(03-31-2015 03:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Maybe you should read the bill's text...

In summary for the idiots who struggle at English.

This bill is not designed to allow "Joe Bob's Corn Dog Shack" to refuse service "just because he doesn't like the gays."

This bill is designed to allow a Christian flower shop to decline service based on their religious belief on homosexuality. It's really no different than a Muslim or Buddhist being allowed to decline selective service on religious practice. You and I might think the latter is a scumbag but he's still protected.

That's why the bill says nothing about gays, lesbians, trannies, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc.... any color you'd like. None of that is the point. This is about protecting a businesses right to NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CEREMONY they're religiously opposed to, end of story.

The bill goes much further than a wedding.

The bill is designed to remove or weaken existing LGBT protections against discrimination in Indiana municipalities, and to help the religious right fight equal access for the next group to step up to the plate...Transgendered persons.

(03-31-2015 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Maybe you should read the bill's text...

In summary for the idiots who struggle at English.

This bill is not designed to allow "Joe Bob's Corn Dog Shack" to refuse service "just because he doesn't like the gays."

This bill is designed to allow a Christian flower shop to decline service based on their religious belief on homosexuality. It's really no different than a Muslim or Buddhist being allowed to decline selective service on religious practice. You and I might think the latter is a scumbag but he's still protected.

That's why the bill says nothing about gays, lesbians, trannies, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc.... any color you'd like. None of that is the point. This is about protecting a businesses right to NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CEREMONY they're religiously opposed to, end of story.

The bill goes much further than a wedding.

The bill is designed to remove or weaken existing LGBT protections against discrimination in Indiana municipalities, and to help the religious right fight equal access for the next group to step up to the plate...Transgendered persons.

Nice try but.... WRONG. The bill provides an "out" if the business owner can prove that he denied service based on a sincere religious belief. No different than Muslims or Buddhists declining selective service - ie, Conscientious Objector laws.

(03-31-2015 03:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

How about simply adding LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws that already cover evangelicals?

Regarding Iran. Iran sucks. So does Saudi Arabia. And every Iraqi leader after Saddam was worse on LGBT issues than he was. So is the situation in Syria after Assad. The sad reality is that there are no good actors in the region. Nor is there much of a path out (except via immigration) for the future for the LGBT population in many of those states.

The question is...what can we do about it. Supporting a rapproachment with Iran is neutral on the current situation. It might actually help (but I'm not holding my breath).

In Indiana, the bill represents a HUGE step back for LGBT persons as the bill will undermine municipal protections for LGBT persons. The bill in Indiana is supported by American fundamentalist groups ("Christian") that support the legality of the Iranian and Saudi criminalization statutes.

We can multitask. Iran v Saudi Arabia, that isn't a LGBT issue, but rather the opinion of one Gay man. Indiana IS a LGBT issue.

No it isn't. It only appears to be an issue because y'all are FORCING it to be an issue.

Answer me this... What's the worst thing that can come of these kinds of Bill? You don't get flowers, cake, food, etc at your wedding from a Christian business. There is stopping you from going to another business, boycotting that business, voting with your wallet, voting at the voting booth, etc.

An even better question might be, why would you want a Christian involved in your wedding at all?

Once again, is there ANYONE who cares to respond to the actual text of the bill?

So who is going to pay for the costs of finding another vendor? And for the higher price incurred by the victim of said discrimination when other vendors don't have to compete on price or service knowing that others wont serve them?

The text of the bill weakens or removes existing protections for LGBT persons in several Indiana municipalities.

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:15 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

None of that is difficult to understand. In fact, I think, most of us agree with the bolded portion. This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

I'd expect more of a so-called lawyer. Have you read the entire bill?

Yes, I've read the bill. It's written in a way to allow for discrimination (even if it doesn't explicitly refer to homosexuality). Let's fill in the blank using your statement:

(1) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

(2) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve inter-religious couples in a marriage ceremony.

(3) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve interracial couples in a marriage ceremony.

(4) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve couples who are physically incapable of having children in a marriage ceremony.

There are different Christian denominations that refuse to perform some or all of the above ceremonies. The interracial couple refusal might be a rarer one these days, but unfortunately they still exist. In each of the four cases noted above, these deal with protected classes: sexual orientation, religion, race and disability (as infertility is considered a disability under the ADA).

