# Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Magical Realist, Mar 29, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Dr_ToadIt's green!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,527
I'm tired. It sounds a little too much like 1930's German cleansing shit to me, but maybe I'll re-read it tomorrow.

3. ### CEngelbrechtRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
360
I'm gonna have to resent that a bit. Adolf does not hold monopoly on interpreting Darwin's life's work. His wishful version of the biological fact that humans are also animals is not a carte blanche to hate and kill other people, especially since we're a pack animal with natural capacity for empathy and sympathy for other individuals, even beyond our own species. There are other darwinian type interpretations besides perverted 20th century national socialism which are not contrary to enlightenment age humanism, or, for that matter, the Jewish faiths. And it sure as hell isn't a carte blanche for hating somebody for something beyond their choice, just because we have overpopulated our world and subconsciously want to exclude as many as possible from a fair chance in the competition.

5. ### spidergoatVenued Serial MembershipValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,243
Interesting theory, too bad it's wrong. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite. Homosexuality is a variation on a set of genes that actually result in greater heterosexual fertility in most cases. That's why it persists. Often genes that produce a "desired" result in terms of evolutionary fitness are retained even though they sometimes seem to cause lack of fitness in a few situations, such as the gene in Africans that resists malaria while also in some cases causing sickle-cell anemia. The benefit outweighs the cost.

In modern societies, gays may gravitate to urban areas because a wider array of behaviors are tolerated there.

7. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,672
You've introduced cause. Why did you do that?

So let me get this straight: A gay couple, merely by existing and asking for a cake, is speaking openly against religious people?

Go back and think it through.

Your example is nothing extraordinary: Any business owner is within his or her rights to refuse service if someone is verbally abusive or denigrating.

The equivocation―that walking into a business and asking to purchase their products or services and simply being the wrong kind of person constitutes abuse or denigration―is rather quite silly.

That's something of a rhetorical twist. State-sponsored discrimination creates multiple standards.

For Pence, it isn't just the repugnant law. It's also the clodhopping stupidity by which he approached the issue.

You know, I'd have to search for it, but there was an occasion not too long ago―I had thought it Cory Gardner's early candidacy for Senate, but haven't found the reference―when a politician hoped to distance himself from an anti-abortion "personhood" bill, and tried saying it wasn't actually a personhood bill. The bill's private-sector sponsors all cleared their throats and reiterated that it was, indeed, a personhood bill.

Mr. Pence tried ducking the discrimination issue, which is at the heart of what has people so furious. He tried to pretend it wasn't there, and complained that people were inventing an issue.

But they knew. And the bill's private-sector sponsors not only knew, but also intended.

Look, supremacism is not equality. And when you have to compare dissimilar circumstances in order to assert a pretense of equality, you're doing it wrong.

8. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
Currently there is a dual standard, where two sets of rules apply. Only a male can be called chauvinistic, even if a women says the same type of words about men. The quota system, is a prime example. This is backed by laws that give priority to certain demographics; female, black and homosexual. If white, straight, males created parallel laws, that allows quotas for themselves, this would be called racist, sexist and homophobic. But the other way around, is not defined that way, even though an objective person can see these are the same. Only subjective arguments can be used to justify this.

Martin Luther King said, he had a dream that a man would be judged by the content of character and not the color of his skin. He did not see a quota system, since such a system is based on a group criteria, like skin color, and not on character which is individual; case by case. He did not see a dual standard as his final vision. The dual standard was what he was trying to evolve away from; white quota system. Democrats did not understand his message, being the party of slavery.

This dual standard, supported by irrational law, is being abused by militant homosexual and feminists groups. The law is such that the dual standard allows bigots to be protected, as though their actions cannot be called bigoted. The new laws in Indiana are about leveling the playing field, so there is one standard for all. Those who benefit but the dual standard, think the dual standard line, is fair territory. It is by law but not by any rational standard. They are not being rational enough to see this is foul for the other guy, defined as fair for them, only by dual standard laws.

If we judged all by content of character, then there is two teams; character and no character, with men, women, black, white, homosexual and straight on both teams. The lines of superficial things become less important. The dual standard keeps the surface in view, because it is designed to be unfair and therefore create a backlash that forces segregation. This allow men and women of no character to lead the various demographics; militants leading the good at heart.

9. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,019
nice to know that there is no low you won't sink to to defend your sexism and bigotry.

Messages:
1,519

11. ### spidergoatVenued Serial MembershipValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,243
What kind of standard is that? All you are saying is that Christians can be as lame as Muslims due to their stupid religious bigotry.

