Mike Pence - There's no justification for anti-gay law, but I signed it anyways.....just because

[Cali_Democrat]

Pence: No Real Justification for New Anti-Gay Law (AUDIO)

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) was pressed by conservative radio host if something happened in Indiana to justify signing an anti-gay religious freedom bill into law. Pence said he wasn't aware of any recent examples.

"I'm not aware of cases and controversies. I mean as I travel around the state one thing I know for sure —Hoosier hospitality is the greatest in the nation. Hoosiers are loving, caring, generous to a fault," Pence said in an interview with conservative radio host Greg Garrison on Thursday. "People that have strong hearts, strong values. But this isn't about any present controversy as much as some in the media want to make it about. It's about making sure that Hoosiers have the same protections in our state courts as they have in federal courts and as 30 other states have."

Pence, in that same interview, said the law was modeled after legislation passed by Congress in 1993 and that the idea was simply to make sure Indianans had the same protections as elsewhere in the country.

Earlier in the day Pence signed into law legislation barring the state from requiring businesses to serve gay and lesbian people if those businesses had religious objections.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-greg-garrison

[Wella]

1. The title of the OP and article are misleading and not what Pence actually said

"Pence said he wasn't aware of any recent examples. "

That's not the same thing.

[guillaumeb]

2. what is misleading?

Also from the post:
"Pence, in that same interview, said the law was modeled after legislation passed by Congress in 1993 and that the idea was simply to make sure Indianans had the same protections as elsewhere in the country.

Earlier in the day Pence signed into law legislation barring the state from requiring businesses to serve gay and lesbian people if those businesses had religious objections. "

Pence admits that he is not aware of any so-called infringement of "religious rights to discriminate". He further says he is trying to ensure that Indianans enjoy the same protections as elsewhere in the country.

There is no constitutional right to discriminate/deny rights to another, nor is there a demonstrated problem or need for the legislature to act. Pence is a pandering idiot.

[Wella]

3. He didn't say the bill had no justification. Hence, the OP title and the article title mislead.

Got it?

[guillaumeb]

9. still no

If there is no need for the bill, no legitimate state interest, no demonstrable ill effects being caused by a lack of this Bill, there is no real need/justification for the bill.

If Pence can articulate a legal theory to justify what is in effect a "religious right to discriminate" there is no need for the bill.
Except to establish his credentials as a homophobic panderer to the extreme right.

Are you aware of any such theory?

[Wella]

17. You're adding your own opinions here. Pence did not say what the OP says he said. That's a fact.

The rest of this is your (emotional) interpretation.

[phil89]

11. Please stop shilling for Pence

He stared no justification when asked. Figure it out.

[Wella]

16. Please stop accusing people of things they're not doing

And your statement makes no sense: "He stared no justification when asked. Figure it out." No grammatical meaning here.

[guillaumeb]

13. some more info from the RFRA US Code Chapter 21b

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

As to number (a)(5) Equal treatment and non-discrimination meets the compelling interest test. That test is as follows:
"Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough."

As to number (b)(2) There has been no credible claim that equality before the law poses a "substantial burden" to any Indiana business. A specific claim that serving a gay clientele represents any religious burden on any particular business has not been advanced.

The state does have a right to legislate. It does not have a right or a compelling interest to discriminate.

[Wella]

18. None of this had to do with the actual quote

Sorry.

[SidDithers]

4. This isn't LBN...

and it's pretty fucking clear that the OP was paraphrasing.

But your concern about whether Mike fucking Pence is fairly portrayed at DU is touching.



Sid

[NightWatcher]

6. hrmph

[Wella]

8. I did read the article: that's why I know the headline is misleading

as is the OP.

[Wella]

7. Not it's not clear that an honest paraphrase was meant. The meanings are too dissimilar.

All they asked Pence is if there were an immediate case that led to this bill. He said there wasn't. That's not the same thing as a justification. The OP and article are titled in such a way as to make Pence sound like he knew the bill he signed was not justified and was wrong. There's nothing in any of his comments that indicate that at all.

[Enrique]

19. I agree

when I see headlines like this, it makes it look like TPM has no actual criticism to make about what Pence said, so they just made something up. It also makes it look like they assume their readers will just swallow their headline without thinking about it. The comments under the article make it look like this assumption was correct. For example, one commenter thinks "no real justification" was a direct quote.

[Trillo]

5. He's in massive denial.

Hoosier hospitality is the greatest in the nation. Hoosiers are loving, caring, generous to a fault,

[Bluenorthwest]

10. "Hoosiers are loving, caring, generous to a fault. " The evidence says otherwise, Mike.

nt

[world wide wally]

12. I think more laws against inbreeding are far more urgent judging from the current stste

of Republican representation in this country

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. "Hoosier hospitality is the greatest in the nation..."

Unfortunately for the good people of your state, the Hoosier hospitality should be boycotted widely and for as long as it takes to get this discriminatory shit of a legislation off the books.

[surrealAmerican]

15. "... It's about making sure that Hoosiers have the same protections in our state courts ..."

... unless they're gay, governor, in which case, it's about making sure they have a lot less protection from discrimination in your state.

... or is he trying to say the "Hoosiers" are never anything other than straight?