Election Day in Ferguson

When the Justice Department released its reports on Ferguson last month, conservative whites believed they had "won" because Officer Darren Wilson was cleared of murder charges. Fox News and its yes men claimed the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" narrative was a complete lie, and that Michael Brown was a thug who deserved what he got.

Yet the Justice Department released a second report that showed a consistent pattern of racism and civil rights violations in the police department and the courts that intentionally screwed poverty-stricken black residents of Ferguson out of millions of dollars and repeatedly threw them in jail because they couldn't pay. Police abuse of African Americans was an integral part of the city's budget. This resulted in a slew of resignations in Ferguson and the dissolution of the Ferguson municipal court.

This was a clear abuse of police and government power, something that should be near and dear to the hearts of conservatives. Yet all they can do is crow about Michael Brown getting what he deserved.

For months protesters filled the streets of Ferguson, spending hour upon hour upon hour -- sometimes all night long -- protesting the abuse the police and the city government have heaped upon African Americans for years.

Today is election day in Ferguson. A cynic might say they picked the date to minimize turnout.

During those protests some activists were trying to register people to vote. Conservatives went ballistic. Even though Ferguson has a majority black population, everyone in the police and the city government was white.

Today is election day in Ferguson.  Yeah. Today. The Tuesday after Easter. In an odd-numbered year. A cynic might say they picked the date to minimize turnout:

In 2013, the turnout rate was just 17 percent among white voters and 6 percent among black voters. One reason for the small number of voters is the fact that elections are held in April on odd-numbered years. That's been shown to seriously depress turnout, compared to November in a presidential year, or even to November in midterm years. Turnout topped 40 percent during November's midterm elections, but that also represented a 10 percent drop from 2010. But in 2012, 76 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, almost 20 points above the national average (and Barack Obama thrashed Mitt Romney, taking 85 percent of the vote).

It seems crazy to me that people can spend hour upon hour for week after week, standing in the streets yelling, "Hands Up Don't Shoot," yet they can't spend half an hour on a day in April to cast a vote.

You can protest all you want, but it won't make a damn bit of difference if you don't elect people who will listen to your protests.

I know that for a century and a half white conservatives have put up all kinds of roadblocks to prevent African Americans from voting. But as the 2012 election results show, blacks can clearly make their voices heard, if they just show up to vote.

Today's turnout in Ferguson will show whether all the protesters who stood on the streets were serious. If they can spend countless hours, night after night, chanting about justice and peace, surely they can make an appearance at a polling place to elect the people they want to ensure justice and keep the peace.

You can protest all you want, but it won't make a damn bit of difference if you don't elect people who will listen to your protests.

Lil' Wayne (LaPierres)

VERY Good Words (on guns)

I was asked recently to answer a question on Quora.

Is America's Second Amendment "right to bear arms" a bit antiquated and needing to be reformed?

I haven't yet but check out this answer, from a "Firearm owner, firearm safety, military weapons training, responsible firearm use."

Right now, no, I do not believe it should be altered in any way. We can, however, change gun laws. I believe in the individuals right to own weapons, for person defense, hunting, and the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment - defense against tyranny. I personally do not see at this point the threat of a violent movement by the government that would cause us to rise up, but very few people who are destroyed by such things can see it coming.

I think we need to tighten up the screening process for owning firearms. Better mental health evaluation, better evaluation in screening buyers to determine their level of responsibility, and making more courses and training facilities available for people to learn how to use their weapons effectively, safely, and the most critical part - WHEN they should actually use it. An example in closing: Adam Lanza murdered children and teachers with his mother's guns. She was a shooting enthusiast. She knew Adam was troubled, mentally ill, and unstable - Yet she did not lock her weapons up as a responsible owner should - And that mistake cost her her own life, and the lives of many others. 

Responsible owners vs Irresponsible is what needs to be looked at. How exactly we do that, I am not sure.

It's that last line that really nails the debate right now. The difficulty in this is that there are many firearms owners and gun rights activists that realize that they are likely not mentally fit to own guns. Some of these people are the loudest in that group and it's so obvious they would be affected by any changes to laws. So, they prey upon responsible gun owners fears and everyone just goes along.

