(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)RocketElvis Wrote:  The University of New York at Buffalo can not travel to Ball St because the New York govenor has banned any of the state's funds from being spent on travel to Indiana for non essential trips. It was not the university's decision and they must adhere to Gov Cuomo's mandate.

They have a pretty powerful governor in NY.

This again, sounds extremely stupid to me, leading only to economic wars and divisiveness. I don't discount or dismiss economic pressure but it's much too early. They should give time to the people of Indiana to work out their moral compass honestly without the economic threats.

It's subtle territory what they are doing. At this time, it is debatable as to whether NY has only exercised their right to refuse to be a customer or is in fact exercising the same right of business they are protesting, right to refuse a customer based upon moral belief. By refusing to participate in agreed upon contracts it does seems as if NY is refusing to provide an agreed upon service based upon moral grounds. And it's not even clear that is what Indiana is doing.

It is still being debated and fine tuned as to whether Indiana wants their business owners to be able to exercise a right to refuse a customer for moral reasons, any reasons or are only looking for the right for non-essential businesses to choose what business they are in and what business they are not in.

(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)RocketElvis Wrote:  The University of New York at Buffalo can not travel to Ball St because the New York govenor has banned any of the state's funds from being spent on travel to Indiana for non essential trips. It was not the university's decision and they must adhere to Gov Cuomo's mandate.

So if Buffalo had a football or basketball game scheduled, it would be cancelled????? Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC......
(One can hope.........)

(04-03-2015 07:39 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  Because by snubbing an institution that most likely opposes the bill, Buffalo is going to do good in the world?

Isolation tends to push the middle away, not towards. Buffalo made the agreement to join a conference of universities, not states. To me, Buffalo is taking an immoral stance.

as opposed to the moral stance of making a "religious freedom" law that is basically code for you can treat gay people as lesser -fill in the blank- renters, borrowers, hotel guests, employees, bakery customers...

people need to stop pretending. these laws are blowback to the growth in public support and laws for gay rights. in places where the public or legislature is more split there's an attempt to prove a point with laws like the indiana one.

always funny to me how christians, the ones responsible for wiping out most of the world's religions over the past 500 years are always worried about someone encroaching on their religious rights. take it from a non-christian. you got it good.

that's my 1 and only reply and with no bad words or name calling, nice nice, back to sports

(04-03-2015 11:08 PM)pono Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:39 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  Because by snubbing an institution that most likely opposes the bill, Buffalo is going to do good in the world?

Isolation tends to push the middle away, not towards. Buffalo made the agreement to join a conference of universities, not states. To me, Buffalo is taking an immoral stance.

as opposed to the moral stance of making a "religious freedom" law that is basically code for you can treat gay people as lesser -fill in the blank- renters, borrowers, hotel guests, employees, bakery customers...

people need to stop pretending. these laws are blowback to the growth in public support and laws for gay rights. in places where the public or legislature is more split there's an attempt to prove a point with laws like the indiana one.

I don't feel that NY's reaction IS "opposed."

NY seems to me to be taking the SAME stance they SAY they oppose. They are using moral judgments to refuse to do business and even worse, refuse to fulfil established contracts, based upon their perception of the morals of ALL Indiana peoples.

If I'm a citizen of Indiana and I'm against the law, why wouldn't I also be against NY's actions? If I’m a citizen of Indiana who was against the law, why wouldn’t I still take a defensive posture against what to me would look like outside interference?



The law may be protecting rights or attacking them. I'm not at a decision point yet. For ME, what matters currently is the constitutionality of the law and that when it comes to laws, very few really have a hand in them. The law may be "code" or not, I'm not going to take a message boards' opinion on that nor would it be important in my decision making.