No one is saying that Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religious people can't incorporate their respective religious beliefs into their businesses. However, when it conflicts with the countervailing rights of a protected class, then the rights of the protected class should take precedent.

(03-31-2015 03:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

How about simply adding LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws that already cover evangelicals?

Regarding Iran. Iran sucks. So does Saudi Arabia. And every Iraqi leader after Saddam was worse on LGBT issues than he was. So is the situation in Syria after Assad. The sad reality is that there are no good actors in the region. Nor is there much of a path out (except via immigration) for the future for the LGBT population in many of those states.

The question is...what can we do about it. Supporting a rapproachment with Iran is neutral on the current situation. It might actually help (but I'm not holding my breath).

In Indiana, the bill represents a HUGE step back for LGBT persons as the bill will undermine municipal protections for LGBT persons. The bill in Indiana is supported by American fundamentalist groups ("Christian") that support the legality of the Iranian and Saudi criminalization statutes.

We can multitask. Iran v Saudi Arabia, that isn't a LGBT issue, but rather the opinion of one Gay man. Indiana IS a LGBT issue.

No it isn't. It only appears to be an issue because y'all are FORCING it to be an issue.

Answer me this... What's the worst thing that can come of these kinds of Bill? You don't get flowers, cake, food, etc at your wedding from a Christian business. There is stopping you from going to another business, boycotting that business, voting with your wallet, voting at the voting booth, etc.

An even better question might be, why would you want a Christian involved in your wedding at all?

Once again, is there ANYONE who cares to respond to the actual text of the bill?

So who is going to pay for the costs of finding another vendor? And for the higher price incurred by the victim of said discrimination when other vendors don't have to compete on price or service knowing that others wont serve them?

The text of the bill weakens or removes existing protections for LGBT persons in several Indiana municipalities.

One of the first things I learned in debate classes was that it's improper to answer questions with questions.

lulz...... Just in Indiana....
Florists - https://www.google.com/maps/search/india...a=!3m1!4b1

Catering - https://www.google.com/maps/search/cater...a=!3m1!4b1

Wedding Planners - https://www.google.com/maps/search/weddi...a=!3m1!4b1

Update. Friggin' NASCAR just came out against Pence.

(03-31-2015 03:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  What befuddles me is how the liberal inclusion police have no problem with our national cozying up to Iran - a country where you can be put to death for gay sex - but somehow not wanting to create a cake for a gay wedding is inexcusable. And they choose to voice their displeasure by calling for boycotts and other economic actions that will hurt everyday working people in Indiana much more than it will the people in the state legislature and the "1-percenters".

How about some middle ground here... If you don't want to serve gays and lesbians you must upfront about it so that people can choose to not support your business if they don't like it. I really don't think you will see gays going foodless or shoeless or hotel-less because they can't find a place that will accept them as customers. In general, it isn't smart business practice to refuse customers because you don't approve of some aspect of their private life.

How about simply adding LGBT persons to existing non-discrimination laws that already cover evangelicals?

Regarding Iran. Iran sucks. So does Saudi Arabia. And every Iraqi leader after Saddam was worse on LGBT issues than he was. So is the situation in Syria after Assad. The sad reality is that there are no good actors in the region. Nor is there much of a path out (except via immigration) for the future for the LGBT population in many of those states.

The question is...what can we do about it. Supporting a rapproachment with Iran is neutral on the current situation. It might actually help (but I'm not holding my breath).

In Indiana, the bill represents a HUGE step back for LGBT persons as the bill will undermine municipal protections for LGBT persons. The bill in Indiana is supported by American fundamentalist groups ("Christian") that support the legality of the Iranian and Saudi criminalization statutes.

We can multitask. Iran v Saudi Arabia, that isn't a LGBT issue, but rather the opinion of one Gay man. Indiana IS a LGBT issue.

No it isn't. It only appears to be an issue because y'all are FORCING it to be an issue.

Answer me this... What's the worst thing that can come of these kinds of Bill? You don't get flowers, cake, food, etc at your wedding from a Christian business. There is stopping you from going to another business, boycotting that business, voting with your wallet, voting at the voting booth, etc.

An even better question might be, why would you want a Christian involved in your wedding at all?

Once again, is there ANYONE who cares to respond to the actual text of the bill?

So who is going to pay for the costs of finding another vendor? And for the higher price incurred by the victim of said discrimination when other vendors don't have to compete on price or service knowing that others wont serve them?

