.
In all of this, there are now cries from businesses that they now feel pressured to prove that they are not going to discriminate. This is horrible for business in Indiana. As a resident, I will specifically ask in all small shops if I don’t see a sticker, and I will be voting with my wallet. Luckily I am just a few miles from Illinois so I can support small businesses there.
As this is a college discussion website, I am wondering how the IN law might be affecting students’ college decisions. It is interesting timing, with students currently comparing their various acceptance packages and making their choices.
LongRange, I can tell you that it would definitely give me pause as a student- especially if I was not a straight, white protestant (which I am not).
Michigan is trying to ram through a similar bill and it’s making my stomach drop.
As much as this is getting press from the LGBTQ+ side of things (as it damn well should), I think we should also remember that has the potential to affect many more groups of people. (Though I do not pretend to ignore the glaring intent of the bill.)
On SDN there are already posts from OOS students worrying about attending medical school. To be fair, most of the top schools in the state (with the exception of Notre Dame and Purdue) have come out against RFRA and have reiterated their non-discrimination policies.
That would certainly cut down on the never ending threads on cyclical repetitive issues where no common ground will be reached. And thus…where would CC be?
There’s a difference between debating an issue and having a “meta-debate” about whether it’s OK even to be concerned about an issue in the first place. The latter is obnoxious.
I don’t think we have to choose. We can be concerned about all of those things. If I were LGBT I wouldn’t tell myself “well, at least they aren’t throwing me off a roof” every time someone told me to get out of their store/restaurant/bakery/wedding venue.