http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/gen-con-indiana-religious-freedom-bill_n_6936698.html
Organizers of Gen Con, said to be the largest gaming convention in the U.S., have threatened to take their event -- and potentially millions of dollars -- out of Indiana if Governor Mike Pence (R) signs a controversial religious freedom bill into law.
Supporters of the bill say that the legislation will protect people and business owners with strong religious beliefs from government interference. Opponents contend that the law could sanction discrimination, particularly against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
I can see where a giant international event could be complicated if, say, a guy wearing a Star of David pendant gets refused service at a gas station along the way, the "Arab-looking" guy can't eat at a diner, the gay couple can't get a hotel room, and the kid in a jokey Atheist t-shirt can't rent a car. Even if 99% of businesses are fair-minded, it only takes one to really disrupt things.
This bill seems like a mean-spirited, backwards clusterfuck.
oh if they dont go to Indiana im sure perth western Australia would be happy to have them
Good for them. This is such a backwards law. What happens when the Aryan church tests this law?
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;821950This bill seems like a mean-spirited, backwards clusterfuck.
I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
May I suggest Denver as their new home?
Quote from: Brad;821958I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
The country has been down that road before, we don't need to go there again. I think we can have capitalism without the discrimination. I certainly have no desire to go to parts of the country that choose to resurrect these sorts of practices.
Quote from: Brad;821958I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
Will somebody please think of the bigots?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;821960The country has been down that road before, we don't need to go there again. I think we can have capitalism without the discrimination. I certainly have no desire to go to parts of the country that choose to resurrect these sorts of practices.
And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
Quote from: Piestrio;821959May I suggest Denver as their new home?
As you may already know, a similar legislative proposal was recently killed in committee (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/03/09/religious-freedom-gay-rights-debated-at-colorado-capitol/) here.
Quote from: Rincewind1;821966Will somebody please think of the bigots?
I'm averse to regulating business, for whatever reason. Sorry if my economic stance seems bigoted to you.
Indiana resident here. Atheist, too, if it ends up mattering.
I'm beside myself with anger about this booger-eating inanity of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" being on the verge of being signed into law by our governor, some guy I didn't vote for named Mike Pence, who has stated that he's all but chomping at the bit to sign the damn thing. I really don't see the guy backing down on it; ain't nothin' gonna stop this crazy train.
Needless to say, I'm opposed to it. Oh, supporters of the act say it's no different from its federal equivalent, and don't you support religious freedom? Because it's all about religious freedom, after all. But, no, I don't buy that bullshit, and no, I don't support anyone's freedom to treat anyone else like a second-class citizen -- least of all when it's because of fairies or whatever.
With that said -- I'm looking forward to seeing this stumbling, booger-eating miscarriage of a law go into effect.
Why? Well...lemme put it this way: it' easier to punch something in the face when it's sticking its head out for you to see.
I wanna see this law in action. I wanna see someone use it; I wanna see someone make a stink out of it. I wanna see it become a national dialogue, and I wanna see America turn its head towards Indiana and behold this lumbering, oafish backwash of a law, like some kind of ideological Baby Huey that sniffs its own farts, and I wanna see America make a laughing stock out of our governor, our legislature, the notion that "religious freedom" is a smokescreen for "institutionalized discrimination", and of the Hoosiers who elected the representatives who voted for it and allowed it to happen.
I want to see it mocked, mercilessly, until such ideologies become so shameful that people reject them.
You can't take away the money and the support that these ideas have...but you can take away their dignity and their respectability, and in so doing, you drive them back into the holes where they belong.
Quote from: Brad;821970And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
The law should protect people from discrimination. We've heard these arguments before. We don't need to go back to letting businesses discriminate against people.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;821950http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/gen-con-indiana-religious-freedom-bill_n_6936698.html
Organizers of Gen Con, said to be the largest gaming convention in the U.S., have threatened to take their event -- and potentially millions of dollars -- out of Indiana if Governor Mike Pence (R) signs a controversial religious freedom bill into law.
Supporters of the bill say that the legislation will protect people and business owners with strong religious beliefs from government interference. Opponents contend that the law could sanction discrimination, particularly against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
I can see where a giant international event could be complicated if, say, a guy wearing a Star of David pendant gets refused service at a gas station along the way, the "Arab-looking" guy can't eat at a diner, the gay couple can't get a hotel room, and the kid in a jokey Atheist t-shirt can't rent a car. Even if 99% of businesses are fair-minded, it only takes one to really disrupt things.
This bill seems like a mean-spirited, backwards clusterfuck.
I'm glad you used other examples other than just gay. I mentioned this the other day in another conversation. They pretty much admit (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mat-staver-unable-explain-how-anti-gay-discrimination-different-other-forms-discrimination)that there's no difference between their discrimination of gays and pretty much anyone else, meaning this bill also allows discrimination against ANYONE as long as you use religion as an excuse.
This is a horrible bill no matter how you look at it, because it quite literally brings back things like this, so I can't see how anyone could possibly support it without coming off like a bigot:
(http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/image015.jpg)
(http://members.efn.org/~spencerj/Land%20Use%20Old/%5Bsub%5Durban%20history/10sign.jpg)
Take it to Tangency!
It's certainly not a thread about RPGs, in any case. At best, this is Pundit-forum territory.
Quote from: danbuter;821980Take it to Tangency!
It's certainly not a thread about RPGs, in any case. At best, this is Pundit-forum territory.
Gencon not about RPGs? Who knew...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821981Gencon not about RPGs? Who knew...
Yay! Sacrosanct is being intentially stupid in a lame attempt at a straw man. Who would have expected it?
I'm as gay as it gets, and I'm really having trouble seeing what's wrong with this law as written. So . . . the government is actually going to respect people's Freedom of Association(at least in certain circumstances), and now pretty much says that people don't magically lose this right when they run a business? Wow, evil, yeah. Of course, I'm fairly libertarian, so I rank Right to Free Association much higher than Right to Get My Wedding Cake from This Specific Establishment.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821979I'm glad you used other examples other than just gay. I mentioned this the other day in another conversation. They pretty much admit (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mat-staver-unable-explain-how-anti-gay-discrimination-different-other-forms-discrimination)that there's no difference between their discrimination of gays and pretty much anyone else, meaning this bill also allows discrimination against ANYONE as long as you use religion as an excuse.
This is a horrible bill no matter how you look at it, because it quite literally brings back things like this, so I can't see how anyone could possibly support it without coming off like a bigot:
(http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/image015.jpg)
(http://members.efn.org/~spencerj/Land%20Use%20Old/%5Bsub%5Durban%20history/10sign.jpg)
Exactly.
I figure that once people actually realize this, it'll die a nasty death when the NCAA says "no more" to Final Fours in Indy or the NFL says they're moving the combine to another locale. Gen Con can be waved off by these idiots as "a bunch of weirdos who don't represent us", but once the NFL says "no Super Bowl for you!" they will flip out.
Quote from: danbuter;821983Yay! Sacrosanct is being intentially stupid in a lame attempt at a straw man. Who would have expected it?
How about instead of being an ass, you actually explain how what I said is a strawman. This thread is about
GENCON possibly pulling out of Indiana. Seeing as how no one has been bringing up these bills before (and they have been coming up pretty often recently), it tells me that the relevant part of this topic is GENCON.
And last time I checked, GENCON has something to do with RPGs.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;821984I'm as gay as it gets, and I'm really having trouble seeing what's wrong with this law as written. So . . . the government is actually going to respect people's Freedom of Association(at least in certain circumstances), and now pretty much says that people don't magically lose this right when they run a business? Wow, evil, yeah. Of course, I'm fairly libertarian, so I rank Right to Free Association much higher than Right to Get My Wedding Cake from This Specific Establishment.
I'll put it this way. According to how the bill is written, Hobby Lobby, or Dell, or Mars (the company who owns all the candy bars) can legally:
* only provide service to white Christian men
* only hire and promote white Christian men
* fire at will, with no reason, anyone is not a white Christian man.
**replace "white christian man" with "brown Arab Muslim" or anything else if you want.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821986How about instead of being an ass, you actually explain how what I said is a strawman. This thread is about GENCON possibly pulling out of Indiana. Seeing as how no one has been bringing up these bills before (and they have been coming up pretty often recently), it tells me that the relevant part of this topic is GENCON.
And last time I checked, GENCON has something to do with RPGs.
It's about a convention, that is apparently more interested in politics than rpg's. It's not about actual rpgs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821987I'll put it this way. According to how the bill is written, Hobby Lobby, or Dell, or Mars (the company who owns all the candy bars) can legally:
* only provide service to white Christian men
* only hire and promote white Christian men
* fire at will, with no reason, anyone is not a white Christian man.
**replace "white christian man" with "brown Arab Muslim" or anything else if you want.
Or, for those whom "freedom of religion" = "freedom for various sects of Christianity", it can be used to keep all of those nasty heretical Catholics out of your Baptist store.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821987I'll put it this way. According to how the bill is written, Hobby Lobby, or Dell, or Mars (the company who owns all the candy bars) can legally:
* only provide service to white Christian men
* only hire and promote white Christian men
* fire at will, with no reason, anyone is not a white Christian man.
**replace "white christian man" with "brown Arab Muslim" or anything else if you want.
Yeah, I have serious doubt the law actually allows for such a thing. That sounds like grade-A conspiracy theory BS to me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;821977The law should protect people from discrimination. We've heard these arguments before. We don't need to go back to letting businesses discriminate against people.
Discrimination for publicly funded stuff, sure. For privately held interests? Fuck no. The government has no right to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;821991Yeah, I have serious doubt the law actually allows for such a thing. That sounds like grade-A conspiracy theory BS to me.
Look at my link above. They've already admitted it. By the letter of the law, a business can do just that.
There's two issues here.
1. Freedom of Association, as it applies to private business.
2. Freedom of Religion, seen by the US as a basic human right, expanded to include Corporations having Freedom of Religion.
The SCOTUS decision is one of those that looks small on paper, since currently not all corporations and identities have to provide for contraceptive insurance to their female employees, this simply adds one more exception.
Of course the larger concept is does this decision open the door to large multinational public corporations adopting a religion and then become able to circumvent existing law on religious grounds?
In any case, I think GenCon should move. They threatened, they have to follow through. Preferably to a city that has been "topless tested (http://gotopless.org/topless-laws)", like Columbus, OH.
Quote from: Brad;821992Discrimination for publicly funded stuff, sure. For privately held interests? Fuck no. The government has no right to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
The law is about who can get services. They're not telling anyone how they can spend their money. They're trying to tell businesses that it's OK to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of religious beliefs.
Quote from: Brad;821992Discrimination for publicly funded stuff, sure. For privately held interests? Fuck no. The government has no right to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
That is the argument Woolworth's used so it didn't have to serve black people and then to segregate. Do we really want to embrace a philosophy that says businesses should be able to do anything they want, even if that means segregated lunch counters or outright denial of service to people for not being the right color, religion or sexual orientation?
I guess I just don't see the value of enabling businesses to deny people services based on who they are. If you want to exclude people from your circle of friends, that is one thing. But businesses offer goods and services and they shouldn't be able to deny folks those things because of who they happen to be. I am all for the free market and for government not intruding in peoples private business, but I don't think society gains anything when it permits businesses to discriminate.
Quote from: danbuter;821989It's about a convention, that is apparently more interested in politics than rpg's. It's not about actual rpgs.
I think people just needed to become familiar with the bill first to know why the convention might move. We haven't gotten to talking about the actual convention yet. It could be an interesting event for the measure of political and financial power of roleplaying gamers.
For instance, if it moves, where would it go? What would happen to Indiana if it moves out of the state? Do a bunch of nerds have enough clout to stop a bill going through based on the local income of their convention? (I don't know, I'm not American. Is this a big deal?)
//Panjumanju
Gencon are being way too nice about it, in my opinion:
http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf (http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf)
My letter would read something to the effect of: "Hey Bigotted scumsucker, you want to resurrect segregation laws in your state under the guise of "religious freedom" because apparently people there practice some religion that has nothing to do with Christian values and is instead about hatemongering? What, did you wake up one morning and forget what century it was? Or are you ust trying to earn points with your local Klan chapter? Well, in the words of the immortal Doug: "We're outta heeeeeeeeeere....". Signed, Gen Con motherfucker
Quote from: danbuter;821989It's about a convention, that is apparently more interested in politics than rpg's. It's not about actual rpgs.
It's about a convention that is more interested in gamers than things.
Quote from: Evansheer;822005It's about a convention that is more interested in gamers than things.
This.
Quote from: danbuter;821989It's about a convention, that is apparently more interested in politics than rpg's. It's not about actual rpgs.
I'm not a big fan of politics and RPGs intersecting but this is a pretty extreme case I think. They have to consider the desires of people who will be attending. Not being from a state that passes this kind of legislation, I really don't want to spend any time in one that does. I am sure a lot of people feel the same. I just take it as an assumption that if the people elected representatives who vote to discriminate against gays and lesbians, that there is probably more widespread bigotry as well. If they feel this way about gay people, I am assuming they may also be hostile to Jews or even to interracial couples. Having lived in a bigoted pocket of the country before, I simply have no desire to attend a convention in a place like that. This isn't like a political disagreement over what the tax code should be or how to handle the the threat of terrorism, it is about whether businesses are now able to use religious belief as a basis for discrimination. So it is the kind of political issue that you just can't avoid if your at all interested in attending Gen Con this year.
Hey, we've got no such thing going on here in the sunshine state that I'm aware of, tons of beaches, plenty of warm weather, other stuff for people to do (theme parks, glorious theme parks! Seriously, International Drive, where the Convention Center is located, looks like the cover of a Maxis game from the air and that's not even to consider Disney World which is like 20 miles away), more hotel rooms than just about anyplace else...
I'm just sayin' they could do a loooot worse than to have GenCon here in Central Floridaaaaa...
:cheerleader:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;821999That is the argument Woolworth's used so it didn't have to serve black people and then to segregate. Do we really want to embrace a philosophy that says businesses should be able to do anything they want, even if that means segregated lunch counters or outright denial of service to people for not being the right color, religion or sexual orientation?
I guess I just don't see the value of enabling businesses to deny people services based on who they are. If you want to exclude people from your circle of friends, that is one thing. But businesses offer goods and services and they shouldn't be able to deny folks those things because of who they happen to be. I am all for the free market and for government not intruding in peoples private business, but I don't think society gains anything when it permits businesses to discriminate.
One of the downsides to a truly free society is that, yes, sometimes people are discriminated against. As long as it's not the government doing the discrimination, you have to put up with it. Once you start regulating business, it turns into a clusterfuck of laws and all sorts of other dumbass crap...which the US market has definitely become.
As far as "gaining" something when businesses are free to discriminate goes, I really don't care about "society", I care about personal liberty. If we expect individuals to act morally, ethically, and reasonably, this whole "society" thing will follow suit.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;822020Hey, we've got no such thing going on here in the sunshine state that I'm aware of, tons of beaches, plenty of warm weather, other stuff for people to do (theme parks, glorious theme parks! Seriously, International Drive, where the Convention Center is located, looks like the cover of a Maxis game from the air and that's not even to consider Disney World which is like 20 miles away), more hotel rooms than just about anyplace else...
I'm just sayin' they could do a loooot worse than to have GenCon here in Central Floridaaaaa...
:cheerleader:
My personal preference would be Columbus, since I know Cincinnati doesn't have the same convention space as Indy does (that extra space where the RCA Dome used to be doubled the size of the Indy convention center).
I could deal with Cleveland or Detroit, but I don't know their convention space situation.
Of course, Columbus has Origins, and I can't see the Origins people taking too kindly to Gen Con moving into the same area.
Quote from: Brad;822023One of the downsides to a truly free society is that, yes, sometimes people are discriminated against. As long as it's not the government doing the discrimination, you have to put up with it. Once you start regulating business, it turns into a clusterfuck of laws and all sorts of other dumbass crap...which the US market has definitely become.
As far as "gaining" something when businesses are free to discriminate goes, I really don't care about "society", I care about personal liberty. If we expect individuals to act morally, ethically, and reasonably, this whole "society" thing will follow suit.
Personal liberty is fine. I am all for it. But not at all enthused for businesses having the right to discriminate. Businesses are not people. I really don't want to go back to a time when you have businesses that can refuse service based on someone's skin color or whatever. We can have a free society but also not allow for things that deny people services because of who they are. That isn't really a threat to anyone's freedom, beyond some vague academic notion of liberty.
Quote from: Brad;821958I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
Quote from: Brad;821972I'm averse to regulating business, for whatever reason. Sorry if my economic stance seems bigoted to you.
Which makes your prior statement that limiting i.e. regulating business is the heart of capitalism either idiotic or a rather ironic and amusing typo.
Quote from: Bren;822028Which makes your prior statement that limiting i.e. regulating business is the heart of capitalism either idiotic or a rather ironic and amusing typo.
Typo! NOT limiting, of course.
Also, I am stupid and got dragged into another non-gaming thread on a message board devoted to gaming. Done.
If they move, it won't be too far from Indiana. The entire point is to be in driving distance of all of the U.S. except the west coast (hence their prior failed experiment with a West Coast Gen Con). So probably any of Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, or Michigan.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822026Personal liberty is fine. I am all for it. But not at all enthused for businesses having the right to discriminate. Businesses are not people. I really don't want to go back to a time when you have businesses that can refuse service based on someone's skin color or whatever. We can have a free society but also not allow for things that deny people services because of who they are. That isn't really a threat to anyone's freedom, beyond some vague academic notion of liberty.
I think GenCon is obviously fine moving to another state - I expect that at most they'd move to a neighboring state. They are sufficiently big that I expect many cities would welcome them and make the transition as easy as possible.
As for principles,
1) I disagree with the interpretation of "freedom of religion" meaning that you can get to do certain things only if you have genuine religious motivation. If I'm allowed to discriminate against Jews, it should be allowed regardless of whether it is part of my religion or just because I hate big noses. Having religious motivation shouldn't give me rights that I otherwise lack.
2) Businesses are made up of people - just like any other associations or groups. Still, I agree with Brendan regarding discrimination. Not all business regulation law is good, but there should be some regulation of businesses. We depend on businesses to buy food, medical care, shelter, and other necessities of life. If someone is denied these, that is an injustice that we can't allow, in my opinion.
We have plenty of historical evidence to show just what happens when you have approved discrimination. Has it ever turned out good? anyone? Help me out here, because I can't think of a single example where it was a good thing. Instead, every example I can think of was also paired with violence against the discriminated group.
It's all well and good to say "I support the discrimination unless it comes to violence.", but the reality is that the two almost always go hand in hand. I literally can't think of a society that approves of systematic discrimination against a certain group of people where members of that society also didn't engage in violence against them on some level. Sure, not ALL members engaged in violence; I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that in a society that allows and approves of discrimination, violence always exists targeted at the discriminated group. Well, I guess "almost" always, since I'm sure there has to be an exception somewhere out there. But I'm not aware of it.
Knowing that, how could one make that argument in good faith if you know one always follows the other?
Being a Devil's advocate here...
Individual businesses making choices of association is not systemic discrimination. Now if every, or most businesses are making the exact same choice of association - then it could become effectively systemic. But without a governmental law enforcing the ban on association, it's completely free choice.
I would kind of like businesses to be able to fully discriminate for any reason...as long as they were required to state such with an open public sign. Don't want to fill a prescription for the morning-after pill? Fine, then put that on a sign outside, so everyone can freely decide whether to go to your business. Don't want to serve fat, ugly, black, muslim, gay, or straight people? Fine, just tell the public up front and then let them make the decision to give you patronage...or not. The only enforced law we would need would be the one requiring the "Service Exception Notice". Most likely, you'd end up with a lot of unsuccessful businesses run by shitheads and wildly successful businesses run by people with thumbs.
Now a corporation having a religion and getting Freedom of Religion? That's just abso-fucking-lutely insane.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822045We have plenty of historical evidence to show just what happens when you have approved discrimination. Has it ever turned out good? anyone? Help me out here, because I can't think of a single example where it was a good thing. Instead, every example I can think of was also paired with violence against the discriminated group.
It's all well and good to say "I support the discrimination unless it comes to violence.", but the reality is that the two almost always go hand in hand. I literally can't think of a society that approves of systematic discrimination against a certain group of people where members of that society also didn't engage in violence against them on some level. Sure, not ALL members engaged in violence; I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that in a society that allows and approves of discrimination, violence always exists targeted at the discriminated group. Well, I guess "almost" always, since I'm sure there has to be an exception somewhere out there. But I'm not aware of it.
Knowing that, how could one make that argument in good faith if you know one always follows the other?
There are businesses who discriminated against people, and other businesses, who supported Proposition 8 in California. Mozilla even dumped their CEO over his donations to a Prop 8 group - Mozilla exercised their right to discriminate against him. Did that turn out bad?
There are businesses that discriminated against people, and other businesses, who supported South Africa during Apartheid. Did that turn out bad?
Quote from: Mistwell;822055There are businesses who discriminated against people, and other businesses, who supported Proposition 8 in California. Mozilla even dumped their CEO over his donations to a Prop 8 group - Mozilla exercised their right to discriminate against him. Did that turn out bad?
There are businesses that discriminated against people, and other businesses, who supported South Africa during Apartheid. Did that turn out bad?
Funny. I didn't realize that a proposition was an actual person. I thought those things you mentioned were temporary causes or choices. Not something permanent like who a person is that they have no choice about that continues, well, pretty much forever.
As a lawyer, I'm surprised you fail to see the difference between the two by making this analogy.
Quote from: danbuter;821983Yay! Sacrosanct is being intentially stupid in a lame attempt at a straw man. Who would have expected it?
Drink a shot, everybody.
I thought GenCon was considering moving anyway purely for space issues (ie, getting too big for Indy).
I agree if they move they'll likely stay somewhere nearby (Ohio/Indiana/Illinois/whatever) but I'd love to make the case to get 'em out here on the east coast. Purely for selfish reasons.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822001Gencon are being way too nice about it, in my opinion:
http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf (http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf)
My letter would read something to the effect of: "Hey Bigotted scumsucker, you want to resurrect segregation laws in your state under the guise of "religious freedom" because apparently people there practice some religion that has nothing to do with Christian values and is instead about hatemongering? What, did you wake up one morning and forget what century it was? Or are you ust trying to earn points with your local Klan chapter? Well, in the words of the immortal Doug: "We're outta heeeeeeeeeere....". Signed, Gen Con motherfucker
Presumably you would have been intelligent enough to avoid signing a long-term contract tying you there until...what is it, 2020?
And Gen Con says it has no intention of breaking said contract right now.
Put up or shut up, Gen Con.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;821991Yeah, I have serious doubt the law actually allows for such a thing. That sounds like grade-A conspiracy theory BS to me.
From Sacrosanct? Drink another shot, everybody.
Quote from: jeff37923;822074From Sacrosanct? Drink another shot, everybody.
It's nice to see your reading comprehension is a horrible as always. Here, I'll post it again, just for you, because I'm a nice guy. You're welcome.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mat-staver-unable-explain-how-anti-gay-discrimination-different-other-forms-discrimination
It's essentially opening the door for any type of discrimination, as long as you use religion as a an excuse.
Now to demonstrate my predictive powers.....
Without even looking at the post, Sacrosanct just posted a link to a wacky far-left website that "proves" the evil in this legislation that nobody has apparently read. My guess for website is Daily Kos, Media Matters, Right Wing Watch, or MS-NBC.
If it is one of those, drink a shot!
This legislation must be in response to things like this happening:
Oregon bakery will have to pay lesbian couple up to $150,000 for refusing to make wedding cake (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577)
Quote from: Piestrio;821959May I suggest Denver as their new home?
Nah. Michigan is better. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;822052Being a Devil's advocate here...
Individual businesses making choices of association is not systemic discrimination. Now if every, or most businesses are making the exact same choice of association - then it could become effectively systemic. But without a governmental law enforcing the ban on association, it's completely free choice.
I would kind of like businesses to be able to fully discriminate for any reason...as long as they were required to state such with an open public sign. Don't want to fill a prescription for the morning-after pill? Fine, then put that on a sign outside, so everyone can freely decide whether to go to your business. Don't want to serve fat, ugly, black, muslim, gay, or straight people? Fine, just tell the public up front and then let them make the decision to give you patronage...or not. The only enforced law we would need would be the one requiring the "Service Exception Notice". Most likely, you'd end up with a lot of unsuccessful businesses run by shitheads and wildly successful businesses run by people with thumbs.
Now a corporation having a religion and getting Freedom of Religion? That's just abso-fucking-lutely insane.
But you could also end up with people not getting medications they need or services they need. I just don't agree with giving businesses the right to discriminate against people. I'm all for personal liberty, people being able to say or do what they want. However I don't want to have to drive to the next town for bread because the local store owner hates something random about me. Telling businesses they can't discriminate is fine by me. I just really don't see what we gain by letting businesses discriminate(particularly if we use any religious sensitivity they may have as the basis).
I was thinking about this all day at work today.
Totally leaving aside all arguments about the morality of discrimination, about the right or wrong of the issue, about personal feelings or ideology, and just looking at this bill through the lens of realpolitik and pragmatism...
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE INDIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY THINKING?
No good can come of this bill. It can only create ill will and bad feelings and hurt the state economy. What does anyone get out of this other than perhaps a few votes from the Hard Right and obsessive homophobes? It's baffling in it's scorched-earth, counter-productive, petty meanness.
It's not as black and white (no pun intended) as most people think. Being in Indiana I know a few things that started this in the first place.
The intention of the law is not the issue. It is a "protective measure for businesses that could be forced to act outside their religious beliefs".
If you only look at this law as "Christians hate (fill in people group), then we miss the rest of the argument.
If the Psychic Palm Reader down the road (five miles to be exact) was told she HAD to sell books or offer christian ideas in her business... the even I would be protesting that.
The intent should be that a business or non-profit can say they will not do business with someone. We already have a law that says we can refuse to serve anyone for any reason at any time (look in your local bar, that sign will be there).
More than that, a business or non-profit should not be forced into business with anyone they wish not to do business with.
Again, the intent is not to be a bigot or racist. BUT if a business or non-profit uses the law to be bigoted or racist, then the law is not used as it was written; then sue the pants off the offender.
Pulling Gencon out of a state because there are people who don't believe or think like you is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted. Just as a business who says "we serve only (fill in people group) is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted.
Before I forget...
Louisville, KY has the KFC YUM center, Kentucky Expo, and Large Fair Grounds...
PLUS if they want to get Indiana mad you move there.
Quote from: Brad;821972I'm averse to regulating business, for whatever reason. Sorry if my economic stance seems bigoted to you.
Quote from: Brad;821992Discrimination for publicly funded stuff, sure. For privately held interests? Fuck no. The government has no right to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
For sole proprietorships I'd agree with you but once you ask the public (government) to protect you from things like liability then it's only reasonable that the public be able to negotiate some terms.
EDIT: and of course GenCon can move anywhere they want for whatever reason they want.
Quote from: jeff37923;822079Now to demonstrate my predictive powers.....
Without even looking at the post, Sacrosanct just posted a link to a wacky far-left website that "proves" the evil in this legislation that nobody has apparently read. My guess for website is Daily Kos, Media Matters, Right Wing Watch, or MS-NBC.
If it is one of those, drink a shot!
Seeing as how you can see what the link is without actually clicking on it, you must be a bigger moron than I thought to assume anyone would fall for this gotcha post you just made.
Secondly, your post also goes to show how you like to plug your ears and pretend anything that demonstrates how you're flat out wrong doesn't exist.
How about you act like a grown up for once, and actually look at it before you start going off on your little tirade. You'd see there's an actual video there, and no shenanigans or "liberal bias" or whatever else you want to use an excuse exists or disproves what actually happened. Or alternatively, show me how the link is not accurate in what was actually said? I'll wait.
But I suppose that would be asking too much.
Look Jeff, as a military vet who grew up in a very conservative environment, there are a lot of things about conservatism I actually like. That's why people like you bug the ever living shit out of me, because you're the poster boy people like to bring up whenever they start lambasting conservatives. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that goes against your biases even when it's right there in your face, but instead act like a 6 year old who thinks he's witty while attacking others. I don't give a shit that you don't like me. Big fucking deal. But
look at the actual information for once. Because right now all you're doing is coming off like that guy who thinks dinosaurs never existed and refuses to even acknowledge the proof right there in front of you.
Quote from: Brad;822023One of the downsides to a truly free society is that, yes, sometimes people are discriminated against. As long as it's not the government doing the discrimination, you have to put up with it. Once you start regulating business, it turns into a clusterfuck of laws and all sorts of other dumbass crap...which the US market has definitely become.
As far as "gaining" something when businesses are free to discriminate goes, I really don't care about "society", I care about personal liberty. If we expect individuals to act morally, ethically, and reasonably, this whole "society" thing will follow suit.
GenCon is also a business. And according to Brad, GenCon has the right to discriminate against ass-backwards dumbfuck rednecks who don't know how to run their state in a manner conducive to good business, like say... INDIANA!
That's right. Indiana is competing with 49 other states in a
free market for GenCon's business, and if they get pissed off, GenCon has the right to take their business elsewhere... which is exactly what they're going to do after Governor Pence signs this fuckup law. (Once their contract is up, of course.)
Sounds to me like the free market is alive and well, Brad. Tough shit if you don't like GenCon's decision. By your own argument, they're doing exactly what they should do, and they're entitled to do it.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;822105GenCon is also a business. And according to Brad, GenCon has the right to discriminate against ass-backwards dumbfuck rednecks who don't know how to run their state in a manner conducive to good business, like say... INDIANA!
That's right. Indiana is competing with 49 other states in a free market for GenCon's business, and if they get pissed off, GenCon has the right to take their business elsewhere... which is exactly what they're going to do after Governor Pence signs this fuckup law. (Once their contract is up, of course.)
Sounds to me like the free market is alive and well, Brad. Tough shit if you don't like GenCon's decision. By your own argument, they're doing exactly what they should do, and they're entitled to do it.
That's more or less my take on it.
Quote from: rway218;822099If the Psychic Palm Reader down the road (five miles to be exact) was told she HAD to sell books or offer christian ideas in her business... the even I would be protesting that.
This simply isn't going to happen and I just don't see how the legislation is only designed for these sorts of cases. To me it seems tailor made to deny service to people (for example a wedding cake or seats at a table at a restaurant) because people oppose their sexual orientation.
In Massachusetts sexual orientation is protected. There are no laws here like the one passed in Indiana, yet we have a thriving pagan book store industry in Salem (and they are not forced to carry Christian content). What they can't do is refuse to sell to Christians, because you can't be discriminated against on the basis of religion either here.
