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.

 d-usa wrote:
If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

You know you could have simply said (as we were doing before the stupid assed statement about Christians was made, again, that most Christians wouldn't discriminate and that those that do are misguided. Pulling the bigot card against EVERYONE who supported or made arguments for it, is the height of being an ass.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.

Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.

Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.

Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.

Again utterly irrelevant to WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The law says people cannot be coerced against their religious views n the area of commerce. Whats so hard about that?
Sure a few rednecks may not relish the chance to not do business with homosexuals, but like free speech the First Amendment protects the bad as well as the good. Absent a monopoly commerce should, and historically has been, a voluntary exercise.

My religion says I shouldn't deal with vermin like Nazis. Without the law you can make me do that.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize we were talking about the law at this point.

...who are the vermin, and why are they like Nazis? I know how I prefer to deal with Nazis. How does the absence of this law make me deal with the vermin like I would them?

Are we assuming the Nazis are the ones in power? That would be scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

Depends. Are they dangerous or prone to loitering? That would make them like teenagers, and I know how you feel about the youth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.

Also, and to a certain extent... yeah. Yeah. I would agree with this statement.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!

I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".

Unless you're the Pope, your view is irrelevant. Abortions are against Catholic Church doctrine, but they're evil bigots for a bill that would permit them to not be required to perform them. Methinks they aren't the bigot. You are.

You're already free to not perform them: by not opening or keeping a hospital.It's perfectly reasonable to for the government to say "Here are the requirements for offering a particular service or set of services to the public, or these are the rules required to open a specific kind of business". If for any reason you don't want to meet the guidelines in either case the government is not going to force you to open a business.

The issue with allowing religion to be used as premise for being able to ignore general law is that it renders the law either

A) Entirely toothless.
or
B) In the business of endorsing specific religions.*

If the government can't favor one religion over another, I can simply subscribe to Blightism where my central prophet is Captain Pollution (from the captain planet cartoon). One of the main tenets of our religion is that any toxins, caustic materials or other waste we produce cannot be transported cannot be disposed of safely. Our lord demands we dump it on our front lawn, in the open.

That's pretty insane. Now if the government wants to stop me from doing that we have to recognize the government has the right to regulate the behavior of business in a way that might make some businesses unattractive for some religions. If we want to then say that the government can make some exceptions for some religions in some cases it's clearly a matter of favoritism.

Why should the Catholics get to run their business in some way that defies general law, but I the Blightist cannot? We could say some areas of the law can have religious exemptions and others cannot but that's no better. It's another path to the same destination the government giving some religions a free pass and not others, since not every religion will conflict with the law in the same ways or in the same areas.

A law that says "Cathlotics can't open hospitals" is clearly discriminatory. A law that says "Catholics must perform abortions" is also discriminatory. Passing a law that says "Everyone that opens a hospital must offer abortion services" is not.

The only question is if society collectively thinks that hospitals should universally be required to offer abortions. That Catholics are prohibited form doing so is certainly something people are free to keep in mind when voting. It's just not right to have the law itself written with favoritism built in.

EDIT: Of course I suspect there are a lot people who wouldn't see this as a problem. It's just odd how many Americans seem to claim to be a stickler for this, but then are also fine with religons side-stepping the law so just long as it's their religion.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.

Says you. Science says its a separate entity.

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine. Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.
What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

A foetus is not a baby, otherwise billions of women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter every year.

Says you. Science says its a separate entity.

Actually, the Medical Dictionary defines a baby as "An infant; a newborn child", so I would say that Science agrees with me.

 Frazzled wrote:

Says you. Science says its a separate entity.

It also says the same about plenty of other life on a cellular level. What science also demomstrates is at what point that ball of cells is able to survive on its own, when it is able to detect and act on stimulus, etc, to the point where it can be considered to be a human being.

Destroying a ball of cells is far different to killing a human being and this is recognised in the laws of most civilised nations.

 Frazzled wrote:

Says you. Science says its a separate entity.

Just like all that stuff you mass murder with your antibiotics.

We're going off the reservation, guys.

I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

 kronk wrote:
I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

I'm curious to see what they will do also. The ball seems in their court.

Frazz may be right in that they'll court other cities and get a sweeter deal to stay in Indy.

I don't think this is a ploy for that, but it's how it will turn out.

 kronk wrote:
Frazz may be right in that they'll court other cities and get a sweeter deal to stay in Indy.

I don't think this is a ploy for that, but it's how it will turn out.

I wouldn't like to think that GenCon were using gay rights for financial gain/leverage.

Me neither. As I say, they probably wrote their appeal to the Governor with the best of intentions. But since GenCon is worth $50 million a year to Indy's economy, they will try to sweeten their convention deal to keep them.

Just a guess.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

translation: if your religion says you can't kill babies on a whim, well maybe you shouldn't practice medicine.

translation: I can't debate against an actual argument, so lets make gak up and turn the crazy to 11 and make a bunch of noise.

If your religion says you can't commit murder, and your own definition of murder prevents you from doing your job, then you shouldn't voluntarily choose that job. If any of your religious teachings will prevent you from doing your job, then you shouldn't make the voluntary choice to do that job. If your religious teachings will prevent you from offering a service, then you shouldn't operate a business that should offer that service. If filling certain prescriptions goes against your religion, then you shouldn't make the choice to go to pharmacy school to become a pharmacist. If your religion prevents you from touching a persons penis because it's dirty, then you shouldn't become a physician. If your religion prevents you from giving loans to two gay guys because you don't think they should live together, then you shouldn't become a banker. It really is pretty simple stuff.

Good to know you would make what millions believe is murder, commit murder.

If I DON'T believe that smashing babies heads against rocks on their first birthday is murder, does that mean I get to do it? Science or the law shouldn't matter as long as I believe something right?