The text of the bill weakens or removes existing protections for LGBT persons in several Indiana municipalities.

One of the first things I learned in debate classes was that it's improper to answer questions with questions.

lulz...... Just in Indiana....
Florists - https://www.google.com/maps/search/india...a=!3m1!4b1

Catering - https://www.google.com/maps/search/cater...a=!3m1!4b1

Wedding Planners - https://www.google.com/maps/search/weddi...a=!3m1!4b1

How many of them refuse services to LGBT persons? I don't know. And how many in Terre Haute?

And what if the provider that matches the customer best in price, location, and service doesn't have any openings? Its not just any florist. Or wedding venue. Or hotel.

You know, Birmingham had a hotel that persons unable to rent a room in the white and Christian world would be able to rent a room at. But that hotel was not in a good neighborhood, it wasn't good quality. And it was very expensive. Why? Because the owner could extract a premium knowing that his patrons had no where else to go.

(03-31-2015 03:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:15 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

None of that is difficult to understand. In fact, I think, most of us agree with the bolded portion. This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

I'd expect more of a so-called lawyer. Have you read the entire bill?

Yes, I've read the bill. It's written in a way to allow for discrimination (even if it doesn't explicitly refer to homosexuality). Let's fill in the blank using your statement:

(1) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

(2) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve inter-religious couples in a marriage ceremony.

(3) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve interracial couples in a marriage ceremony.

(4) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve couples who are physically incapable of having children in a marriage ceremony.

There are different Christian denominations that refuse to perform some or all of the above ceremonies. The interracial couple refusal might be a rarer one these days, but unfortunately they still exist. In each of the four cases noted above, these deal with protected classes: sexual orientation, religion, race and disability (as infertility is considered a disability under the ADA).

No one is saying that Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religious people can't incorporate their respective religious beliefs into their businesses. However, when it conflicts with the countervailing rights of a protected class, then the rights of the protected class should take precedent.

Again, I believe each individual case would go to the court to decide. The courts would reference this law but the point is the case won't just get thown out based on Civil Rights laws. They're not the same thing.

The backbone of this case is that it allows them to defend their actions. #1 and #2 can be backed up pretty easily and frankly speaking, I've never heard of #4. #3 is a gross interpretation of Old Testament law based on Inter-Religion (ie, Jews were, uh, Jewish and weren't supposed to wed non-believers... typically not followers of Judaism).

And just like in other states. Pence was warned about the bill. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ed-it.html

(03-31-2015 03:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:15 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Plenty of establishments discriminate against various behaviors. Some places don't allow smokers.

This law doesn't give businesses carte blanche to discriminate. This law protects the GOVERNMENT from infringing on their religious beliefs.

Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

None of that is difficult to understand. In fact, I think, most of us agree with the bolded portion. This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

I'd expect more of a so-called lawyer. Have you read the entire bill?

Yes, I've read the bill. It's written in a way to allow for discrimination (even if it doesn't explicitly refer to homosexuality). Let's fill in the blank using your statement:

(1) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

(2) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve inter-religious couples in a marriage ceremony.

(3) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve interracial couples in a marriage ceremony.

(4) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve couples who are physically incapable of having children in a marriage ceremony.

There are different Christian denominations that refuse to perform some or all of the above ceremonies. The interracial couple refusal might be a rarer one these days, but unfortunately they still exist. In each of the four cases noted above, these deal with protected classes: sexual orientation, religion, race and disability (as infertility is considered a disability under the ADA).

No one is saying that Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religious people can't incorporate their respective religious beliefs into their businesses. However, when it conflicts with the countervailing rights of a protected class, then the rights of the protected class should take precedent.

Again, I believe each individual case would go to the court to decide. The courts would reference this law but the point is the case won't just get thown out based on Civil Rights laws. They're not the same thing.

The backbone of this case is that it allows them to defend their actions. #1 and #2 can be backed up pretty easily and frankly speaking, I've never heard of #4. #3 is a gross interpretation of Old Testament law based on Inter-Religion (ie, Jews were, uh, Jewish and weren't supposed to wed non-believers... typically not followers of Judaism).