It won't change until, sadly, these folks are personally affected by gun violence.

The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part One)

I've written extensively on this site about the validity of Aaron Sorkin's American Taliban description of the modern day conservative. Taken as a whole, it can seem overwhelming and perhaps even sensationalized. But what if you took it one characteristic at a time?

That's just what I did on Quora and the results were very interesting. Here are the first couple of questions.

By far, the most popular (36K views and counting!) was this one:

-Which US political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, denies science on a regular basis? Why?

Part of the reason for this was renowned sci fi author, David Brin, weighing in with a response.

Alas. Let there be no mistake. The American right, which used to admire science, is now in full tilt against science. Thirty years ago, 40% of US scientists called themselves Republican, now it is 5%. They are voting with their feet, the smartest, wisest, most logical and by far the most competitive humans our species ever produced. 

And not just science. Can you name one profession of high knowledge and skill that is not under attack by Fox & its cohorts? Teachers, medical doctors, journalists, civil servants, law professionals, economists, skilled labor, professors… oh yes, and science. I defy you to name one that isn't under assault by a hijacked-insane version of what used to be an intellectual conservative movement. One that now screeches invective upon all of the "smartypants" professions, in the worst know-nothing movement in 150 years. 

The anti-all-smartypants campaign has driven all of those professions away from conservatism and the GOP. 

Do some liberals or (more often) their leftist allies sometimes do unscientific things? Sure. You can pile up anecdotes of leftist groups and persons doing/saying nostalgic tripe and romantic claptrap. But Democrats pour money into real science, and most non-leftist liberals do listen to it. Further more, among the billionaires, most all of the tech moguls (except for one or two) are Democrats, while the so-called resource extractors and Wall Street guys are Republicans.

His was the top response for awhile but has since been voted down to second because he is a poopy headed fat face whose face is fat! (side note: how can 422 upvotes be second to 41 upvotes?) Regardless, both of the top answers (and many others) resounding illustrate that it is, in fact, the Republicans. 

-Which political party in the United States demands more ideological purity, the Democrats or the Republicans and why?

Top answer?

Absolutely the Republicans. There isn't any equivalent to the term "DINO" on the Democratic side, despite the existence of many it would well fit. The "Blue Dog" Democrats, who at times align with the Republicans, are a very real part of the Democratic party. They don't face rabid hatred and primary challenges even that being so. 

I guarantee you that if a Republican crosses the aisle one too many times (or even once on some object of extreme hate like PPACA), they will face and possibly lose a primary challenge. At minimum, they will get derided as a "RINO". If Ronald Reagan were to run for office today on the same platform as in 1980, he'd almost certainly get that treatment. Conversely, the Democrats tend to run the spectrum from center-right to somewhat past center-left. Obama is more toward center-right, while someone like Elizabeth Warren is farther over to the left. Neither is run out of the party on a rail for it.

Second answer...

Republicans.

Democratic lawmakers face little fear of being primaried out of office by the far left fringe if they stake out a few moderate positions. In the republican party, the risk of being primaried out of a job is far higher, thus republican politicians are much more reluctant to challenge the party line (unless they are challenging it from the fringe instead of the center), and thanks to the Tea Party, the party line has shifted markedly rightward. The end result is that many republican office-holders have now backpedaled from former statements they've made taking somewhat moderate positions on issues like climate change, women's reproductive freedoms, restrictions on armour-piercing bullets, gun purchase background checks, support for renewable energy, an individual mandate to get health insurance, and a variety of other matters. Consider the case of South Carolina republican congressman Bob Inglis. 

Initially a climate change skeptic, he studied the issue and became convinced that in fact there actually IS an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that the science is sound, so he changed his position and began advocating for taking the issue seriously. Result - in the next election he received only 27% of the vote, getting trounced by a more ideologically pure opponent who stuck to the climate denial party line. Many other republicans have lost primaries under similar circumstances - they were just not pure enough to avoid suffering the wrath of the far right fringe. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, considered a rising star of the party, was primaried out of office. Along the same lines, almost no republican is willing to publicly criticize the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes, on anything, ever. Many of them are known to loath the pledge, but they don't dare challenge it out loud - they know doing so will earn them a well-funded primary challenger.