As someone out of state, I see legislation like this and I wonder why on earth people felt the need to pass it and if it is the kind of state that is going to give me and my wife problems if we choose to visit. It just strikes me as the sort of bill you only see come of out a place where prejudice is alive and well. I think people in Indiana need to understand how this plays elsewhere in the country where you don't have a lot of religious conservatism.
They can pass whatever legislation they want, but I think a lot of gamers are going to look elsewhere this year if Gen Con goes forward there.
Quote from: Brad;822023One of the downsides to a truly free society is that, yes, sometimes people are discriminated against.
From
Animal Farm:
Quote from: George OrwellAll animals are equal; some animals are more equal than others.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;821974I wanna see America turn its head towards Indiana and behold this lumbering, oafish backwash of a law, like some kind of ideological Baby Huey that sniffs its own farts
That's poetry baby!!
I am looking forward to the international coverage too! The best videos will be the businesses with a bunch of hate signs out front with a long line of customers out the door.
My favorite will be when ISIS congrats Indiana via Twitter!
I am actually quite happy with the naked racism and bigotry we are seeing in the USA as it dispels melting pot delusions and kumbaya propaganda.
It's not just GenCon, either. The Disciples of Christ have also made it clear they don't approve of this bill.
When Christian churches aren't fans of your "religious freedom" bill because it's clearly just a smoke screen to let you systemically exclude the GLBT community, your bill probably isn't about religious freedom.
And, hey! It's not all bad, Indiana. Since your bill is basically just saying "businesses have the right to tell folks to take their business elsewhere," well, good job. Folks are taking their business elsewhere. Shouldn't you be happy we maybe don't need a law to tell us to do that?
Quote from: Brad;821970The law should not be regulating morality.
I think that's kind of exactly what the law is for.
This smacks of the ongoing drama in Oregon over a bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple (http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/08/lesbian_couple_refused_wedding.html). It isn't looking too good for the bakery (http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html).
Portland has the second highest % of GLBT population after San Francisco. No one is surprised at all that her bakery has had to go out of business because people refused to give her business.
As it should be. In a place like Portland, it's pretty reliable for the market to take care of the issue itself. But in places like certain areas of the south, discrimination problems don't fix themselves via free market, and thus laws must be enacted to protect people. It's not like we don't have a relatively recent history of why those laws are needed.
Quote from: Critias;822161I think that's kind of exactly what the law is for.
Indeed. Some folks are repeating the same arguments that were made against the Civil Rights Act. It's actually sort of depressing.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822165As it should be. In a place like Portland, it's pretty reliable for the market to take care of the issue itself. But in places like certain areas of the south, discrimination problems don't fix themselves via free market, and thus laws must be enacted to protect people. It's not like we don't have a relatively recent history of why those laws are needed.
It may be necessary but that doesn't mean it isn't illiberal and as liberals we should at least be less gleeful about forcing people to do things they don't want to do regardless of the merits of their reasons.
I see very little forethought among my fellow travelers when it comes to these sorts of issues. The power to compel old women to bake cakes for people is all well and good as long as we are the ones pulling the levers, its less fun when those levers are being pulled by others.
Anyway these sorts of issues seem less cut and dried to me than they once did and while I support these sorts of laws I no longer pretend that there aren't trade offs. And sometimes those trade offs leave a bad taste in my mouth.
EDIT: and also by not acknowledging there is a trade off we've allowed the right to co-opt the language of liberty which has been rather disastrous for liberals politically.
Quote from: danbuter;821983Yay! Sacrosanct is being intentially stupid in a lame attempt at a straw man. Who would have expected it?
thats ridicules gencon is in every way about rpgs
i have seen a lot of people say that the problem will fix itself the businesses that discriminate will lose popularity and go out of business. the major problem here is that any state that would vote for people who would make such a law probably has enough bigots in it for bigoted businesses to stay in business.
although i kinda wanna see Kelloggs stop selling to people that masturbate that would be hilarious.
Quote from: Thornhammer;822073Presumably you would have been intelligent enough to avoid signing a long-term contract tying you there until...what is it, 2020?
And Gen Con says it has no intention of breaking said contract right now.
Put up or shut up, Gen Con.
They could just claim that their religion prohibits them from serving people from Indiana
Quote from: Endless Flight;822083This legislation must be in response to things like this happening:
Oregon bakery will have to pay lesbian couple up to $150,000 for refusing to make wedding cake (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577)
Well, that's stupid too. But two stupids don't make a smartie.
Quote from: Brad;821970And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
If you don't have a problem with the market resolving things, then I imagine you can't have a problem with a business (Gencon) choosing to move in order to avoid situations which might adversely affect their ability to create a positive experience for their own customers (the con attendants)?
Quote from: TristramEvans;822182They could just claim that their religion prohibits them from serving people from Indiana
pretty much they would be able to easily cancel the contract by saying that they have religious problems with the new laws
While thinking about this at work, a couple of things came to mind.
A) Congratulations SJWs, you have just demonstrated that GenCon can be used as a political tool to further your own ends.
B) The current social environment surrounding GBLT rights is one more conducive to generating resentment instead of generating acceptance. Yes, the idea that you may be sued out of business over personal preference based on your religious beliefs does have a negative effect on those whose hearts and minds you should be trying to win. It can also bite you in the ass when you want to refuse business dealings with someone truly reprehensible (like the Westburo Baptist Church). Let the market decide, it is a longer game but one with a better chance of ultimate victory.
C) People need to think more and knee-jerk less about this.
Quote from: Brad;821970The law should not be regulating morality.
But that's one of the purposes of Law otherwise rape, child pornography and murder would be legal.
Quote from: artikid;822223But that's one of the purposes of Law otherwise rape, child pornography and murder would be legal.
That's not regulating morality, that's protecting the life (and safety), liberty, and property of your citizens.
Just because murder is generally viewed as immoral doesn't mean laws against murder are based on morality. That's like saying because the Old Testament had laws against murder that such laws are religious and violate the separation of church and state.
The problem with "let the markets decide" is that just doesn't work, the vast majority of unaffected will not change there spending habits if it inconveniences them personally. My Grandfather grew up in during segregation in Australia, if we relied on the market the they would still be segregating.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822185If you don't have a problem with the market resolving things, then I imagine you can't have a problem with a business (Gencon) choosing to move in order to avoid situations which might adversely affect their ability to create a positive experience for their own customers (the con attendants)?
Why would I? If they're operating in a way they feel will make them more profitable, go for it.
dgfsklgjsdklgjsdklfgj why did I post in this thread again...
Quote from: Technomancer;822227That's not regulating morality, that's protecting the life (and safety), liberty, and property of your citizens.
Just because murder is generally viewed as immoral doesn't mean laws against murder are based on morality. That's like saying because the Old Testament had laws against murder that such laws are religious and violate the separation of church and state.
Why protect someone's life, property and liberty if not out of a moral impulse?
I think it's impossible to credibly deny the moral purpose of law/state.
Beware I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing (just think of the the Nazis).
Religion probably existed before the State, but both try to regulate morality although morality exists before both in the individual.
To all magic market believers:
Guys, remember when it took market 45 years to decide communism wasn't working, and it still took Ronnie Reagan simply throwing billions of dollars into military spending so that USSR'd finally realise it can't keep up? And communism was pretty much screwed from day 1 of First Five Year Plan.
45 years?
The Communist Party ran the Soviet Union for 70 years. A Communist party still runs the People's Republic of China.
Quote from: Bren;82224045 years?
The Communist Party ran the Soviet Union for 70 years. A Communist party still runs the People's Republic of China.
You're right - I of course counted the beginning/end of communism based on Poland :o
To be fair, PRC turned capitalistic a while ago. As my friend joked, "they turned right while blinking the left indicator"
Quote from: jeff37923;822219While thinking about this at work, a couple of things came to mind.
A) Congratulations SJWs, you have just demonstrated that GenCon can be used as a political tool to further your own ends.
B) The current social environment surrounding GBLT rights is one more conducive to generating resentment instead of generating acceptance. Yes, the idea that you may be sued out of business over personal preference based on your religious beliefs does have a negative effect on those whose hearts and minds you should be trying to win. It can also bite you in the ass when you want to refuse business dealings with someone truly reprehensible (like the Westburo Baptist Church). Let the market decide, it is a longer game but one with a better chance of ultimate victory.
Congratulations. You are no different than the people who supported businesses from having to serve blacks in the 60s protests. You're using the exact same arguments. You are so far entrenched in your lunacy, that you honest to God believe that anyone advocating for equal rights is a social justice warrior and should be treated with contempt. After all, we're talking about
basic equal rights here, and a bill that just reeks of bigotry, and your reaction is to attack those people who are against it? This isn't some radical hijacked SJW cause like trying to make sure GenCon won't let women dress in costumes that might reveal some flesh, or trying to make GenCon boycott WoTC from attending because of Consultantgate or any other stupid banner that we typically think of when we talk about the extremist SJW agenda. This is about
basic equal rights and not discriminating against an entire swath of people. Shame on you. And no, the market won't fix this on it's own any more than it fixed racial segregation on its own.
QuoteC) People need to think more and knee-jerk less about this.
Says the guy who attacked me without even bothering to
look at the material I was sourcing.
Not only are you a horrible human being, you're also a very hypocritical one.
To all the people saying, "Let the market decide," this is the market deciding. A private entity is saying as a warning to businesses in this area, "We don't want to do business with you if you're going to bar services to people who are GLBT."
Presumably, those businesses are the ones who are going to matter to the governor. GenCon does not vote. GenCon does not make campaign donations. GenCon cannot hurt the governor or state legislature. But they can hurt local businesses, i.e., "the market deciding."
Quote from: RPGPundit;822185If you don't have a problem with the market resolving things, then I imagine you can't have a problem with a business (Gencon) choosing to move in order to avoid situations which might adversely affect their ability to create a positive experience for their own customers (the con attendants)?
Or more narrowly, think about the bad press for GENCON if a bunch of vendors on the floor started to deny sales to certain groups. Its not just the events that GENCON itself controls, but all the third parties on the floor that sell stuff that GENCON doesn't want to worry about. Some incident happens there, GENCON gets a black eye.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;822248To all the people saying, "Let the market decide," this is the market deciding. A private entity is saying as a warning to businesses in this area, "We don't want to do business with you if you're going to bar services to people who are GLBT.""
For a business like GenCon, yes. But my issue is with the bill itself, because I think we both know that the market won't always decide the way that ends up "fixing" this. There are a lot of parts of this country where according to this bill, you'll have entire regions where if you're gay (or jewish, or whatever else is on the list of "I don't want to deal with you because of my religion), you won't be able to get gas, to get food, lodging, etc.
GenCon is a national brand. Do you really think the market will run businesses out of business in communities that are staunchly anti-gay/jewish/etc? I don't. And I think we have enough historical evidence that shows that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;821987I'll put it this way. According to how the bill is written, Hobby Lobby, or Dell, or Mars (the company who owns all the candy bars) can legally:
* only provide service to white Christian men
* only hire and promote white Christian men
* fire at will, with no reason, anyone is not a white Christian man.
**replace "white christian man" with "brown Arab Muslim" or anything else if you want.
And the non assholes can take their business elsewhere and watch as said discriminating business falls on it's face.
As for the thing in Oregon...is there only one bakery in the state? Could you not have just have, I don't know, encouraged people to go out of state for their baked goods needs? Since Oregon has only the one bakery and all.
But I bet 150 thousand is very absorbent.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822251And the non assholes can take their business elsewhere and watch as said discriminating business falls on it's face.
Because businesses that refused service to blacks in the Civil Rights era fell flat on their face on their own.
Wait...
QuoteAs for the thing in Oregon...is there only one bakery in the state? Could you not have just have, I don't know, encouraged people to go out of state for their baked goods needs? Since Oregon has only the one bakery and all.
But I bet 150 thousand is very absorbent.
So someone should have to drive an extra hour than everyone else just to get a service? The issue here is that if you provide a
public service, you are not allowed to discriminate based on the typical reasons: gender, orientation, race, religion. If you want to discriminate, than very simply don't provide a
public service the general
public.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822252Because businesses that refused service to blacks in the Civil Rights era fell flat on their face on their own.
Wait...
So someone should have to drive an extra hour than everyone else just to get a service? The issue here is that if you provide a public service, you are not allowed to discriminate based on the typical reasons: gender, orientation, race, religion. If you want to discriminate, than very simply don't provide a public service the general public.
And I'm taking a shot.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822253And I'm taking a shot.
If that helps you from actually addressing the points, then sure. Go ahead.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822251And the non assholes can take their business elsewhere and watch as said discriminating business falls on it's face.
As for the thing in Oregon...is there only one bakery in the state? Could you not have just have, I don't know, encouraged people to go out of state for their baked goods needs? Since Oregon has only the one bakery and all.
But I bet 150 thousand is very absorbent.
Except that there are plenty of parts of the country where such a business can not only survive, but thrive. Why do you think that Segregation lasted so long; that hate groups were forcing it on the rest of the populace? No, because the general populace of the South was perfectly happy with Segregation, and there was little reason for them to want to change. And there was no real market pressure for them to change, either, because the markets were composed of segregationists.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822250For a business like GenCon, yes. But my issue is with the bill itself, because I think we both know that the market won't always decide the way that ends up "fixing" this. There are a lot of parts of this country where according to this bill, you'll have entire regions where if you're gay (or jewish, or whatever else is on the list of "I don't want to deal with you because of my religion), you won't be able to get gas, to get food, lodging, etc.
GenCon is a national brand. Do you really think the market will run businesses out of business in communities that are staunchly anti-gay/jewish/etc? I don't. And I think we have enough historical evidence that shows that.
Well, that's if I think the bill is even constitutional, which it's not. Fundamentally -- Ha! -- this is a settled issue and these bills are basically show ponies meant to cater to local bases and unless something drastic happens at the Supreme Court, they're going to die under challenge.
But from a strictly philosophical point of view, "Let the market take care of things" is a bad answer just because no economist thinks the market can take care of everything. Adam Smith saw the market's enormous flaws, for instance, and his book is the one everybody quotes in times like this. And I notice that when the market
does take steps to take of some portion of this, people get up in arms because they don't understand what's really at work. That's the idea I was responding to. FWIW, I think I agree with you on this being an issue where the market breaks down.
Quote from: Lynn;822249Or more narrowly, think about the bad press for GENCON if a bunch of vendors on the floor started to deny sales to certain groups. Its not just the events that GENCON itself controls, but all the third parties on the floor that sell stuff that GENCON doesn't want to worry about. Some incident happens there, GENCON gets a black eye.
Indiana did not have an anti-discrimination law regarding provision of services even before this statute in question, nor did Indianapolis county. If individual customers needed to worry, they'd have been in trouble a long time ago.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;822256Except that there are plenty of parts of the country where such a business can not only survive, but thrive. Why do you think that Segregation lasted so long; that hate groups were forcing it on the rest of the populace?
They actually did have to force it. That's part of the reason the Jim Crow laws existed to start with, and why many victims of the KKK were white : there was enough economic benefit to non-discrimination that even fairly racist folk would not keep the social norm going.
This might not end up being the same for LGBT folk -- the numbers are different especially for transfolk, the economy of the Internet Age is drastically different, there's differences of visibility, and the individual costs look different -- but the historic rule puts arbitrary discrimination along with cartels in "things that break without laws".
Quote from: Future Villain Band;822257Well, that's if I think the bill is even constitutional, which it's not.
The statute is a bog-standard RFRA-like. It's /possible/ that it'd be overturned, but this isn't obvious even from
Romer v. Evans.
That said, the impact is drastically less than nearly everyone is reporting : Indiana had no previous anti-discrimination law regarding provision of services, most Indiana counties and cities did not have anti-discrimination law related to private employment, and most businesses and especially large businesses can't bring RFRA-like challenges without being laughed out of court.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822108This simply isn't going to happen and I just don't see how the legislation is only designed for these sorts of cases. To me it seems tailor made to deny service to people (for example a wedding cake or seats at a table at a restaurant) because people oppose their sexual orientation.
The text of the proposed statute is available here (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197). It is not long, or particularly complicated: I strongly recommend reading it. It does not revolve around sexual orientation, or even around a business actions, nor is it narrowly tailored to any serious extent. Laws nearly identical to it have protected the pagan individuals performing ritual animal sacrifice, and indeed the entire class of RFRA-likes evolved in response to lawsuits where the First Amendment's protection of religious activity did not protect Native Americans using peyote.
Quote from: gattsuru;822264Indiana did not have an anti-discrimination law regarding provision of services even before this statute in question, nor did Indianapolis county. If individual customers needed to worry, they'd have been in trouble a long time ago.
I think you are missing the point here. GEN CON as an organization doesn't want to take heat if something did happen.
Since this has become a hot issue now (unlike in previous years, as you've said), can't you see someone intentionally provoking some vendors on the floor, looking for a confrontation so they can blog about it?
Quote from: Lynn;822270GEN CON as an organization doesn't want to take heat if something did happen.
They're not going to be able to move locations before July of this year, and I'd honestly be surprised if they can break their contract before 2020 without going bankrupt. This isn't about avoiding heat if something happens.
QuoteSince this has become a hot issue now (unlike in previous years, as you've said), can't you see someone intentionally provoking some vendors on the floor, looking for a confrontation so they can blog about it?
If it's already turned into a hot-button issue, this'd remain a risk no matter whether the statute were signed or what GenCon says publicly.
At a deeper level, the proposed statute doesn't impact interactions between GenCon and its floor vendors; with how their contracts are specified, GenCon's perfectly free to kick out vendors for any reason or no reason at all.
Quote from: gattsuru;822264Indiana did not have an anti-discrimination law regarding provision of services even before this statute in question, nor did Indianapolis county.
That makes me curious why the voters in Indiana thought there was a pressing need to enact new legislation to protect businesses from nonexistent anti-discrimination laws.
QuoteThey actually did have to force it. That's part of the reason the Jim Crow laws existed to start with, and why many victims of the KKK were white : there was enough economic benefit to non-discrimination that even fairly racist folk would not keep the social norm going.
This might not end up being the same for LGBT folk -- the numbers are different especially for transfolk, the economy of the Internet Age is drastically different, there's differences of visibility, and the individual costs look different -- but the historic rule puts arbitrary discrimination along with cartels in "things that break without laws".
So do you see Indiana's law as another example of Jim Crow type legislation designed to maintain arbitrary discrimination?
Quote from: Bren;822280That makes me curious why the voters in Indiana thought there was a pressing need to enact new legislation to protect businesses from nonexistent anti-discrimination laws.
It /will/ impact employment discrimination laws in a few counties, although not to the extent portrayed in the media.
Largely, this (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/01/bakery-gets-discrimination-complaint-over-refusal-to-write-anti-gay-messages-on-cake/), combined with this (http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/02/in-gay-couples-wedding-cake-lawsuit-ore-bakery-loses-again.html) and specifically this (https://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/04/new-mexico-supreme-court-anti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer), combined with people worried that the first example will turn into the last one. There's a very wide expectation among the right and especially the religious right that courts and regulatory agencies will attempt to expand definitions to the widest extent possible, and then some, unless they are explicitly told otherwise.
QuoteSo do you see Indiana's law as another example of Jim Crow type legislation designed to maintain arbitrary discrimination?
If it's intended as such, it's drawn very poorly. It doesn't require employers or service providers to discriminate, unlike classical Jim Crow laws, and doesn't even allow all employers or service providers to discriminate and requires those who can to achieve some fairly expensive defenses.
Gattsuru has answered better than I could. As I said above, this is the social climate which has been created and it does breed resentment rather than acceptance.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;822256Except that there are plenty of parts of the country where such a business can not only survive, but thrive. Why do you think that Segregation lasted so long; that hate groups were forcing it on the rest of the populace? No, because the general populace of the South was perfectly happy with Segregation, and there was little reason for them to want to change. And there was no real market pressure for them to change, either, because the markets were composed of segregationists.
An argument which I would buy if the markets weren't different now than 50-60 years ago. There are too many alternatives people can use now if they find one distasteful.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;822248To all the people saying, "Let the market decide," this is the market deciding. A private entity is saying as a warning to businesses in this area, "We don't want to do business with you if you're going to bar services to people who are GLBT."
Presumably, those businesses are the ones who are going to matter to the governor. GenCon does not vote. GenCon does not make campaign donations. GenCon cannot hurt the governor or state legislature. But they can hurt local businesses, i.e., "the market deciding."
Yes, GenCon can move to wherever it feels most comfortable operating.
Now, why couldn't this have happened in the case of the bakery and the wedding photographer being sued because they would not serve same sex couples? Why did those couples not just go to another, more open-minded owners of another wedding business? The consequences of that are what small businesses are concerned about, because they cannot afford the lawsuit.
EDIT: Yes, I know. Sacrosanct is probably screaming that I am worse than Hitler wearing a KKK bedsheet for saying this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822104that guy who thinks dinosaurs never existed.
Not sure anyone thinks dinosaurs never existed. I think the bone of contention amongst the thumbless is whether or not human beings were riding around on them about the time the Pyramids were built. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;822296Yes, GenCon can move to wherever it feels most comfortable operating.
Now, why couldn't this have happened in the case of the bakery and the wedding photographer being sued because they would not serve same sex couples? Why did those couples not just go to another, more open-minded owners of another wedding business? The consequences of that are what small businesses are concerned about, because they cannot afford the lawsuit.
EDIT: Yes, I know. Sacrosanct is probably screaming that I am worse than Hitler wearing a KKK bedsheet for saying this.
While continuing to misunderstand what a public service constitutes.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822301Well continuing to misunderstand what a public service constitutes.
Drink a shot!
Quote from: jeff37923;822302Drink a shot!
I've had four and no breakfast (I work graveyard so screw off), so I'm at my limit for the time being. I'll knock back another on the weekend.
Quote from: jeff37923;822296Yes, GenCon can move to wherever it feels most comfortable operating.
Now, why couldn't this have happened in the case of the bakery and the wedding photographer being sued because they would not serve same sex couples? Why did those couples not just go to another, more open-minded owners of another wedding business? The consequences of that are what small businesses are concerned about, because they cannot afford the lawsuit.
EDIT: Yes, I know. Sacrosanct is probably screaming that I am worse than Hitler wearing a KKK bedsheet for saying this.
Not screaming at all. More like shaking my head that a person can be so short sighted and ignorant.
Putting aside the fact that you seem to be saying you agree that certain demographics of people, be they gay, blacks, Jews, whatever, should have to suffer a greater inconvenience than everyone else, let me ask you a question.
What happens when the next bakery does the same thing? or the next? Just how many businesses need to refuse service to someone before you think it's a problem? Because let me tell you, history is very much against you if you think discriminated people won't be discriminated against by more than just one business. Either you're the most ignorant person alive, or you're willfully refusing to acknowledge what was happening in the south.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822301Well continuing to misunderstand what a public service constitutes.
1. I didn't misunderstand anything. I was going by how the state of Oregon defined that business. In fact, it was the very basis of the argument used by the state against that business. Pretty much word for word.
2. I see you still didn't bother to address any of my points that showed you were wrong
3. It seems your level of willful stupidity has now reached Jeff's. Congrats on that.
You know, the both of you could stop appearing as colossal idiots if you'd bother to even look up the information provided or did even an ounce of research before posting. I don't know what else to tell you. It's literally being handed to you, and yet you both continue to spout incorrect crap.
gattsuru, your first link is about a Colorado bakery who had a customer who wanted the store to make a cake and write "God hates gays "and various other slurs on the cake. The owners declined to write slurs but offered to bake the cake and sell the customer the components so he could write his own slurs on his cake.
This article has little or nothing to do with the bakery having a religious objection to writing slurs for a fee. It seems the owners had a personal/secular objection to writing slurs for a fee. The ability for the state (license plates) or a business not to write slurs on request seems pretty well established in practice and presumably in the law.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;822303I've had four and no breakfast (I work graveyard so screw off), so I'm at my limit for the time being. I'll knock back another on the weekend.
I understand. I work from 6pm to 6:30am myself.
This thread reminds me of this (http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm):
Quote...the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators made bad puns about it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour. Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day, to waste its time in such frivolity. He said that in reading the leading newspapers of Chicago and the East, he found that the Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule by the action already taken on the bill. He thought consideration of such a proposition was not dignified or worthy of the Senate. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822098I was thinking about this all day at work today.
Totally leaving aside all arguments about the morality of discrimination, about the right or wrong of the issue, about personal feelings or ideology, and just looking at this bill through the lens of realpolitik and pragmatism...
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE INDIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY THINKING?
No good can come of this bill. It can only create ill will and bad feelings and hurt the state economy. What does anyone get out of this other than perhaps a few votes from the Hard Right and obsessive homophobes? It's baffling in it's scorched-earth, counter-productive, petty meanness.
...aaaaaaand we have a winner. That's the main outcome of this parade: when all is said and done, it paints Indiana with unfair strokes. You're right; no one really wins, here.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822304What happens when the next bakery does the same thing? or the next? Just how many businesses need to refuse service to someone before you think it's a problem? Because let me tell you, history is very much against you if you think discriminated people won't be discriminated against by more than just one business.
First they came for the vegans and I didn't speak out because I wasn't vegan. Then they came for the kosher bakeries and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Jewish. By the time they came for me, it was too late because by then all restaurants were Taco Bell.
JG
Freedom of association, which is one of the five God-given rights mentioned in the first amendment, is self-evidently a cornerstone of the founding and small-c constitution of the United States. I don't mind when foreigners or children don't respect that because they are entitled to ignorance of our core principles.
Popular ideas and ideals do not need defense. They are popular. It is unpopular ideas and ideals which require protection.
Gen Con is well within its rights to move to another state. They're not the government, and they have no duty to protect minorities like this hypothetical bigoted business owner. Neither does any government.
But what the first amendment says is that the government cannot force Joe's Islamic Bakery to sell gay porn cupcakes to a Jewish person. Can't do it. First amendment. Freedom of association. The government CAN sanction Joe's Islamic Bakery for having a written policy of never selling cupcakes to any Jewish people, because Republicans passed civil rights legislation in 1964-1968 preventing systematic discrimination against groups based on intransigent physical and cultural characteristics. Over Democrats' dead bodies, as you well know.
But if Gen Con did that, they would be making the political statement that the feelings of specific powerful identity groups trump the constitution of the United States. The derp thinkers on this thread who favor such a move because Good Feelings would applaud the petit mort of their own Liberty, and show themselves to be derp thinkers because of it.
Your brains are full of dumb. You are thinking dumb thoughts. It physically hurts me to know that you are either stupid enough to trade your liberty for fleeting comfort, or you are evil enough to pretend that you are defending minorities while attacking all minorities through the debasement of the protections a minority person now enjoys under our constitution.
Then again, the leftist has always believed some minorities are more equal than others.
I hope that when political correctness and social justice finally starts to auto-cannibalize, you all get eaten first.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822360Freedom of association, which is one of the five God-given rights mentioned in the first amendment,
No, not really. Not cut and dry anyway. For one, the phrase "freedom of association" doesn't appear anywhere in the 1st amendment. There is an annotation (Annotation 12) that talks about it, and courts do now recognize that it falls under both the 1st amendment and article 11 of the Bill of Rights. But it should be noted that it wasn't until 1958 before that distinction was made, and it certainly isn't one of the clearly "five defined God given rights mentioned...". I'm not sure how anything can be mentioned when the text doesn't even appear. It's not like the amendment is a huge lengthy piece of text. But anyway, I'm not even sure why you bring this up because it's not really relevant.
What is relevant, and what you're missing, is this:
Quote"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," (Reynolds v. United States (1878))
While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute (Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940))
So what does that mean? It means you can't use your religion as an excuse to violate any other law, which includes discrimination laws. Same reason why you can't perform human sacrifice, torture, or beastiality under the excuse of religion. Any why people who refuse to take their fatally sick kid to a doctor are charged with crimes.
QuoteBut what the first amendment says is that the government cannot force Joe's Islamic Bakery to sell gay porn cupcakes to a Jewish person. Can't do it. First amendment. Freedom of association.
No, it doesn't say that at all. I don't think you know what freedom of association means, because you keep using it in a context that makes no sense.
QuoteThe government CAN sanction Joe's Islamic Bakery for having a written policy of never selling cupcakes to any Jewish people, because Republicans passed civil rights legislation in 1964-1968 preventing systematic discrimination against groups based on intransigent physical and cultural characteristics. Over Democrats' dead bodies, as you well know.
Oh holy hell. And here it is. This says all I need to know. You're acting like republicans are the ones for civil and equal rights while the democrats are the ones against civil rights
while acting like the Southern Strategy wasn't a thing. This the card right wingers like you pull out hoping that the people you're talking to are as ignorant as you are. But most people aren't. Most people know that those democrats who were so against civil rights? They're all republicans now. So you can stop with this implication that it's the repubs who are pro-civil rights and democrats who are against civil rights based upon labels not only from 60 years ago, but labels that have literally flip flopped since then.
Edit* Here is the actual amendment, for those who care:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm just going to take a guess here, but drink a shot!
Quote from: Brad;822232Why would I? If they're operating in a way they feel will make them more profitable, go for it.
dgfsklgjsdklgjsdklfgj why did I post in this thread again...
Cool. I just wanted to check if you were the real deal or a libertarian of convenience.
well, bill got signed it.
Gen Con wussed out.
So, basically I dont respect anybody now.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822377well, bill got signed it.
Gen Con wussed out.
So, basically I dont respect anybody now.
How did GenCon wuss out? There was never any chance of them moving this year and they have a contract until 2020.
It was a nice gesture but was probably an empty threat from the get go.
By 2021 I expect no one will care about nor remember anything about this.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822377well, bill got signed it.
Gen Con wussed out.
So, basically I dont respect anybody now.
If GenCon had pulled out of Indiana over this, I would have given them kudos for having the courage of their convictions.
Well, as someone up thread suggested, we get to see all the bigots on parade!
Gen Con bound? GLBT? Bring your cameras friends. Wear a lapel camera and record every visit outside the con. Seek out the haters, and try to patronize their establishments. Make a documentary. Let the country see it in real-time. Should change some minds.
Quote from: Piestrio;822380How did GenCon wuss out? There was never any chance of them moving this year and they have a contract until 2020.
If they werent willing to break the contract, then they never should have made the statement. Hence they made a veiled threat, then wussed out.
GenCon's response letter was pretty much the epitome of modern smarm.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822385GenCon's response letter was pretty much the epitome of modern smarm.
Got a link?
Quote from: TristramEvans;822384If they werent willing to break the contract, then they never should have made the statement. Hence they made a veiled threat, then wussed out.
