Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

Ahhhh the intolerant don't want to have any intolerance aimed in their direction.

 

[jon_mx]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

Ahhhh the intolerant don't want to have any intolerance aimed in their direction.

Very ironic on who you think is being the cry-baby here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

Ahhhh the intolerant don't want to have any intolerance aimed in their direction.

Very ironic on who you think is being the cry-baby here.

Its the religious. Hell, look at Mike Pence act like a little child on ABC. Plain. As. Day.

 

[jon_mx]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

Ahhhh the intolerant don't want to have any intolerance aimed in their direction.

Very ironic on who you think is being the cry-baby here.

Its the religious. Hell, look at Mike Pence act like a little child on ABC. Plain. As. Day.

And the gay militants are acting rationally running around crying for boycotts throwing out all kinds of ridiculous hypotheticals. I am sure they are already plotting to go into some unexpecting establishment with their hidden video cameras trying to provoke getting thrown out so they can post it on YouTube and feign outraged over the staged event. Oh the joy of politics. They are all ####### loons.

 

[jonessed]

Boycotts are fine. Outside cities boycotting states is a bit pointless, but it doesn't really matter. If individuals want to boycott an area that's a good way to show resentment.

The idea that someone would claim to live somewhere they don't or be from somewhere they aren't is pretty funny though. All of the histrionics gets people to do weird ####.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

There's a reason it's named Indiana and not Indaniel!

 

[Todd Andrews]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

Ahhhh the intolerant don't want to have any intolerance aimed in their direction.

Very ironic on who you think is being the cry-baby here.

Its the religious. Hell, look at Mike Pence act like a little child on ABC. Plain. As. Day.

And the gay militants are acting rationally running around crying for boycotts throwing out all kinds of ridiculous hypotheticals. I am sure they are already plotting to go into some unexpecting establishment with their hidden video cameras trying to provoke getting thrown out so they can post it on YouTube and feign outraged over the staged event. Oh the joy of politics. They are all ####### loons.

Yes, the ridiculous hypotheticals are the problem, jonKooK.

Its not like "NO GAYS" allowed signs could go up or anything....

 

[SWC]

Good to see the militant gay police out in full force protecting the world from those who dare to have a different point of view.

hey johnmx i hate to be the one to tell you this but your ### is showing brohan

 

[Godsbrother]

Stupid law by stupid people that likely won't have much impact on anything but gay rights activists will blow the whole thing out of proportion and both sides will just dig in deeper.

Awesome.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can't believe they would pass a law giving people/businesses permission to discriminate against others. At least in these modern times when the bigoted businesses start discriminating against others we will be able to document it and spread it around the world in hours with social media. Everyone will know their name. It seems wrong to punish the entire state now for the potential hatred of a small minority though.

Did anyone include Indiana as part of the deep south?

Great point here. I'm as progressive on social issues and pro-gay rights as they come, but there's merit to letting the free market work in this era. Yes, it's less than perfect- look at all the bigoted idiots who tripped over each other to show how much they hated the gays by buying chicken sandwiches. And it wasn't enough given the lag time in the 50s and 60s. But in the era of social media I think it would work a lot more quickly.

Not to say I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws, I'm kind of on the fence there. But I don't think you can say they're needed because of the lag time between the discrimination and the consequences so the law needs to get out ahead of it. That was the case when we passed the civil rights act, but it's not the case now.

 

[SWC]

brohans i think that almost as bad as crap laws like this are the people who act like they are above it all and spout off with stuff like it will just be gay rights activists overreacting and stupid poeple making stupid laws how droll blah blah blah cripes there is nothing worse than indifference if you see an injustice face it and beat it brohans be a part of making the place better do not give in do not let it stand and definitely do not be one of the worthless timid souls sitting on the sidelines acting like you are too good for it all take that to the bank

 

[The Commish]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

 

[The Commish]

There is a disagreement as to whether caving to public pressure is a legit way to change policy. Some, like myself say it is. Others like pantagrapher think the way it's going to change is through legislation. I brought up CFA as an example of why I think peer pressure works.

I'm afraid I can't get onboard with the extreme leap that you think national criticism of a national brand that very much cares about its national reputation would extrapolate to little local shops that could give two ****s about their national reputation.

