(03-29-2015 01:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is an end run around cities (local control) trying to enact legislation in what they see to be the public interest

Now you care about bigger layers of government imposing on local government? That's rich!

I'm in favor of non-discrimination. Period.

Have Gays been redistricted out of a vote in Indiana? Does the raw vote for the state legislature even approximate the partisan makeup of that chamber?

(03-29-2015 02:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This is an end run around cities (local control) trying to enact legislation in what they see to be the public interest

Now you care about bigger layers of government imposing on local government? That's rich!

I'm in favor of non-discrimination. Period.

Have Gays been redistricted out of a vote in Indiana? Does the raw vote for the state legislature even approximate the partisan makeup of that chamber?

And I'm in favor of Libery... As in Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

(03-29-2015 01:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT.

Except they cant..

Language in the law prohibits the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest".

I'm pretty sure that medical care counts as "compelling government interest" as would most public necessary services.

Most of this will be clarified in the follow up legislation and before you ***** about the need for follow up legislation consider how many times we've had to fix crap from the AFA.

Really, how about a fertility doctor refusing to work with a lesbian couple?

Your intolerant spin is growing REALLY tiresome.

So are your personal attacks on me, rather than actually responding with facts regarding the bill, the other states bills, and the impact that it will have on LGBT persons.

Facts? You wouldn't know what facts are, even if it walked up and shook your hand. So, spare me the faux outrage. Oh intolerant one!!

So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it happens. Jane Crow is alive and well. And Indiana just endorsed it.

Its a mountain, not a mole hill.

And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Pence was asked 9 times on TV this morning whether this bill made it legal to discriminate against LGBT persons. Nine times he refused to answer. Because he knows that the law in Indiana does exactly that. His appearance this morning did nothing to stop the growing chorus of indignation at Jane Crow in Indiana.

This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it happens. Jane Crow is alive and well. And Indiana just endorsed it.

Its a mountain, not a mole hill.

And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Pence was asked 9 times on TV this morning whether this bill made it legal to discriminate against LGBT persons. Nine times he refused to answer. Because he knows that the law in Indiana does exactly that. His appearance this morning did nothing to stop the growing chorus of indignation at Jane Crow in Indiana.

This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

The law has the potential for discrimination. But please stop trying to draw parallels between this action and the Jim Crow South. It's disingenuous and insulting.

(03-29-2015 05:57 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:03 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, 19 other states have the same law. A poster noted that a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT, a fertility doctor could refuse to work with a lesbian couple, and a hotel could refuse to rent a room to a LGBT couple. Is this happening all the time in those other 19 states? If not, why the assumption that all that will occur now in Indiana? Seems to me some folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it happens. Jane Crow is alive and well. And Indiana just endorsed it.

Its a mountain, not a mole hill.

And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Pence was asked 9 times on TV this morning whether this bill made it legal to discriminate against LGBT persons. Nine times he refused to answer. Because he knows that the law in Indiana does exactly that. His appearance this morning did nothing to stop the growing chorus of indignation at Jane Crow in Indiana.

This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

The law has the potential for discrimination. But please stop trying to draw parallels between this action and the Jim Crow South. It's disingenuous and insulting.

Jane Crow isn't Jim Crow. But they are certainly related. Actually as a Southerner of a certain age, I've heard very similar arguments before...wrong then. wrong now.

The specter of people being not able to use the bathroom when engaging in commerce. Check
The specter of people being turned away from hotels. Check
The specter of people being turned away from restaurants. Check.
Being promoted by angry members of the majority against a persecuted minority. Check.

These bills are simply an attempt to enable discrimination. And trust me it happens.

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Because buying a wedding cake is commerce.

"Commerce" to a liberal is a catch all which means "ALL THE TIME".

Quote:This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

This law is about trying to find a way to get along without (1) persecuting gays or (2) persecuting Christians.

(03-29-2015 06:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And if its such a minor issue then simply why not add:

"Discrimination against LGBT persons in commerce is illegal in Indiana."

Because buying a wedding cake is commerce.

"Commerce" to a liberal is a catch all which means "ALL THE TIME".

Quote:This law is about one thing and one thing only....to enable and further discrimination against LGBT persons.

This law is about trying to find a way to get along without (1) persecuting gays or (2) persecuting Christians.

This law is about persecuting Gay people. From a legislature where LGBT supportive voices have been gerrymandered out of a proportional vote.

Period.