GenCon never said they would pull out of Indy.
They just said that the law would factor into their decision about where to host the con in the future.
Which is pretty close to being a meaningless statement and very hard to "wuss out" of.
Quote from: jeff37923;822389Got a link?
http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822391http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf
That second to last paragraph is going to stir some shit up. SJWs are going to take that and run with it.
Quote from: trechriron;822382Well, as someone up thread suggested, we get to see all the bigots on parade!
Gen Con bound? GLBT? Bring your cameras friends. Wear a lapel camera and record every visit outside the con. Seek out the haters, and try to patronize their establishments. Make a documentary. Let the country see it in real-time. Should change some minds.
No, don't seek out the haters, because that can be considered harassment. Wear recording devices? Yes. Record any harassment against GenCon participants? Sure. Just don't go hunting for trouble because that will probably end in disaster.
Quote from: Lynn;822249Or more narrowly, think about the bad press for GENCON if a bunch of vendors on the floor started to deny sales to certain groups. Its not just the events that GENCON itself controls, but all the third parties on the floor that sell stuff that GENCON doesn't want to worry about. Some incident happens there, GENCON gets a black eye.
Definitely true, but does anyone here know if the law would preclude GENCON from kicking out said vendor? Or would it make them 'protected' from GENCON's internal rules as well?
Because if the latter, that would definitely be a reason to get out of dodge right away, legal complications be damned.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822402Definitely true, but does anyone here know if the law would preclude GENCON from kicking out said vendor? Or would it make them 'protected' from GENCON's internal rules as well?
Because if the latter, that would definitely be a reason to get out of dodge right away, legal complications be damned.
indeed
and as i said earlier come to perth we are so much better then any u.s citys
Quote from: Piestrio;822390GenCon never said they would pull out of Indy.
They just said that the law would factor into their decision about where to host the con in the future.
Which is pretty close to being a meaningless statement and very hard to "wuss out" of.
Well, we either accept it was meaningless (which it has proven to be) or we take it for the obvious implication. Either way, my respect for them went from 10 to 0.
Quote from: tuypo1;822409indeed
and as i said earlier come to perth we are so much better then any u.s citys
Your municipal boosterism is admirable. I don't think I've ever actually been proud of any city that I've lived in.
"Come to scenic ________, Illinois. Our weather is shit only 60% of the year. Our cops are probably less racist than Ferguson's. Our university is actually kinda OK. Enjoy a delightful teen comedy at our one cinema. If you're a pedo or creepazoid you'll love our local comic & games shop."
Indianapolis.
The Mayor of Indianapolis opposed the governor on this bill.
He's also Republican - so it's not really a partisan thing.
If some version of that thought has already been posted in the thread I apologize - not awake enough while tried to read all of this. The past 24 hours my Facebook has been flooded with this topic.
So, don't punish the city for what the state governor did - especially when the Mayor of the city doesn't agree and wants to welcome everone to town.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822402Definitely true, but does anyone here know if the law would preclude GENCON from kicking out said vendor? Or would it make them 'protected' from GENCON's internal rules as well?
Because if the latter, that would definitely be a reason to get out of dodge right away, legal complications be damned.
The law wouldn't stop from Gencon asking that vendor to leave. I'm sure that the vendor agreement has language that allows them to be asked to leave.
I think there are going to be a lot of reports of discrimination that will not be verified and we will have a lot of business get hurt because of this stupid law from these fake reports when they did nothing wrong.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822360Freedom of association, which is one of the five God-given rights mentioned in the first amendment, is self-evidently a cornerstone of the founding and small-c constitution of the United States. I don't mind when foreigners or children don't respect that because they are entitled to ignorance of our core principles.
Popular ideas and ideals do not need defense. They are popular. It is unpopular ideas and ideals which require protection.
Gen Con is well within its rights to move to another state. They're not the government, and they have no duty to protect minorities like this hypothetical bigoted business owner. Neither does any government.
But what the first amendment says is that the government cannot force Joe's Islamic Bakery to sell gay porn cupcakes to a Jewish person. Can't do it. First amendment. Freedom of association. The government CAN sanction Joe's Islamic Bakery for having a written policy of never selling cupcakes to any Jewish people, because Republicans passed civil rights legislation in 1964-1968 preventing systematic discrimination against groups based on intransigent physical and cultural characteristics. Over Democrats' dead bodies, as you well know.
But if Gen Con did that, they would be making the political statement that the feelings of specific powerful identity groups trump the constitution of the United States. The derp thinkers on this thread who favor such a move because Good Feelings would applaud the petit mort of their own Liberty, and show themselves to be derp thinkers because of it.
Your brains are full of dumb. You are thinking dumb thoughts. It physically hurts me to know that you are either stupid enough to trade your liberty for fleeting comfort, or you are evil enough to pretend that you are defending minorities while attacking all minorities through the debasement of the protections a minority person now enjoys under our constitution.
Then again, the leftist has always believed some minorities are more equal than others.
I hope that when political correctness and social justice finally starts to auto-cannibalize, you all get eaten first.
Hello General Forrest, the cavalry awaits your command.
PS - petit mort means orgasm.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822402Definitely true, but does anyone here know if the law would preclude GENCON from kicking out said vendor? Or would it make them 'protected' from GENCON's internal rules as well?
Because if the latter, that would definitely be a reason to get out of dodge right away, legal complications be damned.
I don't think they are worried about vendors at Gen Con itself so much as people who are coming to attend Gen Con encountering discrimination (for example hotels refusing to give same sex couples shared rooms or something).
You may not like plain statements. But a business is clearly a peaceable assemblage of people. What else could it be? It is self evident and no amount of quoting case law can alter that. You either want to see it or you don't want to see it, and if you don't, you won't.
But this next is far more important. There are few zealous defenses of history in popular culture. It has largely been written by intellectual weaklings and cowards who pervert and subvert the truth to advance their own political agenda.
You have been lied to, in other words. Or you are lying to advance a political agenda. I do not care which. But I offer a zealous defense of the truth because dissemblers need get slapped.
Don't bring that weak sauce about Republicans being a party of hate. That's a damnable lie. It is not now, nor has it ever been true. We were founded on abolition. We were the party of Reconstruction. We fought against government re-segregation under Democrat presidents from Wilson to Johnson. We conceived of and enacted the original affirmative action legislation. We passed and signed the Americans with disabilities act.
We are now the party of lower taxes on the working poor, of the freedom of the individual, of the defense of the unborn, of the protection of the American worker and American sovereignty (although lately I'm'a choke a bitch Boehner and McConnnel), of innovation and medicine, of excellent schools and school choice, of the primacy of the individual, of the colorblind society, of protecting minority voting rights, and the prevention of governmental over-reach (but again, time to choke a bitch in Washington), of the inalienable right of self-defense, especially for women and minorities, and of obeying the rule of law.
Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King, of John Lennon near the end of his life, of Reagan, of Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal and Mia Love and Ben Carson and Tim Scott. And Ted Cruz.
Yours is the party of segregation, Jim Crow, the aforementioned Wilson, Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Kennedy family of treasonous reprobates, and Eric Holder.
And I've never met an anti-Semite who hasn't loved the current president. How's that nobel peace prize working out for you?
If you smear everyone south of Maryland as redneck bigots, you have 1) revealed yourself to be ignorant of the South; 2) Revealed yourself to be ignorant of race relations in the South; 3) revealed yourself to be ignorant of history and 4) a bigo yourself. The several southern state legislatures have been in the hands of Democrats to an overwhelming degree since '64. There was no Southern strategy. It is a damnable lie too.
You are a clever, lawyerly Constitutional scholar who has obviously debated people and attempted to convince them that what they can clearly see in our founding documents is not what is there. I bet you think the 14th amendment permits abortion but does not prohibit executive amnesty. But you are at a disadvantage. The truth is not on your side. The truth hurts your side. And despite the disintegration of the leadership of the GOP as they are captured by the same anti-americans who long ago captured the Democrats, the truth is that race relations and individual Liberty have always been the purview of the GOP and I for one will not allow leftists to steal the intellectual high ground on this.
Your turn, pinkie.
My turn? This is too easy. For one, I'm not a "pinkie" or "commie" or whatever else you think I am. I was a registered republican until the mid 90s, and now I'm an independent. For someone who seems to be spouting off talking points rather than something you've actually thought about (I'll get to that in a sec), you should know that anyone not as firmly entrenched into the right as you doesn't make them a radical left winger. That should be a lesson for not only you, but for a couple others here as well.
I would also hope that you would be even halfway educated about the party you're espousing. I suggest you start with reading up on Barry Goldwater. Firstly because of his involvement in the southern strategy, and secondly because of what he said in later years of his life. He was 100% correct when he said as soon as the republicans started catering to the religious right, it would be disaster. And la de da, here we are.
When Reagan would be considered far too liberal for the current party, that should tell you something.
I've mentioned the Southern Strategy already, but apparently you didn't bother to go look it up. Creating a list of republican accomplishments pre 1970 has ZERO to do with the current republican party. The current GOP looks nothing like it did 60 years ago. Hell, it looks nothing like it did 20 years ago. THAT's the big reason why I'm no longer one.
Not a party of hate? Oh, you must mean if we ignore all the bills and attempted passages of law that actively discriminate against protected minorities. Pro-poor? You mean by cutting any and all assistance programs for the poor? Defense of women? You mean other than taking away their rights?
I think you mean, "biggest tax breaks for the rich", not poor. Have you bothered to look at the economy when under republicans vs democrats in the past 30 years?
But really, what's the point. You're clearly some conspiracy nut based on your opening statements. "Forget the law, a bunch of people far more educated than me don't know what they're talking about. I'M right."
Oh, you know what? Forget it. You guys win. I had no love lost when I left RPG.net because it was taken over by a bunch of radical leftist whiners. In the past few months, this site has become the other side of the coin to them. I don't want to be part of a site that is radical and two-faced like them, and I don't want to be part of a site that has become a radical pro-MRA site either.
Have fun complaining about how it's not fair the gays and women are oppressing you. I'm out.
1860s' called, they want their proclamation writing style back. I swear, I can almost hear someone whistling Dixie. Is that a reborn Jefferson Davies I see?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822429Oh, you know what? Forget it. You guys win. I had no love lost when I left RPG.net because it was taken over by a bunch of radical leftist whiners. In the past few months, this site has become the other side of the coin to them. I don't want to be part of a site that is radical and two-faced like them, and I don't want to be part of a site that has become a radical pro-MRA site either.
Have fun complaining about how it's not fair the gays and women are oppressing you. I'm out.
Calm your tits. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of posters in this thread hardly agrees. You're allowing 2 - 3 cretinous trees to obstruct a forest.
The Republican party as it exists today would be unrecognisable to people like Lincoln. It has very little in common with the Republican party as it existed a century ago.
and people give me grief over closing threads that veer towards politics.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422You may not like plain statements. But a business is clearly a peaceable assemblage of people. What else could it be? It is self evident and no amount of quoting case law can alter that. You either want to see it or you don't want to see it, and if you don't, you won't.
But this next is far more important. There are few zealous defenses of history in popular culture. It has largely been written by intellectual weaklings and cowards who pervert and subvert the truth to advance their own political agenda.
You have been lied to, in other words. Or you are lying to advance a political agenda. I do not care which. But I offer a zealous defense of the truth because dissemblers need get slapped.
Don't bring that weak sauce about Republicans being a party of hate. That's a damnable lie. It is not now, nor has it ever been true. We were founded on abolition. We were the party of Reconstruction. We fought against government re-segregation under Democrat presidents from Wilson to Johnson. We conceived of and enacted the original affirmative action legislation. We passed and signed the Americans with disabilities act.
We are now the party of lower taxes on the working poor, of the freedom of the individual, of the defense of the unborn, of the protection of the American worker and American sovereignty (although lately I'm'a choke a bitch Boehner and McConnnel), of innovation and medicine, of excellent schools and school choice, of the primacy of the individual, of the colorblind society, of protecting minority voting rights, and the prevention of governmental over-reach (but again, time to choke a bitch in Washington), of the inalienable right of self-defense, especially for women and minorities, and of obeying the rule of law.
Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King, of John Lennon near the end of his life, of Reagan, of Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal and Mia Love and Ben Carson and Tim Scott. And Ted Cruz.
Yours is the party of segregation, Jim Crow, the aforementioned Wilson, Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Kennedy family of treasonous reprobates, and Eric Holder.
And I've never met an anti-Semite who hasn't loved the current president. How's that nobel peace prize working out for you?
If you smear everyone south of Maryland as redneck bigots, you have 1) revealed yourself to be ignorant of the South; 2) Revealed yourself to be ignorant of race relations in the South; 3) revealed yourself to be ignorant of history and 4) a bigo yourself. The several southern state legislatures have been in the hands of Democrats to an overwhelming degree since '64. There was no Southern strategy. It is a damnable lie too.
You are a clever, lawyerly Constitutional scholar who has obviously debated people and attempted to convince them that what they can clearly see in our founding documents is not what is there. I bet you think the 14th amendment permits abortion but does not prohibit executive amnesty. But you are at a disadvantage. The truth is not on your side. The truth hurts your side. And despite the disintegration of the leadership of the GOP as they are captured by the same anti-americans who long ago captured the Democrats, the truth is that race relations and individual Liberty have always been the purview of the GOP and I for one will not allow leftists to steal the intellectual high ground on this.
Your turn, pinkie.
This is the most ignorant, uneducated, prejudice-laden piece of propoganda-spewing bullshit I've ever encountered outside of the depths of Tangency or Fox News.
"pinkie"? That sorta of crap was so laughably dirisible by the 80s we made an RPG about it. You come across as an anti-intellectual moron quoting political platitudes all the while actually ignoring the reality of the situation.
The Republican party that exists today has
nothing in common with the one that existed a century ago, besides the name. The same with the Democratic party. Of course, since they are both funded and directed by corporate interests now, anyone gullible enough to actually think that democrat vs republican actually matters is someone who has fallen hook, line, and sinker for media misdirection about hot button social issues while your rights were stripped away.
"Free speech zones"? That would be a Republican "innovation". The mandatory support of Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine hormone in all cattle? Republican party passed that law into effect. Increased taxes for the middle and lower class while providing tax breaks for the richest members of the populace? Thats the Republican reality. "Freedom of the individual" my ass.
The only "truth" you've proven is that propaganda still works.
As a Pinkie, I declare I stab the orc.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422You may not like plain statements. But a business is clearly a peaceable assemblage of people.
I guess you've never heard of corporate backstabbing and business infighting. Those are all fairly common, but not especially peaceable, aspects of a business.
EDIT: Just saw Rincewind1's comment. Comedy gold. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822429Oh, you know what? Forget it. You guys win. I had no love lost when I left RPG.net because it was taken over by a bunch of radical leftist whiners. In the past few months, this site has become the other side of the coin to them. I don't want to be part of a site that is radical and two-faced like them, and I don't want to be part of a site that has become a radical pro-MRA site either.
Have fun complaining about how it's not fair the gays and women are oppressing you. I'm out.
A lot of us disagree strongly with what he says Sacro. Take some comfort in knowing that he lives in a state that makes it illegal for him to practice the kind of discrimination he preaches.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822374Cool. I just wanted to check if you were the real deal or a libertarian of convenience.
The most annoying thing about these sorts of discussions is how one group feels the need to throw around labels like "bigot" at anyone who disagrees with them. Saying people should have the right to conduct their business however they wish does not equate to approving of their practices. But, of course, it's easier to just lump everyone into some homogeneous group of "redneck retards" than actually come up with a legitimate counterargument...
Quote from: Brad;822450The most annoying thing about these sorts of discussions is how one group feels the need to throw around labels like "bigot" at anyone who disagrees with them. Saying people should have the right to conduct their business however they wish does not equate to approving of their practices. But, of course, it's easier to just lump everyone into some homogeneous group of "redneck retards" than actually come up with a legitimate counterargument...
For the record, I don't think supporting this kind of law automatically makes one a bigot. Some people support them out of constitutional concerns. Some people feel such laws don't lead to more discrimination, or even that they lead to less. But I do think supporting this kind of legislation empowers bigotry in the country. I think it's effect is to help the bigots and hurt the people on the receiving end of that treatment.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822304What happens when the next bakery does the same thing? or the next? Just how many businesses need to refuse service to someone before you think it's a problem?
Speaking as someone that isn't straight, that isn't able-bodied, and a few other matters? More than those that just make cakes.
There's a point where I'm willing to require labour at force of law. This isn't one, and the law's very clearly written to not apply for matters like medical care that are.
Quote from: Bren;822307This article has little or nothing to do with the bakery having a religious objection to writing slurs for a fee. It seems the owners had a personal/secular objection to writing slurs for a fee. The ability for the state (license plates) or a business not to write slurs on request seems pretty well established in practice and presumably in the law.
That's kinda my point. Libertarians and the religious right don't see the clear delineating principle here, and from their perspective the only big rule seems to be whatever appeals to the left at the moment.
((It's actually also not as well-defined as you think. There's a current case at the SCOTUS about state-facilitated offensive speech on license plates, and most court-watchers are giving it coin flip odds.))
Quote from: trechriron;822382Gen Con bound? GLBT? Bring your cameras friends. Wear a lapel camera and record every visit outside the con. Seek out the haters, and try to patronize their establishments. Make a documentary. Let the country see it in real-time. Should change some minds.
To make this clear, Indianapolis is one of the few places in the state that
does have anti-discrimination laws related to private employment. The last time someone in the area tried making a stand on discrimination, they went out of business within the year (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/). The law has no actual real impact on discrimination in provisioning of service -- which was already legal -- and very few of the companies a convention attendee is likely to interact with could appeal to this law anyway because they can't seriously demonstrate religious convictions.
Do you actually expect something more impressive than a bunch of cosplayers naming-and-shaming people with NASCAR hats, regardless of actual actions?
Quote from: RPGPundit;822402Definitely true, but does anyone here know if the law would preclude GENCON from kicking out said vendor? Or would it make them 'protected' from GENCON's internal rules as well?
The proposed statute (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197) has no impact on private contracts. GenCon's vendor agreement allows them to kick out vendors for not complying with any GenCon request, or for no reason at all, and that would remain in force.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King...
Let me just stop you right there.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/
Quote from: misterguignol;822473[urlhttp://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/[/url]
"Only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events."
Struggling to grab an on-topic straw here. Were there any SF conventions in the South during the 1950s human rights struggle? Not finding any, which might mean this is the first time fandom actually wrestles with these questions.
Quote from: misterguignol;822473Let me just stop you right there.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/
That's a good website. It has classy articles like this (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/24/3636905/five-worst-supreme-court-justices-american-history-ranked/) I'm supposed to take seriously. Wait, I think it's just a separate URL for Cracked.com!
Quote from: Brad;822478That's a good website. It has classy articles like this (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/24/3636905/five-worst-supreme-court-justices-american-history-ranked/) I'm supposed to take seriously. Wait, I think it's just a separate URL for Cracked.com!
Sure, you could disregard an article that has links to things King actually said and quotes from experts on King, such as a Pulitzer-winning biography author, solely because you don't like the other articles on the site.
But that might be a really stupid thing to do.
Knees gonna jerk.
Quote from: misterguignol;822481Sure, you could disregard an article that has links to things King actually said and quotes from experts on King, such as a Pulitzer-winning biography author, solely because you don't like the other articles on the site.
But that might be a really stupid thing to do.
Knees gonna jerk.
Hey, lemme write some article with a bunch of quotes taken out of context to prove something. Okay.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822360But what the first amendment says is that the government cannot force Joe's Islamic Bakery to sell gay porn cupcakes to a Jewish person. Can't do it. First amendment. Freedom of association. The government CAN sanction Joe's Islamic Bakery for having a written policy of never selling cupcakes to any Jewish people, because Republicans passed civil rights legislation in 1964-1968 preventing systematic discrimination against groups based on intransigent physical and cultural characteristics. Over Democrats' dead bodies, as you well know.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not only apply to written company policies. It says that the government can, in fact, demand that Joe's Bakery sell cupcakes to Jewish people - even if Joe doesn't want to sell to Jewish people. Title II says "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Now, Joe can disobey the law and be subject to penalty, but that's true of any law. The law itself demands that owners of businesses need to not discriminate against certain people.
Also, it is false to claim that it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 to 1968, although they did support it more strongly than Democrats. Democrats had a strong majority in both the House and the Senate at the time, and those bills were supported by the majority of Democrats. Democratic support of these bills was a primary factor that lost the South to Republicans.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King, of John Lennon near the end of his life, of Reagan, of Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal and Mia Love and Ben Carson and Tim Scott. And Ted Cruz.
Yours is the party of segregation, Jim Crow, the aforementioned Wilson, Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Kennedy family of treasonous reprobates, and Eric Holder.
Regarding Marin Luther King Jr, here is the Politifact check on the claim:
http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/
Regarding the others, the vast majority of them are from long in the past, and in particular before the Southern Strategy shift of the 1970s.
Quote from: jhkim;822486The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not only apply to written company policies. It says that the government can, in fact, demand that Joe's Bakery sell cupcakes to Jewish people - even if Joe doesn't want to sell to Jewish people. Title II says "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Caveat: "place of public accommodation, as defined in this section", is limited to "inn, hotel, motel, or other form of lodging for transient guests" or "restaurant, cafeteria, or other facility principally engaged in selling for consumption on premise", or "a motion picture house, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment". It would not include most bakeries that produce bulk orders.
This
does still apply to even if the proposed statute is implemented. The Supremacy Clause allows federal law to override state RFRAs, and while there's a federal-level RFRA no service provider has managed to argue its applicability here.
Quote from: jhkim;822486The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not only apply to written company policies. It says that the government can, in fact, demand that Joe's Bakery sell cupcakes to Jewish people - even if Joe doesn't want to sell to Jewish people. Title II says "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Now, Joe can disobey the law and be subject to penalty, but that's true of any law. The law itself demands that owners of businesses need to not discriminate against certain people.
Not quite.
There was a fucking lurch of a human being in Tennessee named Stacey Campfield who was refused service at several businesses (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/bistro-at-the-bijou-owner-boots-bans-state-sen)and ridiculed on their local talk radio stations until he lost the next election by a huge margin.
By your reading of the law, what was done to him was illegal.
I'm personally glad it was legal and helped to end that shitstain's political career.
Quote from: jhkim;822486Also, it is false to claim that it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 to 1968, although they did support it more strongly than Democrats. Democrats had a strong majority in both the House and the Senate at the time, and those bills were supported by the majority of Democrats. Democratic support of these bills was a primary factor that lost the South to Republicans.
Bolding mine.
Quote from: jhkim;822486Regarding Marin Luther King Jr, here is the Politifact check on the claim:
http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/
Regarding the others, the vast majority of them are from long in the past, and in particular before the Southern Strategy shift of the 1970s.
So, because a black woman was using that as a campaign slogan while running for congress and the rest of the political figures are from over "long in the past", it is false? OK, I'll buy that, but it seems that the concept of Martin Luther King Jr having more in common with Republican politics of that era than Democrat politics must be really offensive to you.
Quote from: jeff37923;822491OK, I'll buy that, but it seems that the concept of Martin Luther King Jr having more in common with Republican politics of that era than Democrat politics must be really offensive to you.
Eh, I think the whole MLK thing is a stretch. Sure he was obviously with LBJ on Civil Rights, but against him on Vietnam. He was for Nixon in some ways, and against Goldwater most ways. He seemed to be what I think a religious figure should be with regard to politics, focused on action and issues, not party affiliation.
Someone who affiliates strongly with any particular political party isn't a man of god, he's a man of the world.
Personally, I think JKim would be a lot less upset about MLK's opinions if he were alive today, then most current Republicans would be about Reagan's policies if he were alive today. ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822429I don't want to be part of a site that is radical and two-faced like them, and I don't want to be part of a site that has become a radical pro-MRA site either.
Have fun complaining about how it's not fair the gays and women are oppressing you. I'm out.
First, how the fuck has this become a radical pro-MRA stuff? I'm not an MRA and I own this site, so it's news to me.
Second, there's a pretty big difference here:
a) although maybe we have slightly more conservative posters than liberal ones, the moderation staff is completely neutral and in no way moderates based on politics.
b) The ONLY place where political discussion unrelated to gaming is permitted is on certain threads in this "RPGPundit's" forum. If you don't want to see right-wing politics for whatever reason, just don't hang out in this one forum. If you didn't ever come to this one forum, you'd probably have no idea what the majority politics of theRPGsite are.
Quote from: Brad;822450The most annoying thing about these sorts of discussions is how one group feels the need to throw around labels like "bigot" at anyone who disagrees with them. Saying people should have the right to conduct their business however they wish does not equate to approving of their practices. But, of course, it's easier to just lump everyone into some homogeneous group of "redneck retards" than actually come up with a legitimate counterargument...
I still think its funny, however, that some Libertarians will shout to the rafters about "Big Government" regulating Net Neutrality to create an even playing field in the market, but will be TOTALLY OK with "big government" passing a law to moralize over the uneven playing field of religious discrimination in the market.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822500I still think its funny, however, that some Libertarians will shout to the rafters about "Big Government" regulating Net Neutrality to create an even playing field in the market, but will be TOTALLY OK with "big government" passing a law to moralize over the uneven playing field of religious discrimination in the market.
The reason is that both situations involve the market deciding things.
Net Neutrality hinders businesses by making them play fair instead of customers forcing them to do so through purchasing choices (that they don't have).
Anti-discrimination laws allow businesses to discriminate against people, so customers can force them to play fair through purchasing choices (which doesn't work when those discriminated against are the minority).
The logic is consistently stupid in both cases when viewed as "companies do what they want because the market solves everything".
Quote from: misterguignol;822473Let me just stop you right there.Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King…
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/
I was surprised that anybody took Scott Anderson's foaming at the mouth rant seriously. Then I saw that there are actual politicians making the same claim about MLK Jr. with straight faces. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;822494Eh, I think the whole MLK thing is a stretch.
It is a stretch.
Quote from: CRKrueger;822494Sure he was obviously with LBJ on Civil Rights, but against him on Vietnam. He was for Nixon in some ways, and against Goldwater most ways. He seemed to be what I think a religious figure should be with regard to politics, focused on action and issues, not party affiliation.
Someone who affiliates strongly with any particular political party isn't a man of god, he's a man of the world.
Exactly. Thank you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822499First, how the fuck has this become a radical pro-MRA stuff? I'm not an MRA and I own this site, so it's news to me.
Second, there's a pretty big difference here:
a) although maybe we have slightly more conservative posters than liberal ones, the moderation staff is completely neutral and in no way moderates based on politics.
b) The ONLY place where political discussion unrelated to gaming is permitted is on certain threads in this "RPGPundit's" forum. If you don't want to see right-wing politics for whatever reason, just don't hang out in this one forum. If you didn't ever come to this one forum, you'd probably have no idea what the majority politics of theRPGsite are.
I wouldn't be too concerned about Sacrosanct's ragequit. If you look at his profile here, you see that his last activity was at 4:04pm while his temper tantrum was at 10:34am. So his self imposed exile lasted for what, five and a half hours? He'll be back.
Quote from: jeff37923;822512I wouldn't be too concerned about Sacrosanct's ragequit. If you look at his profile here, you see that his last activity was at 4:04pm while his temper tantrum was at 10:34am. So his self imposed exile lasted for what, five and a half hours? He'll be back.
Not if he notices you are using internetz wizardry to become that creepy stalker guy. :p
Quote from: Bren;822516Not if he notices you are using internetz wizardry to become that creepy stalker guy. :p
My God, you're right! :eek:
Nothing to see here! Nothing at all!
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422Don't bring that weak sauce about Republicans being a party of hate. That's a damnable lie. It is not now, nor has it ever been true. We were founded on abolition. We were the party of Reconstruction. We fought against government re-segregation under Democrat presidents from Wilson to Johnson. We conceived of and enacted the original affirmative action legislation. We passed and signed the Americans with disabilities act.
We are now the party of lower taxes on the working poor, of the freedom of the individual, of the defense of the unborn, of the protection of the American worker and American sovereignty (although lately I'm'a choke a bitch Boehner and McConnnel), of innovation and medicine, of excellent schools and school choice, of the primacy of the individual, of the colorblind society, of protecting minority voting rights, and the prevention of governmental over-reach (but again, time to choke a bitch in Washington), of the inalienable right of self-defense, especially for women and minorities, and of obeying the rule of law.
Ours is the party of Lincoln, of Hayes, of Coolidge, of Martn Luther King, of John Lennon near the end of his life, of Reagan, of Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal and Mia Love and Ben Carson and Tim Scott. And Ted Cruz.
Yours is the party of segregation, Jim Crow, the aforementioned Wilson, Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Kennedy family of treasonous reprobates, and Eric Holder.
Jesus Christ, but that is some selective-ass history, right there.
And I say that as a registered Republican and a US History professor.
Quote from: Brad;822450The most annoying thing about these sorts of discussions is how one group feels the need to throw around labels like "bigot" at anyone who disagrees with them. Saying people should have the right to conduct their business however they wish does not equate to approving of their practices. But, of course, it's easier to just lump everyone into some homogeneous group of "redneck retards" than actually come up with a legitimate counterargument...
And we wonder why people need to write laws. Because we apparently just can't agree to coexist.
JG
Quote from: Bren;822506I was surprised that anybody took Scott Anderson's foaming at the mouth rant seriously. Then I saw that there are actual politicians making the same claim about MLK Jr. with straight faces. :rolleyes:
"Was it over when, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!!"
"Germans?..."
"Forget it, he's rolling."
One thing I do find ironic about these situations; the people who think these types of laws are aimed at discriminating against them threaten to boycott/leave the states where they are passed...
...which plays right into the hands of the people passing the laws.
Running away isn't standing up.
Quote from: James Gillen;822521And we wonder why people need to write laws. Because we apparently just can't agree to coexist.
JG
"Well, maybe people should be forced to agree."
Anakin Skywalker. (misquoted I'm certain)
Quote from: snooggums;822505The reason is that both situations involve the market deciding things.
Net Neutrality hinders businesses by making them play fair instead of customers forcing them to do so through purchasing choices (that they don't have).
Anti-discrimination laws allow businesses to discriminate against people, so customers can force them to play fair through purchasing choices (which doesn't work when those discriminated against are the minority).
The logic is consistently stupid in both cases when viewed as "companies do what they want because the market solves everything".
It is stupid, because it runs contrary to the rules of classical Capitalist theory. And in fact, the presence of net-neutrality, and the absence of a law enforcing religious discrimination, both have the effect of creating a fair and even playing field in the free market, which is what is actually supposed to be the right state of affairs.
