Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

 jasper76 wrote:

The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).

The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).

The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.

People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.

It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).

The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.

People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.

How many businesses do you think are in Indiana that don't want to provide goods or services to LGBT people and can prove to a state court in Indiana that doing so incurs a substantial burden to their ability to abide by their religious beliefs? Because those specific business owners are the only ones that would be allowed to descriminate against LGBT customers. Are there any?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.

But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!

Indeed.

The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays, it has even less to do with GenCon I can't see how they would be affected frankly.

However that doesn't stop the GenCon organisers for saying its about homophobia and threatening to move the venue, because they have freedom of speech too.
That doesn't make what they are saying rational.

@Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.

 Freya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.

It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*

Are the only valid religious beliefs those that are part of "established" relgions like Christianity and have important texts that are really old? Could somebody have a religious believe that does in fact preclude them from providing service to LGBT customers or any other specific type of customer?

For some reason, I am reminded of the Cheese Shop sketch from Monty Python:




If you're a cake bakery that won't bake a cake, how are you still a cake bakery?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.

So religions require old books? Does being offended constitute a substantial burden to adhering to one's religious beliefs? Because that's the legal standard in the bill passed in Indiana. It doesn't say it's legal to refuse service to people who offend you, only people that require the propriety to take on a substantial burden to their religious beliefs. That seems to be a higher bar than simple subjective offensiveness.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Religion is like tennis without a net. In principal, you can say you are offended by just about anything, and draw a straight line from the offending issue to some passage in some old, old book.

So religions require old books? Does being offended constitute a substantial burden to adhering to one's religious beliefs? Because that's the legal standard in the bill passed in Indiana. It doesn't say it's legal to refuse service to people who offend you, only people that require the propriety to take on a substantial burden to their religious beliefs. That seems to be a higher bar than simple subjective offensiveness.

Religions don't require anything but someone to say their beliefs constitute a religion. I can invent a religion in 10 minutes, say that the core belief is not interacting with some group of people, and Bam! Done! Hopefully, for their own sake, Indiana has put some thought into where to draw the line. I don't know how Indiana defines a religion. Federal-wise it seems like religions are usally organizations that have qualified for a federal tax exemption.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.

It's not discriminating against your religious beliefs. If that were the case, christians should be murdering all gays, women who have had sex before marriage, virgins who get raped and can't prove it, children who disobey their parents, and the list goes on. Those are religious beliefs. However, there isn't anywhere in the bible that says you should treat LGBT people with disrespect and kick them out of your places of business. Pretty sure that there is actually something about loving... *shrugs*

Are the only valid religious beliefs those that are part of "established" relgions like Christianity and have important texts that are really old? Could somebody have a religious believe that does in fact preclude them from providing service to LGBT customers or any other specific type of customer?

Legally yes, respectively no. I have tons of christian friends. I also have tons of friends who are pagan, wiccan, muslims, satanists, atheists, agnostics and many I don't even remember. It doesn't make their religious views invalid to have a law regulating the equal treatment of everyone.

Out of curiosity... did you know that "religious freedom" was also exercised during the 1960's to try to justify the dehumanization of african americans?

 Orlanth wrote:


...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....

You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.

A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...

squidhills wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....

You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.

A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...

You'd be surprised... I know a lot of "adults" who believe it. I believe the book Wizards First Rule has a quote for such an occasion.
"Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
~Terry Goodkind

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.

On the flip side, why would you want to give a bigot your money?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.

Firstly, I'm not a dude. Secondly, yeah if you really wanted to you could and it would be just as disrespectful and silly as it sounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, why would you want to give a bigot your money?

I totally agree with you on this. I'm all for voting with dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.

So what you're saying is that if I hate all black people I can refuse service to them just because I want to.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).

The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.

People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.

You have previously stated that you aren't interested in the legal part and that points to the actual problem: you don't want people to be equal before the law. What this law does is giving people the basis to take their issue to a court. That's the most fundamental right in a state of law. If you aren't okay with that...then you aren't okay with a state of law.

People saying that this bill allows people to deny service to certain groups have not understood the bill and need to re-read and try to understand it.

So what you're saying is that if I hate all black people I can refuse service to them just because I want to.

Thats illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation which draws its constitutionality from the ICC and post ACW amendments.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US).

The entire universe actually...and maybe all parallel universes too. I mean, if we're talking about overreaction, we gotta go that far.

People actually are interested in Civil Rights issues, you know. I can tell you think this little bill is 'no big deal' or something, and I respect your right to your opinion, I just don't agree with you.

You have previously stated that you aren't interested in the legal part and that points to the actual problem: you don't want people to be equal before the law. What this law does is giving people the basis to take their issue to a court. That's the most fundamental right in a state of law. If you aren't okay with that...then you aren't okay with a state of law.

People saying that this bill allows people to deny service to certain groups have not understood the bill and need to re-read and try to understand it.

I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???

I ask again, what need for this bill then?

Instead of guessing what I want, why don't I just tell you: to have sexual orientation added as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act.

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???

I ask again, what need for this bill then?

As stated before: it provides religious people with a legal basis.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


I'm sorry, did these people not have the right to go to court to begin with???

I ask again, what need for this bill then?

As stated before: it provides religious people with a legal basis.

Let me rephrase: It provides religious people with a legal basis which by all accounts they already had to begin with, so what's the point?

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Dude I can kick you out of my just because I don't like your face.

