March 31, 2015 5:08 pm -

[su_center_b]More talking around the issue without a yes or no answer.

The question from a reporter: “Do you personally believe that Christian businesses that have deeply held beliefs about marriage should be compelled to provide services, whether it’s photography, flowers, baking, across the board — to gay and lesbian couples?”

“I understand what you’re doing with the law — you personally,” the reporter continued when Pence gave a similar talking point about the law’s intent. “I think we all know how things have changed since ’93 to today, we know the reasons behind these laws. We saw this a year ago in Arizona.” He then repeated his question.

After a long deep breath, Pence said:

I don’t support discrimination against anyone. The question that you pose, though, I believe — it’s — we’re dealing here, in a free society, with always a careful balancing of interests. and the facts and circumstances of each case determines the outcome. What this legislation dos, what it did when President Clinton signed it into law in 1993, and what it serves in some 30 states where its been the law, is provide a framework for determining whether or not government action puts a substantial burden on person’s religious liberty. Now it’s counterbalanced against whether there is a compelling interest. The first question is, in any case: does the government action place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion under this standard as it has been applied for decades. The second question is, is there a compelling state interest? And what courts have found without exception n the past twenty-plus years, is that the state has a compelling interest in combating discrimination, and I support that interpretation.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

6 responses to Pence Fumbles On If Businesses Should Be ‘Compelled’ To Serve Gays

  1. Gindy51 March 31st, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Check the way back machine for his views on gays in 2000, it is quite revealing. He hasn’t changed one bit. Still the same bigoted asshole he was back then.

    • allison1050 March 31st, 2015 at 6:02 pm

      They rarely ever change their views. I do love how the wing nuts continue to try and confuse the issue of 1993 and what that signing was about with today though.

      • granpa.usthai April 1st, 2015 at 2:39 am

        If they had been in the bunkers on D-Day, they’d be whining : but you never attacked Anzio like this.

  2. Apocalypse March 31st, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    He doesn’t want to lose his anti-gay base, but the line-“And what courts have found without exception n the past twenty-plus years, is that the state has a compelling interest in combating discrimination, and I support that interpretation.”- suggest that he supports the rulings that have prohibited discrimination like the wedding photographer under the New Mexico RFRA, and the florist in Washington under a RFRA-like interpretation of the state constitution. Whether his statement is sincere or not is another question. He probably isn’t and is just trying to appease.

  3. granpa.usthai April 1st, 2015 at 2:36 am

    does this new law legally ALLOW discrimination – should be the question. Not why would anybody or ‘personal feelings’ – straight up question
    can gays legally be discriminated in this law?

    It’s what the damn law was made for.

  4. rg9rts April 1st, 2015 at 4:05 am

    $$$$$ its always about the $$$$$