Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Heywood]

You  really think that if one doctor refuses to see the kid of gay parent all of them will?

All of them can.

Seriously....if you think this is a possibility....you're a moron.

Ah, the ad hominem, the last resort of the baseless fantasist driven into a corner. Seriously, just pretending that areas like the south don't exist doesn't make them go away, and moreover, as I pointed out last time, simply asserting that it's impossible is completely baseless. You don't know, as usual, and yet you're making big sweeping statements anyway; do you know every doctor in the state? Do you know the personal circumstances of every gay person in the state- because remember, that has an effect too? No?

Well then I guess you're just talking out of your ass then, aren't you?

I challenged you earlier to present some evidence that the market wasn't serving gays.  I challenged you to present some evidence that if you are gay, it is substantially harder for you to find health care, a florist, or a photographer. You haven't come up with anything except fearful and ridiculous threats of what might happen.

Yes, you shifted the burden of proof and demanded that I prove you wrong on your completely unjustified assertion that discrimination against gay people isn't a big deal, and that's not gonna happen, especially when study after study shows that it is a big deal. How many states currently have employment discrimination clauses literally written into their laws, and you want to give these guys another arrow in their quiver? Again, this is the utter contradiction within your argument: on the one hand you say discrimination isn't a big deal, while simultaneously arguing for empowering the christian right to discriminate in any way they want, including those ways that would be a big deal.

To be clear, the law also isn't bound merely to consider what's happening right now, when it furnishes a change; despite your ridiculous, baseless oversimplifications, it also must take into account its future effects and implications, and we've already seen what happens when you enact discrimination laws against a class of people for no reason. Discrimination within those areas intensifies, and you end up taking years and years fighting to get them repealed. Just look at the employment figures in areas where employment discrimination is legalized; there is a discrepancy in the figures. Much as you'd like to pretend that discrimination has no significantly negative effects, there is an impact.

I don't believe you want to restrict individual freedom over a ridiculous possibility.  You are just rationalizing your desire to control others.

I won't engage with your patently ridiculous strawman, but if you want to phrase this as an invasion of personal liberty, then let's do this: in what way is a person's individual liberty in any way impacted by having them do the job that they, in their personal liberty, chose to do?

No shifting of burden of proof.  You are making a claim there is a problem.  I am asking you to substantiate your claim.  Stop weaseling out.