I am absolutely loving the aroma coming off some of the posts in this thread. Yeah, Indiana just codified get-out-of-discrimination-free for the express purpose of enabling bigotry--by calling it "religious" freedom--but somehow GenCon is to be questioned, for threatening one day to maybe vote with its feet? That's a big ol' pantload of stupid right there. Freedom, fuck yeah!
I suppose it wouldn't hurt for the con to move somewhere else, possibly close enough that I could finally attend. Hope the contract has enough escape hatches built in that leaving that fucking bigoted government behind is at least a viable option.
I was looking for a fight. I found one. Thank you all. There's no better taste than your own blood.
I'm so fucking sick of being called a racist. Or a sexist. Or a crazy JESUS freak. It's offensive and uncivil in the most basic sense. They are literal fighting words and someone on the left is eventually going to be shot over it.
Which I think is what you're waiting for. I think you are waiting for the opportunity to enact some enabling laws. I really do.
While I respect the hoops a professor has to jump through to join a guild like teaching... being a history professor is no endorsement of your opinions on history.
Because the thing that cleaves us to the groups to which we belong are not universal truths (ie the sun warms the earth), but those ideas we put faith in, which have no sure evidence. Or more than that, ideas which are likely pure fantasy.
You might think global warming is real or that abortion is just a choice or rich people really don't pay their fair share, whatever that means. You may laugh at the huge majority of people who worship their silly sky god and believe a baby is a baby regardless of whether it's in a uterus or not and see the government as the greatest threat to their future.
You may see the opposition to illegal immigration as racism. (Come to think of it, you may not even recognize the concept of "illegal" immigration.) You may laugh at people who feel it as an assault on the ability of a regular person to make a living and live in an environment of relative public health and safety.
A real orator would have a third paragraph here. I'm kind of all done fighting at the moment. But you leftists are more hateful and narrow-minded and more racist than anyone you hate.
Yes I'm frothy at the mouth. When you kick a dog over and over again, it gets pretty vicious.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822585I was looking for a fight. I found one. Thank you all. There's no better taste than your own blood.
I'm so fucking sick of being called a racist. Or a sexist. Or a crazy JESUS freak. It's offensive and uncivil in the most basic sense. They are literal fighting words and someone on the left is eventually going to be shot over it.
If you wiped the spittle off your chin you might hear fewer labels tossed your way.
As it is, you sound like the religious fanatics that come on campus once the weather warms up to harangue the undergraduates by calling them whores and damned sinners. They clearly enjoyed riling up the crowd and having people yell at them. I guess it validated their life choices or something.
Quote from: Brad;821970And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
That's a core purpose of law.
Quote from: Brad;821972I'm averse to regulating business, for whatever reason. Sorry if my economic stance seems bigoted to you.
The market is not magic, nor does it act instantly. See: market failure, externality.
Quote from: Brad;821992Discrimination for publicly funded stuff, sure. For privately held interests? Fuck no. The government has no right to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
I'm pretty sure it's the customers who spend the money in this relationship, not the business.
By the way, this would presumably apply to businesses who supply businesses too, right? You're discriminating? Okay, no food deliveries for you.
Quote from: Brad;822023One of the downsides to a truly free society is that, yes, sometimes people are discriminated against. As long as it's not the government doing the discrimination, you have to put up with it. Once you start regulating business, it turns into a clusterfuck of laws and all sorts of other dumbass crap...which the US market has definitely become.
As far as "gaining" something when businesses are free to discriminate goes, I really don't care about "society", I care about personal liberty. If we expect individuals to act morally, ethically, and reasonably, this whole "society" thing will follow suit.
Ah, the libertarian/communist delusion, if only people would be better than they are, things would be perfect. Newsflash, expecting people to act morally, ethically, and reasonably is not magic either, bad apples will still ruin it for everyone else.
Quote from: CRKrueger;822052Being a Devil's advocate here...
Individual businesses making choices of association is not systemic discrimination. Now if every, or most businesses are making the exact same choice of association - then it could become effectively systemic. But without a governmental law enforcing the ban on association, it's completely free choice.
I would kind of like businesses to be able to fully discriminate for any reason...as long as they were required to state such with an open public sign. Don't want to fill a prescription for the morning-after pill? Fine, then put that on a sign outside, so everyone can freely decide whether to go to your business. Don't want to serve fat, ugly, black, muslim, gay, or straight people? Fine, just tell the public up front and then let them make the decision to give you patronage...or not. The only enforced law we would need would be the one requiring the "Service Exception Notice". Most likely, you'd end up with a lot of unsuccessful businesses run by shitheads and wildly successful businesses run by people with thumbs.
Now a corporation having a religion and getting Freedom of Religion? That's just abso-fucking-lutely insane.
Just so long as it's a really big sign.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822059Funny. I didn't realize that a proposition was an actual person. I thought those things you mentioned were temporary causes or choices. Not something permanent like who a person is that they have no choice about that continues, well, pretty much forever.
As a lawyer, I'm surprised you fail to see the difference between the two by making this analogy.
What are you trying to say here? That one can't support things that aren't people? Because that makes no sense, so I'm assuming it's an intent to communicate issue.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422You may not like plain statements. But a business is clearly a peaceable assemblage of people.
Assembled in order to " to petition the government for a redress of grievances."; i.e. public protest? I'm pretty sure that public protest is not the purpose for which people assemble in Taco Bell.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822585Because the thing that cleaves us to the groups to which we belong are not universal truths (ie the sun warms the earth)...
You might think global warming is real
Petard, meet hoist; hoist, here's your petard.
Worthless, brainless, git.
Quote from: apparition13;822592Assembled in order to " to petition the government for a redress of grievances."; i.e. public protest? I'm pretty sure that public protest is not the purpose for which people assemble in Taco Bell.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
and not to.
Quote from: apparition13;822592Ah, the libertarian/communist delusion, if only people would be better than they are, things would be perfect. Newsflash, expecting people to act morally, ethically, and reasonably is not magic either, bad apples will still ruin it for everyone else.
The libertarian version of the argument generally holds that it wouldn't be perfect -- merely that the costs of attempting legally-mandated perfection here are very high and generally ignored.
QuoteAssembled in order to " to petition the government for a redress of grievances."; i.e. public protest? I'm pretty sure that public protest is not the purpose for which people assemble in Taco Bell.
The right to petition is generally considered separate from the right to assemble; there's a comma in the actual text between the two, and you can petition the government as an individual person.
QuoteI'm pretty sure it's the customers who spend the money in this relationship, not the business.
By the way, this would presumably apply to businesses who supply businesses too, right? You're discriminating? Okay, no food deliveries for you.
Yep. There are some complicated economic reasons that these sort of protests don't generally work very well from a pragmatic viewpoint, but it's quite possible.
I'm going to play devils advocate for a minute here because this law seems to have becomes something of a bête-noire of the left at the moment and whenever I hear breathless and universal claims of the evils of something I naturally become suspicious.
Looking at the law it does seem that a lot of progressives are either a) reading a whole heck of a lot into it or b) ignorant of the law, which is not surprising because media outlets are most certainly doing a.
So what is the law?
It's basically a carbon copy, for all substantial purposes, of the Clinton era Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA) which has existed at the federal level for more than 20 years.
Does it legalize discrimination?
No. What it does is give the courts direction in deciding religious freedom cases (direction that the federal courts, as well as courts in 20 other states, already use) which could in theory allow an establishment to discriminate. But again it's leaving the matter to the courts. And in practice it's doesn't seem to have led to a proliferation of anti-gay bigotry.
So what kind of direction does it give?
It says that in order for the government to "substantially burden" a persons free exercise of religion the government must show a "compelling governmental interest" and that if the government does find a compelling interest it must use the "least restrictive means" in order to achieve that interest.
What does that mean? It seems vague...
It is! That's why it's direction for the courts. they get to decide.
So what's all this about?
Hrmmm... it seems like a lot of people (my people) have this mixed up with public accommodation laws (which BTW Indiana doesn't include sexual orientation so it's ALREADY quite legal, at the state level, to deny service to gay people in Indiana. This law doesn't change that.) It seems to have becomes something of a shibboleth for the left more than a serious policy issue. More of a way to "rally the troops" and less of a serious argument.
/devils advocate.
Quote from: Piestrio;822596I'm going to play devils advocate for a minute here because this law seems to have becomes something of a bête-noire of the left at the moment and whenever I hear breathless and universal claims of the evils of something I naturally become suspicious.
Looking at the law it does seem that a lot of progressives are either a) reading a whole heck of a lot into it or b) ignorant of the law, which is not surprising because media outlets are most certainly doing a.
So what is the law?
It's basically a carbon copy, for all substantial purposes, of the Clinton era Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA) which has existed at the federal level for more than 20 years.
Does it legalize discrimination?
No. What it does is give the courts direction in deciding religious freedom cases (direction that the federal courts, as well as courts in 20 other states, already use) which could in theory allow an establishment to discriminate. But again it's leaving the matter to the courts.
So what kind of direction does it give?
It says that in order for the government to "substantially burden" a persons free exercise of religion the government must show a "compelling governmental interest".
What does that mean? It seems vague...
It is! That's why it's direction for the courts. they get to decide.
So what's all this about?
Hrmmm... it seems like a lot of people (my people) have this mixed up with public accommodation laws (which BTW Indiana doesn't include sexual orientation so it's ALREADY quite legal, at the state level, to deny service to gay people in Indiana. This law doesn't change that.) It seems to have becomes something of a shibboleth for the left more than a serious policy issue. More of a way to "rally the troops" and less of a serious argument.
/devils advocate.
Sorry, been traveling. Or there is no way i'd let this precious thread pass me by.
Yes, this was already legal in Indiana, according to the Constitution of that state. Yes, the Hobby Lobby decision and others have gone through based on the RFRA, though calling the Indiana version a copy of that more mild version is a stretch. Yes, this particular law was more of a political move, as the other 20 have been. A way to show a demographic you are taking seriously their need to push back against what they perceive are a slew of laws and opinion that fly in the face of their beliefs.
However, I am quite pleased with Salesforce, Google, GenCon, et al. Because at the heart, this is still a bill that is expressly about allowing discrimination, for whatever reason. For a reason that has a lot to do with the First Amendment, but I feel like all of these Bills will fail, because the government has always found equality to be in it's 'compelling interest'. And as the idea of equality continues to evolve, this law and it's ilk will be remembered as the Jim Crow law of our time.
Quote from: LordVreeg;822598, though calling the Indiana version a copy of that more mild version is a stretch.
Honest question...
In what way is the Indiana law substantially different than the federal law?
Otherwise largely agree with you that this is a mostly an issue of political posturing on both sides.
I live in a very conservative, rural area in a deep blue state. The other day I overheard a conversation in the teacher's lounge about which of the many small towns around our small city "Allow" blacks to walk around freely, and which ones automatically stop them and tell them to move on if they don't have a relative in the town.
Sooner or later, somebody, somewhere in Indiana, is going to use this law to put up a "WHITES ONLY" sign. It might be done as a joke. It might be up for only ten minutes before they realize how bad it looks and take it down. It might happen in an isolated town with less than a hundred people, off the big highways. It might be done by a very marginal business owned by a known loon. But it will happen. And it will be documented, and i'll hit the Internet, and probably the national news, and definitely Democratic campaign ads. And the "Optics" will be so immediate and so strong and so bad that all these arguments about market correction and constitutional intent will be drowned out and made utterly trivial and meaningless in the court of public opinion.
Mark my words, this stupid law will become an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. They gained the votes of some homophobes and for what? Big Businesses? They're against it. Principles? Ha. Conservatives are crowing about this now, but they really have nothing to celebrate. They made a shitty deal with the Religious Right for very little in return.
Quote from: Piestrio;822600Honest question...
In what way is the Indiana law substantially different than the federal law?
Otherwise largely agree with you that this is a mostly an issue of political posturing on both sides.
"The Indiana General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to Senate Bill 101, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (full text). The bill is broader than its Federal counterpart in several ways. [1] It explicitly protects the exercise of religion by entities as well as individuals. Its enumeration of entities includes "a corporation", without limiting this to closely-held companies. [2] The bill's protections may be invoked when a person's exercise of religion is "likely" to be substantially burdened by government action, not just when it has been burdened. [3] The bill also permits the assertion of free exercise rights as a claim or defense in judicial or administrative proceedings even if the government is not a party to the proceedings. The relevant governmental entity has a right to intervene in such cases to respond to the RFRA claim. A remedy under the bill is only available against the government; suits by employees or applicants invoking the law against private employers are precluded."
from Here (http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/).
I ran into a reference of this I think yesterday and tracked down the original.
Quote from: Piestrio;822596I'm going to play devils advocate for a minute here because this law seems to have becomes something of a bête-noire of the left at the moment and whenever I hear breathless and universal claims of the evils of something I naturally become suspicious.
Looking at the law it does seem that a lot of progressives are either a) reading a whole heck of a lot into it or b) ignorant of the law, which is not surprising because media outlets are most certainly doing a.
So what is the law?
It's basically a carbon copy, for all substantial purposes, of the Clinton era Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA) which has existed at the federal level for more than 20 years.
Does it legalize discrimination?
No. What it does is give the courts direction in deciding religious freedom cases (direction that the federal courts, as well as courts in 20 other states, already use) which could in theory allow an establishment to discriminate. But again it's leaving the matter to the courts. And in practice it's doesn't seem to have led to a proliferation of anti-gay bigotry.
So what kind of direction does it give?
It says that in order for the government to "substantially burden" a persons free exercise of religion the government must show a "compelling governmental interest" and that if the government does find a compelling interest it must use the "least restrictive means" in order to achieve that interest.
What does that mean? It seems vague...
It is! That's why it's direction for the courts. they get to decide.
So what's all this about?
Hrmmm... it seems like a lot of people (my people) have this mixed up with public accommodation laws (which BTW Indiana doesn't include sexual orientation so it's ALREADY quite legal, at the state level, to deny service to gay people in Indiana. This law doesn't change that.) It seems to have becomes something of a shibboleth for the left more than a serious policy issue. More of a way to "rally the troops" and less of a serious argument.
/devils advocate.
Thank you for actually reading the law being passed instead of regurgitating someone else's opinion.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822601I live in a very conservative, rural area in a deep blue state. The other day I overheard a conversation in the teacher's lounge about which of the many small towns around our small city "Allow" blacks to walk around freely, and which ones automatically stop them and tell them to move on if they don't have a relative in the town.
Sooner or later, somebody, somewhere in Indiana, is going to use this law to put up a "WHITES ONLY" sign. It might be done as a joke. It might be up for only ten minutes before they realize how bad it looks and take it down. It might happen in an isolated town with less than a hundred people, off the big highways. It might be done by a very marginal business owned by a known loon. But it will happen. And it will be documented, and i'll hit the Internet, and probably the national news, and definitely Democratic campaign ads. And the "Optics" will be so immediate and so strong and so bad that all these arguments about market correction and constitutional intent will be drowned out and made utterly trivial and meaningless in the court of public opinion.
Mark my words, this stupid law will become an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. They gained the votes of some homophobes and for what? Big Businesses? They're against it. Principles? Ha. Conservatives are crowing about this now, but they really have nothing to celebrate. They made a shitty deal with the Religious Right for very little in return.
Have these effects happened in any of the other 20 states with this law? What about on a federal level?
If they haven't then why is this law different? Or why will it have different effects?
As for the whites only signs exploding the Internet it already happened in Texas. Except it was a progressive dude "protesting" and "raising awareness" about white people moving into poor minority neighborhoods.
He of course was a white person who had moved into a poor minority neighborhood.
Quote from: LordVreeg;822602"The Indiana General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to Senate Bill 101, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (full text). The bill is broader than its Federal counterpart in several ways. [1] It explicitly protects the exercise of religion by entities as well as individuals. Its enumeration of entities includes "a corporation", without limiting this to closely-held companies. [2] The bill's protections may be invoked when a person's exercise of religion is "likely" to be substantially burdened by government action, not just when it has been burdened. [3] The bill also permits the assertion of free exercise rights as a claim or defense in judicial or administrative proceedings even if the government is not a party to the proceedings. The relevant governmental entity has a right to intervene in such cases to respond to the RFRA claim. A remedy under the bill is only available against the government; suits by employees or applicants invoking the law against private employers are precluded."
from Here (http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/).
I ran into a reference of this I think yesterday and tracked down the original.
Thank you.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822585I was looking for a fight. I found one. Thank you all. There's no better taste than your own blood.
You know you're coming off as a little crazy right now, don't you?
QuoteI'm so fucking sick of being called a racist. Or a sexist. Or a crazy JESUS freak. It's offensive and uncivil in the most basic sense.
I'd be tired of that, too (and just read up on TBP, I've been called that sort of thing plenty, myself, but don't let that stop you!), especially if anyone you were talking to right now was saying that.
But, you see, no one here is saying any of that. So that 'crazy' thing? You're doing it again.
QuoteThey are literal fighting words and someone on the left is eventually going to be shot over it.
Well, nothing solves that 'crazy' problem like implied death threats.
That'll sure help keep the Second alive, if we remind people who say things we don't like that someday we'll shoot them for it!
QuoteWhich I think is what you're waiting for. I think you are waiting for the opportunity to enact some enabling laws. I really do.
Who the fuck is the "you" you think you're talking to right now, man?
QuoteWhile I respect the hoops a professor has to jump through to join a guild like teaching... being a history professor is no endorsement of your opinions on history.
Man, listen. I teach US History in Texas, okay? When I say that you're very selectively cherry-picking your historical bright spots (many of them hundreds of years ago) in order to strengthen your tribe, and when that tribe is
also basically my tribe? It means you're being pretty fucking selective. And lying, even lying through omission, is wrong.
QuoteBecause the thing that cleaves us to the groups to which we belong are not universal truths (ie the sun warms the earth), but those ideas we put faith in, which have no sure evidence. Or more than that, ideas which are likely pure fantasy.
Holy
shit, no.
No, no, no. You don't get to act like you're giving the crusty old cool guy's speech from
Secondhand Lions when you're also in the middle of claiming historical fact is on your side. You get one or the other, man. You get to either parade a bunch of historical events and figures
or you get to say that it's fantasy and lies that are important, not both. You stand tall and proud and recite the history of the political party? Then you've got to back that shit up. You've got to love that history, warts and all, but that means acknowledging the warts. You don't get to take credit for Abraham fucking Lincoln, without also acknowledging
this generation's fuck-ups and vile policies. You don't get to claim the moral high ground from the Civil Rights Act, without also admitting to
this generation's steps backwards.
And you don't get to do any of that -- any of that historical precedent, flag waving just behind you, patriotic music playing as you strike a pose -- and then when someone calls you on it for being full of shit, you don't get to shift gears and go with the "Well, our beliefs are more important than evidence, anyways!" as a cop out.
QuoteYou might think global warming is real or that abortion is just a choice or rich people really don't pay their fair share, whatever that means. You may laugh at the huge majority of people who worship their silly sky god and believe a baby is a baby regardless of whether it's in a uterus or not and see the government as the greatest threat to their future.
You may see the opposition to illegal immigration as racism. (Come to think of it, you may not even recognize the concept of "illegal" immigration.) You may laugh at people who feel it as an assault on the ability of a regular person to make a living and live in an environment of relative public health and safety.
And here we are with this imaginary 'you' again. I don't mean this in a threatening way, but a very literal one, but "who the fuck do you think you're talking to?" You've got two paragraphs of ridiculous strawman bullshit here. What the fuck, man? You're just rambling and accusing people of stuff, for two fucking paragraphs, and you're not even being man enough to actually point the finger at any one person, or have any
point to it, you're literally just rambling off vague accusations to deflect from the fact you just said lies are more important than truths, which was, itself, a deflection from the fact you were offering up some stupidly creative interpretations of history.
You may rape babies. You may snort coke off the corpses of hookers you just strangled. You may fuck dogs. You may eat human flesh. You may be a Soviet spy. You may be a robot from the future sent here to kill my mother.
Shit, this is fun. "You may"-ing people
is awesome!
QuoteA real orator would have a third paragraph here. I'm kind of all done fighting at the moment. But you leftists are more hateful and narrow-minded and more racist than anyone you hate.
So now everyone who disagrees with you is a hateful, racist, leftist? What the fuck? Even the guy who's like "Yo, I'm actually still a Republican myself, and I think..." is just slapped with the same absolutely ridiculous broad brush?
QuoteYes I'm frothy at the mouth. When you kick a dog over and over again, it gets pretty vicious.
Yes. Yes, clearly, you're the poor dog getting kicked, here. Not the GLBT community who can legally be refused service in any store in Indiana. Not the people you've just accused of racism, and on and on and on, for paragraph after paragraph. No, it's you. You're the real victim here.
Christ. How self-centered can you get, while still claiming -- still clinging, desperately, to the insistence -- you've got the moral high ground, here?
Well, Scott Anderson is obviously trolling. Must have a tractor to haul all those strawmen along. Anyways, its kinda sad, for years here I never once even considered using my Ignore List (okay maybe once, with that idiot from the Gamer's Den), but in the last year its swelled to the astounding capacity of 5 semi-regular posters. Meanwhile I've seen the exodus of more than a few posters I liked a lot.
As the Gen-Con issue is decided this thread isn't about gaming in any conceivable way anymore is it?
Quote from: Critias;822607You may rape babies. You may snort coke off the corpses of hookers you just strangled. You may fuck dogs. You may eat human flesh. You may be a Soviet spy. You may be a robot from the future sent here to kill my mother.
Shit, this is fun. "You may"-ing people is awesome!
Indeed! Going to have to remember that one.
New Rule: If someone RageQuits, their account is banned until they specifically ask for it back on Pundit's Blog. We should help people resist temptation. :D
Quote from: James Gillen;822356By the time they came for me, it was too late because by then all restaurants were Taco Bell.
And I still can't figure out the three seashells!!!
Quote from: One Horse Town;822433and people give me grief over closing threads that veer towards politics.
OHT, as someone who has a bad habit of posting in these threads, I fully support you nuking them from orbit.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822422Your turn, pinkie.
I'm not Pinkie. I'm the Brain.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822585Yes I'm frothy at the mouth.
Then stop gobbling the Santorum?
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822601I live in a very conservative, rural area in a deep blue state.
There is a company called U-Haul that can help solve that conundrum.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822601The other day I overheard a conversation in the teacher's lounge about which of the many small towns around our small city "Allow" blacks to walk around freely, and which ones automatically stop them and tell them to move on if they don't have a relative in the town.
Tell us more...I imagine this conversation got interesting.
Quote from: jeff37923;822491There was a fucking lurch of a human being in Tennessee named Stacey Campfield who was refused service at several businesses (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/bistro-at-the-bijou-owner-boots-bans-state-sen)and ridiculed on their local talk radio stations until he lost the next election by a huge margin.
By your reading of the law, what was done to him was illegal.
No, that isn't my reading of the law. I gave an example of refusing to serve Jews. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is limited - it only applies to discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" - as I quoted. So it does not explicitly protect against discrimination against gays, for example, nor would it protect discrimination based on politics.
The point is that requiring non-discrimination is something that the government does demand of business owners in some circumstances. It is not inherently a violation of the constitutional rights of the people in the business.
Quote from: jeff37923;822491So, because a black woman was using that as a campaign slogan while running for congress and the rest of the political figures are from over "long in the past", it is false? OK, I'll buy that, but it seems that the concept of Martin Luther King Jr having more in common with Republican politics of that era than Democrat politics must be really offensive to you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;822494Personally, I think JKim would be a lot less upset about MLK's opinions if he were alive today, then most current Republicans would be about Reagan's policies if he were alive today. ;)
Heh. Yeah, I have no problem that lots of the 1960s era Democrats were thoroughly racist. It's pretty much a fact, not something offensive.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822601Mark my words, this stupid law will become an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. They gained the votes of some homophobes and for what? Big Businesses? They're against it. Principles? Ha. Conservatives are crowing about this now, but they really have nothing to celebrate. They made a shitty deal with the Religious Right for very little in return.
Well, it's been working out for the past 35 years or so.
JG
just a question here...
does anyone fight for the rights of the shirtless or shoeless in stores? the loud in libraries or smokers? how about the ones who love to fight, but get kicked out of bars?
in all seriousness we have not read the law, nor have we seen it in action yet. it may be one law that never gets used.
in all fairness, would anyone ever support a law forcing change in religious views, or forcing people to act in any certain way?
just asking...
Quote from: rway218;822659just a question here...
does anyone fight for the rights of the shirtless or shoeless in stores? the loud in libraries or smokers? how about the ones who love to fight, but get kicked out of bars?
in all seriousness we have not read the law, nor have we seen it in action yet. it may be one law that never gets used.
in all fairness, would anyone ever support a law forcing change in religious views, or forcing people to act in any certain way?
just asking...
I have read the law. And read critiques and analysis of same. And posted them here, already, when asked.
As to the rest, feed some horses with that Straw Man you're building.
Being shirtless or liking to fight is not a group seeking legal benefits status or a demographic that has been fighting for equal rights.
And in fairness, we have laws that force people to act certain ways. The Civil Rights Act, of utilized in similar conversation, "forces" people who wish to do business with the public to serve them regardless of race. No matter how racist they or their personal religion might be.
Just telling.
Quote from: rway218;822659does anyone fight for the rights of the shirtless or shoeless in stores? the loud in libraries or smokers? how about the ones who love to fight, but get kicked out of bars?
in all seriousness we have not read the law, nor have we seen it in action yet. it may be one law that never gets used.
in all fairness, would anyone ever support a law forcing change in religious views, or forcing people to act in any certain way?
WTF? I do not support forcing change in religious views - or change in expression of religious views. If someone believes in virgin sacrifice, then that is their right - and they can speak up in favor of virgin sacrifice.
However, I support laws forcing people to
act in certain ways. That is what laws generally do. Sacrificing virgins is illegal, as it should be.
As a more concrete example, I support the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbids a store like Woolworth's from having separate lunch counters for blacks and whites, for example - even if their church supports the move. I also oppose the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, like the federal law that was used to justify the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. It shouldn't matter to your rights whether you are religious or not.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;822601I live in a very conservative, rural area in a deep blue state. The other day I overheard a conversation in the teacher's lounge about which of the many small towns around our small city "Allow" blacks to walk around freely, and which ones automatically stop them and tell them to move on if they don't have a relative in the area.
This was said in a Foghorn Leghorn voice, right?
Quote from: jhkim;822669Sacrificing virgins is illegal, as it should be.
Stop oppressing my religious freedom!!!
Quote from: LordVreeg;822668I have read the law. And read critiques and analysis of same. And posted them here, already, when asked.
As to the rest, feed some horses with that Straw Man you're building.
Being shirtless or liking to fight is not a group seeking legal benefits status or a demographic that has been fighting for equal rights.
And in fairness, we have laws that force people to act certain ways. The Civil Rights Act, of utilized in similar conversation, "forces" people who wish to do business with the public to serve them regardless of race. No matter how racist they or their personal religion might be.
Just telling.
Quote from: jhkim;822669WTF? I do not support forcing change in religious views - or change in expression of religious views. If someone believes in virgin sacrifice, then that is their right - and they can speak up in favor of virgin sacrifice.
However, I support laws forcing people to act in certain ways. That is what laws generally do. Sacrificing virgins is illegal, as it should be.
As a more concrete example, I support the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbids a store like Woolworth's from having separate lunch counters for blacks and whites, for example - even if their church supports the move. I also oppose the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, like the federal law that was used to justify the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. It shouldn't matter to your rights whether you are religious or not.
Jhkim and Lord Vreeg pretty much nail this one for me.
Anyone who wants to read the bill in its entirety can find it here:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197 (https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197)
Quote from: LordVreeg;822668And in fairness, we have laws that force people to act certain ways. The Civil Rights Act, of utilized in similar conversation, "forces" people who wish to do business with the public to serve them regardless of race. No matter how racist they or their personal religion might be.
Just telling.
And you are either extremely naive or purposely clueless. Let's go with naive.
I thought I'd mention an anecdote, from a long while back... just as an example of how the anti-discrimination laws can swing both ways.
I was training as an assitant manager in a bookstore (part of a chain). A local white-power group came into the store and the manager spotted them and quick took me aside.
They were a known faction locally and would have LOVED it if we had tried to throw them out of the store or refuse them service... and that our hands were tied unless the were openly rude or confrontational to the employees (many of whom were black). So I was told to avoid any friction with them.
So they brought a pile of gun books and magazines up to the counter, looked at me and said they wanted me (a white guy) to check them out... not the man currently operating the cash register (a black guy). I didn't ask and they didn't offer their reasons... but they were obvious in the way they ignored the man at the register and spoke only to me.
So I stepped in and checked them out and they left with smug looks on their faces. They'd been overtly polite the entire time.
EVERYONE in the store would have loved to have told those guys to go fuck themselves... but the manager knew from previous situations that they were spoiling for a fight, to be able to have their lawyers complain to corporate and sue us for damages.
Despite that episode, I'm glad for laws that keep businesses from discriminating.
I think starting a business is a social contract... tying into many resources of the community. If you want to be a rugged individualist and go open a bakery out in the woods... without roads or electricity or police/fire protection go right ahead.
Quote from: Sommerjon;822688And you are either extremely naive or purposely clueless. Let's go with naive.
For knowing the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the history behind it?
Do tell...
I was responding to another post....
Quote from: rway218in all fairness, would anyone ever support a law forcing change in religious views, or forcing people to act in any certain way?
Just to make sure you have the context.
to be fair, my straw man argument are intentionally made ignorant to prove most people don't read things in context (laws) before they post.
there is no racist bias in the bill. no restaurant in their right mind would say they won't serve gay people.
the law protects people from lawsuits brought on by ignorance. it would also protect a church down the road (run by a lesbian couple) from being forced to stop performing same sex marriage. which if you care to know are legal in Indiana.
also, as for me, I hold no group over another. my black family loves my white and Hispanic family. my gay uncle and I love eachother and agree on very little.
stop the hate I implore all my RPG family. this should be a place to discuss without attack. I love you all in the LORD.
Quote from: rway218;822694to be fair, my straw man argument are intentionally made ignorant to prove most people don't read things in context (laws) before they post.
What's fair about ignorant straw man arguments?
We could do with less of that sort of "fairness." :nono:
Quote from: rway218;822694to be fair, my straw man argument are intentionally made ignorant to prove most people don't read things in context (laws) before they post.
there is no racist bias in the bill. no restaurant in their right mind would say they won't serve gay people.
the law protects people from lawsuits brought on by ignorance. it would also protect a church down the road (run by a lesbian couple) from being forced to stop performing same sex marriage. which if you care to know are legal in Indiana.
also, as for me, I hold no group over another. my black family loves my white and Hispanic family. my gay uncle and I love eachother and agree on very little.
stop the hate I implore all my RPG family. this should be a place to discuss without attack. I love you all in the LORD.
