Indiana legislation allows discrimination against homosexuals

Originally posted by Robtard
It's obvious that I do think it's "dickish" to discriminate against homosexuals, along with discrimination against people for their ethnicity, sex, gender, skin color, physical/mental disability, religion. There's probably a few more I can't think of atm.

I just checked the American Civil Rights Act*: you can't list anymore. uhuh

*I didn't actually need to nor did I really check it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, eg I wouldn't hold it against a park if they didn't allow someone in a wheelchair on a rollercoaster where it would be dangerous for them (and others) to ride due to their physical limitations. But said wheelchair person should be let inside the park to enjoy other activities.

Yes, discrimination can get out of hand.

There's thousands of examples like that.

Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it should be okay to allow businesses to discriminate however they wish? For me, the turning point was some stuff I will cover in my response to Ushgarak's comment on this topic. I ran into some "stuff" that allowed me to be comfortable with the notion that it is okay for businesses to be ginormous assholes about who they want to serve.

Originally posted by Robtard
[B"All we can do is pray for them, and truly, we're not really angry at them. We're sad for them. Very sad." [/B]

Just saw that. What a ginormous piece of shit, putrescent human she is. Her attitude culminates the self-righteous attitude of the theistic that really does need to die.

The good news is, I went with a friend to a Christian church service. The preacher gave a sermon about "inviting people to the fold." When he got to the part about non-believers sins, he said, "You're just the witness in a court. You're not the judge or jury. Just bear witness and continue to be supportive of any questions you may receive." And then he talked about how wrong it is for CHristians to act like the jury or judge in those situations and said that's inappropriate and even wrong for you to judge....then he laid down a scriptural smack-down to back up that Christian Assertion.

And then...and THEN! I was like, "Wow. There is hope for finding good and decent Christians out there." Because I am getting jaded as I get older. It's nice to see Christians actually preaching the actual teachings of Christ, every now and then.

The one from that article? Piece of shit, for sure.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Tell me, what would it take to convince you that it should be okay to allow businesses to discriminate however they wish? For me, the turning point was some stuff I will cover in my response to Ushgarak's comment on this topic. I ran into some "stuff" that allowed me to be comfortable with the notion that it is okay for businesses to be ginormous assholes about who they want to serve.

Nothing that comes to mind. Would hate to live in a society were "No N*****s", "No Wetbacks", "No F*****s" and the like signs were allowed.

Even though I believe it would be a very small portion of the business population that would do so, that would also open the doors for openly denying people jobs based on bigotry.

"Sorry DDM, even though you're highly qualified for the job, you can't work here because I don't like Mormons and quasi-Italians" *DDM tears*

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw that. What a ginormous piece of shit, putrescent human she is. Her attitude culminates the self-righteous attitude of the theistic that really does need to die.

The good news is, I went with a friend to a Christian church service. The preacher gave a sermon about "inviting people to the fold." When he got to the part about non-believers sins, he said, "You're just the witness in a court. You're not the judge or jury. Just bear witness and continue to be supportive of any questions you may receive." And then he talked about how wrong it is for CHristians to act like the jury or judge in those situations and said that's inappropriate and even wrong for you to judge....then he laid down a scriptural smack-down to back up that Christian Assertion.

And then...and THEN! I was like, "Wow. There is hope for finding good and decent Christians out there." Because I am getting jaded as I get older. It's nice to see Christians actually preaching the actual teachings of Christ, every now and then.

The one from that article? Piece of shit, for sure.

God bless, brother! Well said. 👆

I'm with you wholeheartedly on that. It's the fact that I come from religion that makes me f**king furious to see or hear of religiously sanctioned bigotry. Specifically, I grew up in East Texas, which, not to reinforce a stereotype, is rather saturated with such a line of thinking, and honestly, I'm not so sure some of the alleged faithfuls I've been surrounded by throughout my life (specifically those types) are true believers. Else ways, they would better recollect the fundamental teachings of Christianity (faith, charity, good will, all that good shit). More is the feeling (and I have the life experience to attest) that they were fearfully indoctrinated through bribery from childhood to simply believe as they were told, regardless of how little sense it made. Thus, they never bothered to question.

I concluded through this that hatred and intolerance were very much learned behaviors, and the fact that it can be, and is, so easily learned or even taught is sad in itself. Never mind "good Christians" and Christianity losing their identities to a polarized, contradictory idea, which effectively turns away potential followers.