Actually the bill allows a fundamentalist hotel owner or restaurant owner to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

(03-31-2015 03:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The backbone of this case is that it allows them to defend their actions. #1 and #2 can be backed up pretty easily and frankly speaking, I've never heard of #4. #3 is a gross interpretation of Old Testament law based on Inter-Religion (ie, Jews were, uh, Jewish and weren't supposed to wed non-believers... typically not followers of Judaism).

The Catholic Church, for one, will not marry a couple where someone is or both are impotent because of the belief that consummation is requirement for marriage. (They will marry strictly infertile people that aren't impotent because consummation is still possible.)

(03-31-2015 03:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sigh. It's really incredible how many people aren't seeing (or refuse to see) the difference from groups that aren't protected classes versus those that are protected.

Smokers aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

People not wearing shoes or shirts aren't a protected class. You can kick them out of your business.

If you want to kick people out of your business for wearing UNC T-shirts, then you are free to do so.

If you want to kick someone out of your business because he's carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign, then you are also free to do so.

However, you CANNOT kick people out on the basis of being a member of a protected class. This includes race, sex, gender, age and religion. Most states have added sexual orientation to that list, including many that have "religious freedom" laws. Indiana hasn't done so, which is why there is a firestorm in this particular "religious freedom" case.

Now, if a gay black man comes into your business carrying a "I hate Jesus" sign while smoking, then you are free to kick that person out because you object to that sign or smokers. You just can't kick that person out *because* he is gay and/or black.

It's the same thing in the workplace. You don't have to hire every gay black man that applies for a job. You can take into account qualifications, whether he was professional, his educational level, etc. There are perfectly legal reasons to not hire that person. However, you cannot refuse to hire that person *because* he is gay and/or black.

Is this distinction really that difficult for social conservatives to understand?

None of that is difficult to understand. In fact, I think, most of us agree with the bolded portion. This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

I'd expect more of a so-called lawyer. Have you read the entire bill?

Yes, I've read the bill. It's written in a way to allow for discrimination (even if it doesn't explicitly refer to homosexuality). Let's fill in the blank using your statement:

(1) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve homosexuals in a marriage ceremony.

(2) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve inter-religious couples in a marriage ceremony.

(3) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve interracial couples in a marriage ceremony.

(4) This legislation seeks to protect Christian business owners from being forced to serve couples who are physically incapable of having children in a marriage ceremony.

There are different Christian denominations that refuse to perform some or all of the above ceremonies. The interracial couple refusal might be a rarer one these days, but unfortunately they still exist. In each of the four cases noted above, these deal with protected classes: sexual orientation, religion, race and disability (as infertility is considered a disability under the ADA).

No one is saying that Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religious people can't incorporate their respective religious beliefs into their businesses. However, when it conflicts with the countervailing rights of a protected class, then the rights of the protected class should take precedent.

Again, I believe each individual case would go to the court to decide. The courts would reference this law but the point is the case won't just get thown out based on Civil Rights laws. They're not the same thing.

The backbone of this case is that it allows them to defend their actions. #1 and #2 can be backed up pretty easily and frankly speaking, I've never heard of #4. #3 is a gross interpretation of Old Testament law based on Inter-Religion (ie, Jews were, uh, Jewish and weren't supposed to wed non-believers... typically not followers of Judaism).

Actually the bill allows a fundamentalist hotel owner or restaurant owner to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

Let me know when it happens, and how would they know if someone is gay or a lesbian?

(03-31-2015 03:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Update. Friggin' NASCAR just came out against Pence.

This article from 2005. NASCAR was at an all-time high.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7286393/ns/msn...RsCDvnF8j4

Quote:They may be at the racetrack, but it is Sunday morning, and that means setting aside time for worship, prayer and meditation on the word of God. In fact, America’s No. 1 spectator sport, with 75 million fans coast to coast, is a growing community of faith. And the most prominent figures in the sport display their faith as proudly as they do their corporate logos.

NASCAR now....
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7286393/ns/msn...RsCDvnF8j4

Quote:The last attendance figures released in 2012 for the Daytona 500 showed attendance around 140,000 fans. This sounds great until one realizes that in 2011, just one year before, around 182,000 attended the race. With attendance falling at large races, it is presumable that NASCAR does not want to publicize this phenomenon.

In 2005, for example, TNT coverage topped out at a 4.7, and that number has steadily declined in the decade since. (Ratings for this year’s race have not been released yet).

This isn't going to help NASCAR recapture it's base.

