[SoFloFreeper]

Soooooo sick of the caving. I don't necessarily think this is caving, but there REALLY needs to be some strong push back against the anti-religion bigots.

[cuban leaf]

In KY we were going to put up a barn specifically for weddings. But we’re trying to figure out how to prevent homosexual unions from using our venue. So far all we’ve come up with is putting scriptural quotes on the wall that are not allowed to be covered during events. Stuff that refers to a man and woman, etc.

In a sane world, it would not be much of a problem, partly because there are not that many of them. But I think they seek out places that don’t want to do it to make their case.

[fwdude]

This does NOTHING that was not already allowable for Indiana citizens to do. There is no state “non-discrimination” policy including sexual reprobates, nor is there one federally.

[cripplecreek]

Clarification isn’t going to work anyway. The opposition is outright lying and won’t accept anything less than unconditional surrender.

[skinkinthegrass]

"leftists / queers-in-media" attack Indiana..so what new?

[Ingtar]

In other words, they are revoking it.

[ConservativeInPA]

Has anyone effectively articulated the idea of the 'right of association'? This issue goes beyond religion and has roots in the 1a. It doesn't matter if the association is religious, political, economic, cultural, etc. We have a right to choose to interact or not to interact; or, to do commerce or not to do commerce. There is no need for religion to be involved.

It is okay for progressives to choose non-interaction and no commerce. Seattle and San Francisco are boycotting Indiana. I am sure that there are faggots from across the country that say they won't do anything with Indiana. That's their right - and people from Indiana should be pleased. This blatant hypocrisy needs to be exposed and the argument turned to basic constitutional rights for all; not just the rights for faggot-loving progressives who choose not to associate with normal God fearing people unless they want a wedding cake and a lawsuit.

[Texas Eagle]

This is how the law should read:

Christians will not be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Mooselimbs WILL be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Can't get any clearer than that.

[ConservingFreedom]

Indiana's Republican legislative leaders said Monday they're working on adding language to a new state law to make it clear that it doesn't allow discrimination against gays and lesbians....

Supporters of the law insist the law will keep the government from compelling people to provide services they find objectionable on religious grounds.

But the perverts and their boosters call it "discrimination" for real Christians to refuse to provide wedding-related services to perverts because they find it objectionable on religious grounds.

So which is it going to be?

[Regulator]

The discrimination is against Christians by forcing them to participate in something that is revolting to them.

What’s next, coerced Sodomy?