On this subject in particular, I feel like all it takes is the simple realization that gay people are human beings, and just like the rest of us, they're capable of love. Last I checked, love is not a sin. Why else would God have sent his son on a suicide mission in the name of love?

There's really a lot I can say about this, but I'd rather not go on such a long-winded tangent right now. In conclusion, I know there are still true believers out there, and I retain hope that their voices will one day supersede that of who would distort faith with no respect or regard for its intent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It actually does negate what you said and it negates it in the most direct and literal manner, too. You used a faulty comparison because your comparison made the incorrect assumption that a person who wants to murder people should be allowed to do so under my logic. Let's break down your point even further: you assume that these two statements are equivalent:

Person A wants to do harmful action x.

Person B does not want to do un-harmful action y.

x and y are not logically equivalent

That's a whole new can of worms. But let's be real: this is not the first grade. Billy is going to get offended because of something Jane says or does, sometimes. As long as Billy is not physically harmed and his livelihood remains intact, Jane can say whatever she wants.

No, that's not really the case at all. I'll explain, below.

No, that's definitely not the case, at all.

View the set of things that can potentially be used in food as set A.

In set A is everything that can be used. Everything.

If we say that a restaurant can no longer use an element from set A, that element being "rats", then we have only removed element "rats" from set A. What is left in set A?

Everything else except "rats."

You are correct that some of the elements left in set A are FDA approved ingredients, of course. But that's definitely, far and away, not the only elements left in set A.

I'm not sure what you meant, here. I think you meant to say "this is totally inaccurate." If you didn't, let me know where I went wrong in my understanding. I just assumed you were making a tongue-in-cheek comparison to get your point across and were not aiming for perfect logic. I do understand your point about the ingredients implying the cooks have to now use stuff that more closely resembles FDA goods. It's just not logically sound.

No you cannot use it to state that for the reasons I explained above about elements in set A.

If you make the declaration that a restaurant can only use ingredients on their approved list, you are preventing an action, not forcing an action. Keep in mind that my point is about forcing people to do things against their will.

Let me better explain that.

Action D is using rats as ingredients. You make a law the prevents action D. Action D is legally prevented.

That is not the same thing as what we are talking about. In fact, I cannot make a parallel to the above using that same form because they are not logically equivalent and, therefore, do not share the same logical form.

Sort of. They are forced to serve everyone but can exclude people that do not fit a specific definition of what kinds of people they are forced to serve. Someone brought up that comparison, before: they can turn away shoe-less gay people because they are shoe-less, not because they are gay. It's creating a specific set of reasons people are forced to do an action <---- a bad thing because this shit gets out of hand and it continues to get more and more out of hand.

By the same logic turning away a black man is not harmful but is has been demonstrated it is harmful to one's mental state to be rejected for what you are.

Telling people they can only use certain ingredients is the government restricting how they can run their business.

Originally posted by Sacred 117

It's the fact that I come from religion that makes me ... furious to see or hear of religiously sanctioned bigotry...

I'm not so sure some of the alleged faithfuls I've been surrounded by throughout my life (specifically those types) are true believers. Else ways, they would better recollect the fundamental teachings of Christianity (faith, charity, good will ...).
More is the feeling (and I have the life experience to attest) that they were fearfully indoctrinated through bribery from childhood to simply believe as they were told, regardless of how little sense it made. Thus, they never bothered to question.

I concluded through this that hatred and intolerance were very much learned behaviors, and the fact that it can be, and is, so easily learned or even taught is sad in itself. Never mind "good Christians" and Christianity losing their identities to a polarized, contradictory idea, which effectively turns away potential followers.

On this subject in particular, I feel like all it takes is the simple realization that gay people are human beings, and just like the rest of us, they're capable of love. Last I checked, love is not a sin. Why else would God have sent his son on a suicide mission in the name of love?

There's really a lot I can say about this, but I'd rather not go on such a long-winded tangent right now. In conclusion, I know there are still true believers out there, and I retain hope that their voices will one day supersede that of who would distort faith with no respect or regard for its intent.

Problem.

Unlike the other posts, which are arguing largely on secular or legal grounds, you're trying to argue on Biblical terms.

117, I understand that people can and do use religion as a weapon.