Quote:1 Timothy 6:10New International Version (NIV)

10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

(03-31-2015 03:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The backbone of this case is that it allows them to defend their actions. #1 and #2 can be backed up pretty easily and frankly speaking, I've never heard of #4. #3 is a gross interpretation of Old Testament law based on Inter-Religion (ie, Jews were, uh, Jewish and weren't supposed to wed non-believers... typically not followers of Judaism).

The Catholic Church, for one, will not marry a couple where someone is or both are impotent because of the belief that consummation is requirement for marriage. (They will marry strictly infertile people that aren't impotent because consummation is still possible.)

I've got a lot of opinions about the Catholic Church. That's another thread and I'll leave it at that.

Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

(03-31-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

We'd like a king bed....

---

If its not such a big deal, then why did the Indiana GOP kill an amendment to this bill stating that this law wasn't designed to override non-discrimination ordinances (it was offered, and defeated). Why did Gov. Pence vote against ENDA? Just look at what he brought to his signing ceremony...the friggin' AFA.

---

I get it. You're not a social conservative. But you support the GOP. But if I'm you, I'd be trying to help Pence undo this crap because its' not helping the GOP at all. And due to the structure of the GOP primaries every single GOP candidate will endorse the Indiana law (Jeb Bush did so yesterday - Walker is apparently wisely hiding in a super secret bunker right now. Rand Paul supports the law). This has the potential to cause massive damage to whomever is the GOP candidate. This issue isn't going away and statements made now will be brought up in the general campaign. Who is leading the outrage over this bill? A lot of them are business establishment Republicans. How is this going to play in the Cincinnati suburbs? Or the I-4 corridor in Florida Because the uproar over this is national in scope.

But hurting the GOP isn't the primary goal of the LGBT community here. It really is to stop these bills. There's about 90 of them in the various statehouses.

(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

We'd like a king bed....

So why wasn't I questioned when I asked for a room with two queen beds, with three dudes sharing...

(03-31-2015 03:53 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

We'd like a king bed....

So why wasn't I questioned when I asked for a room with two queen beds, with three dudes sharing...

Because this is a manufactured argument... just like Black Lives Matter, and just like the War on Women.

(03-29-2015 12:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Lots of states have offensive archaic laws.

Indiana just passed Jane Crow. Not 20 or 30 years ago. But last week. We're going to concentrate on them.

and we're apparently going to ignore Clinton in 93 and Obama in 98 supporting/passing similar legislation still on the books....

Okay.

(03-30-2015 12:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 12:23 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Tom,
Do you think you have a right to someone else's time and energy?

There are places where substitutes are more expensive or less of a fit or might not exist at all. Terre Haute isn't going to have a florist that just does Gay weddings for example. The market isn't that big.

Here we go again. First there weren't enough gay friendly pastry chefs, now there aren't enough gay friendly florists. You don't have to have a florist that just does gay weddings.

If gay friendly people charge gay people more than straight, then they aren't really gay friendly, are they. I find this sort of argument especially problematic because I'm confident that you'd argue that if a straight pastry chef or florist tried to charge the gay couple more, they should be protected from such discrimination...

Quote:By the way, perhaps I might feel different if those claiming religious freedom actually tried to exercise it consistent with their religious practices. Zero divorced persons are denied services when attempting to procure wedding supplies in the commercial sector. You see this law isn't about exercising religious freedom unless their religion is only about discriminating against Gay persons. In practice, the only people ever denied service under these laws are Gay persons. Its targeted at us.

and we might feel differently if those claiming discrimination didn't seem to go out of their ways to force a confrontation.... or as in this case, sort of imagining what people might be able to 'do and get away with' even though numerous other states AND the feds have similar laws, and nobody seems too up in arms about them.

More on this in response to the next two

(03-30-2015 11:18 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I think it's going to come down to the courts to determine what a "substantial burden" on an individual's religion will be.

I would never support a law that permits a refusal of service to someone because they're LGBT, but forcing an individual or a business to participate in a gay wedding (for example) is forcing them to endorse that, which to me would be a substantial burden. Clearly not allowing a person to eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel because they're gay is unacceptable.

