Indiana's "Religious Freedom Law"

• WebFire

  HitsRus;1717690 wrote:Activists have skewed common sense, and the lack of civility has caused backlash and a need for limits of one's expansion of rights against anothers.

  Quote of the day. Reps.
• Ytowngirlinfla

  

  WebFire;1717808 wrote:I'm going to call bullshit on this a little bit. It's human nature to discriminate, and you've done it yourself. If you say otherwise I will say you are full of shit.
  
  So, we need to use common sense when it comes to this stuff, but since no one seems to have any anymore, we have to have laws that people then lack common sense to interpret correctly, and make a big fucking deal out of nothing.

  Business is business. I own a very successful business and the only color that means anything to me is the green from the money I make. I wouldn't refuse to serve anyone.
• WebFire

  Ytowngirlinfla;1717810 wrote:Business is business. I own a very successful business and the only color that means anything to me is the green from the money I make. I wouldn't refuse to serve anyone.

  I'm not talking just business, I'm talking life. People discriminate.
  
  And just because you would do anything for the green doesn't mean everyone should have to. Again, common sense. There are already laws in place against discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple due to your beliefs is not covered by those laws and for good reasons.
• Ytowngirlinfla

  

  WebFire;1717813 wrote:I'm not talking just business, I'm talking life. People discriminate.
  
  And just because you would do anything for the green doesn't mean everyone should have to. Again, common sense. There are already laws in place against discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple due to your beliefs is not covered by those laws and for good reasons.

  Actually in Indiana gays aren't a protected group of people and that is why this is an issue in Indiana and not in the other states that have the same law and protect gays.
• WebFire

  Ytowngirlinfla;1717817 wrote:Actually in Indiana gays aren't a protected group of people and that is why this is an issue in Indiana and not in the other states that have the same law and protect gays.

  Correct, they are not. I didn't think I stated they were.
• Ytowngirlinfla

  

  WebFire;1717822 wrote:Correct, they are not. I didn't think I stated they were.

  Well until they are protected this law looks like an easy way to discriminate against gays.
• HitsRus

  

  SportsAndLady;1717804 wrote:Alright hits, believer, Quaker
  
  We get it. We all knew you'd be defending the law and taking it to extremes.
  
  Bow out of the thread now and let some other articles come up so those of us who don't have Fox News shoved up our asses can take an unbiased and objective look at this.
  
  Thanks!

  Obviously you don't get it. This backlash is bullying and the exact reason that the law was passed and necessary. Read the exact language of the bill. There is nothing in there that permits discrimination. You complain about Fox news, but you swallow what a guy with a bullhorn is spewing. SMH.
• WebFire

  Ytowngirlinfla;1717824 wrote:Well until they are protected this law looks like an easy way to discriminate against gays.

  Well they better put straight married people in the law too or someone might discriminate against them.
• Ytowngirlinfla

  

  WebFire;1717827 wrote:Well they better put straight married people in the law too or someone might discriminate against them.

  They are already protected.
• WebFire

  WebFire;1717827 wrote:Well they better put straight married people in the law too or someone might discriminate against them.

  Don't forget straight singles too. And gay singles. Blondes? Brunettes?
• like_that

  

  Ytowngirlinfla;1717828 wrote:They are already protected.

  It's not written in the law though!!! We must have it written down so I know they aren't being discriminated!
• WebFire

  Ytowngirlinfla;1717828 wrote:They are already protected.

  Hmmm I'm not so sure about that.
• WebFire

  It's all a moot point anyway because the law doesn't grant businesses the right to discriminate. Also, before this law, sexual preference discrimination wasn't prohibited. Wasn't an issue then.
• WebFire

  justincredible;1717389 wrote:I would not want to give my money to a business that would discriminate against me if they had the legal option to do so. Let the bigots bigot and take your money elsewhere. And as a straight white non-believing male If I were to hear of a local business denying service to others based on their race, religion, or sexual preference I would not give my money to those places. Word spreads quickly in the information age so I wouldn't think businesses would last long with those practices.

  Wanted to revisit this comment. Hypothetically speaking of course, wouldn't this make everyone happy anyway? Who is getting hurt here? The business owner doesn't have to serve the people they don't want to, and you are banning them for it. But they don't care because they don't want to serve you to begin with.
  
  So you go to businesses that don't discriminate and the owner of the business can serve who he wants. If the owner makes enough people mad with his/her discrimination, they will go out of business.
  