I'll acknowledge there are always exceptions to the rule....even in this case.

This isn't some one-off thing. Rural right wing white America makes up a very large percentage of this country's population and there would be plenty of support for "white only" stores in many places throughout the country. We'd have little racist cities and little black-only cities and little no-gays-allowed cities and little gay-only cities all over the place. That is not a recipe for any kind of good and if you think otherwise I challenge you to look up the history of places like Colorado City and people like Rulon Jeffs that tried the same with fundamentalist beliefs and take a look at how well that worked out.

Did you just read these two sentences you edited out of the entire comment? Seems that way. It's either that or you're being disingenuous and trying to put words in my mouth....especially with the "leap" you seem to think I'm taking.

 

[Psychopav]

Where I struggle is with legitimate small business owner struggles.

A restaurant is open to the public. They ought not to be allowed to refuse service to anyone for reasons that they couldn't call the police to enforce (public indecency etc.). But what if someone is doing or wearing something offensive to other patrons?

A sign maker shouldn't be forced to violate his conscience either.

I don't think a law like this is nuanced enough.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe they would pass a law giving people/businesses permission to discriminate against others. At least in these modern times when the bigoted businesses start discriminating against others we will be able to document it and spread it around the world in hours with social media. Everyone will know their name. It seems wrong to punish the entire state now for the potential hatred of a small minority though.

Did anyone include Indiana as part of the deep south?

Great point here. I'm as progressive on social issues and pro-gay rights as they come, but there's merit to letting the free market work in this era. Yes, it's less than perfect- look at all the bigoted idiots who tripped over each other to show how much they hated the gays by buying chicken sandwiches. And it wasn't enough given the lag time in the 50s and 60s. But in the era of social media I think it would work a lot more quickly.

Not to say I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws, I'm kind of on the fence there. But I don't think you can say they're needed because of the lag time between the discrimination and the consequences so the law needs to get out ahead of it. That was the case when we passed the civil rights act, but it's not the case now.

Pretty much where I'm at on it. Essentially, I teeter on exactly how much rope is enough for these bigoted groups to hang themselves vs infringing on their right to run their business as they see fit. We've made a ton of progress (with a lot more to go, no question). We're not in 1950 anymore.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see.

Then they need to educate themselves...