It's MUCH too soon for a NY type reaction, it doesn't make any sense. Reaction has been so quick and so focused on sexual orientation as opposed to inclusive of the myriad of many other things I would think would feel threatened by a religious "intolerance" law as opposed to "freedom" law and only came AFTER the bill passed, my experience tells me the reaction is "code" for politics and "code" for others trying to instill their version of morals on the private lives of others. I have to consider that Cuomo WANTED Indiana to pass this law so he could make a political statement.

Individuals have every right to not become customer's of Indiana businesses, presuming they do not have contractual obligations to fill but to use this law as an excuse to not fulfil a contract seems to me to be doing exactly what I THINK the law was intended to permit, refuse to do business based upon moral stance.

At the least, NY’s response is reactionary and inhibits the economic ability and desire of those internal to Indiana that would otherwise oppose the law. At the worst, it incites a series of economic threats and responses that affect all states. It’s WWI combined with the Civil War.

(04-03-2015 11:08 PM)pono Wrote:  always funny to me how christians, the ones responsible for wiping out most of the world's religions over the past 500 years are always worried about someone encroaching on their religious rights. take it from a non-christian. you got it good.

I never was aware of this. Which religions were those?

Sounds like Budweiser but have "faith," small brews are making a come-back. You can start practicing whatever religion it was that Christianity apparently wiped-out.

(04-03-2015 11:08 PM)pono Wrote:  always funny to me how christians, the ones responsible for wiping out most of the world's religions over the past 500 years are always worried about someone encroaching on their religious rights. take it from a non-christian. you got it good.

I never was aware of this. Which religions were those?

Sounds like Budweiser but have "faith," small brews are making a come-back. You can start practicing whatever religion it was that Christianity apparently wiped-out.
[/quote]

oh, only most of longtime native and indigenous religions of the north american continent, the south american continent, the african continent, the australian continent, the many island people's of the pacific, the pagan and traditional religions of those europeans that hadn't made the move to christianity, and several attempts to exterminate or force conversion of all european jews. of course, not every branch of christianity is responsible, but most of the world has been encouraged to convert, forced to convert, or had christianity imposed on their land and culture in the recent historical period.

(04-04-2015 04:36 PM)pono Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 11:08 PM)pono Wrote:  always funny to me how christians, the ones responsible for wiping out most of the world's religions over the past 500 years are always worried about someone encroaching on their religious rights. take it from a non-christian. you got it good.

I never was aware of this. Which religions were those?

Sounds like Budweiser but have "faith," small brews are making a come-back. You can start practicing whatever religion it was that Christianity apparently wiped-out.

oh, only most of longtime native and indigenous religions of the north american continent, the south american continent, the african continent, the australian continent, the many island people's of the pacific, the pagan and traditional religions of those europeans that hadn't made the move to christianity, and several attempts to exterminate or force conversion of all european jews. of course, not every branch of christianity is responsible, but most of the world has been encouraged to convert, forced to convert, or had christianity imposed on their land and culture in the recent historical period.
[/quote]

Do those religions get a free pass for those they replaced? I think we can agree, there's always winners and losers.

I'm pretty sure the religions of lands conquered by Europeans would have hit the bricks even if the "invaders" had been a-religious. The people coming over from Europe wanted the land. Converting, real or pragmatic saved many that otherwise would have been exterminated because then they had powerful Christians to protect them and conversion is pretty much the province of any religion, right? That's kind of how little Christians and Jews and Shamans and well, just about everything comes about, right?

I'm not one of those that gripes about things that happen 300 years ago but I do think those agreements not held after the formation of the country hold some interesting battles ahead.

Religion is a journey. I see societies web and flow over the centuries as they wonder God's intent. Generally, I think we're doing pretty good. Of course there is never, fast enough.

It wasn't the a-religious, the atheists or agnostics on the front lines of the civil rights debates and battles. It was those proclaiming the rights and value of God's ultimate creation. It was mainly those countries that claim strong Christian beliefs. Likewise, the current debates. The lead for "gay rights" isn't being found in China or India or the M.E. or Israel or any other center of the world's major non-Christian religions and most certainly not in generally a-religious countries like Russia.

hmmmmmm

(04-02-2015 01:24 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:18 PM)NewMex RocketFan Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 08:44 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  I think some changes have been made to the bill. I don't know why the MAC would have an event in Indianapolis anyway.

