What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

CowboysFromHell

Footballguy
Where do you stand on the new legislation signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence?

Link

Hopefully, most everyone agrees that LBGT folks should not be turned away from the lunch counter, as opponents of this new legislation say the law allows for. But, a Libertarian friend of mine posed this argument, which has me thinking about where all of this leads:

My (essentially libertarian) position is... when government limits freedom (the freedom of idiot, bigoted business owners to choose not to make money from someone because they are gay, for example) a valuable piece of information is removed from society: namely, "who are the idiot, bigoted business owners!" The law itself should be unnecessary. Let business owners who are racists, bigots, homophobes, etc., discriminate. Why would you want to do business with them anyway? If I was part of a discriminated class, I would be worried sick if government forced business owners to serve me. "Which ones are the bad ones? That guy glared at me weird. Is he going to pee in my wedding cake batter?" etc. Stangely, and counterintuitively, allowing people to act on their bigotry does a service for society. It shows who the idiots are and allows the good folks to fight them (peacefully) with boycotts and campaigns.

Both you and I don't have a right to force someone to sell us stuff. If you're a gay kinkos owner, do you have to print the Westboro Baptist Church's order for the God Hates #### protest signs?
 
Outside of 3 Floyd's Brewing, they don't particularly offer anything that interests me. But I do live rather close and I have full intentions of avoiding patronizing anything in the state because of this.

With a trip to Kentuky planned, I'll use it for its roads, but that's it. With no toll roads, that''s an easy decision

 
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.

ETA: yet I'm fairly confident that when I do figure it out, it will be stupid and unnecessary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasn't there a famous case in the last couple of years where a cake shop was required to decorate a cake for a gay wedding? Or am I misremembering that?

 
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.
It's a state version of the federal religious freedom restoration act, something a bunch of other states also have. The protect religious beliefs from being burdened by government action unless there's a compelling reason to do so. The federal one was passed in 1993 but doesn't apply to the states, so some states have passed them. It's a garbage law- was when Chuck Schumer introduced the federal version and Bill Clinton signed it, and it's even more so now when it seems the primary motivation is to protect people's right to discriminate against gays ... even though they were already free to discriminate against gays unless their state or town had a law prohibiting it.

To see how political it is- the decision that triggered the federal RFRA in 1993 was a 1990 case about Native Americans using peyote in religious rituals. Justice Scalia of all people authored the opinion holding that the First Amendment didn't protect you from "laws of general applicability." And Democrats responded with the statute. If it's Native Americans using peyote, liberals rush to defend their practices. If its Christians whining about the gays, Republicans rush to their side. The whole idea is ridiculous.

 
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.
It's a state version of the federal religious freedom restoration act, something a bunch of other states also have. The protect religious beliefs from being burdened by government action unless there's a compelling reason to do so. The federal one was passed in 1993 but doesn't apply to the states, so some states have passed them. It's a garbage law- was when Chuck Schumer introduced the federal version and Bill Clinton signed it, and it's even more so now when it seems the primary motivation is to protect people's right to discriminate against gays ... even though they were already free to discriminate against gays unless their state or town had a law prohibiting it.

To see how political it is- the decision that triggered the federal RFRA in 1993 was a 1990 case about Native Americans using peyote in religious rituals. Justice Scalia of all people authored the opinion holding that the First Amendment didn't protect you from "laws of general applicability." And Democrats responded with the statute. If it's Native Americans using peyote, liberals rush to defend their practices. If its Christians whining about the gays, Republicans rush to their side. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Wouldn't the bolded make it not a garbage law, at least if local government was not free to supercede the state law?
 
Outside of 3 Floyd's Brewing, they don't particularly offer anything that interests me. But I do live rather close and I have full intentions of avoiding patronizing anything in the state because of this.

With a trip to Kentuky planned, I'll use it for its roads, but that's it. With no toll roads, that''s an easy decision
BTW, you may want to skip your trip altogether because Kentucky has a religious freedom law, too.

ETA, 3 Floyd's Brewing is great!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.
It's a state version of the federal religious freedom restoration act, something a bunch of other states also have. The protect religious beliefs from being burdened by government action unless there's a compelling reason to do so. The federal one was passed in 1993 but doesn't apply to the states, so some states have passed them. It's a garbage law- was when Chuck Schumer introduced the federal version and Bill Clinton signed it, and it's even more so now when it seems the primary motivation is to protect people's right to discriminate against gays ... even though they were already free to discriminate against gays unless their state or town had a law prohibiting it.