Spoiler

Mammals displaying homosexual behavior

• African Buffalo%5B21%5D
• African Elephant%5B22%5D
• Agile Wallaby%5B23%5D
• Amazon River Dolphin%5B19%5D
• American Bison%5B21%5D%5B24%5D
• Antelope%5B25%5D
• Asian Elephant%5B22%5D
• Asian house shrew%5B26%5D
• Asiatic Lion%5B27%5D
• Asiatic Mouflon%5B28%5D
• Atlantic Spotted Dolphin%5B19%5D
• Australian Sea Lion%5B29%5D
• Barasingha%5B30%5D
• Barbary Sheep%5B31%5D
• Beluga%5B19%5D
• Bharal%5B32%5D
• Bighorn Sheep%5B31%5D
• Black Bear%5B33%5D
• Blackbuck%5B34%5D
• Black-footed Rock Wallaby%5B23%5D
• Black-tailed Deer%5B30%5D
• Bonnet Macaque%5B14%5D
• Bonobo%5B35%5D%5B36%5D%5B37%5D
• Bottlenose Dolphin%5B19%5D%5B38%5D
• Bowhead Whale%5B19%5D
• Brazilian Guinea Pig%5B39%5D
• Bridled Dolphin%5B19%5D
• Brown Bear%5B33%5D
• Brown Capuchin%5B40%5D
• Brown Long-eared Bat%5B41%5D
• Brown Rat%5B42%5D
• Buffalo%5B31%5D
• Caribou%5B43%5D
• Cat (domestic)%5B44%5D
• Cattle (domestic)%5B45%5D
• Chacma baboon%5B46%5D
• Cheetah%5B27%5D
• Chital%5B47%5D
• Collared Peccary%5B48%5D
• Dall's Sheep%5B31%5D
• Doria's Tree Kangaroo%5B23%5D
• Dugong%5B57%5D
• Dwarf Cavy%5B39%5D
• Dwarf Mongoose%5B58%5D
• Eastern Cottontail Rabbit%5B42%5D
• Eastern Grey Kangaroo%5B23%5D
• Elk%5B30%5D
• Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)%5B23%5D
• European Bison%5B21%5D
• Fallow Deer%5B30%5D
• False Killer Whale%5B19%5D
• Fat-tailed Dunnart%5B59%5D
• Fin Whale%5B19%5D
• Fox%5B60%5D
• Gazelle%5B25%5D
• Gelada Baboon%5B61%5D
• Giraffe%5B4%5D%5B25%5D%5B62%5D
• Goat (Domestic)%5B31%5D
• Golden Monkey%5B63%5D
• Gorilla%5B64%5D
• Livingstone's Fruit Bat%5B41%5D
• Long-eared Hedgehog%5B83%5D
• Long-footed Tree Shrew%5B53%5D
• Macaque%5B84%5D
• Markhor%5B85%5D
• Marten%5B52%5D
• Natterer's Bat%5B41%5D
• New Zealand Sea Lion%5B29%5D
• Nilgiri Langur%5B67%5D
• Noctule%5B51%5D
• North American Porcupine%5B91%5D
• Northern Elephant Seal%5B29%5D
• Northern Fur Seal%5B29%5D
• Northern Quoll%5B59%5D
• Olympic Marmot%5B92%5D
• Orangutan%5B93%5D
• Pacific Striped Dolphin%5B19%5D
• Patas Monkey%5B94%5D
• Przewalski's Horse%5B88%5D
• Pudú%5B98%5D
• Puku%5B99%5D
• Quokka%5B100%5D
• Rabbit%5B101%5D
• Raccoon%5B102%5D
• Raccoon Dog%5B103%5D
• Red Deer%5B30%5D
• Red Fox%5B104%5D
• Red Kangaroo%5B23%5D
• Red-necked Wallaby%5B23%5D
• Red Squirrel%5B65%5D
• Thomson's Gazelle%5B25%5D
• Tiger%5B113%5D
• Tonkean Macaque%5B14%5D
• Tucuxi%5B114%5D
• Urial%5B115%5D
• Vampire Bat%5B41%5D
• <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verreaux"href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verreaux" s_sifaka"="">Verreaux's Sifaka %5B116%5D
• Vervet%5B94%5D
• Vicuna%5B117%5D
• Walrus%5B118%5D%5B119%5D
• Wapiti%5B120%5D
• Warthog%5B121%5D
• Waterbuck%5B122%5D
• Water Buffalo%5B31%5D
• Weeper Capuchin%5B40%5D
• Western Grey Kangaroo%5B23%5D
• West Indian Manatee%5B123%5D
• Whiptail Wallaby%5B23%5D
• White-faced Capuchin%5B40%5D
• White-fronted Capuchin%5B40%5D
• White-handed Gibbon%5B124%5D
• White-lipped Peccary%5B125%5D
• White-tailed Deer%5B30%5D
• Wild Cavy%5B39%5D
• Wild Goat%5B31%5D
• Wisent%5B21%5D
• Yellow-bellied marmot%5B126%5D
• Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby%5B23%5D
• Yellow-toothed Cavy%5B39%5D

 

[mr roboto]

I've always thought humanity should rise to the level of the Swamp Wallaby. Good point BST.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

OK. But the next question is: if laws are already on the books which prohibit discrimination based on race, and if those laws aren't going anywhere, is it then fair to attempt to apply libertarian principles ONLY to homosexuality when they are not being applied elsewhere?

I think so, yes.

If it were up to me, I would abolish all laws against discrimination and let people do what they want. Like you said, that obviously isn't going to happen. I agree that sometimes the second-best solution is to go to the other extreme and apply a "bad" law as broadly as possible, but I don't think this is one of those instances. I'd rather just refrain from creating any more protected classes.

It seems to me that by stating that "this isn't one of those instances" you're allowing for discrimination against homosexuals that you would not allow for other classes. That's the part I can't agree with.