As far as that bill goes, I don't know all the details, but I don't think a small business should be required by law to accept hire to service an event if they do not want to do so, regardless of the reason.

Business have licenses to operate in a jurisdiction which involves a contract to provide services to the public. The laws affect that contract irrespective of the size of business.

Offer services to the public, yes. But required to service every customer who requests services, I don't think so.

"... irrespective of the size of business." The law should be changed.

More than one law would have to be changed . . . . Isn't going to happen. With the new law, GLB&T now have full civil rights now in Indiana as far as I can tell. A mega 180 for the state.

(04-03-2015 07:39 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  Because by snubbing an institution that most likely opposes the bill, Buffalo is going to do good in the world?

Isolation tends to push the middle away, not towards. Buffalo made the agreement to join a conference of universities, not states. To me, Buffalo is taking an immoral stance.

Buffalo did not make the decision, Our governor did.

Buffalo had nothing to do with the decision. Other NY institutions couldn't go to Indiana either. It's a statewide ban, I believe.

(04-03-2015 06:35 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)RocketElvis Wrote:  The University of New York at Buffalo can not travel to Ball St because the New York govenor has banned any of the state's funds from being spent on travel to Indiana for non essential trips. It was not the university's decision and they must adhere to Gov Cuomo's mandate.

So if Buffalo had a football or basketball game scheduled, it would be cancelled????? Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC......
(One can hope.........)

"Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC.....(One can hope.....)" - Let it go Terry !!
What do they always say? - Be careful of what you wish for !!

(04-05-2015 09:37 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:35 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)RocketElvis Wrote:  The University of New York at Buffalo can not travel to Ball St because the New York govenor has banned any of the state's funds from being spent on travel to Indiana for non essential trips. It was not the university's decision and they must adhere to Gov Cuomo's mandate.

So if Buffalo had a football or basketball game scheduled, it would be cancelled????? Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC......
(One can hope.........)

"Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC.....(One can hope.....)" - Let it go Terry !!
What do they say? - Be careful what you wish for !!

This is all just strange.

(04-05-2015 10:16 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:37 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 06:35 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)RocketElvis Wrote:  The University of New York at Buffalo can not travel to Ball St because the New York govenor has banned any of the state's funds from being spent on travel to Indiana for non essential trips. It was not the university's decision and they must adhere to Gov Cuomo's mandate.

So if Buffalo had a football or basketball game scheduled, it would be cancelled????? Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC......
(One can hope.........)

"Maybe this will be the destruction of the MAC.....(One can hope.....)" - Let it go Terry !!
What do they say? - Be careful what you wish for !!

This is all just strange.

I agree Terry !!
Political posturing on both sides of the issue...

Christians have been far too silent on these issues, and it is time for that to change. I serve as a Deacon in my church. I do this because I have seen the Lord work in mighty ways in my life. This happened because I surrenderd my life to my creator, and asked him to work in my life in a big way. He, through his grace, transformed my life. I see the world differently, too some degree like I see it through his eyes. Hallelujah - this was a welcome change.

I live in Indiana, and I must confess I was not aware of the bill going forward. I applaud Indiana for being so bold. Marriage in a Christian church is symbolic of Christ's Union with the Church. It is not just a "ceremony" linking people legally. Typically, a minister counsels those about to be married. How exactly does this happen with a gay couple according to sound Christian doctrine? It is not possible unless you are a phony church. Our church and many others, because the gay marriage acts had to draft policies to provide guidance on the topic. This of course is to hopefully protect against a lawsuit if a gay couple approaches the church to be married, and is turned away. Don't kid yourself, straight couples are turned away as well. It is all about entering into marriage in a Godly manner, because it should be a God pleasing excersize. Those that want to push this nonsense on Christians may feel they are getting somewhere, but what is really happening is that they are "poking the bear" (That is God in case you are wondering)

There are 2 very important books you may want to read 1) The Bible because it is hard to understand God without reading his word, 2) The Harbinger, which highlights the fall of Israel, when the people thought they were smarter than God and how events since 9-11 in America are parallel.