Great.
First of all, Don't say things like "No establishment will refuse to serve gay people". The idiocy and lack of understanding within the human animal is way, way beyond comprehension.
Secondly, just because there is no explicit bias (racial or otherwise) in a bill or law does not mean there is no implicit bias. I try to avoid citing biased sites, so here is CNN's take on Pence's inability (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-indiana-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-law/index.html) to give a straight answer on the backing of the bill and whether is allows discrimination.
We'll see where this goes. As I said, I expect this and the others like it to be remembered as the Jim Crow laws of our time.
Quote from: rway218;822694there is no racist bias in the bill.
No, the problem with the bill is that its intentionally vague and would allow any business to discriminate against a customer while claiming "religious grounds", and as the bill itself says the "religious grounds" would not actually have to be in anyway a major aspect of a religion (which is important as there is not actually a reason according to mainstream Christian faith to discriminate against a customer on religious grounds).
The ramifications of the bill are yet to be seen. The purpose of the bill has to be inferred, as the bill is so vague. The reason for the bill is unstated but easily assumed based on Pence's other statements, especially when he was queried about whether he would enact any statutes against the discrimination of gays ("thats not part of my agenda").
The reason for the comparisons to racial discrimination is because the wording of the bill directly echoes segregation bills passed in the early part of the twentieth century. This is reason for legitimate concern.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822698The reason for the comparisons to racial discrimination is because the wording of the bill directly echoes segregation bills passed in the early part of the twentieth century. This is reason for legitimate concern.
in that we both agree my friend. also the governor has already started to get an amendment bill authored to clarify this one.
can we at least wait until that is done before everything goes south on this thread? also it won't take effect until July...
Quote from: TristramEvans;822698No, the problem with the bill is that its intentionally vague and would allow any business to discriminate against a customer while claiming "religious grounds", and as the bill itself says the "religious grounds" would not actually have to be in anyway a major aspect of a religion (which is important as there is not actually a reason according to mainstream Christian faith to discriminate against a customer on religious grounds).
Just a nit-pick, but an important one, it doesn't "allow any business to discriminate" so mush as provides some cover, in court, against lawsuits stemming from discrimination.
There's this idea floating around (pushed by certain political groups) among low-info voters that this bill "legalizes discrimination" when that's not the case at all.
Quote from: rway218;822699in that we both agree my friend. also the governor has already started to get an amendment bill authored to clarify this one.
can we at least wait until that is done before everything goes south on this thread? also it won't take effect until July...
It is hard to be so charitable when the governor responds to point blank questions about whether the bill allows discrimination against gay people with evasive statements. I'd say people have a right to be concerned and to express those concerns. I'd rather put them on the defensive about this now than find out down the road that it is being used as a shield for discrimination.
Quote from: jhkim;822669WTF? I do not support forcing change in religious views - or change in expression of religious views. If someone believes in virgin sacrifice, then that is their right - and they can speak up in favor of virgin sacrifice.
However, I support laws forcing people to act in certain ways. That is what laws generally do. Sacrificing virgins is illegal, as it should be.
As a more concrete example, I support the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbids a store like Woolworth's from having separate lunch counters for blacks and whites, for example - even if their church supports the move. I also oppose the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, like the federal law that was used to justify the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. It shouldn't matter to your rights whether you are religious or not.
Um, just to be clear here in this discussion, are you equating sacrificing a virgin to refusing to bake a wedding cake or taking wedding photographs?
Quote from: jhkim;822631No, that isn't my reading of the law. I gave an example of refusing to serve Jews. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is limited - it only applies to discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" - as I quoted. So it does not explicitly protect against discrimination against gays, for example, nor would it protect discrimination based on politics.
The point is that requiring non-discrimination is something that the government does demand of business owners in some circumstances. It is not inherently a violation of the constitutional rights of the people in the business.
Except the refusal of service to Stacey Campfield was based on his anti-GBLT pronouncements, which he formed based on his religious beliefs.
Just to help people get to the bottom of all this.
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/RFRAFacts.png)
Quote from: jeff37923;822704Except the refusal of service to Stacey Campfield was based on his anti-GBLT pronouncements, which he formed based on his religious beliefs.
Seriously. What does Stacy Campfield have to do with the Indiana bill? :confused: Are you claiming the governor of Indiana signed the bill to allow restaurant owners in Indiana to deny service to Stacey Campfield or others like him without having to worry about legal action? Frankly, that seems pretty far fetched.
Quote from: jeff37923;822705Just to help people get to the bottom of all this.
(snip)
That is some absurd wankery there. Doesn't help anyone get to the bottom of anything. It just asserts a bunch of claims no one made "this bill will encourage domestic violence", "this bill will allow people to abuse children", "this bill will crush job creation", blah blah. Easy questions for easy answers. Utterly trite propoganda.
The only one thats relevant is this:
"This bill does nothing to encourage or discourage discrimination"
You can say that again.
"...never has a hotel, restaurant, or major retailer used this law to deny service to an LGBT person."
In the last week you mean? Notice it doesn't say that they cannot, just that it hasnt been used by that purpose. And they specifiy three businesses, and specifically
don't say
never has any retail business used this law to discriminate.
In other words, that trite bit of obfuscation doesnt help anyone get to the bottom of this. Its political claptrap wrapped in strawmen that avoids the issue.
Quote from: jeff37923;822705Just to help people get to the bottom of all this.
Yeah that is helpful. So the bill makes it easier for people to use their religion to avoid autopsies (which are a significant method of improving medical knowledge and finding and prosecuting crimes), ignore paperwork for zoning and construction permits (these have significant impact on land use and property values which effect all homeowners), and in general gives special rights to people for having certain religious beliefs, rights that other citizens, like me, do not have.
Why is that something I would want to support or encourage?
Quote from: Piestrio;822700Just a nit-pick, but an important one, it doesn't "allow any business to discriminate" so mush as provides some cover, in court, against lawsuits stemming from discrimination.
There's this idea floating around (pushed by certain political groups) among low-info voters that this bill "legalizes discrimination" when that's not the case at all.
You're right,it doesn't legalize it so much as providing a means to decriminalize it.
Quote from: Bren;822709Seriously. What does Stacy Campfield have to do with the Indiana bill? :confused: Are you claiming the governor of Indiana signed the bill to allow restaurant owners in Indiana to deny service to Stacey Campfield or others like him without having to worry about legal action? Frankly, that seems pretty far fetched.
Stacey Campfield was an anti-GBLT politician who claimed his religion was the basis for his political stance. He was legally denied service at a business for that stance. There were no legal repercussions to that business owner.
I think that this is important because the Indiana law has come about because there have been legal repercussions against businesses for denial of service to businesses that are anti-GBLT due to religion. Small businesses are concerned about that, especially with the second to last paragraph from GenCon's letter.
If you cannot deny service to one group of people because of religion, but can deny service to another because of religion, then you are violating equal protection under the law (as I understand it).
Now, I am not defending Stacey Campfield or the gay couples who are suing a bakery and a wedding photographer, I find Campfield to be a shitstain and think the couples are equally wrong in their pursuit of "justice" against small businesses (it seems petty and frivolous, not to mention an overkill against the businesses).
Quote from: TristramEvans;822710That is some absurd wankery there. Doesn't help anyone get to the bottom of anything. It just asserts a bunch of claims no one made "this bill will encourage domestic violence", "this bill will allow people to abuse children", "this bill will crush job creation", blah blah. Easy questions for easy answers. Utterly trite propoganda.
The only one thats relevant is this:
"This bill does nothing to encourage or discourage discrimination"
You can say that again.
"...never has a hotel, restaurant, or major retailer used this law to deny service to an LGBT person."
In the last week you mean? Notice it doesn't say that they cannot, just that it hasnt been used by that purpose. And they specifiy three businesses, and specifically don't say never has any retail business used this law to discriminate.
In other words, that trite bit of obfuscation doesnt help anyone get to the bottom of this. Its political claptrap wrapped in strawmen that avoids the issue.
"19 other states have RFRAs and 11 states have similar protections"
Right there in the infographic, they creators of which have taken all of those RFRAs into account - not just one enacted a week ago.
Quote from: Bren;822711Yeah that is helpful. So the bill makes it easier for people to use their religion to avoid autopsies (which are a significant method of improving medical knowledge and finding and prosecuting crimes)
Yes. It is not new. Why act like it is?
Quote from: Bren;822711Yeah ignore paperwork for zoning and construction permits (these have significant impact on land use and property values which effect all homeowners)
How? Got an example?
Quote from: Bren;822711and in general gives special rights to people for having certain religious beliefs, rights that other citizens, like me, do not have.
How? Got an example?
Quote from: Bren;822711Why is that something I would want to support or encourage?
Tell me what your religion is and I may be able to give a more concrete answer. As it is, it helps people to not get sued for acting and practicing their religion of choice. If religious freedom is not something you really care about, I guess it wouldn't be something you would want to support.
(Of course, I find it funny that the guy arguing for this is an agnostic with LaVeyan Satanist tendencies. Go figure.)
Quote from: jeff37923;822716Yes. It is not new. Why act like it is?
If it isn't new, then there is no need for new legislation. So far, I don't see any compelling reason for new legislation.
QuoteHow? Got an example?
An example of shoddy construction affecting people. Sure there are lots of examples. Is the notion that far fetched that you require examples before you believe it? Really?
QuoteHow? Got an example?
Your picture provided a couple.
QuoteTell me what your religion is and I may be able to give a more concrete answer.
That supports my point right there. Unless I pick the "right" religion, I don't get extra rights. No thanks.
QuoteAs it is, it helps people to not get sued for acting and practicing their religion of choice. If religious freedom is not something you really care about, I guess it wouldn't be something you would want to support.
Your right to practice your religion ends when your practice endangers other people or infringes their rights. What is the compelling need for special protections for the religious? That question is still unanswered.
Quote from: jeff37923;822714"19 other states have RFRAs and 11 states have similar protections"
Right there in the infographic, they creators of which have taken all of those RFRAs into account - not just one enacted a week ago.
And you'll notice by any cursory google search that the Indiana bill does not include the same reforms as those other similar bills.
Quote from: Bren;822723If it isn't new, then there is no need for new legislation. So far, I don't see any compelling reason for new legislation.
Don't be dumb. People have claimed religious reasons for avoiding autopsies since Moses was a baby. [/quote]
Quote from: Bren;822723An example of shoddy construction affecting people. Sure there are lots of examples. Is the notion that far fetched that you require examples before you believe it? Really?
Yes, because I doubt that there has ever been a case of shoddy construction due to religious reasons in modern law. I could be wrong.
Quote from: Bren;822723Your picture provided a couple.
Nice avoidance tactic.
Quote from: Bren;822723That supports my point right there. Unless I pick the "right" religion, I don't get extra rights. No thanks.
Another nice avoidance tactic.
Quote from: Bren;822723Your right to practice your religion ends when your practice endangers other people or infringes their rights. What is the compelling need for special protections for the religious? That question is still unanswered.
What is the compelling need for one certain baker to make a wedding cake? What is the compelling need for one certain wedding photographer to take photos? What is the compelling need for a business owner to throw out an anti-GBLT politician from her business?
EDIT: I'll add this for the deliberately obtuse. All three instances deal with GBLT rights, except one was pro and two were anti. If you want to allow the anti to be punished then the framework must be in place to allow the pro to be punished or else the law itself will come into question and lead us to where we are now in this discussion.
It would honestly be more practical to have a blanket, "don't be an asshole law" - but it would never work.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822724And you'll notice by any cursory google search that the Indiana bill does not include the same reforms as those other similar bills.
Such as?
Quote from: JeffWhat is the compelling need for one certain baker to make a wedding cake? What is the compelling need for one certain wedding photographer to take photos? What is the compelling need for a business owner to throw out an anti-GBLT politician from her business?
I'm GMing a session right now. So this is more of a placeholder for making sure this idiocy gets the response it deserves.
Quote from: jeff37923;822728Such as?
Anti-discrimination language so that the law specifically could
not be utilized for that purpose, rather than "doing nothing to encourage or discourage it." The Indiana law is the most sweeping and vague bill of its type among the 20 states that have religious freedom reform laws over the last 20 years. The ostensible purpose of the law is to prevent the government from prosecuting a business for making a decision based on the religious ideologies of the proprieters/owners. The biggest problem with this bill is that it specifically states that the religious reasons do not actually have to be religious beliefs of the religion. The person merely has to claim that it is a religious belief of theirs. This addresses the fact that there is not, defensibly, any prohibition in any mainstream form of Christianity from a Christian providing a service to someone not of their faith, or even of a lifestyle that their faith does not condone. The bill basically says that if the person claims their motivation is religious, then it doesnt matter if the religion doesnt actually say anything to that effect.
The bills vagueness is a large problem. It leaves it open to interpretation. While one could make the argument that people are jumping on the worste possible interpretation, there is sufficient evidence and history with the issues being discussed to suggest that these fears are warranted. When it was inquired of Pence why the law does not contain anti-discriminatory language like other bills of its type, Pence said simply "thats not my agenda".
Quote from: TristramEvans;822730Anti-discrimination language so that the law specifically could not be utilized for that purpose, rather than "doing nothing to encourage or discourage it." The Indiana law is the most sweeping and vague bill of its type among the 20 states that have religious freedom reform laws over the last 20 years. The ostensible purpose of the law is to prevent the government from prosecuting a business for making a decision based on the religious ideologies of the proprieters/owners. The biggest problem with this bill is that it specifically states that the religious reasons do not actually have to be religious beliefs of the religion. The person merely has to claim that it is a religious belief of theirs. This addresses the fact that there is not, defensibly, any prohibition in any mainstream form of Christianity from a Christian providing a service to someone not of their faith, or even of a lifestyle that their faith does not condone. The bill basically says that if the person claims their motivation is religious, then it doesnt matter if the religion doesnt actually say anything to that effect.
The bills vagueness is a large problem. It leaves it open to interpretation. While one could make the argument that people are jumping on the worste possible interpretation, there is sufficient evidence and history with the issues being discussed to suggest that these fears are warranted. When it was inquired of Pence why the law does not contain anti-discriminatory language like other bills of its type, Pence said simply "thats not my agenda".
OK, I'll buy that as a very valid counter-arguement.
Quote from: LordVreeg;822729I'm GMing a session right now. So this is more of a placeholder for making sure this idiocy gets the response it deserves.
Shame on you for letting a discussion interrupt a game being played. Automatic 20-yard penalty, first down. :D
Quote from: LordVreeg;822697As I said, I expect this and the others like it to be remembered as the Jim Crow laws of our time.
Absolutely, even though they aren't the same level abominations that Jim Crow laws were BUT they are abhorrent to a similar percentage of Americans...and thus the opposing political party can use Indiana as a marketing tool.
Indiana isn't going to enjoy the repercussions. Who the fuck needs more economic bad press in an on-going recession? A whole slew of other states can now use this law as a bargaining chip with companies. Also, those "20 other states" are about to enjoy an ugly spotlight too.
Quote from: Bren;822711...and in general gives special rights to people for having certain religious beliefs, rights that other citizens, like me, do not have.
Why is that something I would want to support or encourage?
Because the Pastafarians haven't join the fray yet. Somebody is gonna have a real party with the Indiana law and find out exactly how absurd it can be stretched.
Quote from: jeff37923;822727Don't be dumb. People have claimed religious reasons for avoiding autopsies since Moses was a baby.
So yet again I ask, what is the need for new law? You keep dodging this issue by citing the period without this law where everything is fine as proof that a new law is needed. That makes no sense. What is the need for this law?
QuoteYes, because I doubt that there has ever been a case of shoddy construction due to religious reasons in modern law. I could be wrong.
Again you use the period without this law to prove that the period after this law is enacted won't have problems. You are assuming what you are ostensibly trying to prove. And you aren't providing a need for new law.
QuoteNice avoidance tactic.
Did you not read your picture. You are avoiding, not me.
QuoteAnother nice avoidance tactic.
Avoidance of what, exactly? What is it you think I am avoiding.?You provide examples of special rights for the niche religious so that they can avoid autopsies for religious reasons or so they can build houses of worship. Those things are all legal and possible now. Why do these people need additional rights to do things that they are already allowed to do by law? Why do these religious people need even more rights than what they already have. Why do they need still more rights that the rest of us do not have to avoid constructing or zoning laws, to bury bodies without any state oversight, or to actively discriminate against their fellow citizens just because they claim their religion requires it? Your own examples provide the additional rights this law would apparently provide. What is it you want from me other than to say I don't say the need nor do I see the reason to create a class of citizens who have extra rights based on their own stated preference, interpretation, or whim. What is it you think I need to provide, that you have not already provided, to show that this legislation provides special rights for some? Are you even reading your own propaganda slides?
QuoteWhat is the compelling need for one certain baker to make a wedding cake? What is the compelling need for one certain wedding photographer to take photos? What is the compelling need for a business owner to throw out an anti-GBLT politician from her business?
None of these things occurred in Indiana. So this law is designed to give special rights to certain religions or people in Indiana who claim religious reasons for their beliefs to address a problem that has, in fact, never , ever occurred in Indiana.
QuoteEDIT: I'll add this for the deliberately obtuse. All three instances deal with GBLT rights, except one was pro and two were anti. If you want to allow the anti to be punished then the framework must be in place to allow the pro to be punished or else the law itself will come into question and lead us to where we are now in this discussion.
1) I've made no claims in relation to any of these incidents other than saying the Stacey Campfield is a kook and his own record clearly documents his kookiness. So that issue is not really up for debate. You seem to think the combination of these three denials of service proves something in regards to my question. It does not.
2) Providing service to people without discrimination to people who are not actively being disruptive of the business would adequately address two, probably all three of these examples in a manner that is productive to a just, fair, diverse society. According to you, the Indiana law does the exact opposite for no useful, ethical, moral, or practical reason that isn't already addressed by existing law.
Quote from: Spinachcat;822739Because the Pastafarians haven't join the fray yet. Somebody is gonna have a real party with the Indiana law and find out exactly how absurd it can be stretched.
All hail the mighty and righteous FSM!
Quote from: Bren;822740So yet again I ask, what is the need for new law? You keep dodging this issue by citing the period without this law where everything is fine as proof that a new law is needed. That makes no sense. What is the need for this law?
Again you use the period without this law to prove that the period after this law is enacted won't have problems. You are assuming what you are ostensibly trying to prove. And you aren't providing a need for new law.
Bren, in earlier posts in this thread I explained this. This law in Indiana and in other states is being enacted because businesses are concerned that they will be sued out of existence by people they have refused service to, even if they say it goes against their religious beliefs. Businesses are also concerned that government agencies will force the business owners to support policies that go against their religious beliefs.
Quote from: Bren;822740Did you not read your picture. You are avoiding, not me.
Assume I'm dumb, spell out your argument.
Quote from: Bren;822740Avoidance of what, exactly? What is it you think I am avoiding.?You provide examples of special rights for the niche religious so that they can avoid autopsies for religious reasons or so they can build houses of worship. Those things are all legal and possible now. Why do these people need additional rights to do things that they are already allowed to do by law? Why do these religious people need even more rights than what they already have. Why do they need still more rights that the rest of us do not have to avoid constructing or zoning laws, to bury bodies without any state oversight, or to actively discriminate against their fellow citizens just because they claim their religion requires it? Your own examples provide the additional rights this law would apparently provide. What is it you want from me other than to say I don't say the need nor do I see the reason to create a class of citizens who have extra rights based on their own stated preference, interpretation, or whim. What is it you think I need to provide, that you have not already provided, to show that this legislation provides special rights for some? Are you even reading your own propaganda slides?
So you have automatically assumed that the infographic is just propaganda. OK, this explains a lot.
However. To answer you, the new thing is that it has now become possible to sue a business for refusal of service and end that business.
Quote from: Bren;822740None of these things occurred in Indiana. So this law is designed to give special rights to certain religions or people in Indiana who claim religious reasons for their beliefs to address a problem that has, in fact, never , ever occurred in Indiana.
You know, if you tried wording things like TristramEvans did below, you might get further on this.
Why does it bother you that in the social climate that has been created, people find that their religious beliefs need some special protection?
Quote from: Bren;8227401) I've made no claims in relation to any of these incidents other than saying the Stacey Campfield is a kook and his own record clearly documents his kookiness. So that issue is not really up for debate. You seem to think the combination of these three denials of service proves something in regards to my question. It does not.
2) Providing service to people without discrimination to people who are not actively being disruptive of the business would adequately address two, probably all three of these examples in a manner that is productive to a just, fair, diverse society. According to you, the Indiana law does the exact opposite for no useful, ethical, moral, or practical reason that isn't already addressed by existing law.
Ah, but therein lies the rub! Suing a bakery and a wedding photographer out of business is indeed disruptive of that business. You just think it is OK because it appears to be pro-GBLT. For the law to be equal and just, it would have to be protective of anti-GBLT as well. I want the law itself to cover the full spectrum of instances, not just a select protected group because then it would not equal to all. If it helps, I feel this same way about Hate Crime laws as well. Equal rights and not special rights.
Quote from: jeff37923;822746Bren, in earlier posts in this thread I explained this. This law in Indiana and in other states is being enacted because businesses are concerned that they will be sued out of existence by people they have refused service to, even if they say it goes against their religious beliefs. Businesses are also concerned that government agencies will force the business owners to support policies that go against their religious beliefs.
1) What example is there of a business in Indiana being sued out of existence for following a religious belief?
2) What would the cause for action in Indiana even be for denial of service giving rise to a law suit?
3) Not that it is particularly relevant to the Indiana law, but out of curiosity, what is the bible verse that says, "Thou shall not bake cakes?"
QuoteSo you have automatically assumed that the infographic is just propaganda. OK, this explains a lot.
No. I did not assume that. I read it first. It was obvious from reading it that it was a propaganda piece. It has the obvious hallmarks of misleading, political double talk and stir up the base talking points. In this case the talking points of generally Republican voting, Christian extremists.
QuoteHowever. To answer you, the new thing is that it has now become possible to sue a business for refusal of service and end that business.
In Indiana? Has that actually happened or is this just Christian extremist paranoia fed by a governor with a political agenda?
QuoteWhy does it bother you that in the social climate that has been created, people find that their religious beliefs need some special protection?
Why does it bother me that in a social climate fueled by Christian extremists in the US and Islamic extremists mostly, but not solely abroad, that someone wants to create new rules to privilege certain religious beliefs and exempt them from laws designed to help a diverse society operate? Because the legislation is ignorant, vague, pernicious, and destructive to a diverse society, administered by secular law, founded on a principle separating church and state that has allowed the USA to survive for over two hundred years without the sort of religious extremism leading to civil war that plagued Europe for hundreds of years and that is still causing civil wars in the Middle East.
QuoteAh, but therein lies the rub! Suing a bakery and a wedding photographer out of business is indeed disruptive of that business. You just think it is OK because it appears to be pro-GBLT.
I never said that was OK. You are either attributing something someone else said to me or you are making shit up. Please stop doing that.
Unless that Tennessee nitwit was disrupting the restaurant that didn't serve him, he should have been served. He isn't any more vile than the KKK and unless he is passing out propaganda, harassing patrons or staff, or holding a rally, he should get the same service that any other reasonably dressed, polite person with money should get.
QuoteFor the law to be equal and just, it would have to be protective of anti-GBLT as well. I want the law itself to cover the full spectrum of instances, not just a select protected group because then it would not equal to all. If it helps, I feel this same way about Hate Crime laws as well. Equal rights and not special rights.
You are not insisting on equal rights, you are insisting on special rights for people who claim religious grounds for any vague, idiosyncratic, personal exemption they want to see put in place and this law shifts the burden of proof to the not well funded local, county, and state governments to show that their actions, which have been the practice for decades or longer are still necessary despite whatever vague notion of exemption any one of hundreds or thousands of special religious snowflakes wants to insist upon.
Quote from: Bren;822740So yet again I ask, what is the need for new law?
Mike Pence is a super secret Hillary operative and threw his entire state on the sword just to protect his unholy mistress from the email scandal???
That's the best I've got.
But this is from the political party in 2012 that needed to be reminded "Rape Now Bad" and that a "War on Women" after 1920 isn't a winning strategy.
Quote from: Bren;8227501) What example is there of a business in Indiana being sued out of existence for following a religious belief?
2) What would the cause for action in Indiana even be for denial of service giving rise to a law suit?
3) Not that it is particularly relevant to the Indiana law, but out of curiosity, what is the bible verse that says, "Thou shall not bake cakes?"
No. I did not assume that. I read it first. It was obvious from reading it that it was a propaganda piece. It has the obvious hallmarks of misleading, political double talk and stir up the base talking points. In this case the talking points of generally Republican voting, Christian extremists.
In Indiana? Has that actually happened or is this just Christian extremist paranoia fed by a governor with a political agenda?
Why does it bother me that in a social climate fueled by Christian extremists in the US and Islamic extremists mostly, but not solely abroad, that someone wants to create new rules to privilege certain religious beliefs and exempt them from laws designed to help a diverse society operate? Because the legislation is ignorant, vague, pernicious, and destructive to a diverse society, administered by secular law, founded on a principle separating church and state that has allowed the USA to survive for over two hundred years without the sort of religious extremism leading to civil war that plagued Europe for hundreds of years and that is still causing civil wars in the Middle East.
I never said that was OK. You are either attributing something someone else said to me or you are making shit up. Please stop doing that.
Unless that Tennessee nitwit was disrupting the restaurant that didn't serve him, he should have been served. He isn't any more vile than the KKK and unless he is passing out propaganda, harassing patrons or staff, or holding a rally, he should get the same service that any other reasonably dressed, polite person with money should get.
You are not insisting on equal rights, you are insisting on special rights for people who claim religious grounds for any vague, idiosyncratic, personal exemption they want to see put in place and this law shifts the burden of proof to the not well funded local, county, and state governments to show that their actions, which have been the practice for decades or longer are still necessary despite whatever vague notion of exemption any one of hundreds or thousands of special religious snowflakes wants to insist upon.
I've tried to explain my position. Either through my own lack of communication skills or your own unwillingness to see the other side of the issue, we have arrived at this impasse. I agree to disagree with you on this subject. Just don't go full bore looney tune and ragequit like Sacrosanct did.
Quote from: Spinachcat;822761Mike Pence is a super secret Hillary operative and threw his entire state on the sword just to protect his unholy mistress from the email scandal???
That's the best I've got.
But this is from the political party in 2012 that needed to be reminded "Rape Now Bad" and that a "War on Women" after 1920 isn't a winning strategy.
Jebuss, the whole "War on Women" crap was made up by the Democrats and their leftist buddies at CNN and MS-NBC. It was never a Republican strategy to begin with.
Please, quit knee-jerk feeling and start thinking.
Quote from: jeff37923;822767I've tried to explain my position. Either through my own lack of communication skills or your own unwillingness to see the other side of the issue, we have arrived at this impasse. I agree to disagree with you on this subject. Just don't go full bore looney tune and ragequit like Sacrosanct did.
You keep accusing me of saying things I haven't said and believing things I don't believe. That is annoying.
As a consumer, I would find the Indiana law less objectionable if it required businesses to post who they don't want to serve. Businesses post things like "No shirt, no shoes, no service" which allows customers to avoid the business if they are not properly attired. Something like that is done to save on embarrassment and awkward discussions. Doing that would avoid the embarrassment for the people asking for a cake or flowers only to be told by the business owner, "No, we don't sell to your kind here." That has to be a rather unkind thing to hear. After all, here in America businesses used to do that stuff all the time in the good old days e.g. "Help Wanted. No Irish need apply." They could post signs like that.
Besides saving potential embarrassment for the customer posting their dislikes would allow me to intelligently choose who not to buy from without having to wait until I hear about their specific religious dislikes. It's not like the Christian bible spells out who Christians are not supposed to sell cake or flower sto, after all. I need a program guide that spells that stuff out for me.
Quote from: jeff37923;822735Shame on you for letting a discussion interrupt a game being played. Automatic 20-yard penalty, first down. :D
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1014576705237970&set=a.123221627706820.17650.100000569516537&type=1&theater
We were still doing the dinner part. We always have dinner before our games.
Session 159 for that group, just getting into the recap.
What I find kind of strange in the defense of this law is how none of the defenders have anything to say about employment laws. The same place who would not have a gay person as a customer would be in hot water by law if they tried to deny a job to a gay person just because of their sexual orientation.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;822842What I find kind of strange in the defense of this law is how none of the defenders have anything to say about employment laws. The same place who would not have a gay person as a customer would be in hot water by law if they tried to deny a job to a gay person just because of their sexual orientation.
Really? That is odd.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822710That is some absurd wankery there. Doesn't help anyone get to the bottom of anything. It just asserts a bunch of claims no one made "this bill will encourage domestic violence", "this bill will allow people to abuse children", "this bill will crush job creation", blah blah. Easy questions for easy answers. Utterly trite propoganda.
The only one thats relevant is this:
"This bill does nothing to encourage or discourage discrimination"
You can say that again.
"...never has a hotel, restaurant, or major retailer used this law to deny service to an LGBT person."
In the last week you mean? Notice it doesn't say that they cannot, just that it hasnt been used by that purpose. And they specifiy three businesses, and specifically don't say never has any retail business used this law to discriminate.
In other words, that trite bit of obfuscation doesnt help anyone get to the bottom of this. Its political claptrap wrapped in strawmen that avoids the issue.
yes, I saw that particular graphic a few times.
It is total BS, carefully worded, and you make the places clear.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-republicans-gay-rights-election-2016/index.html
"But the bigger difference is the sea change in voter attitudes toward gay rights -- and the reality that many, starting in Indiana, have come to view the push for "religious freedom" bills as a coded rebellion against a flood of legislative actions and judicial decisions legalizing same-sex marriage, with the biggest one yet, from the Supreme Court, expected in June"
Pretty graphic or not, the people who wrote and pushed the bill tell a lot of the story. The Bill is part of a pushback against the country's changing view on equality. It is a political maneuver, nothing more, or the people Pence had at the signing ceremony and who helped push the bill wouldn't be a bunch of Anti-Gay Lobbyists. Paint it any way you want, but when you look at who is pushing it...you can't hide behind clever graphics.
"Religious liberty -- and using it to push back against same-sex marriage and other gay rights -- has become the rallying cry for the social conservative movement in the last year as these groups have watched one anti-gay marriage law after the next tumble in the courts.
