(04-07-2015 05:10 AM)pono Wrote: (04-06-2015 05:05 PM)eastisbest Wrote: Religion is so core to what most of us are, we mostly understand there has to be tolerance and compromise to allow others to live in peace with their beliefs in larger powers as well as their beliefs in who and what they are but I think there also has to be some allowance that people need to be truthful to that and still be able to make a living.
It's going to be an interesting debate. I have faith that the law in Indiana is well intended and made in hopes of finding that compromise that permits people to live their faith and live who they believe themselves to be.
please, have faith in your god, have faith in the balance of the universe, have faith in the rockets. don't have faith in state legislators. especially, when they are trying to make an ideological point. the intent of this law is (at least in part) to give a middle finger to the greater acceptance of and civil rights for gay people.
I kind of giggled when you suggest where I should place my faith, when you couldn't find the time to respond to my points or counterpoints in my first response to you and when you haven't in any way supported your comments on the "intent" of the law or why a few peoples' intent should even matter. You gained absolutely zero weight in where I would place my faith.
Any law can be used maliciously or righteously.
A baker in Indiana can now refuse to do a KKK wedding and have legal back-up. A backer that specializes in "gay" weddings can refuse to do something they feel outside their expertise or something that crosses a moral line for them. A baker can refuse to cater a Westboro event, without fear of civil rights lawsuit.
While understandably the historically ostracized gay community would have some nervousness, this law will ultimately be what they help make of it. Most people in business, want business. There's a lot of possible win-win in this law if the people of Indiana are permitted to hash it out without outsiders grandstanding for political, not social gain. What Cuomo is doing is getting in the way of positive outcome. What WILL likely encourage a positive outcome is a patient and reasoned response from the gay and gay supporting community.
As I wrote in my first response to you, "intent" matters little to me. What the PEOPLE of Indiana eventually make of the law is what matters. Besides which, neither you nor the opposition to the law have even bothered to back up statements that its intent is to target a segment of the community as opposed to clarify rights for all the community.
Even with the heavy outside response against the law and against all peoples of Indiana because they reside in a state that passed the law, this opposition doesn't seem to be able to come up with exactly an avalanche of "Now I get to screw over gay people" comments.
We have on the other hand read not just economic threats but physical threats against businesses that stated their faith would preclude them from performing certain business services.
This law passed in nearly half the states without this hub-bub from NY. That gives me reason to believe Cuomo is more interested in political posturing than social construction. It tells me there is a coming Presidential election.
Most people just want to be able to live their faith, interfering and bothering with others as little as possible. People also need to make a living. There's going to be some conflict. I see the people of Indiana taking an approach to that conflict much more peaceably and respectfully than is the outside opposition to the law.