I also agree if you want to say that what is called "Christianity" is a counterfeit of what Christianity is and was intended to be.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not support what you are arguing, either in what is called the Old Testament OR in what is called the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, for instance, a NEW Testament passage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=AKJV

Please read the above carefully, and respond only if you are able to provide an answer to the content of the above.

You seem earnest.

However, whether you realize it or not, perhaps the only way your argument works is if you divorce your argument from what is actually written in the Bible, and/or if what you're calling "Christianity" is not actually based on what is written in that same book.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Problem.

Unlike the other posts, which are arguing largely on secular or legal grounds, you're trying to argue on Biblical terms.

117, I understand that people can and do use religion as a weapon.

I also agree if you want to say that what is [b]called "Christianity" is a counterfeit of what Christianity is and was intended to be.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not support what you are arguing, either in what is called the Old Testament OR in what is called the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, for instance, a NEW Testament passage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=AKJV

Please read the above carefully, and respond only if you are able to provide an answer to the content of the above.

You seem earnest.

However, whether you realize it or not, perhaps the only way your argument works is if you divorce your argument from what is actually written in the Bible, and/or if what you're calling "Christianity" is not actually based on what is written in that same book. [/B]

I think I see what you're saying, and on the difference between what is meant to be Christianity and what calls itself Christianity, we pretty much agree. But please, correct me again if my response deviates from relevancy.

You're right. I wasn't, nor did I intend to directly refer to the Bible. Don't get me wrong. There are some aspects of scripture I find agreeable and can honestly identify with (I'm actually curious as to whether or not DDM can remember what he was referring to), but I generally tend to avoid the Bible on somewhat of a personal basis, if that makes any sense.

Like I say, I don't dismiss it as a whole, but I've grown to approach it with caution or just forgo it almost entirely. To simplify, I wasn't using it in my arguement.

Originally posted by Newjak
Only in your opinion is y not harmful.

By the same logic turning away a black man is not harmful but is has been demonstrated it is harmful to one's mental state to be rejected for what you are.

I think you and I disagree on what constitutes "harmful."

Since I think adults should be adults and not lose their hsit if someone says or does something that offends, we can never agree, I don't think.

If I call you a butt-humping f*ggot, you need to be able to deal with that and not break down and cry OR rage out on me and burn my pubes.

This is why I don't place it under "harm." If you're a child, yeah, that's pretty f*cking cruel of me to do. But, no, an adult is not harmed by being turned away from a cake shop because bigots don't support gay marriage. Harming them would be pelting them with rocks to get out of the store (has happened).

Originally posted by Newjak
Telling people they can only use certain ingredients is the government restricting how they can run their business.

My opinion is consistent even with this. If people want to eat rats in their soup, they should get to and the government not restrict it.

However, remember my thing about harm? Fits better with food. But, that can be a very hard thing to define. Technically, American's children are LITERALLY and directly being harmed by all of the sugar in the foods we eat. So do we restrict sugar? Probably not. But keeping obvious poisons out of food may be okay. That's a very obvious "causes harm" situation.

Rat in food? Nah, doesn't cause harm if prepared properly. So rats should be okay (this is still about the metaphor, not literally about rats in food).

Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing that comes to mind. Would hate to live in a society were "No N*****s", "No Wetbacks", "No F*****s" and the like signs were allowed.

I see that enough already that seeing it on a business wouldn't phase me. But I don't want to see that kind of bigotry, either. You know, because I'm a dirty hippie that wants love for everyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Even though I believe it would be a very small portion of the business population that would do so, that would also open the doors for openly denying people jobs based on bigotry.

Yes, I agree. Very few would do that. But I'm okay if that stuff happens with jobs, too. I am consistent with this opinion. Like I said, I'll cover that tomorrow if I have time.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Sorry DDM, even though you're highly qualified for the job, you can't work here because I don't like Mormons and quasi-Italians" *DDM tears*

I wouldn't want to work at a place like that, though. So it's a win-win. Under my idea of how it should work, they would be open about it and I could avoid them.

Under the current system, they may hire me and then treat me like crap.

This is why I think political correctness and things like that need to go. There is definitely a necessity of respect of decorum that is needed: no doubt. But this "sweep all the shit under the rug" norm needs to die a very fast death.

The racism and bigotry are still there. Just under the surface. It will never go away unless we genetically modify humans. So we create these arbitrary and stupid rules that do little to change that...just so a few vocal minority can feel better about nothing (because the racism and bigotry are still there just not as overtly to avoid trouble...sometimes).

