Where Mike Pence’s Definition of ‘Religious Freedom’ Leads

This is a portion of a discussion between the late New York Congressman Ted Weiss and Connie Marshner, then of the National Profamily Coalition, that took place in a House subcommittee hearing on the 1981-82 federal gay(-only) rights bill.


This long predates Indiana’s SB 101, but anyone who thinks that Mike Pence and those like him do not share the belief embodied by the final excerpted sentence from Marshner is engaging in aggravated self-delusion.

And, under Indiana’s SB 101, the belief embodied by the final excerpted sentence from Marshner is given the force of a state-sanctioned legal defense for anyone or any business that might want to use it to the legal disadvantage of LGB and/or T people.

Those Who Claim to be Surprised at Mike Pence’s Actions Regarding the ‘Special Rights for Bigots’ Law or Who Actually Believe He Will do Anything Honorable About it Now Clearly Have Ignored His Career in Congress

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

Mike Pence’s 2000 Congressional campaign website reads like a war against the very people he now claims he “abhors” discrimination against.

From the remains of that website via the Way Back Machine:

• enact a human life amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

• endorse legislation that makes clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

• oppose using public revenues to fund abortions and continue to implement the strictures of the Hyde Amendment and it’s legislative progeny.

• oppose the granting of federal funds to domestic or international organizations which promote abortion as a method of birth control.

• support the appointment of judges by the Executive branch who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of human life.

• Congress should pass the Child Custody Protection Act to require parental notification prior to the delivery of any contraceptive drugs or devices to minor children by any Title X funded clinics.

• Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.

• Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s as a “discreet and insular minority” entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.

Now, the money shot:

We can renew the American dream by rekindling the fires of men, material and morale that warm the warriors who stand on liberty’s ramparts protecting our families.


rekindling the fires of men, material and morale that warm the warriors

Warming the warriors…

Isn’t that an entire genre of gay porn?

Will They be Taught About…



Then What Was the Point of the Law, Mike?

Mike Pence:

This law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone.

The government – in the form of laws – is the only reason that businesses are currently prohibited from doing certain things, including denying services to certain classes of people.

So, in spite of Mike Pence’s assertion that the law only applies to government action, this is what the law says:

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015

Pence is lying.


Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

The government – in the form of law – is the only thing requiring those people (and whether anyone wants to believe it or acknowledge it, there are substantial numbers) and the businesses they operate who believe that their religion gives them the right to have nothing to do with non-whites and non-christians not to post ‘coloreds need not apply’ and ‘no coloreds allowed’ signs.

And that is all in addition to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Mike Pence’s law gives any person and/or business with a feigned, er…, claimed religious belief a get-out-of-court-free card against any action brought by a member of a disfavored minority pursuant to government-enacted anti-discrimination law.

Pence is lying and his defenders are either lying or stupid.

Exclamation point.

If Pence continues to lie about the law, the demands should cease being only for repeal of SB 101 and/or enactment of sexual orientation and gender identity protections and should instead include a demand that Mike Pence resign.

After all, lying is a damnable sin…


As I Was Saying….

Indiana Governor Insists New Law Has Nothing To Do With Thing It Explicitly Intended To Do

From The Onion, of course.

(What?  Did you think you’d get real analysis from Fox ‘News’?)

Does Jamie Foxx Know or Care…

…that by virtue of having played ‘Ugly Girl‘ on In Living Color, for purposes of potential lack of protection from discrimination where there is no trans-inclusive anti-discrimination law or only a gay-only law (or, presumably, in the state of Indiana), he is just as much under the trans umbrella as Bruce Jenner is widely perceived to be?

Another Question that Needs to be Asked

If Indiana ‘s so-called ‘religious freedom’ law does not give businesses the right to exclude LGBT people in contravention of applicable law because said business owners feign,er…, claim that not excluding LGBT people substantially burdens their feigned, er…, claimed religion, then what exactly was the Indiana Republicans’ point in passing the law?

The Indiana Thought Process


Now, if you recognize the name Phillip Burton, you’ll instantly know that the above passage took place long before Indiana’s Special Rights for Bigots law was enacted.  Burton was a California congressman who died in 1983.

So what is the above passage?

It is taken from the transcript of the first congressional hearing on a federal gay(-only) rights bill, held on Oct. 10, 1980 in San Francisco.

The other person in the conversation was a preacher whose church had been sued for discrimination under the San Francisco gay(-only) rights ordinance.  He and his church had prevailed – in all likelihood, rightfully so.  But, he was also making clear what he felt as though his (special) rights were in the broader context, outside of the church doing business as a church.

If the Government is saying I cannot make a decision on the basis of morality, then the Government is discriminating against me….

The special right to “make a decision on the basis of morality” is what the McIlhennys of Indiana demanded and received.

Pic of the Day: March 29, 2015 (Special ‘In Memoriam’ Edition)

20150329 - 01

Mariners prospect Victor Sanchez, pitching for the Clinton Lumberkings against the Great Lakes Loons, at Clinton, on July 22, 2013.

He died yesterday, aged 20, from injuries sustained in a boating accident earlier in the year.

A Question Needs to be Asked

In order to get Ted Olson on board for the challenge to Prop 8, did Chad Griffin have to make a secret deal to never (either with AFER or with the HRC job that Griffin had to at least suspect would be in his future after AFER) make a vigorous, fully-funded challenge against so-called ‘religious liberty,’ as most people in Ted Olson’s world tend to define it?