To see how political it is- the decision that triggered the federal RFRA in 1993 was a 1990 case about Native Americans using peyote in religious rituals. Justice Scalia of all people authored the opinion holding that the First Amendment didn't protect you from "laws of general applicability." And Democrats responded with the statute. If it's Native Americans using peyote, liberals rush to defend their practices. If its Christians whining about the gays, Republicans rush to their side. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Wouldn't the bolded make it not a garbage law, at least if local government was not free to supercede the state law?
No, it's still a garbage law. Effective, in that the state law would likely supersede the local ordinance, but still garbage IMO. I think the whole idea of RFRA is stupid. Hiding behind a bible or a torah or whatever else you may believe in shouldn't make you exempt from generally applicable laws. It's just a fundamentally stupid concept. If there's a silly law that prevents people from practicing their religion in the manner they want and we collectively don't feel there's a compelling interest in doing so, then let's amend or repeal the law, not give you a special statute that authorizes you to break it. Not only is it dumb as a practical matter, I kind of feel like it edges a little too close to government establishment of religion for my comfort.

 
In one sense it's odd, and I can see why some people find the outrage a bit hypocritical. But these sorts of things also seem dumber and dumber as time passes. Say a state had passed a law protecting segregation in the 1940s- it would obviously be awful, but it wouldn't have appeared quite as awful, or garnered nearly the same outrage, as an identical law passed in the 1960s. And since we're moving towards equal rights for homosexuals at an accelerated rate, 10 years seems like forever ago.

Something similar happened when North Carolina a couple years ago. They already had a law on the books banning gay marriage, as did many states, but then in 2011 they passed an amendment to the state constitution doing the same and took a ton of heat. They responded with this same "why are you only targeting us"? complaint. And the answer was, frankly, those laws/amendments in those other states were adopted when we didn't know any better. Now we know better, or at least most people do.

Also FWIW lots of those states also have laws in place protecting homosexuals from discrimination that would supersede their RFRA laws. Indiana does not. So it's not really 19 states. It's 19 minus however many states have anti-discrimination laws that supersede them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Outside of 3 Floyd's Brewing, they don't particularly offer anything that interests me. But I do live rather close and I have full intentions of avoiding patronizing anything in the state because of this.

With a trip to Kentuky planned, I'll use it for its roads, but that's it. With no toll roads, that''s an easy decision
BTW, you may want to skip your trip altogether because Kentucky has a religious freedom law, too.

ETA, 3 Floyd's Brewing is great!
DAMMIT!

 
People really lineup to be outraged nowadays don't they?

BTW I agree with OPs GB libertarian above. The market would take care of it. And there is a sense of freedom for people to be stupid and for us all to avoid them.

Is sexuality considered the same class legally as race?

 
The market did not take care of it in the 100 years after the civil war and we were left with white's only lunch counters, drinking fountains, restrooms, parks etc etc etc....

The market has proven bigotry pays.

 
Nobody is going anywhere. Just like Chic-Fil-A, there will be kicking and screaming for awhile, and then you wont hear another word.

NCAA and NFL leaving Indiana.... :lmao: :lmao:

 
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.
It's a state version of the federal religious freedom restoration act, something a bunch of other states also have. The protect religious beliefs from being burdened by government action unless there's a compelling reason to do so. The federal one was passed in 1993 but doesn't apply to the states, so some states have passed them. It's a garbage law- was when Chuck Schumer introduced the federal version and Bill Clinton signed it, and it's even more so now when it seems the primary motivation is to protect people's right to discriminate against gays ... even though they were already free to discriminate against gays unless their state or town had a law prohibiting it.

To see how political it is- the decision that triggered the federal RFRA in 1993 was a 1990 case about Native Americans using peyote in religious rituals. Justice Scalia of all people authored the opinion holding that the First Amendment didn't protect you from "laws of general applicability." And Democrats responded with the statute. If it's Native Americans using peyote, liberals rush to defend their practices. If its Christians whining about the gays, Republicans rush to their side. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Wouldn't the bolded make it not a garbage law, at least if local government was not free to supercede the state law?
No, it's still a garbage law. Effective, in that the state law would likely supersede the local ordinance, but still garbage IMO. I think the whole idea of RFRA is stupid. Hiding behind a bible or a torah or whatever else you may believe in shouldn't make you exempt from generally applicable laws. It's just a fundamentally stupid concept. If there's a silly law that prevents people from practicing their religion in the manner they want and we collectively don't feel there's a compelling interest in doing so, then let's amend or repeal the law, not give you a special statute that authorizes you to break it. Not only is it dumb as a practical matter, I kind of feel like it edges a little too close to government establishment of religion for my comfort.
By this definition 99% of our laws are "garbage". I'm not saying I disagree with your position, but our tax code is pretty much what you describe here, a bunch of loopholes that allow people not to follow the law. "Hiding behind a Bible" is just another loophole in this instance.

