GenCon threatens to leave Indiana

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.

**skyth**

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.

It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.

They haven't won the war yet. Gay marriage still isn't legal in all states and sexual orientation is not a protected class.

And much like racists, anti-homosexual bigots need to be revilled and shamed.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
There's this thing called informed consent.

You keep bringing this up... what are you referring to exactly?

Generally that term is used in healthcare where patients consent to something, with full knowledge of the associated risk...

**Frazzled**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Then why the feth bring it up?

There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.

The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.

Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.

**agnosto**

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.

It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.

Or in reaction to real laws being proposed or passed that actively demonize them. In my state, a proposed law to support Gay Conversion Therapy or the forced brainwashing of a professed gay person to think that they are not gay...and others.

House Bill 1597 would make it legal for businesses to flat-out refuse service to LGBT people:
No business entity shall be required to provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges related to any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association.

House Bill 1598 would make it legal for parents to put their kids through gay-conversion therapy without the state getting in the way:
The people of this state have the right to seek and obtain counseling or conversion therapy from a mental health provider in order to control or end any unwanted sexual attraction, and no state agency shall infringe upon that right. Parents may obtain such counseling or therapy for their children under eighteen (18) years of age without interference by the state.

And House Bill 1599 would make it illegal for the state to use any taxpayer money to support same-sex unions (or give out marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples):
No taxpayer funds or governmental salaries shall be paid for any activity that includes the licensing or support of same-sex marriage. No employee of this state and no employee of any local governmental entity shall officially recognize, grant or enforce a same-sex marriage license and continue to receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state. No taxes or public funds of this state shall be spent enforcing any court order requiring the issuance or recognition of a same-sex marriage license.

**MrDwhitey**

Yup, the war is won.

Frazzled wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Then why the feth bring it up?

There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.

The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.

Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.

Then why quote and respond to Skyth if your post wasn't even trying to rebut anything he put forward? You were rebutting an argument you made up in the same post as the rebuttal. What's even the point of that?

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I also don't think there's much evidence that LGBT people are being denied the usual level of service that heterosexuals receive.
The gay rights lobby is no longer about an urgent need to prevent actual discrimination (contrast this to the Civil Rights Movement). Thanks to the radical change in public opinion about the morality (or rather amorality) of homosexuality, the gay rights movement has become infested with strident triumphalism. It's not enough that most people are okay with homosexuality; now they need to make sure anyone who isn't is publicly reviled and humiliated.

It's like they've won the war... and now going back to look for wounded survivors to execute.

They haven't won the war yet. Gay marriage still isn't legal in all states and sexual orientation is not a protected class.

And much like racists, anti-homosexual bigots need to be revilled and shamed.

You don't need to become a member of a protected class for society to stop descriminating against you. There's a whole host of attitudes towards specific groups of people that have changed over time without any of those groups becoming protected classes.

**Frazzled**

sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Why should it be a protected class?

**jasper76**

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to become a member of a protected class for society to stop descriminating against you. There's a whole host of attitudes towards specific groups of people that have changed over time without any of those groups becoming protected classes.

True, but I bet it wouldnt hurt. For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:

Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Yup, the war is won.

Frazzled wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Then why the feth bring it up?

There are actual reasons beyond gods that we don't let adults marry and do it with kids.

The child bride question was an extreme example after Frazz asked another community member to clarify whether "anyone who refuses to condone the activities of others is a bigot. ". There was no attempt to equivocate homosexuality and child brides.

Exactly. Other substitutes would be -a polygamous marriage, or marriage of someone (or both who are divorced). I actually do know of people who won't provide services or attend weddings of people who were previously divorced. They're not hostile, they just believe in one marriage only.

Then why quote and respond to Skyth if your post wasn't even trying to rebut anything he put forward? You were rebutting an argument you made up in the same post as the rebuttal. What's even the point of that?

hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Why should it be a protected class?

The same reason why races, genders, and religions are all protected, to stop discrimination.

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:

hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.

So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the admitting it part.

Because you were either doing that, or you were arguing with your own strawman which no-one else had put forth.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.
Why should it be a protected class?