Firstly, I'm not a dude. Secondly, yeah if you really wanted to you could and it would be just as disrespectful and silly as it sounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, why would you want to give a bigot your money?

I totally agree with you on this. I'm all for voting with dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Freya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Freya wrote:


how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?

Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.

Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.

No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.

Businesses and individuals are allowed to descriminate all the time. You are just taking issue was very specific form of descrimination because you personally dislike it. You can be refused service for not wearing a shirt, you can be refused service for wearing a shirt deemed objectionable, you can be refused service for being obnoxious/rude, you can be refused service for a host of reasons.

If a baker is a huge fan/alum of school/team X and the archrival of X (school/team Y) wins a championship and somebody wants the baker to make a huge extravagant celebratory cake for school/team Y but the baker doesn't want to do it can the baker be forced to do it?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

Nope. It's the same principle. You want somebody to provide a service against his/her will, that's not cool. It an unfortunate fact of life that there are narrow minded people out there and life would be better if there weren't but creating govt sanctioned thought police that decide what is a good thought/opinion and what is a bad thought/opinion isn't the answer. Proprietors that deliberately hurt their business over arbitrary whims and descriminatory opinions are never going to be as successfull as business owners who are open minded and try to reach as many customers as possible and ensure their satisfaction. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake you don't have the right to call in the power of the state to force the baker to bake for you. You right to contract is inviolate. Being able to choose whom you work for and under what terms is a fundamental principle of a free society. The state doesn't have the right to force you to take a job you don't want, to work for somebody you don't want to work for. You have ownership over yourself and you get to decide for whom you provide labor/goods/services. That's freedom, it isn't always pretty, but it's a human right.

So what you're saying is that if I hate all black people I can refuse service to them just because I want to.

Well, that specific example wouldn't be allowed because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although you could refuse to serve black people for a reason besides their blackness. That's the problem with the Civil Rights Act, it allows the govt to infringe on people's right to contract which decreases freedom and equality. Everyone should be free to be as enlightened or as bigotted as they choose, people, in general, are decent and things will get better over time as shown throughout human history. A sunset clause would have been better for the private business section of the act. Society changes over time, what was once acceptable isn't always acceptable or even possible in the future. The number of businesses in Indiana that would be willing and capable of refusing sevice to LGBT people under the new law is only going to shrink over time and that's going to happen regardless of how long the law stays on the books.

I think you would agree that you have the right to not accept a job working for a black person or any other kind of person. Likewise, a black person or any other kind of person has the right to not accept a job working for you. That's because you have ownership of your own personhood and you get to determine with whom you agree to contract out your labor. That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.

people, in general, are decent and things will get better over time as shown throughout human history.

The 20th Century would like to have a word with you. Looks like the 21st Century wouldn't mind a little chat after you two get through.

That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.

So you're actually agreeing with us? Then why are you arguing?

@PJ: I can also imagine the possibility of numerous anti-gay Christians opening up shop in Indiana and other states with similar laws, because they percieve that they will be able to discrimnate as they please with a friendly judicial to protect them. And then Indiana becomes a worse place for everyone not in the clique. Not saying this will happen or anything, only that its a possibility. It's not like history is some preordained path to more and more human rights. People have to demand the rights first.

squidhills wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....

You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.

A law doesn't have to deliberately spell out which groups/individuals it targets for it to have an affect on those groups. This law was written so that certain people could refuse service to a group of people whom they have a history of religious objections to. I'm reasonably certain that the law wasn't written with the intent that it would be used against Yankees fans...

The bill is about religious freedom, not homosexual exclusion.
Who it is applied upon is therefore incidental, the legislation of itself has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Now as you have called me out who else can it refer to:

- Not kosher and halal preparation. aka " we wont trade for milk with your farm, because you raise pigs". yes orthodox rules can go that far.

- Hamedic jews, trading just about anything. aka " we wont trade with you because you are not a Hamedic jew". The group is so isolationist they don't want anyone in their premises, self isolationism is socially harmless and should be protected.

Some Christian, Jewish, or Moslem denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- abortion
- birth control
- pornography
etc etc

Some Buddhist or Hindu denomination members who might not want to support industries involved in:
- non vegetarian produce
(and possibly some of the above mentioned also)

A lot of the religious freedom already exists but the freedom is lobsided because of protected status being unevenly enforced. A good example of this is assuming that religious freedom laws are all about Christians. Jews are also effected and are powerful lobbyists, the difference is that its socially more difficult to point fingers at some religions than others.
A law for religious freedom make the freedoms secular society and minority religions available more universally and that is a good thing.

squidhills wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


...The legal text doesn't mention homosexuality at all, and has been linked. It has NOTHING to do with gays....

You cannot be that naive. Nobody over the age of six is that naive.

It's not naivete. It's willful blindness.

 jasper76 wrote:


Just another state to put on the Do Not Disturb List. 'm sure my presence will not be missed. Say hi to Arizona, Indiana!

I'm sure the Colts, Pacers, Indy 500, Final Four, Big 10 Championship, and Three Floyds Brewing will miss you terribly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


I think you would agree that you have the right to not accept a job working for a black person or any other kind of person. Likewise, a black person or any other kind of person has the right to not accept a job working for you. That's because you have ownership of your own personhood and you get to determine with whom you agree to contract out your labor. That same freedom should also be given to the other side. More freedom is better than less.

I think this is well stated.