I agree... Similarly, buying a cake or a bouquet from a book is entirely different from ordering a custom piece. If the picture in the book shows a character in a white dress and a character in a black tux, and someone wants two dresses or two tuxes, it's no longer 'the same as they do for everyone else'. Is that silly? IMO, yes. I wouldn't do that as a baker... but I also have given an incredibly minor alteration. SOME of these complaints/concerns are prospective not even involving a situation.



The question of 'fairness' comes when you are asked to support something under the doctrine that you don't agree with...

Should a Nazi be allowed to force a Jewish Baker to bake a cake in the shape of a Swastika? If you argue that Nazi's aren't protected classes, you're actually proving a different point I have about how having 'protected classes' represents equal protection, but that is another topic... Should a Satanist be allowed to force a Christian Baker to decorate a cake worshiping Satan? Should a gay man be allowed to force a lesbian baker to decorate a cake 'degrading' women?

I don't agree with the position being assigned to some people... that they should be able to 'deny you service because you are gay'... However, I DO believe that they should be able to deny you any CUSTOM service if that customization is inconsistent with their beliefs.

Westborough Baptist Church members shouldn't be able to force a gay baker to write 'death to gays' on a cake.

Do you disagree?

(03-31-2015 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There are two rights in play: the Establishment Clause right to practice religion and the Equal Protection Clause right to not to be discriminated as being a member of a protected class.

It's very simple: When the two collide, the Equal Protection Clause prevails. You CANNOT use your Establishment Clause rights as a justification to violate another person's Equal Protection Clause rights. This is consistent with the states with "Religious Freedom" laws (outside of Indiana). They have recognized sexual orientation as a protected class, and therefore, a private business CANNOT discriminate against gays on the "religious freedom" basis in those states.

The difference in Indiana is that the state hasn't recognized sexual orientation as a protected class (at least for private businesses - it does have some protection for government workers), so that's why this is a much bigger national issue.

Regardless, it's a pretty clear and unambiguous legal distinction: the Equal Protection Clause prevails over the Establishment Clause when there's a conflict. Intuitively, it makes sense - you choose your religion, whereas you are born being in a protected class (including your sexual orientation unless you subscribe to outmoded thinking). There is no grey area here from a legal standpoint.

I understand your opinion and don't generally disagree... but while the law may not be ambiguous, the facts of any actual case are.

You can't enter into evidence WHY someone refuses to do something as a fact, unless they say so. If I say, I'm not serving you because you are gay... then I agree with you... but the reality is that MOST of these situations involve some sort of decoration or display or whatever else that is unique and different from what they have done before... thus they aren't denying them because they are gay, but because of what they have asked them to DO because they are gay. Certainly not EVERY situation has been this way, but I suspect far more of them than zero... and almost every one I've personally read about has involved some sort of customization.

More significantly... without knowing if what you say is true or not... merely accepting it... I don't understand why a law specific to a state that doesn't recognize gays as a protected class (there aren't many of them) has any broader national implications... especially in that the nation DOES recognize them. I understand why this is bad news for gays in Indiana, but this law isn't the problem they need fixed...

I just think this whole pastry chef/florist thing is a distraction.

Should the Westborough Baptist Church be allowed to force a gay florist to decorate their halls for a 'death to gay people' banquet?

(03-31-2015 03:53 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 03:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, how do they know whether someone is gay or lesbian?

I mean, I travel a lot, I check into hotels a lot, sometimes I travel alone, sometimes I am accompanied, sometimes it is a female, sometimes it is a male, sometimes I travel with someone half my age, sometimes I have travelled with people half my age, of either sex, who were very physically attractive. I've never been asked, not once, whether the woman I was with was my wife, or whether I planned to f*** her in the room, or when with a guy, what our relationship was or what acts we planned to carry on in the room. I am going to the Masters next week with a very attractive lady who is half my age. Last year I wet with a very attractive guy who is half my age. Nobody asked me anything last year, and I don't expect any questions this year.

I mean, unless you run up to the check-in desk screaming, "I'm gay and I'm going to make you rent me a room," I really can't figure out how the issue could come up. I suppose if you are with your boyfriend and you pitch a hissy fit because they put you in a room with twin beds instead of a king, maybe somebody might ask something.

But I frankly don't understand how this is a real problem, or for that matter what is the need for the law.

We'd like a king bed....

So why wasn't I questioned when I asked for a room with two queen beds, with three dudes sharing...

Two double beds, three dudes sharing...usually means college guys trying to save money on a room.

And perhaps that particular hotel didn't care.