Jon Stewart, on the Indiana religious freedom law, for the win:
Stewart pointed to the NCAA’s opposition to the bill as a turning point in the state.
“When you’re being criticized by a company whose entire business model is based on exploitation…” he said. “‘You can’t discriminate against gays. You can profit on their likeness without compensation. Here’s how you can get away with it: Just call them student-gays.'”
When you make Mark Emmert look broadminded, you’ve lost. Sorry, Hoosiers.
Get The Picture 
Jon Stewart aged like a fine wine. I found him pretty annoying when Bush was in office. His opinions were so predictably leftward that it was almost banal. The last 5 years or so he seems to have found a talent for targeting the real, unambiguous injustices and then tying them together in poignant ways.
LikeLike
He has been great from the beginning. He will be missed.
LikeLike
Hey, Senator. You were contemplating “open threads” periodically? Here’s one. I knew it would be one before I even clicked on it. When I did, it was exactly what I expected to see.
LikeLike
Remember the South Park episode where Timmy and Jimmy are upset at Christopher Reeves because he isn’t a real crip and the kids keep walking by saying “I don’t think we want anything to do with this”? That’s what I’m thinking as the Senator wades into RFRA waters.
LikeLike
I’ll be happy when gay marriage is legal in all states and, hopefully, there won’t be so much whining over hypothetical pizza being catered for a wedding. This whole thing is just silly and borderline ridiculous on both sides.
LikeLike
WHY DO YOU HATE PIZZA!?!
LikeLike
Isn’t it also about companies like Hobby Lobby not wanting to follow the law?
LikeLike
“…not wanting to follow the law”
Yeah, cause that’s not a loaded question or anything 😉
but yes, I believe so.
LikeLike
Heh…it may be loaded but it’s also accurate 🙂
LikeLike
If this “religious liberty” as an excuse for not obeying the law argument holds water then no law is enforceable. “I don’t have to serve blacks in my establishment because my religion doesn’t believe in mixing races.” or “I don’t have to make noodle soup for GLTs because my ‘religion’ believes all GLTs are evil and going to hell and the preacher tells me on Sundays to avoid them altogether.” or “I don’t have to obey traffic laws because my church, the Pre-Amish Back to the Stone Age Archdiocese, teaches us that anything written down as law that wasn’t in the 10 Commandments is to be ignored as not being handed down by God.” Total anarchy.
LikeLike
Yep. The whole thing unravels pretty quickly.
LikeLike
Isn’t that Scientology?
P.S. You have the yips. Admit it and things will eventually get easier. Or not.
LikeLike
Pretty much. It’s total horseshit nuba bunch of people that see their social control slipping.
LikeLike
All of these comments show you all have no clue what you’re talking about. There’s two decades of case law involving RFRAs at the federal and state level, and your parade of horrors have never come to pass. Are you broadminded enough to realize when you’re being had?
LikeLike
You do realize the wording of the Indiana law was different than the federal or any other state’s law, regardless of what Rush says, right? It absolutely opened up the possibility for everything mentioned here.
LikeLike
Yes, but a plurality of district courts have applied the federal language to private businesses. So Indiana’s language was consistent with federal jurisprudence.
LikeLike
I mean, RFRA was used for the Hobby Lobby decision, so doesn’t that mean that unless changes are made to the federal law, the parade of horrors could be currently happening?
LikeLike
Or is it about government not wanting to follow the constitution with laws they try to enforce on Hobby Lobby? (That door swings both ways. No pun intended.)
LikeLike
Maybe. Hell, maybe all laws should just be optional b/c, you know, religion and stuff.
LikeLike
…………And here we go!
LikeLike
We’re already there. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/07/the-hobby-lobby-decision-a-summary-explanation.html
LikeLike
If only it wasn’t for that pesky first amendment.
LikeLike
The Republican master plan of winning every redneck local election and being irrelevant in national elections is working perfectly. If Jesus were real and came back, he’d quickly distance himself from half of the idiots who claim to act in his name.
LikeLike
Probably a lot more than half.
LikeLike
Mmmm, this popcorn is delicious… /waits for trolls
LikeLike
The problem for the “religious liberty” crowd is that so many people have come out of the closet, Now just about everyone knows a gay relative or gay friend. When people talk about needing legal protection to define what’s a sin and what isn’t and then to pick which sins they will tolerate in a client and which ones they won’t, no one’s rallying to their cause – in large part because so many others imagine that scene through the eyes of the person being told to get out.
There are obviously issues of principle at work on both sides. However, when people express surprise at the reaction of others to their proposed law, I think they miss the extent to which others see this law being directed at Kenny, Miranda, Stacy, and Joe rather than some generic class of citizen.
LikeLike
You nailed it. Bravo!
LikeLike
Less than 1% of the entire countries population is gay according to the latest census. Less than 1%.
LikeLike
If you truly believe that number, then this is as sensitively as I can put this: you’re a fucking idiot.
LikeLike
You mean people who are gay might not respond openly as such on a census? Why ever not?
LikeLike
I know more than 100 people, so his point is still valid.
LikeLike
I’m just glad it’s a northern state and not a southern state. Normally, the old south gets busted for every discriminatory thing that ever happens when the northern state are just as discriminatory if not worse.
LikeLike
Jon Stewart? Please. He sets up straw men, burns them down, then is promoted as some sort of political savant. Can he be funny? Yes. Should any one have their political minds molded by him or Oliver? Goodness no!
LikeLike
If anybody wants actual nuanced analysis on this, a topic that has been overblown beyond belief, here are a few links:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/
A UVA law professor:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/uva-law-prof-who-supports-gay-marriage-explains-why-he-supports-indianas-religious-freedom-law_902928.html
I don’t think anyone should be denied a service based on who they are or what they do. I haven’t heard of any business claiming they will do this.
What I have heard is religious people who work in the wedding industry say they’d like to not have to violate their consciences by partaking in a religious ceremony that is outside of their beliefs. It isn’t an orientation thing–I doubt they’d care if it was two straight men marrying for tax purposes, it isn’t what they believe marriage is. Not sure why we can’t live and let live here.
LikeLike
The Federalist and the Weekly Standard with nuanced analysis? That’ll be a first.
Look, I respect that you have a certain political point of view here you assert. But don’t try to pass those sources off as law review-lite.
LikeLike
Exactly.
Better to look to that wise sage John Stewart for objective analysis.
LikeLike
Did I suggest that?
Nice straw man you got there.
LikeLike
Did I suggest that you suggested that?
Nice straw man of a straw man.
😉
LikeLike
Then I have no idea why you responded to my comment the way you did.
But at least there’s no pesky straw man to worry about.
LikeLike
Did you read the articles before forming your opinion about those articles?
LikeLike
I did. I’ve read lots of others, too. Some of them were even nuanced. 😉
LikeLike