So according to who you'd prefer to listen to, earlier today, Governor Mike Pence either set Indiana back 100+ years, or took a ballsy, brave stand in support of religious freedom. He did so by signing a religious freedom bill that requires the state to prove a "compelling interest" in telling a business owner that they have to cater to someone when said owner declines to on religious grounds. Naturally, there are those who think Pence is enlightened by the hand of God Himself, while others think he is an idiot. And many on both sides believe the bill was motivated by a recent appellate court decision deeming Indiana's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.
Me personally, I have no use for this bill. But not for the same reasons as others. I do think it sets a concerning precedent--I won't say "dangerous" and I'll explain why--and I definitely think it makes Indiana look bad. But I don't personally see a sharp uptick in business owners telling any Tom, Dick, or Harriet that they can't patronize their business for (insert reason here), cloaked in the veil of "religion". No, the reason I have no use for this bill is because it's redundant. I have always been under the impression that, with a few exceptions, a private business owner had the right to deny service to whomever they pleased. Of course, federal legislation forbids them from doing so on the basis of race, (biological) gender, and things like that, but if they want to tell a gay man or a transgender person they can't be there, oh well. Not that I think people should--I never would--but I've always thought that as long as race or gender weren't a factor, they were covered.
My other thing is, I've always thought that Jesus was a pretty laid back guy who liked to hang out with the "marginalized", the poor and downtrodden and oppressed. And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity says that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit; if this is so, then God's not entirely the vengeful, wipe out entire towns for going against His word type. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but if Jesus, who is also God and the Holy Spirit according to the Holy Trinity idea, was the kind of guy who liked to hang out with society's dregs, then wouldn't that mean that telling someone that they can't cater to them on religious grounds run counter to Jesus' ideals? Sure, you can tell that lesbian couple that you won't make a cake for them all day long, and under this new bill that's all fine and well, and you may think God approves. . .but does He? Honest question, with an answer I can't give. That's well above my pay grade.
And don't take any of this to mean I have a problem with religion--to the contrary, I believe in God and all the cool stuff He does. Believe me, His hand is visible in many experiences my family and I have been involved in. I owe a lot to God, and I only hope that when the end times come I get to chill with Him instead of burn elsewhere. But I have to wonder how far people are willing to go to defend their religious freedom when there's a possibility that, although they may not face civil or criminal punishment, they'll face a far, FAR worse fate come Judgment Day. Or maybe not. Again, that's far, FAR beyond my level of expertise.
But to be quite blunt, although I think the Statehouse and the Governor wasted their time with this, I think all the hyperactivity regarding this bill is bogus. I think this is going to end up being a massive non-issue. Many businesses are telling Indianapolis that the bill could make attracting new business to Indiana harder, and that may be, but let's be honest: how many businesses out there are actually going to look at a religious freedom bill and use it as the sole deciding factor in whether or not they're going to set up shop in Indiana? Around my parts, we have good access to umpteen interstates, eleventy thousand hundred train lines, and the Ohio River; a religious freedom bill will probably be secondary to all that. And besides, running out of Indiana won't counter this; setting up shop and establishing a corporate policy of respect for people period, regardless of the "technicalities", and thumbing their nose at some sort of bill, is the best way to counter this. And that's why I don't see this becoming a "dangerous" precedent.
On a medical note. . .Fish Stick's been in the hospital these last few days. A few years ago, she had a bladder augmentation, where they took a small section of her small intestine and attached it to her bladder to increase its capacity. She's paralyzed below the waist so it's not always easy for her to know when it's tinkle time. And because that section of small intestine stayed hooked up to its blood supply, the bacteria and whatnot are still active, meaning she more or less has a permanent, but usually minor, urinary tract infection. Last Monday, she started having hardcore abdominal pains, severe enough to merit an ambulance ride to the hospital. Originally, we thought it was a bowel issue, or possibly a reoccurrence of peritonitis, something she's dealt with before. But the following Tuesday, she got tossed into surgery, where they discovered a perforation in her bladder, at the point where the bladder and small bowel section were brought together. They also found and repaired another hernia, redid a previous hernia repair, and removed her appendix. The downshot is, that infected urine leaked into her abdominal cavity. Thankfully, they staved off sepsis, although in honesty it was a very close shave, and everything is going good! She's going to be in the hospital for another week or two, and will have a short stay in an inpatient rehab place afterwards, so it's going to be a bit of a long road ahead but with prayers, support, and good medical work--which has been beyond superb--she's going to come out of this stronger. Her surgeon said this will be a month she'd rather forget, and that may be, but I also think this will be her finest hour. It's all good!