No, I've said several times that I would allow discrimination against all other classes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

OK. But the next question is: if laws are already on the books which prohibit discrimination based on race, and if those laws aren't going anywhere, is it then fair to attempt to apply libertarian principles ONLY to homosexuality when they are not being applied elsewhere?

I think so, yes.

If it were up to me, I would abolish all laws against discrimination and let people do what they want. Like you said, that obviously isn't going to happen. I agree that sometimes the second-best solution is to go to the other extreme and apply a "bad" law as broadly as possible, but I don't think this is one of those instances. I'd rather just refrain from creating any more protected classes.

It seems to me that by stating that "this isn't one of those instances" you're allowing for discrimination against homosexuals that you would not allow for other classes. That's the part I can't agree with.

No, I've said several times that I would allow discrimination against all other classes.

Then we have out right oppression enforced by those who control the resources/power on those who do not. Horrible.

 

[Godsbrother]

brohans i think that almost as bad as crap laws like this are the people who act like they are above it all and spout off with stuff like it will just be gay rights activists overreacting and stupid poeple making stupid laws how droll blah blah blah cripes there is nothing worse than indifference if you see an injustice face it and beat it brohans be a part of making the place better do not give in do not let it stand and definitely do not be one of the worthless timid souls sitting on the sidelines acting like you are too good for it all take that to the bank

I don't think I'm above it all I just don't think it will have that much of an impact to the lives of 99.9% of the country. The law just has no teeth in it.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

Still sounds like religion to me. Let's try this. Do you think, or can you maybe produce an example of, anyone who is opposed to gay rights that isn't religious? It's very much the same situation we have with evolution vs. Creationism. The religious try desperately to make reasoned arguments, but ultimately its quite obvious what their real motivations are, and they just twist and distort facts to fit their pre-conceived narrative. They end up just looking silly. What I think they should do instead is accept reality and focus more on how to exercise their faith in light of the way things are, not the way they wish things were. Trying to force the modern world to fit a 2,000 year old narrative is just crazy.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Heard Jeb Bush on the radio tonight. He firmly supports the Indiana law and Governor Pence.

ETA- this is the "centrist" candidate for the Republicans.

I'm kinda surprised at Jeb commenting in favor of it. Not so much about Ted Cruz' comments:

"I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience," Cruz said. "Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I'm proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same."

Here's Jeb:

"I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”

Mr. Bush told Mr. Hewitt that the Indiana law was about “simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs.”

“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”

This seems like political suicide to me. I think it's like ~60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, and likely growing. I guess these guys feel they need to make this stand to win the nomination, but it will end up killing them in the national election, at least on this issue.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

2 mins ago...

Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders said on Monday they were working on adding language to the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to make it clear that it does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Heard Jeb Bush on the radio tonight. He firmly supports the Indiana law and Governor Pence.

ETA- this is the "centrist" candidate for the Republicans.

I'm kinda surprised at Jeb commenting in favor of it. Not so much about Ted Cruz' comments:

"I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience," Cruz said. "Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I'm proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same."

Here's Jeb:

"I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”

Mr. Bush told Mr. Hewitt that the Indiana law was about “simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs.”

“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”

This seems like political suicide to me. I think it's like ~60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, and likely growing. I guess these guys feel they need to make this stand to win the nomination, but it will end up killing them in the national election, at least on this issue.

Hell yes it is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Heard Jeb Bush on the radio tonight. He firmly supports the Indiana law and Governor Pence.

ETA- this is the "centrist" candidate for the Republicans.

I'm kinda surprised at Jeb commenting in favor of it. Not so much about Ted Cruz' comments:

"I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience," Cruz said. "Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I'm proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same."

Here's Jeb:

"I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”

Mr. Bush told Mr. Hewitt that the Indiana law was about “simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs.”

“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”

This seems like political suicide to me. I think it's like ~60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, and likely growing. I guess these guys feel they need to make this stand to win the nomination, but it will end up killing them in the national election, at least on this issue.