I'm sensing a trend here:)

Just In Case

Man Always Carries Gun In Case He Needs To Escalate Situation

“I never leave home without my Glock, because you just don’t know when someone might mouth off to you in a bar and leave you with no choice but to turn a minor altercation into a tense life-or-death scenario,” said Donner, noting that he keeps his loaded weapon in a hip holster should the need arise for him to respond quickly, and with deadly force, when he is angered by a perceived slight.


Some satire that is a little too close to home...

Good Words

From a recent piece on Politico...

Some are insisting on a “better deal” than the framework nuclear agreement reached with Iran on April 2. But the idea of a better deal is a chimera, an illusory option, and it should not lull us into thinking there is another agreement to be had if only we were to bear down harder. The present agreement, which depends on important pieces to be resolved by the end of June, can substantially reduce the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon over the next ten years or more and also creates a dynamic that could be a game changer in the combustible Middle East. 

The rest of the piece explains why this is true and completely torpedoes the Right's talking points.

Sorry, conservatives, you are going to have to allow the president yet another win. It's what is best for the country and, more importantly, the security situation in the Middle East.

So, grow the fuck up!!

Moms On A Roll

Greater Than These

Across the United States today, many Americans will be celebrating the risen Jesus Christ and that His message is eternal. The core of that message is that we love one another while doing His works and greater than these. In so many ways, we are doing that. Take a look...

Greater than these...

Fucking Glorious

Indiana and Arkansas took steps this week to quell the national uproar over their religious "freedom" laws. In short, they caved to the will of the free market.

And it was fucking glorious.

The revised Indiana law prohibits service providers from using it as a legal defense for refusing to provide goods, services, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or U.S. military service.

You can almost here the slumped soldiers now that they can't refuse the gays anymore.

Arkansas was able to avert much of the fallout Indiana has seen by making changes before Hutchinson signed the law. The revised language more closely mirrors the 1993 federal law and only addresses actions by the government, not by businesses or individuals. 

People have focused on the call Governor Hutchinson got from Doug McMillon but consider the pressure Wal Mart is under from...well...US! My pals on the left like to squawk about corporate power but it has really been the people...the consumers that drive demand (that again?!? :)) that are putting the screws to these folks.

This whole affair was a massive statement on where we are at in 2015 in terms of civil rights. This country is not going to tolerate this bullshit anymore.

Thank God.

Focus on the Right Questions

The biggest problem conservatives have heading in to the 2016 election is they continually attack the person and not the policy. Actually, this is true even in political debates between citizens. I've noticed over the years that when the facts are against them (as they are often), conservatives switch to attacking me or some sort of trait/style that I have and run very quickly away from the issue.

Of course, they can't talk about the issues and run on policy because of stuff like this.

Walker's Wisconsin Still Lags Nation in Job Growth

It's also why they limit the availability of the media. They whine about "liberal bias" but reporters are going to ask him about his economic record and it's not good. Their policies don't work and they know it, hence the reason they switch to ad hominem.

This election should be about the issues and policies that each candidate is going to support and implement. It should not be about Hillary Clinton's personal life or Rand Paul's time at college. What are their plans for the problems we fact as a nation? Have these plans worked in the past? Where? How? These are the questions that should be asked and focused on intently in the next election.

That's what we will be focusing here at Markdelphia.

Vicarious Patriotism

As the reaction to the framework deal on Iran's nuclear capability poured in from the various corners of the globe, I noted the reaction from the hardliners. It was a resounding no. Then it occurred to me that perhaps the hardliners from Iran, Israel and our own country should leave. Perhaps a desert island where they can all spy on and fight each other would be more suitable.

I've spoken previously of the similarity between our conservatives here in the US and the conservatives in Iran. Both groups are religious zealots who support a theocracy. Both are intolerant of dissent and want an authoritarian government. And they all want war.

I posed a question on Quora recently regarding the conservative reaction to the Iran agreement. The top answer say it all.

Let's see: 

-The Prime Minister of Israel is upset because the United States of America is not doing what he ordered the United States of America to do regarding Iran. 

-A U.S. Senator who once falsely claimed to have been named "Intelligence Officer of the Year" (in 2002) and who also falsely claimed to have served during Operation Desert Storm (which I did serve in) thinks the negotiations with Iran are like "Nazi appeasement". 