Originally posted by Sacred 117
I think I see what you're saying, and on the difference between what is meant to be Christianity and what calls itself Christianity, we pretty much agree. But please, correct me again if my response deviates from relevancy.

You're right. I wasn't, nor did I intend to directly refer to the Bible. Don't get me wrong. There are some aspects of scripture I find agreeable and can honestly identify with (I'm actually curious as to whether or not DDM can remember what he was referring to), but I generally tend to avoid the Bible on somewhat of a personal basis, if that makes any sense.

Like I say, I don't dismiss it as a whole, but I've grown to approach it with caution or just forgo it almost entirely. To simplify, I wasn't using it in my arguement.

Yes, I do have hope for religions. I hope this Islamic bullshit becomes a thing of the past. The hate that spews forth from the Christian Evangelicals needs to die, as well. And the militant atheism needs to die, as well.

Basically, hateful religious stuff needs to die. But, again, I'm just a hopeful dirty hippie that wants everyone to love each other. I prefer the classic 140 A.D. Christian approach: care for people, no matter what, even if it means death.

Originally posted by Robtard
So in your opinion it should be legal for businesses to have something like "No dogs or Blacks allowed"?

Race is not a theological issue. Christians refuse to cater to homosexual unions which is a sin according to the Bible. Islam is anti-gay as well and it would never make news if a Muslim business refused to cater to a gay wedding, since not offending Muslims seems to trump gay rights.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Race is not a theological issue. Christians refuse to cater to homosexual unions which is a sin according to the Bible. Islam is anti-gay as well and it would never make news if a Muslim business refused to cater to a gay wedding, since not offending Muslims seems to trump gay rights.

In the UK not offending Muslims doesn't just trump gays rights, it trumps the rights of tens of hundreds of girls who are raped every year.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Race is not a theological issue. Christians refuse to cater to homosexual unions which is a sin according to the Bible. Islam is anti-gay as well and it would never make news if a Muslim business refused to cater to a gay wedding, since not offending Muslims seems to trump gay rights.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Who gives a shit if it's a theological issue? That should be irrelevant to determining what is or isn't legal in the public (notice the distinction) and economic sphere.

Who gives a shit about a theological issue? Hypocritical liberals who say nothing about Sharia law in several cases but throw Christianity under the bus. As I mentioned before, a Muslim bakery in the U.S. would not get heat for refusing to serve gay weddings, but a Christian bakery will.

The entire issue is dumb anyway. Most restaurants and bakeries will not refuse service. Why waste time bitching about places that will? The gay community is just stirring the pot.

Honestly it's not gay couples crying in the streets, it's professional cry babies.

Rick Santorum brought up an artful aspect of the law, it would allow businesses to refuse service to hate groups. The aspect of rejection on the basis of moral objections only allows you the ability to appeal a discrimination charge.

What about "wedding" cakes from Muslim bakers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

Thought this could go here. Make of it what you will
http://christiannews.net/2015/04/25/judge-seeks-135000-fine-against-christian-bakers-for-declining-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding/

$135,000 is way too high. I agree with a fine, but that's ridiculous.

I mean, they're a small business, that will ruin them. $5,000 or $10,000 would prove the point without putting them out of business.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Race is not a theological issue. Christians refuse to cater to homosexual unions which is a sin according to the Bible.

Islam is anti-gay as well and it would never make news if a Muslim business refused to cater to a gay wedding, since not offending Muslims seems to trump gay rights.

My comment was to his general comment of "right to refuse to anyone, no matter what". But race could be a theological issue. eg, would only take someone interpreting the Bible as 'Black people = descendants of Cain' and then refusing to serve black people because of their protected religious beliefs. Not that theology should be grounds for discrimination in this first place, regardless of what your religious ideas are.

Probably not. Though I'd suspect it has a lot to do with with there being about 2.6 million Muslims in America compared to about 256 million Christians in America and not just the "you can never offend Muslims!" mentality.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Thought this could go here. Make of it what you will
http://christiannews.net/2015/04/25/judge-seeks-135000-fine-against-christian-bakers-for-declining-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding/

This is ridiculous.

Can I go to a known feminist baker now and have them make boobs and vagina cakes en masse and "feminists are stupid" cupcakes and sue her for $135,000 if she refuses to make them?