  But instead we want laws that force the 2 sides to mesh with other, begrudgingly? We want one sides rights to be greater than the others?
  
  I present this because it's interesting to me. Obviously we want to be tolerate of each other, but to what extent? I think we all agree we don't want segregation of the 60s, but will opposing sides every truly get along, and will forcing them to try really accomplish anything. IMO, discrimination of all sorts is human nature.
  
  This is meant to be thought provoking, not a taking of sides and for bashing comments. Discuss.
• Heretic

  

  SportsAndLady;1717804 wrote:Alright hits, believer, Quaker
  
  We get it. We all knew you'd be defending the law and taking it to extremes.
  
  Bow out of the thread now and let some other articles come up so those of us who don't have Fox News shoved up our asses can take an unbiased and objective look at this.
  
  Thanks!

  I think the important thing we all need to know is that if it had been Obama signing this bill nationwide instead of a REPUBLICAN governor, those most emphatically defending it would be going ballistic over the imminent Mooslim takeover he was starting and how big gubment can't leave anything alone, but has to micromanage everything like a good "big brother".
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1717836 wrote:I think the important thing we all need to know is that if it had been Obama signing this bill nationwide instead of a REPUBLICAN governor, those most emphatically defending it would be going ballistic over the imminent Mooslim takeover he was starting and how big gubment can't leave anything alone, but has to micromanage everything like a good "big brother".

  This wouldn't even be a thread if Obama signed it. There wouldn't be misleading headlines all over the news.
• Heretic

  

  like_that;1717839 wrote:This wouldn't even be a thread if Obama signed it. There wouldn't be misleading headlines all over the news.

  Every time he does anything, QQuaker posts on it. It would be covered with all sorts of "tabloid-headline-style" links, "we have elected the enemy" and all his other teen girl histrionics.
• HitsRus

  

  Thanks!I think the important thing we all need to know is that if it had been Obama signing this bill nationwide instead of a REPUBLICAN governor, those most emphatically defending it would be going ballistic over the imminent Mooslim takeover he was starting and how big gubment can't leave anything alone, but has to micromanage everything like a good "big brother".

  Bill Clinton signed this bill on a federal level in 1993.
• SportsAndLady

  

  HitsRus;1717826 wrote:Obviously you don't get it. This backlash is bullying and the exact reason that the law was passed and necessary. Read the exact language of the bill. There is nothing in there that permits discrimination. You complain about Fox news, but you swallow what a guy with a bullhorn is spewing. SMH.

  No I absolutely get it. Trust me I do.
  
  The point I'm trying to make is that if you spew your guys' typical extremist anti-liberal (which normally I'm all for, but I wanted this thread to exist so that people can understand it and make their own opinions on it) talk on here in every single post, it defeats the purpose of the thread.
  
  This isn't a "God durn O-Burma!" Anti-left wing thread that most of this site has. This is a thread to discuss the law, not discuss why the law is another attack on Christians and conservatives.
• SportsAndLady

  

  For example, since I've started this thread, I've read a few good posts on here and articles posted by superman and have changed my tune on the bill to a certain extent.
  
  But every time I want to respond to superman or justin or webfire, I have to first read your blah blah blah typical left wing media blah blah blah bullshit and it's just annoying.
  
  For once, just make your point and stop. You don't need to respond to every damn post with a response that we already know you feel.
• like_that

  

  Heretic;1717840 wrote:Every time he does anything, QQuaker posts on it. It would be covered with all sorts of "tabloid-headline-style" links, "we have elected the enemy" and all his other teen girl histrionics.

  That's one poster vs 95% of the media. When I first saw the headlines I was fooled. All those "omg Indiana signed a bill that ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS" had me until I took the time to think "wait a second, why the fuck would Indiana sign something that fucking stupid and subject themselves to all the backlash."
  
  When you realize it's essentially the same bill the Clinton administration passed federally and the same bill Obama voted for in Illinois you either accept you are wrong, or nit pick which seems to be the case of ytowngirl in this thread. NOW, the story is they don't have in writing that gays (not sure what the pc term is for gay, so please reserve the butt hurt for whoever reads this) can not be discriminated against. Not sure why they get special treatment, meanwhile there is nothing in writing to protect other groups...
  