There is no need to open that can of worms.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.
Why should it be a protected class?
There is no need to open that can of worms.

Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:

Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?

For some reason? For the reason that is immaterial to RFRAs except that amending the CRA to cover sexual orientation would be another reason to pass RFRAs.

**agnosto**

Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Why should it be a protected class?

It is in public schools.

The Office of Civil Rights requires the following non-discrimination statement (or similar) from school districts around the country as of this year:

It is the intent of the District to be nondiscriminatory to all students regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, age, or genetic information. The district also provides equal access to the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth groups.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
For some reason, I am having difficulty to gst RFRA supporters to answer this question:

Are you in favor of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, and why or why not?
For some reason? For the reason that is immaterial to RFRAs except that amending the CRA to cover sexual orientation would be another reason to pass RFRAs.

Fine, but why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?

**MrDwhitey**

Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer... *

*Kids, don't do death threats, it's fething wrong ok.

**jasper76**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...

Well OK, I don't want people to get death threats either.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Why should it be a protected class?
The same reason why races, genders, and religions are all protected, to stop discrimination.

Why? People are discriminated against all the time.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.

jasper76 wrote:
why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?

The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.

The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.

The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...

Good point! Fortunately, I already posted an answer that I doubt will inspire death threats:

Manchu wrote:
I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.

So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the admitting it part.

Because you were either doing that, or you were arguing with your own strawman which no-one else had put forth.

Nope. As much as you'd like to tar me with that brush, that dog won't hunt.

So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.

The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.

The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.

it's inevitable that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.

I just want to know how the "other side" percieves this, whether they think its a good or bad idea, and why.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...

Well OK, I don't want people to get death threats either.

Death threats are nothing. Threats to take away my TexMex? Fill your hands you sonofa

!

**MrDwhitey**

Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Why? Why the reluctance to answer this question ? We are talking about civil rights and discrimination. The CRA is directly applicable to the conversation.
jasper76 wrote:
why not answwe if you do or do not think that sexual orientation should be a protected category, and why discourage others from speaking their mind on this ?
The question of whether sexual orientation should be a protected category under the CRA is ultimately about the nature of sexual orientation. There is no reason whatsoever to hijack this thread with useless arguments about whether, for example, sexual orientation is a choice. That way lies madness ... or at least a barren stand off.

The question is not whether there should be laws to protect homsexuals from discrimination. Those laws exist in some places. There is every indication they will be passed in others.

The question posed by the Indiana RFRA is whether privately-held businesses may discriminate against people (including homosexuals) despite prospective non-discrimination laws where religious liberty is threatened.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Maybe he doesn't want death threats when people see the answer...
Good point! Fortunately, I already posted an answer that I doubt will inspire death threats:
Manchu wrote:
I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.

Thats fair.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!

You're just jealous because we tarred all your tax guys. Why are you holding such a long grudge? Don't be a hata!

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
It's inevotoble that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.

You still are not getting it.

The CRA does not exist to counter discrimination allowed by RFRAs. Rather, RFRAs (at least currently) exist to make sure the First Amendment trumps the CRA and other non-discrimination laws (and any law) where executing those laws would violate the First Amendment.

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:

You're just jealous because we tarred all your tax guys. Why are you holding such a long grudge? Don't be a hata!

If I don't hold onto my hate, what else do I have?

**Manchu**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!

You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Why should it be a protected class?
The same reason why races, genders, and religions are all protected, to stop discrimination.

Why? People are discriminated against all the time.

Because discrimination is wrong, in all it's forms. The civil rights act of 1964 makes discrimination based on race, sex, colour, religion, or national origin illegal. What is so strange with wanting to ad sexual identity to that list? People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.

**MrDwhitey**

Manchu wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.

Socially acceptable to some.

I personally found what happened to the Pizza place to be abhorrent.

The fake website, sure, funny.

The Yelp reviews were a step too far because a lot of them were outright lies about eating there and hating it etc.

Death threats? Right out. Go feth yourselves the witches who did that gak.

What Frazzled did was one of two things, I've already said what they are. If he insists his response was a form of rebuttal to skyth's post, it's one, if not it's the other.