Me personally, I have no use for this bill. But not for the same reasons as others. I do think it sets a concerning precedent--I won't say "dangerous" and I'll explain why--and I definitely think it makes Indiana look bad. But I don't personally see a sharp uptick in business owners telling any Tom, Dick, or Harriet that they can't patronize their business for (insert reason here), cloaked in the veil of "religion". No, the reason I have no use for this bill is because it's redundant. I have always been under the impression that, with a few exceptions, a private business owner had the right to deny service to whomever they pleased. Of course, federal legislation forbids them from doing so on the basis of race, (biological) gender, and things like that, but if they want to tell a gay man or a transgender person they can't be there, oh well. Not that I think people should--I never would--but I've always thought that as long as race or gender weren't a factor, they were covered.
My other thing is, I've always thought that Jesus was a pretty laid back guy who liked to hang out with the "marginalized", the poor and downtrodden and oppressed. And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity says that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit; if this is so, then God's not entirely the vengeful, wipe out entire towns for going against His word type. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but if Jesus, who is also God and the Holy Spirit according to the Holy Trinity idea, was the kind of guy who liked to hang out with society's dregs, then wouldn't that mean that telling someone that they can't cater to them on religious grounds run counter to Jesus' ideals? Sure, you can tell that lesbian couple that you won't make a cake for them all day long, and under this new bill that's all fine and well, and you may think God approves. . .but does He? Honest question, with an answer I can't give. That's well above my pay grade.
And don't take any of this to mean I have a problem with religion--to the contrary, I believe in God and all the cool stuff He does. Believe me, His hand is visible in many experiences my family and I have been involved in. I owe a lot to God, and I only hope that when the end times come I get to chill with Him instead of burn elsewhere. But I have to wonder how far people are willing to go to defend their religious freedom when there's a possibility that, although they may not face civil or criminal punishment, they'll face a far, FAR worse fate come Judgment Day. Or maybe not. Again, that's far, FAR beyond my level of expertise.
But to be quite blunt, although I think the Statehouse and the Governor wasted their time with this, I think all the hyperactivity regarding this bill is bogus. I think this is going to end up being a massive non-issue. Many businesses are telling Indianapolis that the bill could make attracting new business to Indiana harder, and that may be, but let's be honest: how many businesses out there are actually going to look at a religious freedom bill and use it as the sole deciding factor in whether or not they're going to set up shop in Indiana? Around my parts, we have good access to umpteen interstates, eleventy thousand hundred train lines, and the Ohio River; a religious freedom bill will probably be secondary to all that. And besides, running out of Indiana won't counter this; setting up shop and establishing a corporate policy of respect for people period, regardless of the "technicalities", and thumbing their nose at some sort of bill, is the best way to counter this. And that's why I don't see this becoming a "dangerous" precedent.
On a medical note. . .Fish Stick's been in the hospital these last few days. A few years ago, she had a bladder augmentation, where they took a small section of her small intestine and attached it to her bladder to increase its capacity. She's paralyzed below the waist so it's not always easy for her to know when it's tinkle time. And because that section of small intestine stayed hooked up to its blood supply, the bacteria and whatnot are still active, meaning she more or less has a permanent, but usually minor, urinary tract infection. Last Monday, she started having hardcore abdominal pains, severe enough to merit an ambulance ride to the hospital. Originally, we thought it was a bowel issue, or possibly a reoccurrence of peritonitis, something she's dealt with before. But the following Tuesday, she got tossed into surgery, where they discovered a perforation in her bladder, at the point where the bladder and small bowel section were brought together. They also found and repaired another hernia, redid a previous hernia repair, and removed her appendix. The downshot is, that infected urine leaked into her abdominal cavity. Thankfully, they staved off sepsis, although in honesty it was a very close shave, and everything is going good! She's going to be in the hospital for another week or two, and will have a short stay in an inpatient rehab place afterwards, so it's going to be a bit of a long road ahead but with prayers, support, and good medical work--which has been beyond superb--she's going to come out of this stronger. Her surgeon said this will be a month she'd rather forget, and that may be, but I also think this will be her finest hour. It's all good!