I don't understand why the GOP would push these laws right now. The Supreme Court bailed them out on same sex marriage by granting cert this term, meaning a ruling is coming well before any 2016 candidate will be put on the spot on the issue. By the time primary season rolls around they could have simply dodged the question by saying they respect the rule of law and the value of precedent and washed their hands of it. Now the RFRA laws may give the other side something to run with after the marriage thing is put to bed. I don't know if it's bad luck or bad strategy, but it's definitely bad for the GOP 2016 candidates.

 

[The Commish]

Then we have out right oppression enforced by those who control the resources/power on those who do not. Horrible.

umm....have you paid attention to this country lately? This isn't new.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Then we have out right oppression enforced by those who control the resources/power on those who do not. Horrible.

umm....have you paid attention to this country lately? This isn't new.

Its WAY better now and getting better everyday. Historically speaking that is. Like kicking the crap out of this stinky law.

The Conservative side does a really good job (better then the Libs, meaning they are flatly better at playing politics) at keeping those resources and laws in the favor of their powerful.

 

[The Commish]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

Still sounds like religion to me. Let's try this. Do you think, or can you maybe produce an example of, anyone who is opposed to gay rights that isn't religious? It's very much the same situation we have with evolution vs. Creationism. The religious try desperately to make reasoned arguments, but ultimately its quite obvious what their real motivations are, and they just twist and distort facts to fit their pre-conceived narrative. They end up just looking silly. What I think they should do instead is accept reality and focus more on how to exercise their faith in light of the way things are, not the way they wish things were. Trying to force the modern world to fit a 2,000 year old narrative is just crazy.

The KKK?? I can think of a lot of hate groups in the world. I'm not really interested in going down this rabbit hole again though. Simply for the way you use the term "religious". Just because someone uses a religious text to back a warped view doesn't make them "religious". I do acknowledge that what you see happening is what I see happening as far as the twisting and distorting. That much we agree on. Where I disagree is that the "2,000 year old narrative" is somehow outdated. "love your neighbor as yourself" is timeless IMO and that's the primary societal narrative in Christianity. I don't think that's outdated and fits in nicely in today's world.

 

[The Commish]

Then we have out right oppression enforced by those who control the resources/power on those who do not. Horrible.

umm....have you paid attention to this country lately? This isn't new.

Its WAY better now and getting better everyday. Historically speaking that is. Like kicking the crap out of this stinky law.

The Conservative side does a really good job (better then the Libs, meaning they are flatly better at playing politics) at keeping those resources and laws in the favor of their powerful.

If you say so.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

Still sounds like religion to me. Let's try this. Do you think, or can you maybe produce an example of, anyone who is opposed to gay rights that isn't religious? It's very much the same situation we have with evolution vs. Creationism. The religious try desperately to make reasoned arguments, but ultimately its quite obvious what their real motivations are, and they just twist and distort facts to fit their pre-conceived narrative. They end up just looking silly. What I think they should do instead is accept reality and focus more on how to exercise their faith in light of the way things are, not the way they wish things were. Trying to force the modern world to fit a 2,000 year old narrative is just crazy.

The KKK?? I can think of a lot of hate groups in the world. I'm not really interested in going down this rabbit hole again though. Simply for the way you use the term "religious". Just because someone uses a religious text to back a warped view doesn't make them "religious". I do acknowledge that what you see happening is what I see happening as far as the twisting and distorting. That much we agree on. Where I disagree is that the "2,000 year old narrative" is somehow outdated. "love your neighbor as yourself" is timeless IMO and that's the primary societal narrative in Christianity. I don't think that's outdated and fits in nicely in today's world.

Completely agree that the golden rule is timeless. It's just all the other stuff that isn't timeless that I wish people would let go of. Unfortunately, they continue to fight it tooth and nail, and I think Creationism is a good example of that. This RFRA law, or maybe just the potential it provides for people to abuse the law, is another example.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Heard Jeb Bush on the radio tonight. He firmly supports the Indiana law and Governor Pence.

ETA- this is the "centrist" candidate for the Republicans.

I'm kinda surprised at Jeb commenting in favor of it. Not so much about Ted Cruz' comments:

"I want to commend Governor Mike Pence for his support of religious freedom, especially in the face of fierce opposition. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience," Cruz said. "Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious liberty in the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I'm proud to stand with Mike, and I urge Americans to do the same."