I hope you notice my comments are not meant to be inflammatory. I have nothing but love for my fellow Rocket fans. Some may feel their rights are at risk, but we must all understand laws on the books applied in a broad manner can have some significant consequences no matter what side you stand on. Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.

It is true "straight" couples do get turned away.

My father will not perform a marriage if one has been previously married and has not fulfilled the "until death do us part" commitment.

I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.

(04-06-2015 08:19 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.

I completely understand your point.

To your point, anyone suing a church, a caterer, a photographer for declining to be involved in "any particular event contrary to their religious beliefs" is wrong. It is very likely there are other businesses that may want to participate in the event.

I believe this is what the legislation is about, and has been rightly modified to elliminate the risk of discrimination.

(04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote:  Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.

And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.

(04-06-2015 10:09 AM)djsfw57 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote:  Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.

And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.

How familiar are you with Islsm, Judaism, Buddhism, etc? I suspect if you spent much time in Israel, India, Saudi Arabia, etc. you might modify that belief.

(04-06-2015 10:09 AM)djsfw57 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:53 PM)PTLROCK Wrote:  Discrimination is unacceptable, but disrespecting someone's religious beliefs is as well.

And THAT is exactly the problem I have with organized religion. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and I can tell you from a lifetime of personal experience, that Christians are the WORST about disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That is exactly why I washed my hands of the whole situation. Too damn hypocritical.

DJS

Sadly many have experienced some sort of hypocrisy being involved with the church, but that is largely because the church is made up of people and none of us are perfect. I am not trying to be critical, but some that attend simply do so because that is what the have always done never really seeking to be in right relationship with God. We left a church we felt was not preaching the Bible, and the Holy Spirit just wasn't active. We found a church that is actively pursuing God's will, and what a difference that makes - still we are not perfect and don't claim to be.

It seems to me Christians are pretty tolerant if you consider what is in the news fairly routinely. I don't belong to any of these organizations listed below, but I knew a search would yield some information. These numbers are staggering, even to me:

"Beheadings, torture, rape, kidnappings, mass killings, forced starvation, imprisonment and even crucifixions attest that the persecution of Christians did not end at the foot of the cross or the closed gates of the Roman Coliseum. Last year alone, sources indicate that an estimated 165, 000 Christians died because of religious or ethnic clashes.
When taken together, the reports -- from organisations such as Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF), Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF), Voice of the Martyrs (VOM) and Amnesty International (AI) -- open a window on Christian persecution in all parts of the world."

"A more startling figure on Christian persecution was published by the German news agency, IDEA. It claimed that since the crucifixion of Christ, more than 43 million Christians have been killed for their faith."


http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/messa...?R=&ID=118

Without freedom of religion, you get this or it wouldn't be happening around the world. America is unique. Can we keep it that way?

(04-06-2015 08:19 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  I think you're mixing up two issues. The gay marriage issue is marriage in the eyes of the state. Most gay couples don't care if their marriage is accepted by any church. Just like atheist and agnostic straight couples can get married in all 50 states, yet don't care if any church recognizes their marriage.

And several years ago one would say that most gay couples might not care if a particular florist provide flowers for their weddings... Yet here we are..

The next step will be a push to revoke the tax free status of churches that "discriminate". It's already starting on the fringes..

Quote:Today, in a stunning statement, Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality argued that churches who do not support same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.

"Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 5013 status revoked!!"

To most churches loss of 501C3 will either kill the church or deeply cut into any ministries of mercy that they perform. While taking away this status is not officially closing a Church it is a distinction without a difference.