Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Heywood]

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.

Discrimination is a problem, you fucking loon. Giving people blanket permission to do it as much as they want has large spanning implications that are overwhelmingly negative for a large group of people, just as knock-on consequences of the logic behind them, while offering no benefit to counteract that, and that is a problem from a lawmaking perspective; laws that only have negative implications with no overriding benefit are bad laws to be considering.

Moreover, it's not my fault that you're unaware of the trends of discrimination elsewhere before you open your mouth and loudly assert that there are none. Overwhelmingly, trends in the US indicate that where discrimination is allowed in law, especially in socially conservative areas, notable inequality results.

But speaking of weaseling out, there was a question there that you weaseled out of: how is a purveyor of goods and services lacking in freedom for being expected to perform the job that they used their freedom to choose for themselves?

And more importantly, we've already seen that this kind of law enables medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, and therefore a consistent application of it allows for all medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, up to and including the point where the child suffers as a result, yes or no? If no, how do you justify inconsistently applying the law given your strong, manipulative language in favor of what you consider to be a "freedom" issue elsewhere? If yes, are you really willing to place the christian conservative's need to inflict their religious preferences on everyone over and above the health of children?

Don't try to weasel out by saying it's not likely, or won't happen; it is a consequence of the law you want in place, and thus by approving this law you are opening that door because you feel like being able to shit on gay people is more important. That's the end result of your stance here: Heywood thinks the health of children is less important than his need to deny people he doesn't like pizza.

More weaseling and baseless claims.

Can you point to a study that shows gays can't easily hire florists, or photographers, or get health care when they need it?  Can you provide some actual independent evidence of your claim instead of simply re-iterating it hoping that if you do it enough, it magically becomes fact?

---

The reality is, you just want to force people to behave the way you want them to behave for no good reason other than you think that is the way they should behave.  

What's really interesting is I believe this is the same guy that argued, on the topic of abortion, that the state should have the right to take away a woman's right to choose based purely on what he acknowledge to be his arbitrary opinion that life begins at the moment of conception. 

I argued that all human beings have the right to life.  Not just the subset of human beings those in power declare have the right to life.  The Nazis did the same thing the proabortion movement advocates.  The proabortion movement advocates that only certain humans beings have the right to life just like the Nazis did.