Here's Jeb:

"I think Governor Pence has done the right thing,” said Mr. Bush, who is expected to run for president in 2016. “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all.”

Mr. Bush told Mr. Hewitt that the Indiana law was about “simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs.”

“There are many cases where people acting on their conscience have been castigated by the government,” Mr. Bush said. “This is really an important value for our country, in a diverse country,where you can be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow people of faith to exercise theirs.”

This seems like political suicide to me. I think it's like ~60% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, and likely growing. I guess these guys feel they need to make this stand to win the nomination, but it will end up killing them in the national election, at least on this issue.

Hell yes it is.

You guys have been around long enough to know there are two elections coming up - the Republican Primaries, and the General Election. No republican candidate will get the party's nomination without pandering to the highly motivated, and politically active, far right - including all the fervent religious nuts.

Any Republican candidate that opposes religious freedoms will never get the nomination, and thus can never win the election.

Democrats are similar, if not quite as extreme, in having to pander to the far left to win a nomination. Th two-party system, and the election process in general, is a mess.

 

[The Commish]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

Still sounds like religion to me. Let's try this. Do you think, or can you maybe produce an example of, anyone who is opposed to gay rights that isn't religious? It's very much the same situation we have with evolution vs. Creationism. The religious try desperately to make reasoned arguments, but ultimately its quite obvious what their real motivations are, and they just twist and distort facts to fit their pre-conceived narrative. They end up just looking silly. What I think they should do instead is accept reality and focus more on how to exercise their faith in light of the way things are, not the way they wish things were. Trying to force the modern world to fit a 2,000 year old narrative is just crazy.

The KKK?? I can think of a lot of hate groups in the world. I'm not really interested in going down this rabbit hole again though. Simply for the way you use the term "religious". Just because someone uses a religious text to back a warped view doesn't make them "religious". I do acknowledge that what you see happening is what I see happening as far as the twisting and distorting. That much we agree on. Where I disagree is that the "2,000 year old narrative" is somehow outdated. "love your neighbor as yourself" is timeless IMO and that's the primary societal narrative in Christianity. I don't think that's outdated and fits in nicely in today's world.

Completely agree that the golden rule is timeless. It's just all the other stuff that isn't timeless that I wish people would let go of. Unfortunately, they continue to fight it tooth and nail, and I think Creationism is a good example of that. This RFRA law, or maybe just the potential it provides for people to abuse the law, is another example.

They don't need to let go of them, but they do need to be honest about what the passages state. There's no question that religious texts are the most frequently used "arguments" against gay anything. That doesn't mean the people using those texts are being honest in their application.

 

[joffer]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

 

[njherdfan]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

It only means that to those who are opposed to treating others equally.

 

[mr roboto]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

 

[joffer]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

I think that's what he said, right? And I agree. "Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society."

I did not mean to say "Let go of your religious beliefs", as in you're not allowed to believe something. Just that you shouldn't be allowed to "force it on others" / "affect someone else".

In this case, the baker should be allowed to think whatever he/she wants about gay people, but still has to bake them the cake.

 

[mr roboto]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

I think that's what he said, right? And I agree. "Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society."

I did not mean to say "Let go of your religious beliefs", as in you're not allowed to believe something. Just that you shouldn't be allowed to "force it on others" / "affect someone else".

In this case, the baker should be allowed to think whatever he/she wants about gay people, but still has to bake them the cake.

Has to or should? Has to is a govt mandate. Should is a statement of morality.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

I think that's what he said, right? And I agree. "Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society."

I did not mean to say "Let go of your religious beliefs", as in you're not allowed to believe something. Just that you shouldn't be allowed to "force it on others" / "affect someone else".

In this case, the baker should be allowed to think whatever he/she wants about gay people, but still has to bake them the cake.

Has to or should? Has to is a govt mandate. Should is a statement of morality.

That's the big question, right? And, is it fair to compare this to race, or gender? i.e. if you don't think we should have a govt mandate for LBGT, do you think we should have one for race? Or, are you OK trusting business owners to do the right thing, and not hang signs in their windows that say "Whites only" or have separate drinking fountains for blacks, or make them ride in the back of the bus, etc.

