Article from 6.5 weeks ago, before this thing got finalized: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...18d47936971d2d

Cliffs:
*Legal scholars agreed then with the same thing as the Conkle piece I linked above said, that this isn't the "license to discriminate" that some are charging and is in fact unlikely to negatively affect gay rights in Indiana at all.
*The bulk of the support for the bill probably came from anti-gay types who now have false hope about what just got passed.
*The bulk of the opposition came from people on the other side who were equally clueless about what the proposed law actually said.
*People like me who just believed the headlines and didn't pay attention were making a classic rookie mistake and getting duped.
*Law seems fine, people are up in arms over nothing.

So I guess there's my final answer, master. Caveat is that I assume I'm reading all of this right. I'm glad you brought this up since it caused me to actually study into it further.

Thanks for the analysis.

I guess I only have one question, why was this bill necessary? What is happening now that this bill will prevent (or not happening now that this bill will allows)?

Maybe you're right, and Indiana is closer to the center than I had previously thought, but I can't imagine that a bill with overwhelming Republican support had any concern for Muslim headwear.

The federal RFRA was ruled unconstitutional at the state level not long after it was passed. That's why states have to pass their own version of the law; I think about 20 have so far.

Obviously, the political climate has changed greatly since most of those states passed such laws. This was the same law that ended up getting vetoed in Arizona last year after a similar outcry. The law itself looks innocuous -- I can't imagine any lawsuit where someone was refused service getting dismissed through this law -- but the optics are terrible now with gay marriage becoming such a hot-button issue.

Make no mistake: I'm pretty sure that whatever positives come from this bill are a whole lot of play bad --> get there. My guess is that this was at least born from ill intentions toward the GLBT demographic. Proponents of it likely still hope that the courts will interpret it as a right of business owners to assert religious opposition to serving gay people, even though it's unlikely that it will actually work out that way.

I guess my broader take would be this: I will look suspiciously at those who actually authored the bill. I will look extremely suspiciously at businesses that lobbied for its passage. But those who simply voted the party line and had nothing to do with its creation...since the law itself doesn't look like a bad one, I don't think I can go too far in holding it against them. Same thing for Governor Pence, who I don't think was pushing for this from the executive level.

In terms of Indiana's political leanings, it is a red state but not overwhelmingly so; it did go for Obama in 2008, and one of the two U.S. Senators is a Democrat.

Okay, thanks for the context...states do pass their own versions of federal regulations on other things and can create a broader set of rights than the federal standard allows for, but passing an identical law confused me. Makes more sense now. I was too young at the time Clinton did this to have any memory of it.

LKJ giving a better analysis in a few posts than people who get paid to report on this stuff.

Awesome, thanks for the insight man. Hence why I brought it up here. If there is one person who I feel doesn't let a ton of personal feelings jump in the way of political issues it's you.

At the same time this newfound knowledge is going to torture me. Snippet from an e-mail I just wrote to a friend:

But whatever, Pence is up for re-election next year so I suppose it's better as a voter that I'm clued in to whether or not he's being skewered for the right reasons here.

What if political candidates started doing sing-along catchphrases while campaigning?

If ya Smellllllllllllllalaalaal... what Indiana ' s 12th congressional district respresentative.... is cooking

Infamous Second Son is a pretty damn fun game for the PS4. Of the two games that came bundled with my console, The Last of Us seems to be the better-reviewed one but I've personally enjoyed Infamous Second Son a fair bit more.

Part of the appeal is how authentically they've built Seattle in it, but even without that I'd like it a lot.

Nice. Don't see too many games set in Seattle. Considering how much I liked The Killing (tv show taking place in seattle) I'll have to check it out

I was going to disagree with the "not too many games set in Seattle" thing. And then what I came up with was...Shadowrun. For the Sega Genesis. So yeah you're probably right.

Is infamous the one where you get super powers collecting neon and fire and stuff like that? If so great game with a good story


Last of us still >>>>>> tho

That one is Infamous yeah. I just finished it.

The Last of Us just isn't drawing me in as much as it seems to draw everyone else in. It's a fine game, but shrug. Think I'm an underdog to ever put in the time needed to finish it.

Honestly the Last of Us gameplay was so so, its just the story was so damn good. Including the ending. Really hope you stick it out and give your opinion

It's possible I suppose. But MLB 15 will come out on Tuesday and then that will probably monopolize my video game time pretty exclusively for a while.

I just finished school last week. Think Im legit going to just bite the bullet and get a PS4 for MLB. Cant think of a game Ive put more hours into and now Ive got nothing but time

I'm definitely beyond excited for that release. Haven't played it for a second, but I just assume that the decade of elite reviews can't be wrong.

Gran Turismo 2 had a Seattle street circuit. You can see the old Kingdome as you go around the track.

One thing that's terrible in sports is when they'll randomly show you some terrible non-standard camera angle during a live play, I guess to be artistic or some stupid **** like that.

Yes producer, I really wanted to watch the next pitch from the viewpoint of having a close-up of the catcher's ass, as the catcher's body blocks my ability to actually see where the pitch is located.

The behind the umpire camera angle is one of the worst things about baseball. Who in their right mind would ever want to see a full play from that angle.

Speaking of baseball, god help me, but I'm thinking of spending almost 400 dollars to play one baseball game. There is literally nothing else I want out of a ps4, as my pc rig is awesome. Somebody help me.

You're not far off from what I did. And that's all without having even played any prior version of MLB The Show.

I haven't played it either, but I have played xbox based MLB games and they are ****ing awful

I hit a real baseball off Pesky Pole at Fenway Park once