I don’t get it. Is there some sort of GOP bylaw that says that Republicans should at all times avoid as much as possible having to make a case for their own policies or arguing back against disingenuous talking heads?
I saw this with George W. Bush, I’ve seen this with Republicans in Congress and I’m seeing it now with Republicans in Indiana – this remarkable destructive tendency that Republicans have of furling their lips up to upturned noses and sniffing nonsense like “I would not dignify that with a response.”
And again, why is there no defense of the IN RFRA unless a liberal talk show host invites a proponent to talk about it along with three other liberal guests on the other side?
What is preventing Mike Pence or any of the IN Republican State Legislative leadership uploading a video to YouTube and Vimeo explaining the law, castigating the media for their distorted coverage of it and making a proper case with the most evocative examples?
What’s so difficult about saying that you shouldn’t be able to force Muslim baker to cater to an event that violates his religious principles? You shouldn’t be able to sue a Muslim baker to court because he refuses to bake a cake for the American Hog Farmers Association even if he had previously baked one for the National Cattle Ranchers Alliance.
Satanists/Luciferians shouldn’t be able to force a Christian contractor to build them a “Church” even if he had previously built a Wat for Buddhists. You shouldn’t be able to force an orthodox Jewish hotel owner to give over his event hall for a swingers convention/orgy or to host a Nazi/Klan themed wedding.
Likewise, you shouldn’t be able to force a Muslim or Zoroastrian, etc. to photograph, decorate, cater or bake a cake for a gay wedding, even if they have no problem doing all this for straight weddings. You shouldn’t be able to force a Christian, Orthodox Jew, etc. to participate in an event solemnizing an incestuous relationship between a pair of siblings.
Seriously … what is so difficult about this?