And standing behind with Pence as he signed the bill were several socially conservative lobbyists, the ones who pushed for the law and are fiercely opposed to same-sex marriage.
One of those lobbyists, Eric Miller, explicitly wrote on his website that the law would protect businesses from participating in "homosexual marriage."
"The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that," Toobin said. The political calculation that states are going to have to make is, is the reward from the religious groups greater than the cost in lost business." From here (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html).
Quote from: Nexus;822843Really? That is odd.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
"The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation."
I guess it's just a matter of time until this is tested too under the 'religious freedom' pretext. We live in interesting times.
I think it's a good question about where RFRAs have successfully been used. The case I am most familiar with was the recent Hobby Lobby ruling regarding the federal RFRA.
The recent infographic cites two possible uses: Jewish family members blocking autopsies, and the red tape faced by building a new church (I believe this refers to pastor Telsa DeBerry in Holly Springs).
After brief checking, these seem legitimate - but I still oppose the basic logic. It shouldn't matter whether I am Jewish or not as far as an autopsy is concerned. If I and/or my family don't want my body autopsied after death, then we should have rights to say so regardless of whether our reason is religious or not.
Likewise, if I want to build a new building downtown, then there shouldn't be a special get-out-of-red-tape for churches. There should just be less red tape.
Quote from: jhkim;822867Likewise, if I want to build a new building downtown, then there shouldn't be a special get-out-of-red-tape for churches. There should just be less red tape.
Why should there be less red tape? The same issues of adequate construction, access, safety, demands on water, sewer, and power, available parking, traffic control, effect on adjacent properties all apply to places of worship too. Why skip any of the process that construction of a home, school, or business requires?
Quote from: jhkim;822867I think it's a good question about where RFRAs have successfully been used. The case I am most familiar with was the recent Hobby Lobby ruling regarding the federal RFRA.
It's probably worth noting the wide variety of RFRA cases involving ritual use of drugs (O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal), religions involving ritual animal sacrifice (Church of Lukumi Babalu), and other related matters. It's not uncommon for nominally general-use laws to be pointed very directly at 'outsider' religious groups.
QuoteIf I and/or my family don't want my body autopsied after death, then we should have rights to say so regardless of whether our reason is religious or not.
At least theoretically, "religion" as defined in RFRAs covers a number of beliefs most people wouldn't include (such as secular humanism), although there has been very little serious caselaw on the matter and most of the attempts have been trolling.
In my ideal world, most laws would be subject to something akin to strict scrutiny to start with and the RFRAs would be unnecessary, but we're not exactly in that perfect world. Instead the typical standard for a law is not whether there is a compelling government interest, but whether the courts think that anyone (not even the government's agents!) could conceivably name even a (wrong!) rational basis.
Given courts that don't seem to understand why someone's religious beliefs could even count as a thing that exist, there's a reason people have explicit interest here.
Quote from: Spinachcat;822739Because the Pastafarians haven't join the fray yet. Somebody is gonna have a real party with the Indiana law and find out exactly how absurd it can be stretched.
Not to mention the Satanists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/19/satanic-coloring-book_n_5846640.html
Quote from: apparition13;822592Ah, the libertarian/communist delusion, if only people would be better than they are, things would be perfect. Newsflash, expecting people to act morally, ethically, and reasonably is not magic either, bad apples will still ruin it for everyone else.
I expect people to act, in generally, extremely selfishly. And if you put them in charge of their own success or failures, and let them actually succeed or fail, then they'll tend to do whatever they can to be successful. Explain to me how that's expecting them to act better than they are...And no, man-made law isn't supposed to dictate morality; that's a function of God.
Communists are dumbasses though; no argument there.
Quote from: Brad;822919I expect people to act, in generally, extremely selfishly. And if you put them in charge of their own success or failures, and let them actually succeed or fail, then they'll tend to do whatever they can to be successful. Explain to me how that's expecting them to act better than they are...And no, man-made law isn't supposed to dictate morality; that's a function of God.
Communists are dumbasses though; no argument there.
Usually the delusion is in thinking that everyone acting selfishly (the market) always makes everything better or in failing to recognize that without government intervention people and corporations will eliminate all the
invisible hand preconditions (multiple buyers and sellers, commodity products, and information that is available to all) that Adam Smith laid out for when markets do work well.
Quote from: jhkimLikewise, if I want to build a new building downtown, then there shouldn't be a special get-out-of-red-tape for churches. There should just be less red tape.
Quote from: Bren;822868Why should there be less red tape? The same issues of adequate construction, access, safety, demands on water, sewer, and power, available parking, traffic control, effect on adjacent properties all apply to places of worship too. Why skip any of the process that construction of a home, school, or business requires?
Sorry if I phrased that badly. I meant what you said - that churches should not have special consideration as opposed to non-religious construction. Both churches and other buildings should have to go through the same legitimate code enforcement, and neither churches nor other buildings should have to put up with unnecessary "red tape".
Quote from: gattsuru;822881It's probably worth noting the wide variety of RFRA cases involving ritual use of drugs (O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal), religions involving ritual animal sacrifice (Church of Lukumi Babalu), and other related matters. It's not uncommon for nominally general-use laws to be pointed very directly at 'outsider' religious groups.
At least theoretically, "religion" as defined in RFRAs covers a number of beliefs most people wouldn't include (such as secular humanism), although there has been very little serious caselaw on the matter and most of the attempts have been trolling.
In my ideal world, most laws would be subject to something akin to strict scrutiny to start with and the RFRAs would be unnecessary, but we're not exactly in that perfect world. Instead the typical standard for a law is not whether there is a compelling government interest, but whether the courts think that anyone (not even the government's agents!) could conceivably name even a (wrong!) rational basis.
Given courts that don't seem to understand why someone's religious beliefs could even count as a thing that exist, there's a reason people have explicit interest here.
I don't see how the RFRA approach of carving out a special exemption for religious people helps get us closer to your ideal. It seems to me to make the situation worse by making rights more unequal.
I am in general an advocate for civil rights - and in general I agree with you that there are a lot of laws that push government control too far. I think the answer to this is to push for
everyone's rights, not making laws that help only certain people.
There should not be a special exemption only for use of drugs by religious people. Rather, drug laws should be relaxed in general, particularly for non-addictive drugs that do not cause long-term health problems.
Quote from: jhkim;822949I don't see how the RFRA approach of carving out a special exemption for religious people helps get us closer to your ideal. It seems to me to make the situation worse by making rights more unequal.
I am in general an advocate for civil rights - and in general I agree with you that there are a lot of laws that push government control too far. I think the answer to this is to push for everyone's rights, not making laws that help only certain people.
In a perfect world, perhaps. I used to be strongly for that strategy. In practice, there's reams of public choice theory devoted to saying that we can't get that no matter how much we try to focus people on the general cases, for the exact same reasons that tax law inevitably becomes a complicated clusterfuck and that restrictive business licensing occurs.
And, again, recent courts have routinely had issues recognizing religious or strongly held secular beliefs as a thing, for internal structural reasons, even by the already-terribly-low standards used for pretty much everything else.
Quote from: jhkim;822949Sorry if I phrased that badly. I meant what you said - that churches should not have special consideration as opposed to non-religious construction. Both churches and other buildings should have to go through the same legitimate code enforcement, and neither churches nor other buildings should have to put up with unnecessary "red tape".
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
Quote from: James Gillen;822892Not to mention the Satanists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/19/satanic-coloring-book_n_5846640.html
Love those guys
I'm a Christian, but I've gotta say, the "All Americans have the God-given right to live their faith according to their conscience" defense is just really fucking weird.
"God lets all your little pagans worship however you want to, if you can sleep at night!"
Quote from: Critias;822962I'm a Christian, but I've gotta say, the "All Americans have the God-given right to live their faith according to their conscience" defense is just really fucking weird.
"God lets all your little pagans worship however you want to, if you can sleep at night!"
Free agency - not just for the NFL. Surely as a Christian, you know what it means.
Quote from: gattsuru;822952In a perfect world, perhaps. I used to be strongly for that strategy. In practice, there's reams of public choice theory devoted to saying that we can't get that no matter how much we try to focus people on the general cases, for the exact same reasons that tax law inevitably becomes a complicated clusterfuck and that restrictive business licensing occurs.
And, again, recent courts have routinely had issues recognizing religious or strongly held secular beliefs as a thing, for internal structural reasons, even by the already-terribly-low standards used for pretty much everything else.
Can you unpack a bit about what you mean by courts having trouble recognizing religious belief? Some examples would be good.
I don't believe in a perfect world, and I also don't believe that giving only select people special rights to ignore oppressive laws is an improvement. It's just adding to inequality and unfairness.
Quote from: Bren;822942Usually the delusion is in thinking that everyone acting selfishly (the market) always makes everything better or in failing to recognize that without government intervention people and corporations will eliminate all the invisible hand preconditions (multiple buyers and sellers, commodity products, and information that is available to all) that Adam Smith laid out for when markets do work well.
Not all Libertarians ignore the basics of capitalist theory, you know; just the stupid ones. Serious libertarians recognize that government does have a role, even in the market; that role is to keep the market free specifically by maintaining those preconditions.
None of that in any way defeats the point that a lot of the stupid fucking problems of today are happening because of government getting involved in a bunch of things it shouldn't be involved in (in the market, and in many other areas).
This law being one example.
Quote from: jhkim;822949I don't see how the RFRA approach of carving out a special exemption for religious people helps get us closer to your ideal. It seems to me to make the situation worse by making rights more unequal.
I am in general an advocate for civil rights - and in general I agree with you that there are a lot of laws that push government control too far. I think the answer to this is to push for everyone's rights, not making laws that help only certain people.
Yes. The government has no place giving religious people more rights than anyone else. The government has no business involving itself with religion at all.
QuoteThere should not be a special exemption only for use of drugs by religious people. Rather, drug laws should be relaxed in general, particularly for non-addictive drugs that do not cause long-term health problems.
You are so, so close here.
Take that extra step to freedom:
the government should have no fucking business telling anyone what they do with their own body, in any way.
Quote from: Brad;821970And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
If I belong to a group of people that the shop's owner don't like, I would prefer to know about it, so I don't give him my money. Then, I would really like to see a shop owner put in very big letters on his shop things like "Ethnics X is not allowed here" or "Religion X is not allowed here". Just to see for how long he will be able to live in peace, and how long it will take before bankruptcy...
Quote from: RPGPundit;823007Yes. The government has no place giving religious people more rights than anyone else. The government has no business involving itself with religion at all.
You are so, so close here.
Take that extra step to freedom: the government should have no fucking business telling anyone what they do with their own body, in any way.
And that is where the Republican Party has a big problem, because they hitched their star to both the Religious Right and the anti-abortion crowds back in the late 70s and have ridden them ever since.
Frankly, it still amazes me that the Libertarian wing of the party can coexist with the Religious Right wing: one wants maximum freedom, and the other wants to codify their particular belief system. That being said, enough people have no issue with combining the two that we end up with laws much like Indiana's.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823006Not all Libertarians ignore the basics of capitalist theory, you know; just the stupid ones.
You say stupid, apparition13 said delusion. Bit of a potato potato, tomato tomato thing I suspect.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823007Yes. The government has no place giving religious people more rights than anyone else. The government has no business involving itself with religion at all.
I couldn't agree more.
I would like to understand:
Discrimination is one thing, but can extend to many more people than just gay or non-white. So, if I understand correctly, law currently obliges a shop owner to sell to anyone who wants to buy? And this new law what does it propose?
1) Is this a law where a shop owner could reject some specific category of people because of his religious beliefs, but in this case he would have to clearly indicate it on the door?
2) Is this a law where a shop owner could just forbid anyone to enter his shop without having to tell why? So maybe he doesn't like your visage or hair style, and that you look poor, or what not, and so you don't enter?
If this is as per the #1, this is truly pathetic and imbecile, especially if the shop owner has no way (in most cases) to know the sexual or religious orientation of the people who want to buy. Because he would have to write on the shop's door: "Christian owner here, so gay and unbelievers are not allowed". And of course, many people who don't fit in aforementioned categories would still not want to buy here anymore, only because the shop owner is apparently not friendly toward his customers, and looks more like an inquisitor than a merchant.
Another question: is Indiana in the "bible belt"?
Quote from: Turanil;823024Another question: is Indiana in the "bible belt"?
Parts of Indiana are. But often it is described as being in the Midwest.
Quote from: Turanil;823011If I belong to a group of people that the shop's owner don't like, I would prefer to know about it, so I don't give him my money. Then, I would really like to see a shop owner put in very big letters on his shop things like "Ethnics X is not allowed here" or "Religion X is not allowed here". Just to see for how long he will be able to live in peace, and how long it will take before bankruptcy...
He should be able to live in peace regardless of whether he has those signs on his door or not. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Quote from: Endless Flight;823041He should be able to live in peace regardless of whether he has those signs on his door or not. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed.
For me the nice aspect of the sign is that it makes the agenda of the store owner clear which allows me to vote for or against that agenda with my money. However the legislation does not require posting and any voluntary posting is unlikely to occur for three reasons.
One, a sign almost forces people to take sides which in most locations carries a risk of losing business customers. Second, publicity increases the chance of negative press, both literally and figuratively. One reason folks like the KKK wore (and wear) hooded masks is to hide their identity from the light of public scrutiny and censure. Third, publishing a list increases the chance of a violent reaction - which no one of good will should want. And most people don't really want to be actual martyrs for their cause.
Quote from: Turanil;823024Another question: is Indiana in the "bible belt"?
I think it is on the cusp.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;823046I think it is on the cusp.
I've been of the impression that the Bible Belt has been going a bit northward the past couple of decades; I'd say that Southern Indiana and Southern Ohio are part of the Bible Belt now. Not sure about Southern Illinois, however.
Quote from: Endless Flight;823041He should be able to live in peace regardless of whether he has those signs on his door or not. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I am not saying that such a person deserves getting into trouble. He would only deserve not getting my money anymore. However, what I was suggesting is that being discriminatory toward people is a sure way to bring trouble upon oneself. That's what I was hinting. I think that telling to customers that some of them based on skin color or religion are not welcome, is not a wise thing. (Or maybe it's the wise thing to do in the "bible belt"?)
Quote from: flyerfan1991;823047I've been of the impression that the Bible Belt has been going a bit northward the past couple of decades; I'd say that Southern Indiana and Southern Ohio are part of the Bible Belt now. Not sure about Southern Illinois, however.
I don't know. I'm up here in the north east, so I just have a vague impression of what it is like in the middle of the country.
Quote from: Turanil;823024Discrimination is one thing, but can extend to many more people than just gay or non-white. So, if I understand correctly, law currently obliges a shop owner to sell to anyone who wants to buy? And this new law what does it propose?
No. Most of Indiana has no law against refusing to sell to a potential customer for any reason or no reason at all. A couple counties have put forward a law prohibiting public accommodations with more than six employees from refusing to serve customers on certain listed basis (http://www.welshatlaw.com/hr_ordinance.html), although this is not common and caselaw doesn't seem to include provisioning of services within this law.
Under this new law, if a someone was sued or prosecuted in court, they could bring a defense that they were acting within accordance with a sincere religious belief (or strongly held secular conviction), and if the court found that the belief was sincere, the application of the law specific to the case would have to serve a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored fashion for it to be held applicable here.
This
isn't specific to discrimination law -- indeed, these laws originate in response to court cases involving peyote and zoning, and the closest they've come to traditional discrimination law involved a congregation forcing an old minister to retire.
Quote1) Is this a law where a shop owner could reject some specific category of people because of his religious beliefs, but in this case he would have to clearly indicate it on the door?
2) Is this a law where a shop owner could just forbid anyone to enter his shop without having to tell why? So maybe he doesn't like your visage or hair style, and that you look poor, or what not, and so you don't enter?
It's... not shaped like that. The law doesn't actually talk about shop owners directly -- it's a directive to the courts saying that other laws have to undergo certain analysis if someone raises religious objections.
Note that Case 2 is already the law in every state, excepting for certain emergency situations involving hospitals that take Medicaid funding.
QuoteAnother question: is Indiana in the "bible belt"?
Not traditionally? There's an increasing tendency to consider everything that's not on the Northeast or West Coast as the Bible Belt, but historically it usually describes parts of the country that had a Baptist or evangelical revival, which is a little more south than Indiana.
I was born in South Bend and raised in Mishawaka, which is about as far North in Indiana as you can get. Northern Indiana is definitely not part of the Bible Belt. I considered it to be socially moderate. I was always under the impression (because I took a few car rides through there on the way to Florida) though that the farther South you went, especially past Indianapolis, the more conservative it was. John Mellencamp country!
As an unrelated aside, I was never fond of Kentucky, but because I have relatives in Tennessee and my grandfather was born there, I have to remain neutral on that state. :)
Quote from: gattsuru;823054Under this new law, if a someone was sued or prosecuted in court, they could bring a defense that they were acting within accordance with a sincere religious belief (or strongly held secular conviction), and if the court found that the belief was sincere, the application of the law specific to the case would have to serve a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored fashion for it to be held applicable here.
Well, so what about GenCon and its threat to moving to somewhere else? :confused: And what about all these claims about this law opening the door to horrendous anti-gay discrimination? :confused:
Oh well, no need to answer. Next time I see a thread like that, I will probably gain one point of Wisdom for simply not reading it... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Turanil;823062Oh well, no need to answer. Next time I see a thread like that, I will probably gain one point of Wisdom for simply not reading it... :rolleyes:
No. You can't spam the +Wisdom for skipping dumb threads that way. The rules only allow you to gain one Wisdom increase, and then only if your Wisdom is 7-14.
Quote from: Turanil;823062Well, so what about GenCon and its threat to moving to somewhere else? :confused: And what about all these claims about this law opening the door to horrendous anti-gay discrimination? :confused:
Oh well, no need to answer. Next time I see a thread like that, I will probably gain one point of Wisdom for simply not reading it... :rolleyes:
Yes, the law opens the door to discrimination.
Don't be confused. The backers of the Bill, the lobbyists who stood next to and around Pence when the Bill was signed have been quite clear in that. And Pence would not deny it (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-indiana-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-law/).
Of course you can't be a politician and survive today while admitting a piece of legislation is built to help discriminate. But when the lobbyists who've pushed the bill are saying that, and that adding in language that protects the LGBT would ruin the bill....
Well, it is pretty clear what it means to some people.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823074Yes, the law opens the door to discrimination.
Don't be confused. The backers of the Bill, the lobbyists who stood next to and around Pence when the Bill was signed have been quite clear in that. And Pence would not deny it (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-indiana-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-law/).
Of course you can't be a politician and survive today while admitting a piece of legislation is built to help discriminate.
Well... Virginia is taking the Indiana bill and turning it up to 11.
Here's the link to the actual bill: House Bill No. 1414 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?151+ful+HB1414)
Quote from: flyerfan1991;823078Well... Virginia is taking the Indiana bill and turning it up to 11.
Here's the link to the actual bill: House Bill No. 1414 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?151+ful+HB1414)
What the hell?
QuoteBe it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. A person seeking to obtain or renew a license, registration, or certificate from the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, or any agency, authority, board, department, or other entity thereof, shall not be required to perform, assist, consent to, or participate in any action or refrain from performing, assisting, consenting to, or participating in any action as a condition of obtaining or renewing the license, registration, or certificate where such condition would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex "marriage" or homosexual behavior.
Does anyone more experienced in legalese want to unpack that one for me? Because it sounds really bad from a layman's perspective.
Looks like an anti-gay establishment will get no harassment from the government.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823081What the hell?
Does anyone more experienced in legalese want to unpack that one for me? Because it sounds really bad from a layman's perspective.
Just search Virginia House Bill 1414. There are a number of links that will explain it. The author of the bill appears to have a history (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/lawmaker_files_religious_liberty_bill_against_same_sex_marriage_or_homosexual_behavior)of anti-gay activity.
Northeastern Virginia has been gaining political strength and is much more democratic leaning than the rest of the state. I would not be surprised if this never makes it to a full vote and I'd be kind of shocked if it becomes law.
Quote from: gattsuru;823054No. Most of Indiana has no law against refusing to sell to a potential customer for any reason or no reason at all. A couple counties have put forward a law prohibiting public accommodations with more than six employees from refusing to serve customers on certain listed basis (http://www.welshatlaw.com/hr_ordinance.html), although this is not common and caselaw doesn't seem to include provisioning of services within this law.
There is federal law on this - specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964
that prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". So a business that is considered a "public accommodation" such as a restaurant or bakery cannot refuse service on the basis of someone's race, for example.
This federal law does not include sexual orientation, so unless there is a state law (like there is in Colorado), the shop owner can refuse service on the basis of being gay.
However, discrimination for being gay is being challenged in a lot of places. After the success of the Hobby Lobby ruling for the power of the RFRA, a state RFRA can be seen as a pre-emptive effort to ensure that religiously-motivated behavior is allowed despite other laws to the contrary.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823081Does anyone more experienced in legalese want to unpack that one for me? Because it sounds really bad from a layman's perspective.
If a government worker dislikes the cut of your jib, they can deny you a driver's license.
Or voter registration
Or marriage license
Or State benefits
Or a building permit
Or business license
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823094If a government worker dislikes the cut of your jib, they can deny you a driver's license.
Or voter registration
Or marriage license
Or State benefits
Or a building permit
Or business license
No, that is NOT what it says.
Quite the opposite. It states that the Commonwealth of Virginia can't deny you license based on your behavior towards the LGBT community.
Quote from: Turanil;823062Well, so what about GenCon and its threat to moving to somewhere else? :confused: And what about all these claims about this law opening the door to horrendous anti-gay discrimination? :confused:
There
are a few places in the state that have public accommodation laws that this law could theoretically allow people to discriminate, and it's possible that it'll have an impact on employment law for highly religiously motivated organizations. It's not likely, but it could happen. It's just not happened in any other areas where very similar laws have occurred, and would be very costly and difficult to do even if someone's dumb enough to try, and it's far from the only or even most common impact of this sort of law.
I'm not sure whether the reporting reflects people unaware of the current state of the law, how many are speaking from a normative rather than descriptive focus, and who's intentionally overstating the impact.
Quote from: jhkim;823087There is federal law on this - specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". So a business that is considered a "public accommodation" such as a restaurant or bakery cannot refuse service on the basis of someone's race, for example.
I've said this before in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=822489&postcount=150), but for the purposes of the CRA-1964, "public accommodation" only includes a fairly small number of services. Restaurants are covered, bakeries are not.
Underneath
that, the federal CRA can not be altered nor have its interpretation altered by state law -- Supremacy Clause! -- so it can only be affected by the federal RFRA, not any state RFRA.
QuoteThis federal law does not include sexual orientation, so unless there is a state law (like there is in Colorado), the shop owner can refuse service on the basis of being gay.
Uh... historically, true, but the EEOC has been working to expand the federal law's definition of "discrimination on the basis of sex" to include orientation and gender presentation (https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/eeoc-clarifies-protections.pdf). They're more on the employment side and are still working to persuade the courts, but they're taken pretty seriously and part of why this sorta thing is happening today.
QuoteAfter the success of the Hobby Lobby ruling for the power of the RFRA, a state RFRA can be seen as a pre-emptive effort to ensure that religiously-motivated behavior is allowed despite other laws to the contrary.
Well, yes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823081Does anyone more experienced in legalese want to unpack that one for me? Because it sounds really bad from a layman's perspective.
It
looks like an attempt to prevent local jurisdictions from pulling or refusing to issue certs to anti-gay folk, but it's written pretty incoherently and I'm not sure exactly how it would be interpreted.
It's also been tabled since January, so it's not getting anywhere.
Ignoring the preamble with its long list of whereas clauses the bill is only one sentence long. Here is a simplified version.
A person who wants a license, registration, or certificate from the Commonwealth of Virginia shall not be required to do anything or refrain from doing anything that would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex "marriage" or homosexual behavior.
This says that Virginia cannot require a person to do anything (or not do anything) that violates their religious or moral convictions on same sex marriage or homosexual behavior as a condition for granting them a license, registration, etc.
As an example, that would mean bars and restaurants (which are presumably licensed by the Commonwealth) could deny admittance or service to homosexuals (or only allow homosexuals) without affecting their liquor or business license. I'm not sure what other licenses, registrations, and certificates Virginia grants, but there might be some pretty wide ranging potential for effects.
On the other hand, as of 10 FEB 2015 this bill appears to be left in the House Committee on General Laws. It may not be going anywhere else anytime soon.
Quote from: Brad;821958I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
Similarly, when other private businesses decide they don't want to operate in States who have these laws, such as GenCon LLC, and go elsewhere, that's capitalism, too.
Indiana fucked up in terms of Rational Self Interest to the tune of many millions of dollars - more than 50 million annually - all to pander to a political minority. That's just bad for business.
I'm doubtful anyone in Indiana seriously expects any of these boycotts to actually exist as things. GenCon's not going to be able to shift its operations until 2020, and most folk on the right don't expect them to even remember this by the end up this year. Apple works with China and Iran; they don't even have the grace to be funny jokes here.
And, of course, the last cake bakery to try the discrimination thing in Indiana went out of business within a year, even though the law didn't care and they pandered to counter-protesters.
Quote from: gattsuru;823119I'm doubtful anyone in Indiana seriously expects any of these boycotts to actually exist as things. GenCon's not going to be able to shift its operations until 2020, and most folk on the right don't expect them to even remember this by the end up this year. Apple works with China and Iran; they don't even have the grace to be funny jokes here.
And, of course, the last cake bakery to try the discrimination thing in Indiana went out of business within a year, even though the law didn't care and they pandered to counter-protesters.
Umm.. We have states and cities boycotting them with any state travel. Washington and Connecticut as well as Seattle and San Fran. Forgot New York.
NYC, Portland, OR, Denver, etc, etc.
NCAA, NFL, NASCAr....oh, and the Colts.
the Gap, Levis, SAlesforce (only the largest CRM in the world), EMC, Oracle, Anthem, Angle's List, etc, etc...
These exist as things.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;823047I've been of the impression that the Bible Belt has been going a bit northward the past couple of decades; I'd say that Southern Indiana and Southern Ohio are part of the Bible Belt now. Not sure about Southern Illinois, however.
As the country gets fatter we have to raise the belt above the waist. :D
JG
They exist as people saying things. Seriously, Connecticut has the exact same law on the books, has for decades. You can pretend this is a principled stand from NASCAR and the NFL
-- uh, nevermind, bad example--
You could pretend that it's a principled stand from San Franscisco, but do you expect that politicians in Indiana actually believe that?
Quote from: gattsuru;823131They exist as people saying things. Seriously, Connecticut has the exact same law on the books, has for decades. You can pretend this is a principled stand from NASCAR and the NFL
-- uh, nevermind, bad example--
You could pretend that it's a principled stand from San Franscisco, but do you expect that politicians in Indiana actually believe that?
CT also has anti discriminatory laws on the books that Indiana does not. Sorry, apples to Oranges.
And while it is actually very interesting watching states and cities actually standing up and staking a space out, more interesting is all the companies pulling out. That's money they ARE losing.
(and if NASCAR is looking down it's nose at you....where they hell are you?)
So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?
Quote from: LordVreeg;823132CT also has anti discriminatory laws on the books that Indiana does not. Sorry, apples to Oranges.
... you realize that the CT RFRA would override those laws, if the Indiana one were actually worth worrying about?
Quote from: jeff37923;823136So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?
It's conceivably possible that they just Cared So Much that they didn't really think about the costs of breaking the contract until later.
But it's probably politics.
Since Pence seems so determined to paint himself as the victim of mischaracterization:
Yeah, no agenda to discriminate at all there... (http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pence-seems-to-have-history-of-opposing-gay-rights-2015-3)
Quote from: jeff37923;823136So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?
They never threatened to just up and leave. They said they would bail in the future after the contract was done.
Quote from: gattsuru;823131They exist as people saying things. Seriously, Connecticut has the exact same law on the books, has for decades.
Except even if we ignore the different context to the legislation and the difference in the other laws in both states it's not the exact same law. Even a cursory reading (Indiana (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/) vs. Connecticut (http://rfraperils.com/Connecticut/)) makes this obvious. Just to take one example, the Connecticut law applies to persons without any unusual interpretations of what constitutes a person. The Indiana law specifically says the law applies to for profit corporations and joint stock companies and other non-human persons.
It seems pretty naïve or disingenuous to claim that the Indiana law included all those extra words and definitions by accident if their intent was to get the "exact same law on the books" as the much shorter Connecticut law that has been on the books for decades.
Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.
The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.
Please, try a little harder.
Quote from: gattsuru;823147Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.
The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.
Please, try a little harder.
Given that under the Indiana law the corporation doesn't even have to prove that it has been substantially burdened or only burdened, only that it is "likely to be substantially burdened" which seems like a pretty low bar. to meet.
Are you honestly trying to say that Indiana enacted this considerably wordier legislation with the aim of making it more difficult for a business to choose not to serve gays in Indiana than the law allows in Connecticut? Really?
As for the differences, I'll let a lawyer respond (https://appealinglybrief.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/connecticut-is-not-indiana/?preview=true&preview_id=3403&preview_nonce=e557ceb34d)or for a lay comparison see the Hartford Courant (http://courantblogs.com/colin-mcenroe/so-does-connecticut-have-a-rfra-like-indianas/).
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823110Indiana fucked up in terms of Rational Self Interest to the tune of many millions of dollars - more than 50 million annually - all to pander to a political minority. That's just bad for business.
You seriously think that's what's going to happen? This is all a dog and pony show. After Mike Pence's conference this morning, it was pretty obvious the press was just bored and looking for a sensationalist axe to grind. Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.
Nothing to see, folks.
Quote from: Brad;823157Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.
Well, I think sensible folks have been avoiding Arkansas for decades. Indiana was a bit more of a surprise.
Quote from: Simlasa;823160Well, I think sensible folks have been avoiding Arkansas for decades. Indiana was a bit more of a surprise.
I don't find it too surprising. Indiana is currently pretty solidly Republican with a Republican governor and Republican supermajorities in both chambers. And a lot of democrats, especially in southern Indiana are social conservatives many of whom may favor the law.
Quote from: Bren;823153Given that under the Indiana law the corporation doesn't even have to prove that it has been substantially burdened or only burdened, only that it is "likely to be substantially burdened" which seems like a pretty low bar. to meet.
As opposed to Connecticut, where the presumption is against the government?
QuoteAre you honestly trying to say that Indiana enacted this considerably wordier legislation with the aim of making it more difficult for a business to choose not to serve gays in Indiana than the law allows in Connecticut? Really?