 
In one sense it's odd, and I can see why some people find the outrage a bit hypocritical. But these sorts of things also seem dumber and dumber as time passes. Say a state had passed a law protecting segregation in the 1940s- it would obviously be awful, but it wouldn't have appeared quite as awful, or garnered nearly the same outrage, as an identical law passed in the 1960s. And since we're moving towards equal rights for homosexuals at an accelerated rate, 10 years seems like forever ago.

Something similar happened when North Carolina a couple years ago. They already had a law on the books banning gay marriage, as did many states, but then in 2011 they passed an amendment to the state constitution doing the same and took a ton of heat. They responded with this same "why are you only targeting us"? complaint. And the answer was, frankly, those laws/amendments in those other states were adopted when we didn't know any better. Now we know better, or at least most people do.

Also FWIW lots of those states also have laws in place protecting homosexuals from discrimination that would supersede their RFRA laws. Indiana does not. So it's not really 19 states. It's 19 minus however many states have anti-discrimination laws that supersede them.
How does the Hobby Lobby case tie into this new law?

 
Nobody is going anywhere. Just like Chic-Fil-A, there will be kicking and screaming for awhile, and then you wont hear another word.

NCAA and NFL leaving Indiana.... :lmao: :lmao:
the nfl will not leave, but a super bowl will not come, and they could move the combine

if you need proof, look at history:

How MLK Day Changed the Super BowlThe United States observed Martin Luther King Jr. Day for the first time in 1986. Although the holiday was not observed in every state, Gov. Bruce Babbitt declared it an Arizona holiday through an executive order. This made Arizona one of the first 27 states to observe the holiday to honor King.

When Gov. Evan Mecham was elected a year later, the holiday was abolished. Mecham thought the holiday was created illegally because it was through an executive order, not a bill in the state legislature. Although the holiday officially passed in the state legislature in 1989, there was still controversy surrounding it in Arizona, and a ballot initiative was created for residents to vote on.

In the midst of the controversy, the NFL was deciding which city would host Super Bowl XXVII. Arizona received the Cardinals football team from Missouri in 1988, so the NFL was looking at Sun Devil Stadium as a possibility.

The NFL hesitated to award the Super Bowl to Arizona because of the issues surrounding King's holiday. State leaders convinced the NFL owners that the issues would be resolved, and Arizona was awarded the Super Bowl with one stipulation: If anything was done to dishonor King, the committee would move the Super Bowl elsewhere.

In 1990, opponents to the national holiday succeeded and the ballot initiative was rejected by Arizona voters. Many NFL players took notice.

The NFL selection committee rescinded Super Bowl XXVII and awarded it to Pasadena, Calif., costing Arizona potentially $350 million in business revenue.

Finally, in 1993, Arizona became the first state to make MLK Day an official holiday by popular vote. After the holiday was passed, the NFL awarded Arizona with Super Bowl XXX, which took place in 1996.

 
We should get that started on twitter

#MoveTheCombine

Why does indy get it every year anyway? it should be mobile

 
Where do you stand on the new legislation signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence?

Link

Hopefully, most everyone agrees that LBGT folks should not be turned away from the lunch counter, as opponents of this new legislation say the law allows for. But, a Libertarian friend of mine posed this argument, which has me thinking about where all of this leads:

My (essentially libertarian) position is... when government limits freedom (the freedom of idiot, bigoted business owners to choose not to make money from someone because they are gay, for example) a valuable piece of information is removed from society: namely, "who are the idiot, bigoted business owners!" The law itself should be unnecessary. Let business owners who are racists, bigots, homophobes, etc., discriminate. Why would you want to do business with them anyway? If I was part of a discriminated class, I would be worried sick if government forced business owners to serve me. "Which ones are the bad ones? That guy glared at me weird. Is he going to pee in my wedding cake batter?" etc. Stangely, and counterintuitively, allowing people to act on their bigotry does a service for society. It shows who the idiots are and allows the good folks to fight them (peacefully) with boycotts and campaigns.

Both you and I don't have a right to force someone to sell us stuff. If you're a gay kinkos owner, do you have to print the Westboro Baptist Church's order for the God Hates #### protest signs?
Yeah, free market solutions.

