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.

Let's try and consolidate some of our threads into one Super-thread. Instead of talking about same-sex marriage, trans-bathrooms, and Religious Freedom Bills in seperate threads, let's get them all consolidated into one place to discuss LGBTQ vs. Religious Freedom nonsense into one easy to read and ignore thread.

To begin the discussion i submit the following Quote from the NCAA to Indiana in regards to the states Religious Freedom Law:

"The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events. We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/26/ncaa-issues-statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill

Will this impact Trans-bathroom states as well? Should the NCAA be getting involved? Will NCAA events now be boycotted by activist groups now?

What's the Q stand for?

I don't think that bathrooms have much to do with religious freedom, so this seems like we might be trying to shoehorn things together a bit.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that bathrooms have much to do with religious freedom, so this seems like we might be trying to shoehorn things together a bit.

Give me five minutes and it will; I now announce the Church of the Golden Toilet. You must wear a toilet seat around your neck at all times. Services will be held in the Men's room, and constitute watching stoner movies

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that bathrooms have much to do with religious freedom, so this seems like we might be trying to shoehorn things together a bit.

You cant go more than 5 minutes on the internet without seeing someone discriminate against LGBTs because of their religious views (not as common as shown, but thats media for you), and the Religious Freedom Laws allow this practice to continue. Fits together quite well actually.


I also have no clue what the Q stands for


EDIT: Stupid phone cut out part of my text

 Easy E wrote:
Let's try and consolidate some of our threads into one Super-thread. Instead of talking about same-sex marriage, trans-bathrooms, and Religious Freedom Bills in seperate threads, let's get them all consolidated into one place to discuss LGBTQ vs. Religious Freedom nonsense into one easy to read and ignore thread.

To begin the discussion i submit the following Quote from the NCAA to Indiana in regards to the states Religious Freedom Law:

"The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events. We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/26/ncaa-issues-statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill

Will this impact Trans-bathroom states as well? Should the NCAA be getting involved? Will NCAA events now be boycotted by activist groups now?

the NCAA might get boycotted, starbucks seems to get boycotted a lot, but yet it hardly seems to affect their profits.

The NCAA has a very good legitimate reason for not wanting to go to places like Indiana. I'm sure some percentage of their players/managers/school officials/head of the NCAA are LGBTQ. Now put yourself in their shoes, would you go to a place knowing Indianans are now legally protected to discriminate against you. They don't have to rent you a hotel room, they don't have to feed you at restaurants, they don't have to provide you medical care if you get hurt playing. Would you force your teammates to go?

Religious freedom is a tricky concept.

I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.

I don't at all see the point that some Landover Baptist state legislature should be allowed to dictate to private companies and individuals who they allow into their lavatories.

Pretty sure 'Q' signifies 'queer' in LGBTQ, for those that are asking.

(After looking it up, apparently it can also mean "questioning", and sometimes the acronym is LGBTQQ....FWIW)

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

I also have no clue what the Q stands for

I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.

It's totally discriminatory that heteros are not included in the LGBTQFPZNGJLORWFDSXATV categorisation.

It's definitely confusing. The Pope of the Gays needs to release an encyclical and put this acronym issue to bed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.

Aye, this I can agree on. If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it. But discriminating people (like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion? Or providing contraceptives to people that don't care about you being forbidden from using them?

I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's totally discriminatory that heteros are not included in the LGBTQFPZNGJLORWFDSXATV categorisation.

I can't believe I'm writing this, but I'm with Killkrazy on this one!

Spetulhu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.

Aye, this I can agree on. If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it. But discriminating people (like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion? Or providing contraceptives to people that don't care about you being forbidden from using them?

I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.

Indeed.

The difference is between the doctor and the baker that it is not against a Christian baker's religious creed to bake a cake for a homosexual, it's against his creed to practice homosexuality. Thus, the baker is interpreting a religious principle that doesn't apply to the case in order to justify discrimination against homosexuals. I don't mean the baker is a fether who hates gays and is cheating on the religion thingin order to have an excuse for being a pricky bastard. He probably genuinely believes it's a sin for him to bake the cake, but actually he's wrong.

IDK what the position is regarding a Roman Catholic selling condoms. I do know that Italians buy a lot of condoms.

As for Muslims in supermarkets, I believe generally they are willing to sell alcohol or pork providing they don't have to touch or consume it. Merely selling it isn't against the religion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

I also have no clue what the Q stands for

I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.

Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.

The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.

Queer meant a whole 'nother thing when I was a kid.

So it's ok to say queer now?

All this stuff confuses me...

I imagine context means alot with the use of that word.

Spetulhu wrote:
If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it.

Exactly. If abortion is against your religion then you should be free to choose a job where abortions are not part of your duties. Nobody should ever be coerced into becoming a doctor against their religion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it.

Exactly. If abortion is against your religion then you should be free to choose a job where abortions are not part of your duties. Nobody should ever be coerced into becoming a doctor against their religion.

Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?

I still sy there should be just 1 bathroom all toilets leave it at that. Just pit enter at your own risk sign.

But I just think this is more so then ever a reason for buisness to simply stop offering a bathroom.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

I also have no clue what the Q stands for

I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.

Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.

The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.

When you say obnoxious, do you mean derogatory? Or is it just slightly irritating because it can be used to spell a word that has nothing to do with gender?

 feeder wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?

Exactly. It's part of the job, if you don't want to do your job then feel free to find a different one.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

I also have no clue what the Q stands for

I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.

Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.

The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.

I was under the impression that "bi" is being phased out in favour of "pan". I'm fairly old, and all my acquaintances that formerly identify as bi now call themselves pan.

I think I ceased becoming enamored with modern phraseology whenever I first saw the phrase "micro-aggression".

 feeder wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?

No, actually he does have a point there in his particular way. Abortions isn't the only thing a religious person might object to. IIRC Jehowah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions so a JW doctor could perhaps claim he shouldn't oversee such a procedure. Some other Christian cults forbid their members from donating organs to non-cult persons but aren't averse to receiveing those same organs from non-cult members - the bloody bits of a fellow human will become holy if inserted in a cult member. If a doctor objects to homosexuals existing on religious grounds, should he be allowed to refuse life-saving (or otherwise critical) surgery to one? IMO that's against his Hippocratic oath, but you never know what fanatics think.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think I ceased becoming enamored with modern phraseology whenever I first saw the phrase "micro-aggression".

What else do you want to call the concept?

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I think I ceased becoming enamored with modern phraseology whenever I first saw the phrase "micro-aggression".

What else do you want to call the concept?

Something better than "micro-aggression".

As I now discover, its actually a term from 1970, so I'm wrong that it has anything to do with modern terminology.

I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD

Is culinary justice where the waiter spits in your food when you aren't polite?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD

Is culinary justice where the waiter spits in your food when you aren't polite?

It's a term used by a man named Michael Twitty in talks about food traditions and customs. The concept is essentiallly an expansion of Social Justice into food traditions. It makes sense to me even if Twitty is a bit wordy in how he goes about explaining it, but I just can't take the phrase itself seriously XD