Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  DJS

  Dear god, now you are also a conspiracy theorist: "The problem is the gay agenda (much like the Society) is very shrewd in keeping things covered up. They allow NO dissent whatsoever. They preach tolerance, but only when it favors their position."

  If, by 'agenda' you are referring to the desire to be treated equitably under the state and national laws in the same manner as you, me, Viv and everyone else I agree. If, by 'agenda' you mean how the leaders of a gay action committee (I am assuming they exist, but I have no knowledge nor expertise about whether it exists or how it functions), and their internal committee/group functions, then I would suggest their 'agenda' is no different that the 'agendas' of the KKK, NAACP, NCAA, UAW, the Methodist Church or any other group.

  But you apparently know better than I of the inner workings of the gays and how they organize and act. Maybe you are more gay than you think, especially since you know their positions.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Actually DJS, I have went undercover in several gay agenda oriented organizations, just to see the inner workings, which explains my long time absence from here. I will tell you one thing--they do give the Watchtower society a run for their money when it comes to hiding information, pushing agendas, supressing "inconvenient" truths.
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane, you ask where to draw the line--I think that was the problem with this law in the first place, it didn't draw the line. It never specified acts vs.people, and it should have had some language in it that prohibited actual discrimination against people vs. ( what they do)

  So, what if two gay people get married BUT decide to be celibate? Non-gay people do it, would that be something that it's OK to discriminate against? Being gay isn't "something they do", so I am assuming it's the sex act itself is the problem.

  Why is it OK to make a cake for a special night for two gay people but not for a wedding?

  It should have specifically mentioned the wedding industry and cake bakers and florists--it also should have stated that people could not be discriminated against in buying gas, getting healthcare, etc etc--the important.

  Why? Why would you force a banker to violate their conscience but not a baker? Why do you think the government should be picking winners and losers?

  I agree with the intent of the law, but disagree with how it was implemented

  What, specifically, do you think the intent was?

  -in other words there were no protections for real discrimination, which meant that people who aren't even religious could discriminate--you know the secular ones.

  Well, yes, because thankfully you can pass laws based on "because Jesus", so you have to hide the bigotry in terms like "sincerely held belief" which means the bigot Christians get to experience the law of unintended consequences.
• 

  Viviane

  Actually DJS, I have went undercover in several gay agenda oriented organizations, just to see the inner workings, which explains my long time absence from here.

  "On the down low" isn't the same as "undercover", BTW.

  It seems as if you spend more time thinking about gay men having sex than they do.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  The intent of the law was to protect christian oriented businesses from having to participate in a ceremony they want no part of--the problem was, the law as it was written, was just a blanket check for people to discriminate in non-essential things--even people who don't have sincere religious beliefs.
• 

  Viviane

  The intent of the law was to protect christian oriented businesses from having to participate in a ceremony they want no part of--the problem was, the law as it was written, was just a blanket check for people to discriminate in non-essential things--even people who don't have sincere religious beliefs.

  But they aren't participating in a ceremony, they are providing a service that they went into business to provide. If they don't want to do that service, don't open a business offering that service.

  And why in the world should should a business owned by Christians get any protections? We've still not answered that fundamental question.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  I think much more more about my country that is being forced away from its traditional roots, while the people that promote this are using deceitful tactics. I spoke out about the way the watchtower forced deception on people, and I also speak out how these liberal groups are also using similar tactics.
• 

  Viviane

  I think much more more about my country that is being forced away from its traditional roots, while the people that promote this are using deceitful tactics. I spoke out about the way the watchtower forced deception on people, and I also speak out how these liberal groups are also using similar tactics.

  Ah, so women not being able to own property, religious tests for office and slavery are what we should pine for?

  What specific deceitful tactics are you speaking of? Most people seem to be very clear on what is going on. I keep hearing about this gay agenda and tactics and freedom cause Jesus and how much these religious white people think about gay sex, but I can't seem to find what the deceitful tactics are, certainly not ones like the WT uses.

  Could you elaborate? Also explain why businesses owned by Christians specifically need protection? You also ignored my question about if it would be OK if the gay couple getting married were celibate. You also didn't address the line of right and wrong and the 1 drop rule.
• 

  Simon

  The intent of the law was to protect christian oriented businesses from having to participate in a ceremony they want no part of

  Everyone knows that is not the case. There is a reason for the grinning faces of the bigots as it was being signed - they thought they had achieved some victory giving them their right to discriminate against others. This was nothing to do with protecting them - they already have too much protection.
• 

  DJS

  JG,

  Specious and erroneous: They are not, once again, participating in a ceremony; they are providing their business related services for profit. Trying to manipulate language to further your objective has been determined by the courts to be illegal and irrelevant and by me to be bullshit.

  There are a lot of practices and laws in the history of the US, based on your fathers and their fathers beliefs in the hateful god of the bible, that led to a lot of laws and persecution. Including forced sterilizations, bans against marriage between races, separate water fountains for blacks and whites, blacks having to ride in the back of the bus, etc. Once again your 'feelings' are not supported by the evidence. But keep on whining; you make our point better than we can.