No. They
did enact considerably wordier legislation for a reason. The reason is that they didn't fucking trust the courts. The original RFRA was meant to cover civil actions where the government was not a prosecutor, too -- more than one of the lawsuits that encouraged it had such facts -- and courts without obvious jurisprudence otherwise have been twisting the law heavily over the last decade to try to shy away from that.
You're right, in that it
could make it easier to bring a defense against discrimination laws. On the other hand, this has been the standard for two decades in several circuits (DC, 2nd, 8th, 9th) for two decades : slightly easier of impossible is still impossible. The first person to use this lawsuit to try to legally discriminate against their customers is going to lose.
QuoteAs for the differences, I'll let a lawyer respond or for a lay comparison see the Hartford Courant.
If your lawyer can't manage to remember that the Second Circuit allows RFRA to be used as a defense in private suits and that local courts have used the federal reading -- the case since 1996! -- you need a new expert.
Indiana will pay for this blunder, as will the other states with similar legislation. It will become a leverage point in negotiations by non-RFRA states when they deal with companies, and they will make it part of their state's sales pitch.
This will echo in tech companies especially and their involvement in conferences. IndyBigData just lost Amazon and EMC, and not in a theoretical way, they have bailed out of the 2015 conference.
In a tight economy, every bit of leverage is important.
Quote from: rway218;822099Pulling Gencon out of a state because there are people who don't believe or think like you is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted. Just as a business who says "we serve only (fill in people group) is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted.
This is the double edged sword of the whole thing. Too bad statesmen are few and far between these days in the US of A.
It should move back to Lake GENeva, WI!
Well everyone can thank George Stephanopoulos, for making Mike Spence look like a complete and total idiot on Sunday.
Gov. Spence is having the bill rewritten specifically to protect from discrimination leading to denial of services.
It's not adding LGBT specifically as a protected class, however.
Quote from: CRKrueger;823186Well everyone can thank George Stephanopoulos, for making Mike Spence look like a complete and total idiot on Sunday.
Gov. Spence is having the bill rewritten specifically to protect Gays and Lesbians from discrimination leading to denial of services.
Why should they have special privileges? Certain lesbians seem to enjoy suing Mom and Pops into the ground:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577
Quote from: Teazia;823187Why should they have special privileges? Certain lesbians seem to enjoy suing Mom and Pops into the ground:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577
I clarified, Spence doesn't intend to add specific LGBT protections, but apparently they are going to adjust the law so that you can't deny someone services based on the bill.
Quote from: Rincewind1;822236To all magic market believers:
Guys, remember when it took market 45 years to decide communism wasn't working, and it still took Ronnie Reagan simply throwing billions of dollars into military spending so that USSR'd finally realise it can't keep up? And communism was pretty much screwed from day 1 of First Five Year Plan.
Reagan didn't kill the USSR with military spending, it was due to the cheap price of oil. This broke the USSR and may do the same to Putin today.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;822419I don't think they are worried about vendors at Gen Con itself so much as people who are coming to attend Gen Con encountering discrimination (for example hotels refusing to give same sex couples shared rooms or something).
I think this is highly unlikely. But I suppose it could happen?!?
Quote from: Endless Flight;823059As an unrelated aside, I was never fond of Kentucky, but because I have relatives in Tennessee and my grandfather was born there, I have to remain neutral on that state. :)
Nothing really 'wrong' with Kentucky or the people that live there.
Over 14 years ago I went to a Lesbian Wedding in Northern Kentucky.
Yes, you read that correctly - a lesbian wedding at least a decade before all the recent talk about such events. Very nice church and pastor were involved, very nice reception with over 150 people there.
Its the politicians in a state that are the problem - NOT the citizens or residents of a state.
Also, did any of you see what the mayor of Indianapolis said? He opposes the new bill and will do an executive order for the city of Indy that forbids discrimination....
- Ed C.
This has been a very enjoyable thread (only up to page 20 so and need to go take care of other things). It has been mostly civil as well which is rather surprising.
Is it GLBT or LGBT?
Quote from: Koltar;823196Nothing really 'wrong' with Kentucky or the people that live there.
Over 14 years ago I went to a Lesbian Wedding in Northern Kentucky.
Yes, you read that correctly - a lesbian wedding at least a decade before all the recent talk about such events. Very nice church and pastor were involved, very nice reception with over 150 people there.
Its the politicians in a state that are the problem - NOT the citizens or residents of a state.
Also, did any of you see what the mayor of Indianapolis said? He opposes the new bill and will do an executive order for the city of Indy that forbids discrimination....
- Ed C.
Gotta hand it to him, he stepped up and squared off publicly against Spence.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823132(and if NASCAR is looking down it's nose at you....where they hell are you?)
Seriously. When NASCAR and the NFL start thinking you need to dial it down a notch, that tells you something right there.
Quote from: jeff37923;823136So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?
The vain hope that people might care about the long term?
Quote from: gattsuru;823147Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.
The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.
Please, try a little harder.
Connecticut has a long tradition of being at the forefront of protecting civil rights, as well as religious freedom; state law explicitly prohibits governmental entities from burdening the exercise of religion, while also protecting against discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
--Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy
Quote from: Brad;823157You seriously think that's what's going to happen? This is all a dog and pony show. After Mike Pence's conference this morning, it was pretty obvious the press was just bored and looking for a sensationalist axe to grind. Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.
Nothing to see, folks.
It's already happening. Bans and boycotts are growing rapidly by both other states and many US corporations. So yes I believe its going to happen because I am not in denial of what is happening right now.
Heck, Angie's List canceled a 40 million dollar contract to build offices in Indiana already and that's almost the value of GenCon itself.
So why wouldn't I believe this will cost the state many millions of dollars? It already has. The question is, why don't you believe it in light of the facts?
Quote from: gattsuru;823138It's conceivably possible that they just Cared So Much that they didn't really think about the costs of breaking the contract until later.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823212The vain hope that people might care about the long term?
I really really want to believe this.
Quote from: gattsuru;823138But it's probably politics.
What I think as well. Just whose politics and to achieve what end, though?
Quote from: gattsuru;823168No. They did enact considerably wordier legislation for a reason.
We agree that they rewrote the legislation for a reason, which makes your continued insistence that the document is somehow exactly the same as the law in Connecticut...perplexing.
Quote from: Koltar;823196Its the politicians in a state that are the problem - NOT the citizens or residents of a state.
Somebody must be voting for those problem politicians else they would be unemployed politicians i.e. no longer much of a problem.
Quote from: jeff37923;823226What I think as well. Just whose politics and to achieve what end, though?
Anti-gay, "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman" lobbyists combined with Republican politicians in Indiana who want to appease their fundamentalist religious base for creation and passing of the new law. Politicians whose base favors gay marriage or opposes discrimination against GLBT folks for pposing or boycotting the law. Pretty much what one would expect of the various political factions.
Indiana business supports the law, says they will discriminate against gays, internet explodes
https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=memories+pizza
I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823237Indiana business supports the law, says they will discriminate against gays, internet explodes
https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=memories+pizza
Quote"That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?" says Kevin O'Connor.
Presumably he tried both lifestyles on before choosing one. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bren;823241Presumably he tried both lifestyles on before choosing one. :rolleyes:
It's the only way to be sure.
But seriously I suspect an April fool. This is just too textbook. But watching the response either way is interesting.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823214It's already happening. Bans and boycotts are growing rapidly by both other states and many US corporations. So yes I believe its going to happen because I am not in denial of what is happening right now.
Heck, Angie's List canceled a 40 million dollar contract to build offices in Indiana already and that's almost the value of GenCon itself.
So why wouldn't I believe this will cost the state many millions of dollars? It already has. The question is, why don't you believe it in light of the facts?
Angie's List is currently under a major class-action lawsuit for fraud. They jumped on the "Fuck Indiana!" bandwagon for what appears to be a diversion.
So, yeah, believe what you want, this is just hyped up bullshit.
Quote from: Brad;823253Angie's List is currently under a major class-action lawsuit for fraud. They jumped on the "Fuck Indiana!" bandwagon for what appears to be a diversion.
So, yeah, believe what you want, this is just hyped up bullshit.
How about Big Pharma company Elli Lilly? Or any if the other major corporations doing business in the state? Let me guess, that's just a diversion too.
Lots of diversions.
But this has been a good exchange because now I know you're a fundie extremist for your particular -ism and thus there is no having a reasonable discussion with you on this subject.
Quote from: Brad;823253Angie's List is currently under a major class-action lawsuit for fraud. They jumped on the "Fuck Indiana!" bandwagon for what appears to be a diversion.
So, yeah, believe what you want, this is just hyped up bullshit.
Then how do you spin Walmart's pressure to veto the Arkansas version of the bill?
Hang on and I'll get more popcorn; I'm running low.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823255How about Big Pharma company Elli Lilly? Or any if the other major corporations doing business in the state? Let me guess, that's just a diversion too.
Lots of diversions.
But this has been a good exchange because now I know you're a fundie extremist for your particular -ism and thus there is no having a reasonable discussion with you on this subject.
Yes, pointing out that a bunch of corporations jumping on the sensationalist journalist bandwagon is some how "fundie extremist". Really? This is what passes for a counter-argument? It might be easier to just call me a Neo-Nazi or something. Or what about racist bigot?
And, yeah, lots of PR. That's all it is. In a couple months, I bet you hear zero about this at all. Big corporations give fuck-all about anything unless it makes them money.
Here is a really good inforgraphic on how this law (and other laws work)
It isn't what some are making it out to be:
(http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RFRA-Infographic.png)
Quote from: Ulairi;823311Here is a really good inforgraphic on how this law (and other laws work)
It isn't what some are making it out to be:
(http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RFRA-Infographic.png)
Be careful! Yeah, I used an infographic from the same group earlier and was told that it was just Religious Conservative Republican propaganda because it didn't agree with the popular narrative be pushed.
Quote from: Bren;823233Anti-gay, "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman" lobbyists combined with Republican politicians in Indiana who want to appease their fundamentalist religious base for creation and passing of the new law. Politicians whose base favors gay marriage or opposes discrimination against GLBT folks for pposing or boycotting the law. Pretty much what one would expect of the various political factions.
None of which are Gen Con. What are Gen Con's motivations in all this?
You seem to not want to consider that question, but really want to obfuscate it while adding your own spin.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823255How about Big Pharma company Elli Lilly? Or any if the other major corporations doing business in the state? Let me guess, that's just a diversion too.
To be fair ANGI has been bending Indianapolis over for months over this expansion, demanding the city pay for a $9 million parking garage and spend another $6 million to relocate some school system tenants from the building the company wanted to occupy. I get the sense they were on the fence anyway and were never really committed to the city unless it coughed up the millions.
LLY is almost infinitely more serious. They've been there since 1876 and make more in a week than ANGI brings down in a year. The dot-pebbles can vote all they like, here comes the avalanche.
Quote from: Brad;823263Yes, pointing out that a bunch of corporations jumping on the sensationalist journalist bandwagon is some how "fundie extremist". Really? This is what passes for a counter-argument? It might be easier to just call me a Neo-Nazi or something. Or what about racist bigot?
And, yeah, lots of PR. That's all it is. In a couple months, I bet you hear zero about this at all. Big corporations give fuck-all about anything unless it makes them money.
Sorry, been actually out of the office on meetings.
Brad, Buddy, this is one you will lose. This isn't small companies and small amounts of money.
The sound you are hearing is the Religious Right side of the conservative segment running headlong into the Sugar Daddy/Lobbyist side of the same group.
Hard.
Three years ago, Walmart wouldn't care. They learned differently.
Being seen as non-inclusive is bad business now.
Quote from: Brad;823263Yes, pointing out that a bunch of corporations jumping on the sensationalist journalist bandwagon is some how "fundie extremist". Really? This is what passes for a counter-argument? It might be easier to just call me a Neo-Nazi or something. Or what about racist bigot?
And, yeah, lots of PR. That's all it is. In a couple months, I bet you hear zero about this at all. Big corporations give fuck-all about anything unless it makes them money.
It's almost like it's magical invisible hand of free market at work!
Quote from: jeff37923;823319None of which are Gen Con. What are Gen Con's motivations in all this?
You seem to not want to consider that question, but really want to obfuscate it while adding your own spin.
http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Anti-Discrimination.30_Mar_2015.pdf
Howzat for simple?
They recognize the law for what it is.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823337...The sound you are hearing is the Religious Right side of the conservative segment running headlong into the Sugar Daddy/Lobbyist side of the same group.
Hard.
Three years ago, Walmart wouldn't care. They learned differently.
Being seen as non-inclusive is bad business now.
Yep (http://www.theonion.com/articles/indiana-governor-insists-new-law-has-nothing-to-do,38330/). It was swaggering overreach, and it played badly in Peoria. That wouldn't have mattered, but now CEOs are feeling inconvenienced, so Pence is hung out to dry looking like the asshole that he is.
In the big GOP retreat, we're not going to see the wingnuts undo all the harm they cause. Watching their apologists squirm, though, is some grim satisfaction.
7/10 Would
schadenfreude again.
Quote from: jeff37923;823319None of which are Gen Con. What are Gen Con's motivations in all this?
I don't know how Gen Con is structured. That makes it difficult to say with any certainty.
I'd guess whoever makes decisions for Gen Con (a) wanted to register their opposition to the law to encourage Indiana politicians, especially the governor, not to pass the law or (b) thought registering their opposition to the potential law would enhance the Con's image with a significant segment of potential attendees regardless of whether or not it changed the minds of Indiana politicians. It's likely that both reasons were factors. It is possible that the decision makers decided to make a statement based solely on their own principles without regard to its effect on attendees - that would be (c). I tend to discount (c) since I usually assume business decisions aren't made solely on that basis, but it's possible I suppose.
QuoteYou seem to not want to consider that question, but really want to obfuscate it while adding your own spin.
I don't think the question deserves much consideration as it seemed as obvious as the reasons that the politicians are doing their little appease the base dance.
EDIT: I see from the link LordVreeg provided that Gen Con answered the question themselves.
So a, b, and possibly in alignment with their own principles.
Quote from: jeff37923;823318Be careful! Yeah, I used an infographic from the same group earlier and was told that it was just Religious Conservative Republican propaganda because it didn't agree with the popular narrative be pushed.
This graphic seems aimed at conveying factual information rather than selling the concept. I note that the Indiana law changes step 1 so that the person, church, organization doesn't need to show an existing burden or substantial burden only the likelihood that their might be a burden at some point.
Quote from: Rincewind1;823339It's almost like it's magical invisible hand of free market at work!
Isn't it though?
Quote from: Rincewind1;823339It's almost like it's magical invisible hand of free market at work!
Right now, this is the part of the movie where the GOP's Corporate Backers argue with the Tea Party over the pile of money they collected, and the Tea Party guys set the money on fire, saying, "Don't worry- we're only burning OUR half."
JG
Quote from: LordVreeg;823342http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Anti-Discrimination.30_Mar_2015.pdf
Howzat for simple?
They recognize the law for what it is.
That is just a press release, which may or may not be their actual intentions. It does make an interesting comparison to their Letter to Attendees posted up thread.
Quote from: jeff37923;823319None of which are Gen Con. What are Gen Con's motivations in all this?
You seem to not want to consider that question, but really want to obfuscate it while adding your own spin.
Whatever Gencon's ideological motivation might be, they have a very clear ECONOMIC motivation: less people will go to Gencon, either in protest of the law or out of fear that they will be discriminated against. If someone is discriminated against, Gencon will have no means to rectify that, and will undoubtedly generate bad press about the Con.
They have a real financial motive as a company to have a problem with this law.
Quote from: jeff37923;823384That is just a press release, which may or may not be their actual intentions.
The governor holds a press conference. Gen Con issues a press release. No surprise there. What were you expecting Gen Con to release, a copy of the secret SJW master plan for world domination?
As I already said and as Pundit just said, the motivation of Gen Con LLC is most likely financial. This is not rocket science. Gen Con LLC is a company. Companies exist to make money for their shareholders or owners. What other motivation would you expect them to have?
Quote from: RPGPundit;823389Whatever Gencon's ideological motivation might be, they have a very clear ECONOMIC motivation: less people will go to Gencon, either in protest of the law or out of fear that they will be discriminated against. If someone is discriminated against, Gencon will have no means to rectify that, and will undoubtedly generate bad press about the Con.
They have a real financial motive as a company to have a problem with this law.
Well, GenCon does have means to rectify it under the law. My problem with this whole stink is that it isn't really about the law. It's about the culture on where are we going to go when it comes to religion. The real fire line is marriage. Some people do not want gays to marry. Some do. But, the real battle is going to be once gay marriage is legal can the Church or other religious organisations be forced to perform the ceremonies.
There is nothing in the law that is going to cause discrimination against gay people. You cannot use this law to say: I do not want to serve a gay person a beer. That person would lose the lawsuit.
This is cheap political point scoring with the tribe.
Quote from: Bren;823415Companies exist to make money for their shareholders or owners. What other motivation would you expect them to have?
Tell that one about a company running a geek convention to make money again.
Quote from: Ulairi;823440But, the real battle is going to be once gay marriage is legal can the Church or other religious organisations be forced to perform the ceremonies.
That sounds like a goofy crack pot conspiracy theory. A man and a woman can't make a church marry them. Why would anyone think that two men or two women could make a church marry them when a man and a woman can't? That seems cracked.
Now I can perhaps see where someone who is a justice of the peace in a state that allows gay marriage might, as a condition of their office, be required to marry anyone who is legally allowed to marry under the laws of that state.* However the solution for those that don't want to perform those marriages is not to be a justice of the peace. It's not like we allow police officers to skip domestic disturbance calls to a gay couple's residence because they disapprove of gay couples.
* Maybe this will move society in the direct I think it should be where religious weddings are religious ceremonies with no civil effect and marriages are civil ceremonies/contracts with no religious impact. People who want to be married and have a church wedding either bring a justice of the peace to their church wedding, have their wedding performed by a clergy person who is also licensed to perform civil ceremonies, or they have two separate ceremonies, one religious and one civil. Bingo, problem solved. Religious ceremonies whether Baptist, Catholic, or whatever are safely under the control of their respective churches safe from civil or secular impact, import, or meddling.
Quote from: gattsuru;823443Tell that one about a company running a geek convention to make money again.
Why would you think that the owners of Gen Con LLC are uninterested in making money? Do you have some actual data to support that idea or are you just bullshitting?
Quote from: Ulairi;823440Well, GenCon does have means to rectify it under the law. My problem with this whole stink is that it isn't really about the law. It's about the culture on where are we going to go when it comes to religion. The real fire line is marriage. Some people do not want gays to marry. Some do. But, the real battle is going to be once gay marriage is legal can the Church or other religious organisations be forced to perform the ceremonies.
There is nothing in the law that is going to cause discrimination against gay people. You cannot use this law to say: I do not want to serve a gay person a beer. That person would lose the lawsuit.
This is cheap political point scoring with the tribe.
Considering that priests within the Catholic Church can (and do) refuse to marry people who have been cohabitating, then what's the big deal?
Quote from: gattsuru;823443Tell that one about a company running a geek convention to make money again.
Sure.
"On November 20, 2008, a letter of intent to purchase Gen Con LLC's assets was filed with the bankruptcy court. It announced that a to-be-formed company called Gen Con Acquisition Group would purchase Gen Con LLC., for an amount equal to Gen Con LLC's outstanding debt.[42][43] Gen Con's President, Adrian Swartout, described the letter as "suspiciously cryptic" and concluded that the offer "is not in the best interest of our creditors."[44] Gen Con rejected the hostile takeover bid, and the bankruptcy court allowed Gen Con to emerge from bankruptcy in January 2009, 11 months after it had entered Chapter 11.[44][45]"
it's a business.
And the more people who come to their signature event, the more vendors and dealers and the company makes.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823337Sorry, been actually out of the office on meetings.
Brad, Buddy, this is one you will lose. This isn't small companies and small amounts of money.
The sound you are hearing is the Religious Right side of the conservative segment running headlong into the Sugar Daddy/Lobbyist side of the same group.
Hard.
Three years ago, Walmart wouldn't care. They learned differently.
Being seen as non-inclusive is bad business now.
Yeah, also corporations are learning the presidential election itself doesn't matter as much if they own all the local guys and both party's candidates, so the Business Wing of the party is going to get a lot less tolerant of the Religious Wing as the "Southern Strategy" becomes increasingly obsolete.
Quote from: Bren;823445Why would you think that the owners of Gen Con LLC are uninterested in making money? Do you have some actual data to support that idea or are you just bullshitting?
Well, how about this question. Because of their actions, is Gen Con still "The best four days in gaming" or is it a tool for political activism? Gen Con used to concentrate on delivering gaming goodness in a convention package, now it is concentrating on pushing forth a political agenda.
Now, no matter how much I may agree with the desirability of the end result of gay marriage acceptance, it is not tabletop RPGs. (On a related note, seeking acceptance for gay marriage is a very good thing, but the methodology of suing businesses for not supporting gay marriage is what has led us to the RFRA mess that currently exists.)
Now, what I am worried about with Gen Con is this. By taking this political stance, Gen Con is demonstrating that it is a welcoming place for SJWs and activists - groups that are using gaming as a vehicle to deliver their message and not known for a lot of rational thought or concern for who they piss off. In particular, the following paragraph seems to me to be an open invitation for trouble:
Quote from: Letter to Gen Con Attendees 03/26/2015If you have positive or negative experienes with local hospitality during Gen Con, we want to hear about it. We will create an email feedback form for attendees prior to the 2015 convention, and review your experiences at our annual post-convention employee summit. We encourage attendees to continue to voice their opinions via social media or if they feel comfortable, to send emails to customerservice@gencon.com or call our Customer Service line at 800-529-3976 (x3806).
I'm sure he was joking when he posted this,
Quote from: trechriron;822382Well, as someone up thread suggested, we get to see all the bigots on parade!
Gen Con bound? GLBT? Bring your cameras friends. Wear a lapel camera and record every visit outside the con. Seek out the haters, and try to patronize their establishments. Make a documentary. Let the country see it in real-time. Should change some minds.
but there will be SJW activist attendees of Gen Con who will do this. If they do not get the footage they want, I think that they will try to provoke it from the locals. This will do nothing but make gamers look like jerks and irritate local businesses.
Now if think this is just my own paranoia talking, I'll remind the readers of the SJW activist attacks on Monte Cook, Zak S, and The Pundit. I'll bring up the claims by SJW activists that D&D is colonialist and racist because orcs represent black people, that D&D is misogynist because female monsters are under-represented in the Monster Manual, and a bunch of others. These are people not known for their rational thought.
I have always wanted to one day attend Gen Con, but not now and definitely not this year. I have a feeling it could become a shitstorm of SJW lunacy instead of four days of fun gaming.
EDIT: And actually, this thread on Intellectual Litmus Tests in Gaming (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32009)is given as proof of SJW activist "rationality".
Jeffrey,
I'm actually sure that being the "best four days of gaming" and still being activist for equality are not mutually exclusive, in the long term. I would also feel pretty safe in saying they did not want this distraction.
But not withdrawing from the fray and taking the easy dollars was the harder, more commendable way out.
You are CERTAINLY CORRECT that people and groups will politicize it and put gaming second. No doubt.
But I find this to be the harder but more admirable path, personally.
And the idea that GenCon is somehow politicizing sexual orientation is hilariously disingenuous.
Quote from: jeff37923;823513Well, how about this question. Because of their actions, is Gen Con still "The best four days in gaming" or is it a tool for political activism? Gen Con used to concentrate on delivering gaming goodness in a convention package, now it is concentrating on pushing forth a political agenda.
Now, no matter how much I may agree with the desirability of the end result of gay marriage acceptance, it is not tabletop RPGs. (On a related note, seeking acceptance for gay marriage is a very good thing, but the methodology of suing businesses for not supporting gay marriage is what has led us to the RFRA mess that currently exists.)
Now, what I am worried about with Gen Con is this. By taking this political stance, Gen Con is demonstrating that it is a welcoming place for SJWs and activists - groups that are using gaming as a vehicle to deliver their message and not known for a lot of rational thought or concern for who they piss off. In particular, the following paragraph seems to me to be an open invitation for trouble:
I'm sure he was joking when he posted this,
but there will be SJW activist attendees of Gen Con who will do this. If they do not get the footage they want, I think that they will try to provoke it from the locals. This will do nothing but make gamers look like jerks and irritate local businesses.
Now if think this is just my own paranoia talking, I'll remind the readers of the SJW activist attacks on Monte Cook, Zak S, and The Pundit. I'll bring up the claims by SJW activists that D&D is colonialist and racist because orcs represent black people, that D&D is misogynist because female monsters are under-represented in the Monster Manual, and a bunch of others. These are people not known for their rational thought.
I have always wanted to one day attend Gen Con, but not now and definitely not this year. I have a feeling it could become a shitstorm of SJW lunacy instead of four days of fun gaming.
EDIT: And actually, this thread on Intellectual Litmus Tests in Gaming (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=32009)is given as proof of SJW activist "rationality".
Eh, I think it's more a case of "Oh shit, Indiana just pissed off a whole lot of gamers, let's bluff to keep good will and attendance up."
Quote from: Bren;823444Maybe this will move society in the direct I think it should be where religious weddings are religious ceremonies with no civil effect and marriages are civil ceremonies/contracts with no religious impact.
BINGO.
Two people want to enter a business contract with each other and the gov't as "The Wilson's" I don't care if they are gay, straight, trans, sleep in the same bed or are brother and sister - or are even named Wilson. It's a fucking dba.
Your religion allows only marriages between two heterosexual women from Decatur, Illinois? Who gives a fuck, ain't the govt's problem or my business.
Get the gov't out of the religious ritual business and get the religions out of the economic contract business.
Problem solved.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823337Sorry, been actually out of the office on meetings.
Brad, Buddy, this is one you will lose. This isn't small companies and small amounts of money.
The sound you are hearing is the Religious Right side of the conservative segment running headlong into the Sugar Daddy/Lobbyist side of the same group.
Hard.
Three years ago, Walmart wouldn't care. They learned differently.
Being seen as non-inclusive is bad business now.
So...you're agreeing with me? That big corporations see some sort of economic downside and are acting in a way to preserve their bottom line? You can believe whatever you want, but the "American consumer" (whatever the fuck that even means) has an attention span of about 14 seconds. Next month, they'll be up in arms about the new outrage and this crap will have dissipated into nothingness.
Quote from: CRKrueger;823494Yeah, also corporations are learning the presidential election itself doesn't matter as much if they own all the local guys and both party's candidates, so the Business Wing of the party is going to get a lot less tolerant of the Religious Wing as the "Southern Strategy" becomes increasingly obsolete.
Religious fanaticism has never been particularly good for business, unless you own a Creationist Museum or something.
Quote from: CRKrueger;823543BINGO.
Two people want to enter a business contract with each other and the gov't as "The Wilson's" I don't care if they are gay, straight, trans, sleep in the same bed or are brother and sister - or are even named Wilson. It's a fucking dba.
Your religion allows only marriages between two heterosexual women from Decatur, Illinois? Who gives a fuck, ain't the govt's problem or my business.
Get the gov't out of the religious ritual business and get the religions out of the economic contract business.
Problem solved.
I'd go one further and get rid of the government's involvement altogether. Marriage is whatever ceremony you and whoever you consensually get to agree to it want it to be; government stops treating married people different from single people.
Quote from: jeff37923;823513Well, how about this question. Because of their actions, is Gen Con still "The best four days in gaming" or is it a tool for political activism? Gen Con used to concentrate on delivering gaming goodness in a convention package, now it is concentrating on pushing forth a political agenda.
By your logic, doing nothing would make Gen Con a tool of the religious fundamentalist anti-gay lobby who authored the legislation. That seems way too binary a view. I suspect, Gen Con made a business decision that the legislation would be a problem for enough attendees that they needed to argue against it and to be seen to be arguing against it. Not coincidentally that is the exact same stand that a number of large corporations with headquarters or significant operations in Indiana.
The Republican legislature and Governor Pence decided to draw a line in the sand by passing the law. A law that serves no purpose in most of Indiana (which has no state wide anti-discrimination law for sexual orientation) other than to void local antidiscrimination laws that were put in place in cities like Indianapolis and Fort Wayne.
In what is an ever more frequent disconnect between fiscally conservative, small government Republicans and their socially reactionary comrades, this legislation takes away local control and local rights by enacting law at the higher state level. Which is kind of typical for the religious/social reactionaries who are unduly interested in what other people do in their bedrooms and look to government to help them express their disapproval. This legislation was designed to score political points with the Republican fundamentalist religious base and the governor's action in approving it is what put Gen Con and other companies in the place of either accepting the legislation or arguing against it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823591I'd go one further and get rid of the government's involvement altogether. Marriage is whatever ceremony you and whoever you consensually get to agree to it want it to be; government stops treating married people different from single people.
I'd take the tax break that paying taxes separately at the single rate would give me.
Quote from: Bren;823596I'd take the tax break that paying taxes separately at the single rate would give me.
Unless you or your spouse make significantly more than the other, in which you'd get a tax break for being married.
My wife and I got married for tax reasons, since I make a lot more than she does. It save's us thousands of dollars per year in tax benefits.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823591I'd go one further and get rid of the government's involvement altogether. Marriage is whatever ceremony you and whoever you consensually get to agree to it want it to be; government stops treating married people different from single people.
The ceremony is a wedding, not a marriage. Marriage is a legal status. But I agree marriage should be abolished. Its outdated.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823617Unless you or your spouse make significantly more than the other, in which you'd get a tax break for being married.
My wife and I got married for tax reasons, since I make a lot more than she does. It save's us thousands of dollars per year in tax benefits.
I'm aware. In our bracket and with our incomes, separate would have been cheaper for the past 25 years or so. So for us its a marriage tax.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823589Religious fanaticism has never been particularly good for business, unless you own a Creationist Museum or something.
Ugh.
I try really damn hard to forget that... thing... is right across the river in Kentucky.
At least the Kentucky statehouse wised up and refused to give them any state funds for their Noah's Ark amusement park when Answers in Genesis stated they were only going to hire "Christians" to construct and run the park.
Quote from: Bren;823444That sounds like a goofy crack pot conspiracy theory. A man and a woman can't make a church marry them. Why would anyone think that two men or two women could make a church marry them when a man and a woman can't? That seems cracked.
I dunno. This whole discussion seems to breed crackpot theories on both sides of the aisle. Look way back on . . . page 1, actually. Some dude was claiming that this Indiana law could open the floodgates to refusing service, employment, and possibly other things based on sexual orientation, color of skin, having a different religion from the person doing the hiring/serving, etc.