-The Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose military service consisted of 8 weeks of Navy basic and a medical discharge for a bad back, wants to follow the orders of Israel's Prime Minister and move toward an eventual war between the United States and Iran as a means to protect Israel. Sorry, my cynicism is coming to the fore. 

I served in the U.S. military for 27 years, and I hate war. I have killed for my country and I have taken two bullets in the service of my country and I also suffer from PTSD. If necessary, I would fight again or support younger Americans fighting in my stead - but not to serve the foreign policy efforts of any country other than the United States (be it Israeli foreign policy or Liechtenstein's foreign policy). All too many Republican legislators are financially supported by individuals and corporations who make their living constructing and supplying war materials and who need wars to sell their products. 

These legislators see war as a means to help those individuals and corporations who helped them get elected, as a means to reduce unemployment by giving presently unemployed people jobs as soldiers or as workers making war materials and in many case they see war as a game played by others, like an American football fan who loves to watch the games but knows in their heart that if they put on a helmet and shoulder pads and actually played, they would get physically damaged - I call it "Vicarious Patriotism". 

It's not just the legislators. Their base suffers from the same delusions...

Willfull Ignorance on the Highways

Over the last 20 years, since the national 55-mph speed limit was lifted, many states have increased their speed limits. Most have raised it to 65 or 70, but some have raised freeway speeds to 75, 80 and 85 mph.

South Dakota just raised their speed limit to 80. Texas allows speeds up to 85. I suppose you can justify these limits on the basis that people should be made to spend as little time as possible in those states, but there are other considerations.

State legislatures who raise these limits have ignored one important thing: truck tires are not designed for speeds above 75 mph:

"It's a recipe for disaster," said James Perham, president of Extreme Transportation Corp., an automobile-hauling company near San Diego that filed a complaint with regulators about Michelin tires after seven blowouts caused an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in damage to its rigs.

Even if you've never looked at a speed limit sign, the evidence of these increased speed limits is easy to see: these freeways are covered with shredded truck tires.

Shredded tires are major menace, especially to motorcycle riders. A 22-year-old motorcyclist died in Vadnais Heights, MN, when she hit tire debris on the road one night and was thrown into the path of an SUV. A tire flew off a trailer in Iowa and killed a motorcyclist in Iowa last August.

Officials from states with higher speed limits are completely oblivious to tire safety. Caught with their pants down, they have refused to answer questions from the AP, or they offer lame excuses:

In Wyoming, which raised speeds on some rural highways to 80 mph last July, "it doesn't look like necessarily there was any consideration of truck tire speed ratings," said Bruce Burrows, a spokesman for the state Transportation Department. Wyoming hasn't seen a spike in tire failures, he said.

Burrows also noted that the speed limit doesn't require truckers to go 80 mph, and said they should be aware of how fast their equipment can safely travel — a common refrain among state officials.

What planet do these guys live on? First, because time is literally money for truckers, they always go as fast as possible. Second, nothing inspires road rage more than someone poking along a highway at less than the speed limit. Third, disparate vehicle speeds increase the chance of accidents because there's more passing and a greater likelihood that inattentive drivers will rear-end slower vehicles. Fourth, most truckers have no clue that their tires aren't rated for more than 75 mph. They just assume that states wouldn't let them drive at unsafe speeds.

Then there's physics. Kinetic energy is related to mass times velocity squared. A truck traveling at 85 mph has twice the kinetic energy of a truck going 60 mph. Ergo, a truck going 85 takes twice as long to stop as one going 60.

Finally, there's human physiology. The average person's reaction time is 250 milliseconds. At 85 mph you'll travel 31 feet before your brain can even register that something has happened. Even the most conscientious driver can be distracted for a couple of seconds -- changing the radio station, adjusting the volume, cursing at some nitwit who cut him off at 90 mph. In that time you go the entire length of a football field and ramming into the back end of a family minivan "poking along" at 65.

Highways aren't NASCAR speedways. Trucks and cars are driven by regular Joes, not trained stuntmen. Animals run across highways all the time. Limits over 70 are just too fast for these conditions.