Either Gays are protected from discrimination or not.

---

You of course realize that it is ILLEGAL in Indiana for a Gay supportive business to refuse to serve Baptists? Why should Baptists have the right to refuse to serve Gays?

The problem, Tom, is that you are not an honest broker in these conversations. Few people of your ilk (social Justice warriors) are infact interested in a true dialog about this.

I'm quite happy to say that addendum legislation which better defines who can and can't use this legislation but you are not.

Hilton? no
Mom and Pop B&B? Yes

Selling a standard dinner at a restaurant? No
Making a custom meal for an event? yes

(03-29-2015 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You of course realize that it is ILLEGAL in Indiana for a Gay supportive business to refuse to serve Baptists? Why should Baptists have the right to refuse to serve Gays?

The difference between you and I tom is that I don't think it should be Illegal for a Gay company to discriminate against Baptist.

Then again all they have to do is say they are Atheist and whatever the Baptist are asking for imposes on them.

(03-29-2015 07:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You of course realize that it is ILLEGAL in Indiana for a Gay supportive business to refuse to serve Baptists? Why should Baptists have the right to refuse to serve Gays?

The difference between you and I tom is that I don't think it should be Illegal for a Gay company to discriminate against Baptist.

Then again all they have to do is say they are Atheist and whatever the Baptist are asking for imposes on them.

But so long as Baptists are protected....then LGBT persons should enjoy the EXACT same protections. Why should religious persons have special rights?

(03-29-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, number one, unless they show up dressed for the pride parade, how and why does the hotel know?

Oh, so just so long as those queers know their place (which is subservient and inferior to others), they'll be treated okay.

We've seen this before. And it didn't work.

This isn't how it works in practice.

Gay couple shows up at a hotel. Hotel employee decides that she don't like the gay and refuses them a room.

I travel a lot. The public accommodations issue is a huge one for me. Turndowns happen. The kitchen is closed (but it really isn't) happens. Its happened to me before. And no, I wasn't in drag.

As one of the more socially progressive members of this board, who supports gay marriage, this was brought on by the actions that the LGBT groups have been doing by suing those with religious affiliation due to them holding to their beliefs and values (much the same as the LGBT group). Myself as a Christian, coming from a very very conservative family, believe that we should welcome everyone as equals and treat them as we would a fellow Christian. We are to love our enemies, as sinners we are in no position to judge ourselves, and be a good example of Christ. I understand your gripes, I agree with your gripes about laws like these, but in the end, the LGBT cult sued and sued their selves into this situation rather than taking their business elsewhere.

Tom, what rights do you believe that Christians who are genuinely offended by gay behaviour should have? Where should the balance point be?

(03-29-2015 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 09:47 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...oycotting/

Most of those states' laws only concern interactions between the state and religious entities, rather than between two private parties. This represents a huge increase in discriminations reach. Huge. In Indiana, a doctor could refuse to treat someone because they are LGBT. In Indiana, a hotel can refuse to rent an LGBT a room. In Indiana, a restaurant can refuse to sell food to a LGBT person. None of that is authorized by the Federal law, nor by the laws in many of the other states

No.

Hotel refuses to rent a room to a LGBT couple in Indianapolis. Please let me know what legal recourse that couple has.

How is this any different than my son not being able to rent a condo for a week in Panama City because he's 24 and not 25?

There's a little fact of life you need to get used to. It's called LIBERTY. People rent to whom they wish. If you don't like it, find another hotel. It's THEIR business. Not yours. If you don't like the way Indiana handles their shite, don't live there.

Good gosh you bunch a whiny kids. Grow up. Stop being a victim and you do you.

This is how I would handle it ....

I'm big. Some people would say I'm fat. I'm 6'2" and 275 pounds. If I went to a bakery for a wedding cake for my daughter and the bakery had a sign saying, "We don't serve fatties", I'd move on to the next bakery and that bakery would get my business. I would never file a lawsuit against the first bakery to force them to make my cake.

I'm from NYC, so I might show them my middle finger and say a few curse words, but that's all I would do.

(03-29-2015 07:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is how I would handle it ....

I'm big. Some people would say I'm fat. I'm 6'2" and 275 pounds. If I went to a bakery for a wedding cake for my daughter and the bakery had a sign saying, "We don't serve fatties", I'd move on to the next bakery and that bakery would get my business. I would never file a lawsuit against the first bakery to force them to make my cake.

