quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

They may but this has been Federal law for over 20 years, and they just now got upset because a medium sized state passes the same thing?

If you look at the messages I was responding to, you'll see I was actually talking--well, typing--about leftists who support same-sex marriage in general, not specifically about Indiana.

That said, you mention timing, which I've been wondering about. Given that, as you noted, the federal law is two decades old, what spurred Indiana to decide now that it needs this legislation? Is there a new threat that Hoosiers didn't face 20 years ago?

They apparently felt that the gay rights people were pushing. As you know this has the same relation to state law that the Federal law has to Federal laws in general. As you also know it takes quite a while to build to passing a law and outrage appears overnight. Look how long it took for the first state to recognize gay marriage. While it is reasonable to ask why now about the passage it is even more relevant to ask why no outrage the first 20 times this same law was passed by the Feds and various states. And why boycott one state with this law and not the other 19? The last question is easier to answer, if you boycott 20 states then it make it clear that it is politics, if you only boycott one you can pretend that it is something new and outrageous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

They may but this has been Federal law for over 20 years, and they just now got upset because a medium sized state passes the same thing?

If you look at the messages I was responding to, you'll see I was actually talking--well, typing--about leftists who support same-sex marriage in general, not specifically about Indiana.

That said, you mention timing, which I've been wondering about. Given that, as you noted, the federal law is two decades old, what spurred Indiana to decide now that it needs this legislation? Is there a new threat that Hoosiers didn't face 20 years ago?

They apparently felt that the gay rights people were pushing. As you know this has the same relation to state law that the Federal law has to Federal laws in general. As you also know it takes quite a while to build to passing a law and outrage appears overnight. Look how long it took for the first state to recognize gay marriage. While it is reasonable to ask why now about the passage it is even more relevant to ask why no outrage the first 20 times this same law was passed by the Feds and various states. And why boycott one state with this law and not the other 19? The last question is easier to answer, if you boycott 20 states then it make it clear that it is politics, if you only boycott one you can pretend that it is something new and outrageous.

I would recommend that you actually read any of the Religious Freedom Acts between 1993 and 1999, then compare those with the language of the Illinois law.

It is specifically those differences, without any protections for GLBT individuals under state law, that explicitly allows for discrimination against them in Illinois.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.
I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.
It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"
Michael

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
How is he asked to "support".
He runs a business,he should stick to that rather than judging his customers

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
I think the concern that people have is that the refusal to print something, be it rape porn or anything else for that matter, is based on discrimination against the person making the request, not the request itself.
It is ok for a printing house to refuse to print rape porn if they refuse to print it for everybody. It isn't ok if they refuse to print it for a black person, a transgendered person, a gay person, a man, an atheist, a catholic or a jew.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.
I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.
It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"
Michael

Not a good comparison, Michael. You walk into a kosher deli and order something that's not offered isn't the same as ordering a cake (that is "on the menu"). They both sorta do violate the moral compass of the business owner, but not in the same way. For a kosher deli to serve ham is anathema, while it's not anathema to sell kosher foods to a non-Jew. Preparing a cake isn't anathema, but it can be if it's in celebration of something that crosses the moral compass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

someone on the five pointed that out today...eric bolling maybe. he also said NY governor Cuomo has forbidden all non-essential state governmental travel to Indiana---but then is himself going to cuba soon. figure that one out...

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Now I disagree that they are using it to attack Chrisianity but I do think they are using it to attack the right and try to win over more voters.

Another possibility is that they genuinely believe in the right of LGBT folk to get married.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Would you force a gay florist to set up an arraignment at Westboro church?

I really hadn't thought about sending flowers to Westboro Baptist. But Gay isn't a recognized religion. I'm sure that if the occasion called for it, a gay florist would put together something respectable and have it delivered without a fuss.

quote:

quote:

How about demanding that the Kosher deli cater ham and pork chops?

I may as well go to Taco Bell and order a Big Mac. It's not on the menu. Regardless of anyone's religion, you can't go into a business and demand outrageous things. I mean, you can, you just look stupid when you do.
But we're talking about businesses actually doing nothing different than they've ever done. The products and services aren't being changed in any way. Only the paying customers.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

If you look at the messages I was responding to, you'll see I was actually talking--well, typing--about leftists who support same-sex marriage in general, not specifically about Indiana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.
I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.
It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"
Michael

Not a good comparison, Michael. You walk into a kosher deli and order something that's not offered isn't the same as ordering a cake (that is "on the menu"). They both sorta do violate the moral compass of the business owner, but not in the same way. For a kosher deli to serve ham is anathema, while it's not anathema to sell kosher foods to a non-Jew. Preparing a cake isn't anathema, but it can be if it's in celebration of something that crosses the moral compass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I've been trying (desperately) to come up with an analogy that the opposition to this law might understand.
I realize that there's a whole lot of anti-Semites around here, lately but this would be tantamount to me, walking into a kosher deli, demanding a ham sandwich, not getting it and deciding to either bring suit or get the government involved with me, claiming that I was discriminated (ETA: Oooops! On this thread, that should be "discriminanted") against because I'm a gentile.
It allows the deli to say: "It's not that he's a gentile. It's that what he is asking would force us to violate our religious tenet(s)"
Michael

Not a good comparison, Michael. You walk into a kosher deli and order something that's not offered isn't the same as ordering a cake (that is "on the menu"). They both sorta do violate the moral compass of the business owner, but not in the same way. For a kosher deli to serve ham is anathema, while it's not anathema to sell kosher foods to a non-Jew. Preparing a cake isn't anathema, but it can be if it's in celebration of something that crosses the moral compass.

Thank You....I think I made the same case two pages ago.
Awful frustrating to see multiple posts working off this flawed analogy....lol

In addition a wedding cake s a wedding cake...it never actually morphs into a "gay wedding cake "

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Would you force a gay florist to set up an arraignment at Westboro church?

I really hadn't thought about sending flowers to Westboro Baptist. But Gay isn't a recognized religion. I'm sure that if the occasion called for it, a gay florist would put together something respectable and have it delivered without a fuss.

Bullshit. I would expect the gay florist to enjoy the sweet irony of providing floral arrangements for WBC (We Be Chuckleheads) when WBC (Woefully Bigoted Cretins) is so adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Hell, I'd order the floral arrangement from a gay florist, so I, too, could enjoy that irony! But, I am a bit of a prick...

quote:

quote:

quote:

How about demanding that the Kosher deli cater ham and pork chops?

I may as well go to Taco Bell and order a Big Mac. It's not on the menu. Regardless of anyone's religion, you can't go into a business and demand outrageous things. I mean, you can, you just look stupid when you do.
But we're talking about businesses actually doing nothing different than they've ever done. The products and services aren't being changed in any way. Only the paying customers.

Not true. They are participating in the wedding celebration. The bakery will be known.

Would it be okay if any money you decide to donate to a non-profit was directed (by government) to a non-profit that supports therapy to "cure" gays?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Illinois has since passed antidiscrimination for GLBT on the state level.

I don't know why you feel the need to engage in the sexist practice of prioritizing maleness by changing LGBT to GLBT, or why you feel the need to leave out the Q in LGBTQ, but your code-worded hate is offensive and discriminatory. In this day and age, even LGBTQ has become a code-word for those seeking to limit diversity and insult oppressed minorities, and I would appreciate it if you would stop your hateful and offensive attempts to dismiss, deny, and disenfranchise significant segments of the LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM community. Please check your privilege and be mindful of others. For literary convenience, "LGBTQXYZ" is acceptable.

Just sayin'

K.