Not surprisingly, all the unsafe speed limits are in solid red conservative states. Are these legislators  just ignorant, selfish, impatient yahoos who don't give a damn who gets hurt? Or are they slyly making sure the numbers of self-inflicted gun deaths in their states don't exceed traffic fatalities?

The Closet Facsists

I love it when the Gun Cult pretends to be all about freedom and fake spits at all things authoritarian. Essentially, they are full of shit. Here is an example:

Do Gun Owners Need An App To Tell Them Where Anti-Gun-Violence Activists Live?

On Thursday morning, a handful of anti-gun-violence activists realized there is an app in the Google Play Store with their names on it—literally. The app, Gunfree Geo Marker, features a map pinpointing the home and work addresses of politicians, gun control organization employees, and "random anti-gun trolls" who "push the anti-gun agenda in any way, shape or form." 

I wonder what the Gun Cult would say if there was an app to track them...

Pants Shitters Unite!

The United States, Iran and five other countries that no one ever mentions came to a framework agreement yesterday regarding Iran's nuclear energy and weapons development. Before the details (which are included in the link above) were even released, we saw this.

John Boehner in Israel: ‘The world is on fire’

Iran nuclear deal threatens Israel's 'survival,' Netanyahu says 

Republican senator compares Iran deal to Nazi appeasement

O...M....G...!!!!

I don't think I have seen this much pants shitting since Obama got Osama!! Appeasement? I wasn't aware that we were granting large swaths of land in the Middle East to Iran...oh wait, maybe we are as we fight alongside them against ISIL:)

When I saw the reaction to the framework of this yet to be detailed and signed agreement, it became glaringly obvious what was really going on. Conservatives are going to have to endure yet another Obama success and they don't wanna hafta because he is a poopy headed fat face whose face is fat!!! (I put Bibi in this category as well since he has decided to behave as insecurely as the Republicans due to his impending irrelevance).

So, while the 8 year old boys have their little temper tantrum, take a look at the details of the framework. It's glaringly obvious that the effectiveness of the sanctions (which are now ookey-dokey with conservatives) have led Iran to this massive capitulation. It's a laundry list of actions that Iran has to take or else it's back to the Big Squeeze. They must really be hurting. In fact, I can attest to this personally.  

One of  my long time students is Iranian. She and I have had many conversations about relations between our two countries. Her and her family travel back to Iran frequently and she has noted just how angry the people are with their government. This is why they are giving up so much. The government is growing increasingly afraid of another uprising-one which they will not be able to quell as they have in the past. The younger people in particular want to be a part of the world community and look to the United States with great envy as a model for what they want their society to be someday. They are very tired of the old ways and crave change.

It's time to help them get there and this agreement is a very large first step. 

The Welcome Varies

New "Religious Freedom" Laws Try to Legalize Religious Intolerance

With all these religious freedom bills flying around the country, we need to examine what religious freedom really is.

The federal religious freedom law (RFRA) was passed so that Native Americans could conduct ceremonies on sacred lands that had fallen into federal hands, and to use peyote in religious ceremonies. The precedent for this sort of thing was recognized as long ago as Prohibition; the Volstead Act allowed the sale of sacramental wine.

Thus, the intent of the RFRA wasn't to let people use their religion as an excuse to express their hatred for other Americans, it was to  to prevent the government from interfering with religious practices.

But there have been several cases in recent years where businesses and individuals have insisted that it's their religious right to discriminate against and even harm others:

• Taxi drivers refusing to give cab rides to passengers carrying alcohol.
• Checkout clerks refusing to sell bacon to customers.
• Pharmacists refusing to sell birth control pills to unmarried women.
• Pharmacists refusing to sell certain other drugs (Plan B) to anyone.
• Bakers refusing to sell cakes and florists refusing to sell floral arrangements to gays and lesbians.
• Employers refusing to provide birth control coverage for employees. 
• Right-wing Christians murdering doctors who perform abortion and blowing up women's health clinics.