I'm from NYC, so I might show them my middle finger and say a few curse words, but that's all I would do.

THANK YOU. For crying out loud.

(03-29-2015 06:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Jane Crow isn't Jim Crow. But they are certainly related. Actually as a Southerner of a certain age, I've heard very similar arguments before...wrong then. wrong now.

The specter of people being not able to use the bathroom when engaging in commerce. Check
The specter of people being turned away from hotels. Check
The specter of people being turned away from restaurants. Check.
Being promoted by angry members of the majority against a persecuted minority. Check.

These bills are simply an attempt to enable discrimination. And trust me it happens.

I know you're a southerner of a certain age, just as you know my background. Which is why I'm sure you know better than to make such allusions. Discriminatory laws against protected classes will be struck down once they reach the SCOTUS. There's no need for you and others that feel similarly slighted to make such blatant parallels between between the plight of the LBGT community today and blacks prior to 1965.

(03-29-2015 07:45 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is how I would handle it ....

I'm big. Some people would say I'm fat. I'm 6'2" and 275 pounds. If I went to a bakery for a wedding cake for my daughter and the bakery had a sign saying, "We don't serve fatties", I'd move on to the next bakery and that bakery would get my business. I would never file a lawsuit against the first bakery to force them to make my cake.

I'm from NYC, so I might show them my middle finger and say a few curse words, but that's all I would do.

As it currently stands, overweight/obese people aren't in a protected class. But I'm seen some preliminary work trying to label fat people as disabled. So just wait a couple of years and you'll be able to take that bakery to court too.

Shocker! Obama Didn’t Vote Present, He Voted For Illinois Religious Freedom Reformation Act In 1998…



Of course past votes don't matter in Obama World....

Quote: White House spokesman Josh Earnest took aim Sunday at Indiana’s newly signed religious-freedom law, saying it appears to “legitimize discrimination,” even as critics said that President Obama voted in favor of a similar law as an Illinois state senator.

“When you have a law like this one in Indiana that seems to legitimize discrimination, it’s important for everybody to stand up and speak out,” said Mr. Earnest on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Just before Mr. Earnest made his comments, however, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence defended the law in an interview on the same show, noting that the federal government and 19 other states previously passed a Religious Freedom Reformation Act, including Illinois.

After President Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) in 1993, “some 19 states followed that, and after last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state Sen. Barack Obama voted for in Illinois,” Mr. Pence said.

Indiana Senate Republicans made the same point in a Thursday press release: “The bipartisan respect for religious freedom has also carried over to the votes for most state-level RFRAs. For example, when President Obama was an Illinois State Senator in 1998, he voted for Illinois’ RFRA.”

Mr. Obama served as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. The Illinois RFRA took effect in July 1998.

Mr. Earnest dismissed the argument: “If you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some questions about the wisdom of what you’re doing.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...om-law-am/

(03-29-2015 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, what rights do you believe that Christians who are genuinely offended by gay behaviour should have? Where should the balance point be?

Anti-Gay persons should enjoy no more protections than LGBT persons in the law. Period.

You should have no right to discriminate against LGBT persons any more than you should have the right to discriminate against Baptists, for example.

Its about equality.

If it is illegal for a business to say "no Baptists" (and it is), then it should be illegal for that business to say "No LGBTs".

The only exception should be for non-commercial businesses (as per IRS's definition) receiving no taxpayer contracts or subsidies.

If you are a B&B, you shouldn't be able to discriminate.
If you are a COMMERCIAL wedding venue, you shouldn't be able to discriminate.
If you are a restaurant, you shouldn't be able to discriminate
If you are a wedding photographer, you shouldn't be able to discriminate.
If you hold a contract with the state, you shouldn't be able to discriminate regardless of your IRS or church status.
If you are a florist, you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

---

Is there a legitimate religious based rationale for discrimination? I'm not sure there is. What religion compels their members to discriminate against Gay persons? And based upon what scripture is this based? Seriously guys....there's no rationale. The religious freedom argument is a total sham.

Its just a "I want to hate the Gays" bill.

---

I see little difference between people who don't want to serve persons based upon race and or gender and people who are bigoted against Gay persons.

---

There's a reason why protections exist. To ensure that minorities, and ESPECIALLY marginalized ones such as the LGBT community can function in society.

---

So in short, protections for those that wish to exclude minorities from commerce based upon dislike or distaste for them? Virtually none should exist.