Science and the law doesn't, and shouldn't, rely on individual believes about what is and isn't right.

What do you do for an encore? Kill old people if they are inconvenient?

Only if they refuse to get out of the fast lane.

 kronk wrote:
We're going off the reservation, guys.

I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

I think they will move to the UK

 kronk wrote:
We're going off the reservation, guys.

I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

They sorta made promises to their gay and gay-friendly constituents at this point. However, the contract reaches out far enough where it might extend beyond people's attention span. I imagine alot will have to do with what happens between now and then. Usually when legislation brings this level of unwanted attention, there's some turnaround in the legislature, so a repeal or revision of the bill is possible. Also, even if the bill stays, its possible that businesses at large in Indianapolis will choose not to discriminate, so if there are no such incidents, that might keep GenCon there.

I'd think the Final Four would be more of a concern, of course I don't know which one brings in more revenue.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
We're going off the reservation, guys.

I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

I think they will move to the UK

They already had a GenCon Uk from 1998 to 2008! You had your chance!

How long until GenCon's deal with Indy expires?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
How long until GenCon's deal with Indy expires?

The current deal is in place until 2020 I believe.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
How long until GenCon's deal with Indy expires?

The current deal is in place until 2020 I believe.

I've heard the same.

The Final Four should come to Houston. Our stadiums are bigger than your cities and UH is actually here.

Alternatively I'd suggest Uncertain, Texas. The Caddo Catfish Restaurant serves all patrons with fresh fish daily.

 d-usa wrote:
The current deal is in place until 2020 I believe.

It'll be interesting to see what the next five years brings

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The current deal is in place until 2020 I believe.

It'll be interesting to see what the next five years brings

Splat books for D&D 5th edition?

More HH books from FW!

This thread needs to get back on topic ASAP.

Or, you know...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life,

So are you saying the life of a handicapped infant isn't as valuable as that of a fully-abled infant?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
\
I, for one, don't think that GenCon will move. We'll see, though.

I agree, for all of the reasons previously stated.

I can see a place like Austin being one of the few reasonable alternatives.

I can see a place like Austin being one of the few reasonable alternatives.

Gencom can come. Since the Great California Flood, Austin lost a lot of its fun-becoming like your average northern Cali town. We need some more weirdness back.
Did I mention we now have three streets full of bars?

 Frazzled wrote:

Did I mention we now have three streets full of bars?

I think my drive would suck more, but this is Gencon material here.

Bars full of UT coeds.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I dont hold either opinion, I was commenting on yours.

That is a clear lie. You are a conservative Christian from the UK, and hold an opinion based on that identity.

However I can still become detached from that and post neutrally.

I did so by looking at the law, what it meant what was read etc.

Also dogma in you laughable attempt to attack me you have edited out the comments down to the words you want to twist.

"I dont hold either the opinion"

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.

Do you hold the same opinion regarding heterosexual activists?

I don't hold the opinion that gay activists shouldn't be allowed to vocally protest.
I don't hold the opinion that heterosexual activists shoudn't be allowed to vocally protest.

My identity as a conservative or a Christian doesn't interfere with this in any way.

Next time try and be honest for a change and quote fully. However its not in your interest to isnt it.
By reducing my posts to as snip you can rid thseem of meaning down to the few words you want to twist.

Then have the gall to claim I am lying.

Stop trolling you little oaf.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You don't know me chum.

I know your internet persona.

You claim you do. But then despite my many threats where I show out of the box thinking you come back and try to pigeonhole me.

Besides....

But you don't know my local gay club, or that I was welcome there, or why I was welcome there (hint I am not gay or Bi or transgender).
Do you know the gay underground church? Know where to find it.

There is quite a bit you don't know, but you make assumptions that because of an internet persona, and the inferences that I am both Christian and conservative, both of which I do not deny, you assume I think along certain lines.
Whereas in reality I show evidence of considerable levity of opinion.

You know many Christian conservatives are heavily pro-Israel, others are seven day creationists. I am neither and you know that from our previous arguments.

Yet despite this you think I have a set easy to pigeonhole and label opinion.

I put that down to the trouble you have of presenting an honest argument, so you always snip posts, go on the attack and never actually answer questions thrown back at you before launching yet more.
I think its possibly because you cant keep up a logical argument.
For a long time you have stopped going back to your old ways, I was hoping you had grown up some. It is disappointing to see the old dogma back.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Most Christians wont necessarily know which bars are gay bars, especially if they are sheltered.

I'm pretty sure most US Christians can figure out which bars are gay before walking in.

Maybe, maybe not. Not everyone knows what a rainbow flag is. I can't remember off hand which ear a single earing is used to signify being gay.
Besides you were being very personal with the comments earlier so the context of the Christian in a gay bar should then refer to a UK one. For the record most of those here are just regular British pubs.

 Orlanth wrote:
I did so by looking at the law, what it meant what was read etc.

And that's the problem: you insist on being "detached" and taking the words of the law out of the context of the law. Meanwhile anyone who lives in the US and is familiar with US politics knows that the context of the law matters. It isn't about some kind of noble crusade to protect obscure religious minorities, it's about giving conservative Christians the right to discriminate. The supporters of the law are conservative Christians who make no secret of their beliefs, and the law is almost identical to similar laws elsewhere that were supported by conservative Christians for the same reasons. Even if the law doesn't explicitly say "we hate gay people" everyone involved knows exactly what is going on.

Now, the only question here is whether you're ignoring this context because you're honestly not aware of the details of US politics (in which case please stop telling us all how it works) or because you're a conservative Christian and have ideological reasons for viewing this as a harmless "freedom" law with no malicious intent involved.