 
People really lineup to be outraged nowadays don't they?

BTW I agree with OPs GB libertarian above. The market would take care of it. And there is a sense of freedom for people to be stupid and for us all to avoid them.

Is sexuality considered the same class legally as race?
As many have already said, I think we've seen that unbridled liberty/freedom leads to some awful outcomes. Unfortunately, I think we do need laws to prevent discrimination.

 
Nobody is going anywhere. Just like Chic-Fil-A, there will be kicking and screaming for awhile, and then you wont hear another word.

NCAA and NFL leaving Indiana.... :lmao: :lmao:
You don't hear another word because Chik-Fil-A stopped donating to anti-LGBT groups as a result of the controversy.

They're not the only ones who changed policy after anti-gay positions damaged their public brand, either. Barilla pasta also reversed its positions on gay rights after coming under fire and is now one of the more forward-thinking companies around on these issues. link. Pretty sure there's a bunch of others like that, too.

 
In one sense it's odd, and I can see why some people find the outrage a bit hypocritical. But these sorts of things also seem dumber and dumber as time passes. Say a state had passed a law protecting segregation in the 1940s- it would obviously be awful, but it wouldn't have appeared quite as awful, or garnered nearly the same outrage, as an identical law passed in the 1960s. And since we're moving towards equal rights for homosexuals at an accelerated rate, 10 years seems like forever ago.

Something similar happened when North Carolina a couple years ago. They already had a law on the books banning gay marriage, as did many states, but then in 2011 they passed an amendment to the state constitution doing the same and took a ton of heat. They responded with this same "why are you only targeting us"? complaint. And the answer was, frankly, those laws/amendments in those other states were adopted when we didn't know any better. Now we know better, or at least most people do.

Also FWIW lots of those states also have laws in place protecting homosexuals from discrimination that would supersede their RFRA laws. Indiana does not. So it's not really 19 states. It's 19 minus however many states have anti-discrimination laws that supersede them.
How does the Hobby Lobby case tie into this new law?
Hobby Lobby was a case under the federal RFRA law from 1993, since the ACA is federal law. The court's decision was based entirely on interpretation of RFRA, not the First Amendment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???

 
My understanding is that this law is far broader than the religious liberty laws that exist in other states, or even the federal one from 1993. And unlike any of those laws, this one was deliberately designed to legalize discrimination against homosexuals.

 
I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???
My problem with 1 (not my only problem...but one of them) is that the ultra religious baker likely does not turn down someone who has committed other sins and makes their cake but will typically turn down gays. I doubt the baker is doing background checks to make sure she is not making a cake for an adulterer. Does she make cakes for gluttons too? Well, probably...it is cake after all.

The gay kinkos employee could likely appeal to his/her boss and say he/she would rather not make such copies. How it works after that...I don't know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know of only two cases, one in Washington state (baker, refused to make a cake for a gay couple), and one in New Mexico, a camerman who refused to photograph a gay marriage.

This is from the concurring opinion in the NM case:

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave
space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts
of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.
I'm just curious if people see a difference between conduct and beliefs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding is that this law is far broader than the religious liberty laws that exist in other states, or even the federal one from 1993. And unlike any of those laws, this one was deliberately designed to legalize discrimination against homosexuals.
I did a little checking and there may be something to this- here's the argument that it's broader in scope. I'm too lazy to fact-check that but it sounds plausible.

Also, as I mentioned before other states have anti-LGBT laws that would prevent these RFRA laws from being used to authorize discrimination against gays. Illinois is one of these. Here's a Tribune article explaining it after the Indiana governor highlighted the similar law enacted by their neighbors.

 
I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???
My problem with 1 (not my only problem...but one of them) is that the ultra religious baker likely does not turn down someone who has committed other sins and makes their cake but will typically turn down gays. I doubt the baker is doing background checks to make sure she is not making a cake for an adulterer. Does she make cakes for gluttons too? Well, probably...it is cake after all.

The gay kinkos employee could likely appeal to his/her boss and say he/she would rather not make such copies. How it works after that...I don't know.
I think to be consistent, if we're going to demand that the baker put aside his/her beliefs and bake the cake for the gay couple, we have to also ask the gay Kinkos employee to print the sign. UNLESS its determined that the phrase "God Hates ####" is considered "hate speech". I guess we get into a freedom of speech discussion at that point, and whether or not and/or where the lines should be drawn. But, again, to be consistent, we're going to demand, via law, that everyone put aside their personal beliefs in most instances and serve everyone. I like the ruling that Saints posted out of NM. We all have to compromise a little. That's part of living in a free society.