12. ### spidergoatVenued Serial MembershipValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,243
You are not only a liar, but I called you out on this before. MLK was undoubtedly in favor of affirmative action and reparations for slavery. How do I know? Because he said so. He was asked: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"

King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."

13. ### CEngelbrechtRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
360
I think Photizo is very much anti-Muslimin general. Which again would show that we all need to blame someone else for our personal problems.

Messages:
11,869
Now there's some christian-owned pizza joint in Indiana threatening to withhold service from gay weddings. It's already accumulated $50,000 in donations! Well if being gay and married is such a sinful lifestyle they don't wanna support it with their services, why not deny gays just living together? Or gays dating? Or gays like me who just live alone and look at homoerotic art? Why not withhold service from atheists, pagans, backsliders, and drug abusers? Lard knows we can't be having pizzas sent to support THESE decadent ways of living. (I forget what verse in the Bible that comes from.) 15. ### CEngelbrechtRegistered Senior Member Messages: 360 Sounds like Leviticus 20:13. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Which of course doesn't keep the exact same caterer from putting bacon on their pizzas: "Other animals have hooves that are split into two parts, but they don’t chew the cud. Don’t eat these animals. Pigs are like that, so they are unclean for you." (Lev. 11:7) Exactly the same book, chew on that (see what I did there?). Again, people feigning righteousness are very selective as to what part of the random texts they claim to adhere to. Which would make them what, children? Exactly, hypocrites. 16. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member Messages: 11,869 It's also preferable to live where you can actually civilly meet many other gay people like yourself in bars and coffee shops as opposed to getting gay-bashed at the local I95 truck stop or rest area just for coming on to some random hunk. Last edited: Apr 3, 2015 17. ### TBodilliaRegistered Senior Member Messages: 159 The law was changed to bring it closer to the Federal law and the RFRAs in the other states. I think it was funny when Arkansas passed a RFRA that exactly mirrored Indiana's and the Governor refused to sign the law as is because he didn't want people to think Arkansas was as backwards as Indiana. Chuck Schumer told Pence and his supporters to stop comparing his Federal RFRA to Indiana's The intent of the original law has always been clear. An unofficial pic was released and it is pretty obvious why the media was NOT invited to the signing event. GLAAD's pages on the 3 people: Micah Clark, Eric Miller, Curt Smith. The intent was always to allow any business to deny service to anybody based on religious reasons, but especially for being part of the LBGT community. THIS is what Micah Clark said about the proposed bill in December: "It would allow small businesses — such as bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels — to refuse services to gay couples based on the owner's religious beliefs, he said. It would also allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples." The supporters of the law kept pointing to neighboring Illinois and their RFRA. But the supporters tried to hide the truth: Homosexual couple prepares to sue two Illinois Bed and Breakfasts. Illinois approved the suit stating the RFRA doesn't give anybody the right to discriminate. You are off by a 0 and maybe by tomorrow, 2 0s. GoFundMe: Memories Pizza$762,317 as of this posting. They had over $14,000 in an hour. After 3 hours, it was over$26k. $260k in one day. (and I just refreshed the site:$779,339. +\$17K in about 15 minutes.)

And for those that don't know:
Indiana & the KKK

Last edited: Apr 3, 2015
18. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
This is basically why Republicans have passed these laws. The sole intent of these laws is to provide statutory grounds for discrimination. Aside from the moral argument, that presents a huge problem for business. It makes it virtually impossible for medium and larger businesses to manage their businesses. Employees would no longer have to obey work rules they find or create a religious objection to. It's stupid law created to rally the conservative base around the Republican Party. Laws similar to this have become the norm in Republican controlled states. Most of them have passed without too much notice. Republicans finally got their privates caught in the wringer with this one. Two of their constituencies are at logger heads. Oh, what will they do?

19. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
If I weren't so jaded, I'd have been dismayed by the news. It's still horrible, I'm just not shocked by it.

20. ### cosmictravelerBe kind to yourself always.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
33,264
People like yourself don't know when they are wrong for they seem to think they must always be right, which they aren't of course.

21. ### CEngelbrechtRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
360
Right. And if not?

Is there any issue with perceiving the human being as another animal species in the landscapes this day and age?

Messages:
1,519
Last edited: Apr 4, 2015
23. ### cosmictravelerBe kind to yourself always.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
33,264
Yes, it is called being narrow minded and not seeing that there are many types of divisions between human animals and those of other species.