As I'm sure you've heard by now, Indiana has passed a bill that allows privately owned businesses to refuse service to anyone they deem is not a reflection of their personal religious beliefs. To put it in layman's terms, it gives business owners the right to refuse service to anyone who is LGBT. This bill came around when previously some business owners (most notably a bakery) refused service to a particular couple because they were lesbians and didn't want to make a gay themed wedding cake, after which the couple sued for discrimination. To be fair, I believe that depending on what the couple had asked for, the bakery did have every right to refuse to make the cake and they could have offered them alternatives or point them in the direction of bakeries who would cater to their needs. But this is the real world and things like that hardly ever happen. If they had, would the couple really have felt so discriminated against as to actually bring this to court?

But now that this bill has passed, it has opened up a whole lot of other fuckery that people will exploit. The first day that the announced this bill on television I called it: Businesses will begin refusing service to LGBT people solely based on the fact that they're gay/trans and not based on the product being requesting. It won't be about gay wedding cakes or gay themed photography or gay themed anything anymore, it will be about the people. But this doesn't just stop with the LGBT either, privately owned businesses are now allowed to refuse service to anyone they feel offends or goes against their personal religious beliefs. This includes people of other religions, other races/colors, interracial couples, atheists, etc etc etc.

Do you honestly believe that people won't stoop that low and further? Already there are private businesses that have begun refusing service to certain people, even those who aren't even in Indiana. We separated state and religion for a reason, so why are we still creating laws that are based on personal religious beliefs and only benefit those who fit within that category? This feels oddly familiar. (In no way am I supporting discrimination by linking this image here. This image is linked only for the purpose of the subject above.)

So, in protest to this law and those like it, I will hide any and all comments from those I feel are religious/Christian. It isn't a personal attack on you or anyone in particular, but simply that I am trying to illustrate a point. For as long as this law exists, I am exacting my right to deny comments to anyone that does not fit or offends my own personal beliefs in the same way the religious/Christians are. I will read your comments however and may even reply to them, but in every likelihood I will hide them afterwords, even those who may or may not have been posted by persons who are religious.

If this offends you in some way, then maybe you have something to think about.

Equality for all or equality for none. You can only choose one.

The language of the bill and its amendment.

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

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.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

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.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.