 
I wanted to head to Indy to watch a Colts game this year (hoping the Steelers would play in Indy).

The four of us are homos, so I doubt we go. I guess it's not so much about the boycott as I'm sure most places in Indy would be willing to serve us and I'd hate to punish them because of the actions of their silly governor. It's more about just hating Indiana and using this as an excuse not to spend any time in that miserable state. It's quite boring. I've been to Bloomington to visit family a few years ago and wanted to poke my eyes out because the best restaurant was Applebee's and the daily entertainment was a Wal-Mart. I've worked at the new hospital in Terre Haute and was quite complexed why anyone would call that town their home. Flat, brown, cold, windy, ugly. I've traveled to Decatur for my nephew's dad's funeral. He's buried there too and have traveled with him to see his grave. Again, the only action in town was the local Wal-Mart. Plus, it was miserable driving there on a two-lane road. Lastly, I was in Beverly Shores IN, and even though the majority of Indiana is in the Eastern Time Zone, it took me a day to figure out the time in Beverly Shores. The northwestern tip in IN observes CST, which I guess it to align them with Chicago time. WTF. I felt like an idiot for not knowing the real time for 24 hours.

So ... Indiana sucks for way more things than just this horrible, pathetic law. I'm glad to now have an acceptable reason to avoid the state.

 
My understanding is that this law is far broader than the religious liberty laws that exist in other states, or even the federal one from 1993. And unlike any of those laws, this one was deliberately designed to legalize discrimination against homosexuals.
I did a little checking and there may be something to this- here's the argument that it's broader in scope. I'm too lazy to fact-check that but it sounds plausible.

Also, as I mentioned before other states have anti-LGBT laws that would prevent these RFRA laws from being used to authorize discrimination against gays. Illinois is one of these. Here's a Tribune article explaining it after the Indiana governor highlighted the similar law enacted by their neighbors.
And Pence has since said that he does NOT plan to enact further legislation to protect LBGT people from discrimination. It's my understanding that a lot of the other 19 states do have such laws, so again Indiana is getting the backlash they deserve here.

 
heckmanm said:
I wanted to head to Indy to watch a Colts game this year (hoping the Steelers would play in Indy).

The four of us are homos, so I doubt we go. I guess it's not so much about the boycott as I'm sure most places in Indy would be willing to serve us and I'd hate to punish them because of the actions of their silly governor. It's more about just hating Indiana and using this as an excuse not to spend any time in that miserable state. It's quite boring. I've been to Bloomington to visit family a few years ago and wanted to poke my eyes out because the best restaurant was Applebee's and the daily entertainment was a Wal-Mart. I've worked at the new hospital in Terre Haute and was quite complexed why anyone would call that town their home. Flat, brown, cold, windy, ugly. I've traveled to Decatur for my nephew's dad's funeral. He's buried there too and have traveled with him to see his grave. Again, the only action in town was the local Wal-Mart. Plus, it was miserable driving there on a two-lane road. Lastly, I was in Beverly Shores IN, and even though the majority of Indiana is in the Eastern Time Zone, it took me a day to figure out the time in Beverly Shores. The northwestern tip in IN observes CST, which I guess it to align them with Chicago time. WTF. I felt like an idiot for not knowing the real time for 24 hours.

So ... Indiana sucks for way more things than just this horrible, pathetic law. I'm glad to now have an acceptable reason to avoid the state.
OH BULL####
Meh, I wish I would've known differently then. My daughter was 2 and my nephew was a newborn at the time. Would've loved to venture on campus, but unsure of the kid friendly aspect.

 
I am not sure I will ever really understand why christians take some of the stances they do. If I assume, just for the sake of argument, that the bible says homosexuality is wrong and/or a sin, isn't one of the primary messages to love your neighbor as yourself - no greater commandment, or some such thing. Seems like Jesus taught to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yet, so many people who profess to be christians, take an us v. them approach when dealing with anyone with a different view or lifestyle. Seems very anti-christ-like - to hate someone else, or to discriminate against anyone else - for any reason...

 
I am not sure I will ever really understand why christians take some of the stances they do. If I assume, just for the sake of argument, that the bible says homosexuality is wrong and/or a sin, isn't one of the primary messages to love your neighbor as yourself - no greater commandment, or some such thing. Seems like Jesus taught to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yet, so many people who profess to be christians, take an us v. them approach when dealing with anyone with a different view or lifestyle. Seems very anti-christ-like - to hate someone else, or to discriminate against anyone else - for any reason...
:goodposting:

Jesus was clearly a Democrat.