 

[beavers]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

 

[CowboysFromHell]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

Wait. I'm confused. If the bolded is true, then what exactly was the point of passing the law in the first place???

 

[beavers]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

Wait. I'm confused. If the bolded is true, then what exactly was the point of passing the law in the first place???

It's a

 

[Jackstraw]

it'd be easier on everyone if we just banned religion.

Because it isn't easy to find some other boogyman to hide behind instead??

Without religion, would we be having this argument? i.e. what is the non-religious justification to fight so hard against people being gay?

"It's not natural" is still on the table as far as I can see. "It's different than what I think is right"...actually, I don't think there is a unique thought about being gay that religion holds.

Still sounds like religion to me. Let's try this. Do you think, or can you maybe produce an example of, anyone who is opposed to gay rights that isn't religious? It's very much the same situation we have with evolution vs. Creationism. The religious try desperately to make reasoned arguments, but ultimately its quite obvious what their real motivations are, and they just twist and distort facts to fit their pre-conceived narrative. They end up just looking silly. What I think they should do instead is accept reality and focus more on how to exercise their faith in light of the way things are, not the way they wish things were. Trying to force the modern world to fit a 2,000 year old narrative is just crazy.

The dive bars of the nation are filled with people that are not particularly religious that hate the gays.

 

[njherdfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

Wait. I'm confused. If the bolded is true, then what exactly was the point of passing the law in the first place???

Funny how he was completely unwilling to say that last weekend during his TV interview. The only question he actually answered was when he said that gays shouldn't be a protected class.

 

[beavers]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

Wait. I'm confused. If the bolded is true, then what exactly was the point of passing the law in the first place???

Funny how he was completely unwilling to say that last weekend during his TV interview. The only question he actually answered was when he said that gays shouldn't be a protected class.

What's even better are the 2016 GOP candidates (Jeb, Jindal etc) quickly backing the law, which will now change. Will they back the changes too?

 

[Jackstraw]

Kind of sad that "militant" now equals "wants to be treated equally"

That's what happens when you push the conversation so far right on so many issues over the last few decades. You'd swear anyone who wants to fund education reasonably these days was Karl Marx.

 

[The Commish]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Does this apply to only religious beliefs or beliefs in general? If it's the former, it's an example of what mr roboto was saying

 

[joffer]

'Let go of your religious beliefs' isn't very tolerant. 'Stop using your religious beliefs to try to govern our society' I'm perfectly fine with. But this conversation always devolves into 'I disagree with the belief therefore it shouldn't be allowed' which is just another kind of secular exclusionism.

disagree. Believe what ever you want. Don't care until it affects someone else.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Does this apply to only religious beliefs or beliefs in general? If it's the former, it's an example of what mr roboto was saying

yeah, I think I misread his post. My bad.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/pence-will-fix-religious-freedom-legislation/index.html

ETA: Republicans are now adding protections for GLBT residents? This .... feels ... so ... backward!

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence pledged Tuesday to "fix" Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to clarify that it does not condone discrimination against gays and lesbians, asking the state legislators to pass a fix this week.

"It would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone," Pence said in a press conference in Indianapolis on Tuesday.

After waffling in recent days on whether or not he would support a legislative fix, Pence told Fox News on Tuesday morning that "we'll fix this and we'll move forward."

"There was never any intention in this law to create a license to discriminate and we'll clarify that in the days ahead," Pence said on Fox News. "It's important to me in this process and we'll do it in legislation."

Wait. I'm confused. If the bolded is true, then what exactly was the point of passing the law in the first place???

Funny how he was completely unwilling to say that last weekend during his TV interview. The only question he actually answered was when he said that gays shouldn't be a protected class.

What's even better are the 2016 GOP candidates (Jeb, Jindal etc) quickly backing the law, which will now change. Will they back the changes too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_mb_c8su7k

 

[timschochet]

This seems to be the pattern among Republicans in the past few years: an outrageous law is passed or action is taken or statement is made, usually by the "Tea Party" elements. The Republican leadership establishment types rush to defend it. Everybody else denounces it. It gets real embarrassing. Then the Republican leadership says, "Oh that's not what we meant at all!" and then they quietly surrender.