Whenever there are interactions between people, there's always going to be some contention between one person's rights and another person's responsibilities in a civil society. If we allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians on "religious grounds," then all these types of discrimination would also be allowed:

• Orthodox Jews denying services to men who are not wearing hats.
• Catholics denying services to Protestants.
• Christians and Jews denying services to persons of mixed race individuals and interracial couples (cf. Deuteronomy 7:1).
• Muslims denying services to women who are not wearing veils.
• Ultraorthodox Jews denying services to menstruating women (because they're "unclean"), and since they can't really tell by looking, to all women.
• Baptist cab drivers refusing to give rides to people who have been drinking.
• Christian Scientist cab drivers refusing to bring patrons to hospitals.
• Hindus, Jews and Muslims refusing to give medical treatments because they contain certain animal products.
• Jehovah's Witnesses doctors denying blood transfusions during surgery.

There's no difference between a white cab driver refusing to give a black man a ride, a Christian baker refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple and a Muslim cab driver refusing to give a ride to a miniskirted woman leaving a bar at two in the morning.

As soon as we let people start discriminating against other people based on their own prejudices all the crap that  took us centuries to get rid of (segregated bathrooms and lunch counters, miscegenation laws, you know the drill) will start popping up all over again, under the guise of "religious freedom."

It's not big a step is it for ultra-conservative Christians to claim their religion requires them kill Wiccans, based on Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," or their own children for cursing them, based on Leviticus 20:19, "For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him." Eating shellfish is an abomination, according to Leviticus 11:12, so is it their religious duty to blow up Red Lobster?

Your religious rights end when you start violating someone else's civil rights.

Your religious rights end when you start violating someone else's civil rights. Anyone can make up their own phony religion and create whatever bogus dogma they want. Don't believe me? The Church of Scientology is a "religion," even though everyone knows it's just a gigantic scam expressly perpetrated by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950s to evade taxes. All it takes these days to be a religion is a lot of money, lawyers and a supply of suckers stupid enough to be led around by the nose.

But back to the matter at hand. If you don't want to sell cakes to gays, don't be a baker. If you don't want to sell birth control pills to women, don't be a pharmacist. If you don't want to sell bacon, don't work the checkout counter at Walmart.

Arkansas Balks

Arkansas governor urges changes to religious objection bill

Ah, the power of the free market...

I love how our country has changed:)

The Indiana Backpedal

Governor Mike Pence has caved.  He wants "clarification" legislation on his desk this week so there can be no mistake that Indiana SB 101 will allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

So, once this gets all sorted out, how will businesses then be allowed to exercise their "religious freedom" if they view homosexuality as a sin? It seems to me that any clarification legislation will nullify the very goal of the law. Yet, conservatives are telling us that this was never the goal nor will it be so in the future. If this is the case, what was the goal?

Indiana A Go Go

Let the mad scramble to "explain" the new Indiana law begin!

I've watched with great amusement as conservatives in Indiana and across the nation have been falling all over themselves to reassure folks that their law does not allow discrimination against gay people. They've foamed at the mouth about "narratives" (code for "shit, we got caught with the truth again") and made false equivalencies to other laws which are supposedly the same thing. If they had only followed their own ideology of laws and unintended consequences, perhaps it might have turned out differently.

Instead, they passed a law to protect the thousands (see: absolutely fucking no one, misleading vividness) of people (see: Christians) being persecuted by the state (see: Obama...somehow) for their religious beliefs (see: making a cake for a gross gay couple) across Indiana. Didn't they realize that the free market (oh, hee hee hee ho ho...giggle fit complete with stomach grab) and the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT might not work in their favor?

Well, now Republican legislators are scrambling to add language to the bill that won't allow for discrimination against gays and lesbians. Shit...there goes the whole "I hate gays and won't serve 'em cuz my religion says so" point of this law!

AP has a nice summation of all of the latest, including this most excellent part.

Republican Senate President Pro Tem David Long stressed that the new law is based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which has been upheld by courts. But the Human Rights Campaign said it's disingenuous to compare the two laws. 

The campaign's legal director, Sarah Warbelow, said the federal law was designed to ensure religious minorities were protected from laws passed by the federal government that might not have been intended to discriminate but had that effect. The Indiana law, she said, allows individuals to invoke government action even when the government is not a party to a lawsuit. It also allows all businesses to assert religious beliefs regardless of whether they are actually religious organizations.

Disingenuous...shocking!

We've Already Had This Conversation