 
I am not sure I will ever really understand why christians take some of the stances they do. If I assume, just for the sake of argument, that the bible says homosexuality is wrong and/or a sin, isn't one of the primary messages to love your neighbor as yourself - no greater commandment, or some such thing. Seems like Jesus taught to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yet, so many people who profess to be christians, take an us v. them approach when dealing with anyone with a different view or lifestyle. Seems very anti-christ-like - to hate someone else, or to discriminate against anyone else - for any reason...
:goodposting:

Jesus was clearly a Democrat.
borderline communist

 
Nobody is going anywhere. Just like Chic-Fil-A, there will be kicking and screaming for awhile, and then you wont hear another word.

NCAA and NFL leaving Indiana.... :lmao: :lmao:
You don't hear another word because Chik-Fil-A stopped donating to anti-LGBT groups as a result of the controversy.

They're not the only ones who changed policy after anti-gay positions damaged their public brand, either. Barilla pasta also reversed its positions on gay rights after coming under fire and is now one of the more forward-thinking companies around on these issues. link. Pretty sure there's a bunch of others like that, too.
The market certainly failed us in the Deep South prior to the sixties when white people simply refused to provide services to black people, at least from the front door.

But one of the most effective tactics ever used was the public transit boycotts and today we have even more effective means of applying pressures against businesses which refuse to acknowledge the changing diversity of the nation. Social media now allows millions to publicly humiliate backward businesses and bring their practices to national light.

Traditionalists hate this tactic, btw, which makes it all the more sweeter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???
My problem with 1 (not my only problem...but one of them) is that the ultra religious baker likely does not turn down someone who has committed other sins and makes their cake but will typically turn down gays. I doubt the baker is doing background checks to make sure she is not making a cake for an adulterer. Does she make cakes for gluttons too? Well, probably...it is cake after all.

The gay kinkos employee could likely appeal to his/her boss and say he/she would rather not make such copies. How it works after that...I don't know.
I think to be consistent, if we're going to demand that the baker put aside his/her beliefs and bake the cake for the gay couple, we have to also ask the gay Kinkos employee to print the sign. UNLESS its determined that the phrase "God Hates ####" is considered "hate speech". I guess we get into a freedom of speech discussion at that point, and whether or not and/or where the lines should be drawn. But, again, to be consistent, we're going to demand, via law, that everyone put aside their personal beliefs in most instances and serve everyone. I like the ruling that Saints posted out of NM. We all have to compromise a little. That's part of living in a free society.
Ignoring the small straw man here (the notion that one needs to avoid entire states) I don't think federal or state legislation is necessary in either case. If a business owner doesn't want a certain demogrpahic's money, that's their decision...albeit probably a poor decision. On a similar note, if one doesn't want to help a customer because of their hate speech, that's between that individual and their boss. At that point it's a customer service and public perception issue. Let the market decide what's appropriate.

 
I am not sure I will ever really understand why christians take some of the stances they do. If I assume, just for the sake of argument, that the bible says homosexuality is wrong and/or a sin, isn't one of the primary messages to love your neighbor as yourself - no greater commandment, or some such thing. Seems like Jesus taught to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yet, so many people who profess to be christians, take an us v. them approach when dealing with anyone with a different view or lifestyle. Seems very anti-christ-like - to hate someone else, or to discriminate against anyone else - for any reason...
As a follower of Jesus Christ, this is pretty spot on. I've never understood why people single out a particular sin and treat it different than the others. We are taught there aren't degrees of sin when it comes to our relationship with God. He hates them all equally. Jesus would probably be classified as an independent who understands the "top down" approach to anything really doesn't work, especially in government. He'd tell us to live by the rules established by gov't where they don't come in direct conflict with his/God's.

 
I still haven't figured out what the law actually does.
I don't think anyone knows yet. There was recently a case in Washington state where a florist was fined for not providing flowers to a gay wedding, but that was because Washington has an anti-discrimination statute that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. Clearly Indiana doesn't have that, and I think there would have been no obligation for an Indiana business to provide services for a gay wedding even without this law.

However, I think this new Indiana law raises questions about discrimination outside of the context of marriage. If the owner of a restaurant believes homosexuality is a sin, is he allowed to stop a gay couple from eating lunch at his restaurant? I have a feeling these types of questions will be resolved by the courts.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top