  It gets better though. Now that the governor has seen all the backlash from the misleading headlines, he wants to tweak the law to appease the crybabies and let them rest from the stress and the perceived ambiguity of the law. Is that enough for ytowngirl? No, of course not. Even if he is admitting he is wrong (doubtful) he is willing to tweak the law to make everyone happy. How many politicians do we have that man up do things like that? Apparently that is not enough, we have to crucify everyone, because the butt hurt is too strong.
• Heretic

  

  HitsRus;1717841 wrote:Bill Clinton signed this bill on a federal level in 1993.

  #1: Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet yet, so I have no way of knowing how the average everyday whack-job reacted to it.
  
  #2: Not that it'd matter anyway, as I don't recall a lot of talk about how Clinton was secretly a Muslim looking to undermine our nation from the inside or that sort of stupidity.
  
  #3: Because either (depending on your perspective) the political scene has gotten way more hostile over the previous 22 years or, due to the Internet giving everyone the chance to make their opinions more public, it's just more outwardly hostile to the point that whenever anyone does anything, a person has to sift through scads of worst-case scenarios, slippery-slope arguments and hyperbole in order to find just one well-reasoned argument. Which is essentially what S&L is alluding to.
• justincredible

  

  WebFire;1717835 wrote:Wanted to revisit this comment. Hypothetically speaking of course, wouldn't this make everyone happy anyway? Who is getting hurt here? The business owner doesn't have to serve the people they don't want to, and you are banning them for it. But they don't care because they don't want to serve you to begin with.
  
  So you go to businesses that don't discriminate and the owner of the business can serve who he wants. If the owner makes enough people mad with his/her discrimination, they will go out of business.
  
  But instead we want laws that force the 2 sides to mesh with other, begrudgingly? We want one sides rights to be greater than the others?
  
  I present this because it's interesting to me. Obviously we want to be tolerate of each other, but to what extent? I think we all agree we don't want segregation of the 60s, but will opposing sides every truly get along, and will forcing them to try really accomplish anything. IMO, discrimination of all sorts is human nature.
  
  This is meant to be thought provoking, not a taking of sides and for bashing comments. Discuss.

  Unfortunately there are far too many people out there that use emotion rather than logic in their decision making.
  
  Two scenarios. Only one makes any sort of sense to me.
  
  1. Business owner X doesn't want to serve me for Y reason. Given that information I do not want to give business owner X my money to support their business. I take my money elsewhere and let the market decide if business owner X can survive with their current practices.
  
  2. Business owner X doesn't want to serve me for Y reason. Given that information I want to use the backing of law to force business owner X to take my money and support their business because feelings.
• WebFire

  justincredible;1717888 wrote:Unfortunately there are far too many people out there that use emotion rather than logic in their decision making.
  
  Two scenarios. Only one makes any sort of sense to me.
  
  1. Business owner X doesn't want to serve me for Y reason. Given that information I do not want to give business owner X my money to support their business. I take my money elsewhere and let the market decide if business owner X can survive with their current practices.
  
  2. Business owner X doesn't want to serve me for Y reason. Given that information I want to use the backing of law to force business owner X to take my money and support their business because feelings.

  Yeah, I guess that's exactly what I was trying to say. Applause! (of course only if #1 is the one that makes sense to you)
• Ytowngirlinfla

  

  like_that;1717846 wrote:That's one poster vs 95% of the media. When I first saw the headlines I was fooled. All those "omg Indiana signed a bill that ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS" had me until I took the time to think "wait a second, why the fuck would Indiana sign something that fucking stupid and subject themselves to all the backlash."
  
  When you realize it's essentially the same bill the Clinton administration passed federally and the same bill Obama voted for in Illinois you either accept you are wrong, or nit pick which seems to be the case of ytowngirl in this thread. NOW, the story is they don't have in writing that gays (not sure what the pc term is for gay, so please reserve the butt hurt for whoever reads this) can not be discriminated against. Not sure why they get special treatment, meanwhile there is nothing in writing to protect other groups...
  
  It gets better though. Now that the governor has seen all the backlash from the misleading headlines, he wants to tweak the law to appease the crybabies and let them rest from the stress and the perceived ambiguity of the law. Is that enough for ytowngirl? No, of course not. Even if he is admitting he is wrong (doubtful) he is willing to tweak the law to make everyone happy. How many politicians do we have that man up do things like that? Apparently that is not enough, we have to crucify everyone, because the butt hurt is too strong.

  You really think I'm crying about this? I honestly could careless what Indiana does. I have no reason to ever go there.