The infographic above is actually a very good illustration of what an RFRA law actually does. And I have a friend who blogs on political matters a lot who decided to throw his hat in the ring:
Quote from: Dr. Glenn PeoplesSo much for the facts of the matter, which are beyond dispute. On their own, the facts tell us that the outrage against Indiana is unreasonable. This is a piece of law that expresses a basic feature of any adequately free society, a law that is already federal law and state law in many places, a law that does not allow for – and has not lead to – carte blanche discrimination.
The full article can be found here, (http://www.rightreason.org/2015/free-to-discriminate-part-1/) and more information on the writer of the article can be found here. (http://www.rightreason.org/about/about-glenn/)
I'm disappointed that once again businesses are the ones that are driving the government to action, even if it is positive this time, instead of the complaints of actual living people who are affected by the laws.
This was the obvious outcome of allowing money to be speech and treating corporations as people in the context of free speech.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;823623I dunno.
I've yet to see an example of what the law is supposed to protect people from. Thus I'm left with this all being based on stirring up campaign contributions and support by appeasing a political base who have some crackpot paranoid delusion that without this law Baptist ministers and Catholic priests across the state of Indiana will somehow be forced to perform weddings in their own church for gay couples.
Some examples of what it is this law will allow people to do that they would otherwise not be permitted to do in Indiana and what they want not to have to do that they would otherwise be compelled to do in Indiana. To say, as some seem to be saying, that this law is needed to protect people from the anti-discrimination law in Colorado (which doesn't apply in Indiana, and it's not like Colorado is even close to being a neighboring state) seems pants on head crazy.
Quote from: Bren;823627I've yet to see an example of what the law is supposed to protect people from. Thus I'm left with this all being based on stirring up campaign contributions and support by appeasing a political base who have some crackpot paranoid delusion that without this law Baptist ministers and Catholic priests across the state of Indiana will somehow be forced to perform weddings in their own church for gay couples.
Some examples of what it is this law will allow people to do that they would otherwise not be permitted to do in Indiana and what they want not to have to do that they would otherwise be compelled to do in Indiana. To say, as some seem to be saying, that this law is needed to protect people from the anti-discrimination law in Colorado (which doesn't apply in Indiana, and it's not like Colorado is even close to being a neighboring state) seems pants on head crazy.
I'd also argue that assuming that a gay couple would try to force a minister --who quite obviously believes they are evil sinners-- to perform a marriage ceremony for them ignores the fact that the gay couple wouldn't even be
in that church in the first place.
Quote from: jeff37923;823513I have always wanted to one day attend Gen Con, but not now and definitely not this year. I have a feeling it could become a shitstorm of SJW lunacy instead of four days of fun gaming.
GenCon had 56,000 attendees in 2014. Even if there were 1% SJWs, that's 560 douchenozzles out of 56,000 gamers. I seriously doubt there would be even half of 1%.
Attend whenever you have the time to go. GenCon's grueling, but fun. I highly suggest reading various blogs on "how to do GenCon" because aspects of GenCon's bureaucracy can be frustrating.
Quote from: jeff37923;823319What are Gen Con's motivations in all this?
There are lots of gay gamers and they have disposable income. GenCon may have gay staff, and they definitely have lots of gay volunteers.
And, its great free publicity for them. Now, whenever there's a list of companies boycotting Indiana, GenCon gets listed alongside a bunch of major names. That's only good press.
Quote from: Brad;823263Big corporations give fuck-all about anything unless it makes them money.
Good optics is good marketing.
Good optics helps hiring.
Discrimination, of any kind, is bad PR among young educated employees, so coming out against Indiana is meaningful in the competition for talent.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823208When NASCAR and the NFL start thinking you need to dial it down a notch, that tells you something right there.
Whammo!
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823237Indiana business supports the law, says they will discriminate against gays, internet explodes
https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=memories+pizza
I am always so confused when people say sexuality is a choice.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823523Jeffrey,
And your response starts out with a smarmy patronizing tone....
Quote from: LordVreeg;823523I'm actually sure that being the "best four days of gaming" and still being activist for equality are not mutually exclusive, in the long term.
So which is it? Four days or long term?
And if political activism and gaming are not mutually exclusive, then why wasn't the setting for
Blue Rose a more popular product?
Quote from: LordVreeg;823523I would also feel pretty safe in saying they did not want this distraction.
But not withdrawing from the fray and taking the easy dollars was the harder, more commendable way out.
You are CERTAINLY CORRECT that people and groups will politicize it and put gaming second. No doubt.
But I find this to be the harder but more admirable path, personally.
I don't think anybody wanted this distraction.
However, it has already been politicized and Gen Con is placing political activism before gaming.
While I agree that supporting gay marriage is a good thing, this is coming at the cost of setting up the #1 gaming convention.
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;823531And the idea that GenCon is somehow politicizing sexual orientation is hilariously disingenuous.
Actually, your comment is hilariously disingenuous.
I never said that Gen Con is politicizing sexual orientation. I have said that Gen Con is using the convention to engage in political activism (which in this case, is opposition to Indiana's SB 101).
Quote from: Bren;823595By your logic,
No, the crap that followed this was entirely you, Bren. Nothing you posted was anything I had written or said, it was all the narrative that you are trying to push. It certainly isn't mine.
By my logic, if Gen Con LLC did not engage in this political activism, then they would be fulfilling their reason for incorporation by working on Gen Con the convention and I would be much more inclined to believe that they were about to create the "Best four days in gaming".
Quote from: flyerfan1991;823632I'd also argue that assuming that a gay couple would try to force a minister --who quite obviously believes they are evil sinners-- to perform a marriage ceremony for them ignores the fact that the gay couple wouldn't even be in that church in the first place.
I think the same would go for pizza joints.
Quote from: Bren;823627I've yet to see an example of what the law is supposed to protect people from.
No that
is disingenuous.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823677GenCon had 56,000 attendees in 2014. Even if there were 1% SJWs, that's 560 douchenozzles out of 56,000 gamers. I seriously doubt there would be even half of 1%.
Except this is about my unwillingness to put up with bullshit when I am spending a few hundred dollars for the experience of Gen Con. I do not see the reason why I should have to put up with any douchenozzles when I am a paying customer.
Quote from: Ulairi;823703I think the same would go for pizza joints.
Yes!
For those who aren't getting the reference, Here (http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/2015/04/01/Concord-High-School-coach-suspended-over-Tweet-about-arson.html) and here (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/) are news stories about a pizza place whose owner said they would not cater a same sex wedding and then immediately were attacked, threatened with arson, and had to close the store due to the danger to their employees and customers. Because of their financial losses, they have a GoFundMe site (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza)set up.
Quote from: jeff37923;823705Except this is about my unwillingness to put up with bullshit when I am spending a few hundred dollars for the experience of Gen Con. I do not see the reason why I should have to put up with any douchenozzles when I am a paying customer.
You do realize that you probably walk past douchenozzles whenever you're out at a restaurant or a store, right? It's not like your hometown is a douchenozzle free zone.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823677I am always so confused when people say sexuality is a choice.
People conflate humanities ability to do things that run counter to our inherent traits in stressful situations, such as straight people having homosexual relationships only while in prisons with the same sex or heterosexual relationships in normal society when they could be killed for being homosexual, with the effort it takes to order a meal off a fast food menu.
It is expected that the laws promoted by those people create the stressful situations, although I doubt they are doing it with that understanding.
Quote from: RPGPundit;823591I'd go one further and get rid of the government's involvement altogether. Marriage is whatever ceremony you and whoever you consensually get to agree to it want it to be; government stops treating married people different from single people.
I'd go for this one too, but married people tend to buy property, put down roots, join the long-term stable tax base, raise more taxpayers, all those things cities and states like, so I can see a government want to encourage that sort of thing, but I wonder in 2015 if we should go back to first principles and decide if incentivizing population growth is truly something we need at this point.
Quote from: jeff37923;823700Actually, your comment is hilariously disingenuous.
I never said that Gen Con is politicizing sexual orientation. I have said that Gen Con is using the convention to engage in political activism (which in this case, is opposition to Indiana's SB 101).
Nah, you got this one wrong. A corporate PR move isn't political activism just because you disagree. I highly doubt the executives care what Indiana does unless it could result in reduced membership, which this does.
Quote from: jeff37923;823701By my logic, if Gen Con LLC did not engage in this political activism, then they would be fulfilling their reason for incorporation by working on Gen Con the convention and I would be much more inclined to believe that they were about to create the "Best four days in gaming".
I don't really have a narrative here other than observing the political and business rationales for the various actors.
I don't really get why you think Gen Con
shouldn't protest a law that in their judgment will cost them revenue by decreasing attendance. Gen Con LLC has clearly indicated that they see this legislation as a threat to their current and future revenue. Why should they just suck up the revenue loss and take it?
Aside from playing right into the political narrative of the Indiana anti-gay lobby doing nothing ignores management's primary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize value. I expect the management of companies to do their job. Which is to maximize shareholder wealth. Gen Con's actions, like those of other larger corporations, is consistent with doing exactly that. Allowing Governor Pence and his anti-gay lobbyist to score cheap points with their base at the expense of Gen Con's revenue is irresponsible and an abrogation of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
"The best four days in gaming" is an advertising pitch and a corporate goal. But the company's end goal is to maximize shareholder wealth. Ad pitches and corporate goals are just a means to that end. Don't get so hung up on the ad pitch that you forget why the company exists.
Quote from: jeff37923;823705Except this is about my unwillingness to put up with bullshit when I am spending a few hundred dollars for the experience of Gen Con. I do not see the reason why I should have to put up with any douchenozzles when I am a paying customer.
Apparently other potential attendees feel that Indiana's new law will force them to put up with some legally enabled douchenozzles.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;823714You do realize that you probably walk past douchenozzles whenever you're out at a restaurant or a store, right? It's not like your hometown is a douchenozzle free zone.
I do not have to spend money in my home town, I just have to live here.
Quote from: Bren;823752Apparently other potential attendees feel that Indiana's new law will force them to put up with some legally enabled douchenozzles.
It is their money to spend.
Lets go back to Spinichcat's post that there might be a 1% proportion of douchenozzles in a Gen Con crowd of 56,000 equaling only 560 douchnozzles. Why should I spend hundreds of dollars to put up with any of them? Why can I not ask for a reasonable assurance that I will not bothered by a SJW activist while I spend my hundreds of dollars at a gaming convention?
Quote from: Bren;823752Apparently other potential attendees feel that Indiana's new law will force them to put up with some legally enabled douchenozzles.
That seems to be the big worry, yeah. Except that's not actually what the RFRA does. Now I'm not saying that nobody would ever think to try to use it that way -- there are always going to be idiots and assholes, after all -- but in such cases they'd have to show that their sincerely held religious beliefs were being significantly burdened. I doubt that many of them could even pass that test, much less move on to step 2 where prevailing government interest and the weight thereof come into the picture.
Quote from: Bren;823745I don't really get why you think Gen Con shouldn't protest a law that in their judgment will cost them revenue by decreasing attendance. Gen Con LLC has clearly indicated that they see this legislation as a threat to their current and future revenue. Why should they just suck up the revenue loss and take it?
From reading their press releases, I don't get the impression that they look at SB 101 as a source of potential revenue loss.
Quote from: Bren;823745Don't get so hung up on the ad pitch that you forget why the company exists.
According to Gen Con LLC itself, the company exists to exert political influence on the statewide and national level in regards to SB 101. Being a gaming convention is secondary.
Quote from: CRKrueger;823741Nah, you got this one wrong. A corporate PR move isn't political activism just because you disagree. I highly doubt the executives care what Indiana does unless it could result in reduced membership, which this does.
Maybe. I don't dismiss that possibility, but I also do not have to spend my money in support of a mission that the company was not incorporated for.
Given that the State of Indiana has already buckled like a belt and quickly passed an amendment to the law prohibiting any kind of discrimination including specifically sexual orientation all while backpedaling in a manner that would impress unicycle performers in the circus and that GenCon applauded the move and seems mollified, this is all a rather moot point now.
But the larger point that corporations do engage in political activism, as the supreme court ruled they could; if you think this sort of thing isn't going on all the time, you're incredibly naive. Corporations influence politics to a huge extent, through donations, PACs, Lobbies, and activism. All the time. Whether or not they should is a valid discussion, but the reality is they all do, and GenCon is not unique in this by any measure.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;823774That seems to be the big worry, yeah. Except that's not actually what the RFRA does. Now I'm not saying that nobody would ever think to try to use it that way -- there are always going to be idiots and assholes, after all -- but in such cases they'd have to show that their sincerely held religious beliefs were being significantly burdened. I doubt that many of them could even pass that test, much less move on to step 2 where prevailing government interest and the weight thereof come into the picture.
It's only ever been about supposes.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823677Discrimination, of any kind, is bad PR among young educated employees, so coming out against Indiana is meaningful in the competition for talent.
Bingo. Competition for talent is it. I work for one of the largest financial services firms in the world (who, as per our corporate social media policy, I cannot name) and they go out of their way for inclusion. We have a corporate culture which has a huge focus on diversity. We have chapters of PRIDE in every location, for example. We've had transgendered guest speakers come and talk about inclusion. Corporate policy is employees should be allowed to be themselves without fear of harassment or discrimination or feeling they have to hide.
Why does it go to all this trouble? Because it
doesn't ultimately care about things like race or sexual orientation or gender, it only cares about talent. But to attract talent from the largest pool it needs to show that it's ok with people who are not the "norm". It's not that the corporation cares so much about gay rights, it's that by supporting gay rights it can get better employees, because if your bottom line is profits, then why would you care who your employees screw? As long as they do a good job. Right?
The company gets involved in charitable activities quite frequently as well, and even will front money for employees to get involved in a charitable event. This is again optics, but this time it's to build a relationship with the communities it serves. It's creating goodwill which means loyal customers. And again, it launches diversity ad campaigns to show it welcomes all people. Why? Because then you have a larger customer base. If you're a business and you only care about profits, then a gay person's money spends just as well as anyone else's, right? Appealing to a wider variety of people is getting more customers which is making more money. It's not hard to understand.
Quote from: jeff37923;823776Maybe. I don't dismiss that possibility, but I also do not have to spend my money in support of a mission that the company was not incorporated for.
You sure don't. If you think GenCon is going awfulpurple, by all means boycott the stupidity.
The thought process probably was...
1. This law will be viewed as anti-LGBT.
2. Gamers who are over inclusive people with low self-esteem and possessing of several geek fallacies are a decent chunk of our customer base.
3. The Social Nazis are the most vociferously loud chunk of our customer base, and many of them are designers.
4. The last thing we want is to start some tempest in a toilet about our silence or inaction or supporting of the law.
5. We make a cowardly threat with no chance of following through because we're bound to Indy until 2020, get on the easy side of the argument early and head all this off at the pass so people will still come to GenCon.
6. To reassure anyone fearing Indiana Internment Camps, we say "Tell us if the Hot Dog vendor won't sell you a hot dog because he's afraid of where you'll put it!"
7. Everyone forgets about it and we go back to deciding how to squeeze every last dime out of these bitches.
Corporate Bullshit 101
So if you actually think they are drinking the purple KoolAid, then you get some like-minded individuals to sign a petition to GenCon telling them to stay the hell out of politics in the future or you'll stay the hell out of GenCon. Get enough signatures and make it public, you'll find out what they're really about by the response.
Hell, go on youtube and get yourself twitter-threatened, then set up a Fund-Me campaign and make half a million dollars like Memories Pizza did. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;823771It is their money to spend.
Well sure it is. And Gen Con would like as many people as possible to spend their money at Gen Con. The simplest and most probable explanation for Gen Con LLC's actions is that they think opposing the recent Indiana bill will result in more people attending Gen Con now and in the future compared to how many people would attend now and in the future if Gen Con did not oppose the bill.
QuoteLets go back to Spinichcat's post that there might be a 1% proportion of douchenozzles in a Gen Con crowd of 56,000 equaling only 560 douchnozzles. Why should I spend hundreds of dollars to put up with any of them? Why can I not ask for a reasonable assurance that I will not bothered by a SJW activist while I spend my hundreds of dollars at a gaming convention?
You can ask Gen Con. I don't really see how Gen Con could reasonably assure you that no one at the con bothers you as you seem pretty easily bothered on this one issue and I'd expect someone there might mention the issue within your hearing. But if you can get Gen Con to give you an assurance of that, go for it. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Probably they won't.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;823774That seems to be the big worry, yeah. Except that's not actually what the RFRA does. Now I'm not saying that nobody would ever think to try to use it that way -- there are always going to be idiots and assholes, after all -- but in such cases they'd have to show that their sincerely held religious beliefs were being significantly burdened. I doubt that many of them could even pass that test, much less move on to step 2 where prevailing government interest and the weight thereof come into the picture.
That's not quite right. Indiana law does not require an actual burden or any proof that the belief is a part of any particular religion. "Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened,
or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. And "sincerely held religious belief" seems like a fancy way of saying "a religious belief." The belief need not be "compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823790It's not hard to understand.
And yet much of this thread.
Quote from: CRKrueger;823816You sure don't. If you think GenCon is going awfulpurple, by all means boycott the stupidity.
The thought process probably was...
1. This law will be viewed as anti-LGBT.
2. Gamers who are over inclusive people with low self-esteem and possessing of several geek fallacies are a decent chunk of our customer base.
3. The Social Nazis are the most vociferously loud chunk of our customer base, and many of them are designers.
4. The last thing we want is to start some tempest in a toilet about our silence or inaction or supporting of the law.
5. We make a cowardly threat with no chance of following through because we're bound to Indy until 2020, get on the easy side of the argument early and head all this off at the pass so people will still come to GenCon.
6. To reassure anyone fearing Indiana Internment Camps, we say "Tell us if the Hot Dog vendor won't sell you a hot dog because he's afraid of where you'll put it!"
7. Everyone forgets about it and we go back to deciding how to squeeze every last dime out of these bitches.
Corporate Bullshit 101
So if you actually think they are drinking the purple KoolAid, then you get some like-minded individuals to sign a petition to GenCon telling them to stay the hell out of politics in the future or you'll stay the hell out of GenCon. Get enough signatures and make it public, you'll find out what they're really about by the response.
Hell, go on youtube and get yourself twitter-threatened, then set up a Fund-Me campaign and make half a million dollars like Memories Pizza did. :D
While I am open to the possibility that Gen Con's management might also oppose the law for philosophical reasons. CRKrueger cynical explanation covered the reasons why Gen Con LLC was incentivized to act exactly as they have acted. Given that their behavior is reasonable and logical from a business perspective, I don't see any reason to look for sinister SJW conspiracies to explain what has occurred.
Quote from: Bren;823819Well sure it is. And Gen Con would like as many people as possible to spend their money at Gen Con. The simplest and most probable explanation for Gen Con LLC's actions is that they think opposing the recent Indiana bill will result in more people attending Gen Con now and in the future compared to how many people would attend now and in the future if Gen Con did not oppose the bill.
That sounds pretty naïve.
Quote from: Bren;823819You can ask Gen Con. I don't really see how Gen Con could reasonably assure you that no one at the con bothers you as you seem pretty easily bothered on this one issue and I'd expect someone there might mention the issue within your hearing. But if you can get Gen Con to give you an assurance of that, go for it. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Probably they won't.
Why ask? You just stated above that Gen Con wants people to spend money there, so it would be in their best interest to lie and say anything that brings in more money. I will just have to trust my own judgment and not go.
"Easily bothered?" C'mon, you can do better than that.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;823785Given that the State of Indiana has already buckled like a belt and quickly passed an amendment to the law prohibiting any kind of discrimination including specifically sexual orientation all while backpedaling in a manner that would impress unicycle performers in the circus and that GenCon applauded the move and seems mollified, this is all a rather moot point now.
But the larger point that corporations do engage in political activism, as the supreme court ruled they could; if you think this sort of thing isn't going on all the time, you're incredibly naive. Corporations influence politics to a huge extent, through donations, PACs, Lobbies, and activism. All the time. Whether or not they should is a valid discussion, but the reality is they all do, and GenCon is not unique in this by any measure.
I frankly find this form of activism far more honest than the other types.
Quote from: jeff37923;823707Yes!
For those who aren't getting the reference, Here (http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/2015/04/01/Concord-High-School-coach-suspended-over-Tweet-about-arson.html) and here (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/) are news stories about a pizza place whose owner said they would not cater a same sex wedding and then immediately were attacked, threatened with arson, and had to close the store due to the danger to their employees and customers. Because of their financial losses, they have a GoFundMe site (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza)set up.
And these are the same people who hate GamerGate.
JG
Quote from: jeff37923;823825That sounds pretty naïve."
Naïve to think that SJWs haven't taken over Gen Con. It's not like Gen Con came anywhere near acting alone. Are all the other companies and organizations pawns in some vast SJW conspiracy? Just how big is this conspiracy that I am too naïve to credit?
Well it includes:
- Accenture
- AFSCME Women's Conference - moving October conference to a different state
- Angie's List - withdrew proposal to expand Indianapolis campus
- Disciples of Christ
- Eli Lilly
- Gen Con
- Indiana University
- Levi Strauss & Co.
- Nascar
- NBA, Indiana Pacers, Indiana Fever (WNBA)
- NCAA (hosting Final Four in Indianapolis this weekend)
- Salesforce - canceling programs that require customers or employees to travel to Indiana
- Square
- Twitter
- Yelp
Then there are these Athletes, celebrities, politicians, and CEOs
- Apple CEO Tim Cook, Ashton Kutcher, Audra McDonald, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Charles Barkley, Cher, Ellen DeGeneres, George Takei, Hillary Clinton, Jason Collins, James Van Der Beek, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Keith Olbermann, Larry King, MC Hammer, Miley Cyrus, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Reggie Miller, Stephen King
- Nick Offerman - cancelled upcoming Indiana tour dates, will donate proceeds from Wednesday Indiana University show to HRC
- UConn men's basketball coach Kevin Ollie - said he would not attend the Final Four in Indianapolis
- USC Athletic Director Pat Haden - said he would not attend the College Football Playoff committee meeting in Indianapolis this week
- Wilco - cancelled Indianapolis show
- 40 tech industry leaders (who signed a join letter. Signers include founders, CEOs, or chairs from Affirm, Zynga, Yelp, SalesForce, Square, Twitter, Lyft, AirBNB, Azon JuriMed Group LLC, Ebay, YCombinator, Zillow Group, Mixbit, Homejoy, Evernote, IfOnly, NextDoor, NextLesson, Quip, Formation 8, Elance-odesk, Path, BackOps, North Technologies, jawbone, Cisco Systems, about.me, Sidecar, Sequoia Capital, PayBal, Glassdoor, Emerson Collective, Alphalight, Penny Mac, and Sherpa Ventures)
And of course some Governments
- Connecticut - Gov. Dan Malloy (D) signed an executive order prohibiting state-funded travel to Indiana
- The District of Columbia - Mayor Muriel Bowser signed an executive order prohibiting authorization of official travel to Indiana
- Indianapolis - Mayor Greg Ballard tweeted #IndyWelcomesAll, and the city-county council plans to introduce a resolution denouncing the law and asking the legislature to add protections for sexual orientation, according to the Indianapolis Star
- New York - Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) asked state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to bar publicly funded travel to Indiana that wasn't essential
- Oakland - Mayor Libby Schaaf said Tuesday the city would city-funded travel there as long as the law was in effect.
- Portland - Mayor Charlie Hales said he would ban city-funded travel to Indiana
- Rochester - Mayor Lovely Warrn issued a travel ban for city-funded travel Tuesday
- San Francisco - Mayor Ed Lee directed city departments to bar city-funded travel to Indiana unless "essential to public health and safety"
- Seattle - Mayor Ed Murray prohibited city-funded travel to Indiana
- Washington - Gov. Jay Inslee (D) banned members of his administration from state-funded travel to Indiana
QuoteEasily bothered?" C'mon, you can do better than that.
Dude, you are planning to boycott Gen Con solely because they behaved just like a dozen or more other companies who saw the Indiana law as bad for business and you think that is evidence of some takeover or placation of SJWs. Yeah you seem either easily bothered or just a bit kooky on this subject.
Quote from: Bren;823876Naïve to think that SJWs haven't taken over Gen Con. It's not like Gen Con came anywhere near acting alone. Are all the other companies and organizations pawns in some vast SJW conspiracy? Just how big is this conspiracy that I am too naïve to credit?
Well it includes:- Accenture
- AFSCME Women's Conference - moving October conference to a different state
- Angie's List - withdrew proposal to expand Indianapolis campus
- Disciples of Christ
- Eli Lilly
- Gen Con
- Indiana University
- Levi Strauss & Co.
- Nascar
- NBA, Indiana Pacers, Indiana Fever (WNBA)
- NCAA (hosting Final Four in Indianapolis this weekend)
- Salesforce - canceling programs that require customers or employees to travel to Indiana
- Square
- Twitter
- Yelp
Then there are these Athletes, celebrities, politicians, and CEOs- Apple CEO Tim Cook, Ashton Kutcher, Audra McDonald, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Charles Barkley, Cher, Ellen DeGeneres, George Takei, Hillary Clinton, Jason Collins, James Van Der Beek, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Keith Olbermann, Larry King, MC Hammer, Miley Cyrus, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Reggie Miller, Stephen King
- Nick Offerman - cancelled upcoming Indiana tour dates, will donate proceeds from Wednesday Indiana University show to HRC
- UConn men's basketball coach Kevin Ollie - said he would not attend the Final Four in Indianapolis
- USC Athletic Director Pat Haden - said he would not attend the College Football Playoff committee meeting in Indianapolis this week
- Wilco - cancelled Indianapolis show
- 40 tech industry leaders (who signed a join letter. Signers include founders, CEOs, or chairs from Affirm, Zynga, Yelp, SalesForce, Square, Twitter, Lyft, AirBNB, Azon JuriMed Group LLC, Ebay, YCombinator, Zillow Group, Mixbit, Homejoy, Evernote, IfOnly, NextDoor, NextLesson, Quip, Formation 8, Elance-odesk, Path, BackOps, North Technologies, jawbone, Cisco Systems, about.me, Sidecar, Sequoia Capital, PayBal, Glassdoor, Emerson Collective, Alphalight, Penny Mac, and Sherpa Ventures)
And of course some Governments- Connecticut - Gov. Dan Malloy (D) signed an executive order prohibiting state-funded travel to Indiana
- The District of Columbia - Mayor Muriel Bowser signed an executive order prohibiting authorization of official travel to Indiana
- Indianapolis - Mayor Greg Ballard tweeted #IndyWelcomesAll, and the city-county council plans to introduce a resolution denouncing the law and asking the legislature to add protections for sexual orientation, according to the Indianapolis Star
- New York - Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) asked state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to bar publicly funded travel to Indiana that wasn't essential
- Oakland - Mayor Libby Schaaf said Tuesday the city would city-funded travel there as long as the law was in effect.
- Portland - Mayor Charlie Hales said he would ban city-funded travel to Indiana
- Rochester - Mayor Lovely Warrn issued a travel ban for city-funded travel Tuesday
- San Francisco - Mayor Ed Lee directed city departments to bar city-funded travel to Indiana unless "essential to public health and safety"
- Seattle - Mayor Ed Murray prohibited city-funded travel to Indiana
- Washington - Gov. Jay Inslee (D) banned members of his administration from state-funded travel to Indiana
I don't care. A lot of people jumped on to the D&D 4E bandwagon and I didn't. Just because I support the goal of marriage equality does not mean I approve of the methodology employed.
I don't give a shit about the opinions of anyone or any group on your list. I live my own life.
Quote from: Bren;823876Dude, you are planning to boycott Gen Con solely because they behaved just like a dozen or more other companies who saw the Indiana law as bad for business and you think that is evidence of some takeover or placation of SJWs. Yeah you seem either easily bothered or just a bit kooky on this subject.
See, here you go trying to twist my position again. Why does it bother you so much that I don't feel like spending money at a venue that puts political activism before providing a service I would be paying for? Is this some holy crusade for you? Do you not think I should have the freedom to spend money where I choose and attend conventions that I choose? Must I go to Gen Con or else I am not supporting Tabletop Role-Playing Games? Are you bucking to be the next Will or maybe Sacrosanct Junior?
See, the SJW activists that Gen Con is so welcoming to, are like this dipshit (http://twitchy.com/2015/04/03/thats-messed-up-va-cbs-employee-reports-memoriespizza-gofundme-for-fraud-just-in-case/). Why would I want to pay money and potentially subject myself to that kind of abuse? See, all it takes is one dipshit.
Quote from: James Gillen;823847And these are the same people who hate GamerGate.
JG
Because GamerGate is worse than ISIS, didn't you know that?
As terribly written as the Indiana Law was (namely that a "person" was a everything from an actual person to an LLC, Corporation, Housing Association or just about any non-person, and that "burdened" turned into "likely to be burdened at some point in the future"), I'm sorry to see in all the reaction that the "Gaystapo" - a word I didn't hear about until two days ago, is actually a thing.
MC Hammer is still around?
Quote from: jeff37923;823879See, here you go trying to twist my position again. Why does it bother you so much that I don't feel like spending money at a venue that puts political activism before providing a service I would be paying for?
I don't really understand this position. Gencon is a open gaming convention patronized by gamers of all stripes and orientations. That they would chose to relocate (well, make an implied threat anyways, they didnt follow through) to protect one portion of its patrons places political activism over gaming how? Gencon would be Gencon no matter where it was held. I'm not sure how this would affect them offering the services your interested in in the slightest. It seems to me to have literally no effect whatsoever on how the con itself is run.
Of course, you're perfectly entitled to not go, I could care less. I've never gone and 99% of the people I've gamed with in my life have never attended a gaming con of any kind. But you're posting your position online, so opening it up to criticism. Thats perfectly fair. Especially when you say things that make no sense.
QuoteSee, the SJW activists that Gen Con is so welcoming to, are like this dipshit. Why would I want to pay money and potentially subject myself to that kind of abuse? See, all it takes is one dipshit.
Oh, c'mon. You know thats a strawman argument in the extreme. First, Gencon being welcoming to LGBT gamers doesn't equal them being specifically welcoming to SJWs. Second, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that some random extreme example of a person being a total douche online is atypical of any of Gencon's patrons, let a lone a majority? There's no love lost for me when it comes to SJWs, but the main reason I dislike them is because they engage in unfounded generalizations that equate an entire group of people with a handful of minority examples. Thats exactly the same thing you're doing here.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823891I don't really understand this position.
Let me spell it out for you, and everyone else.
I support gay marriage. I do not support the methodology of gay couples who wish to be married, filing business ending lawsuits against people who do not agree with the idea of gay marriage based upon their religious beliefs. I think that is overkill and breeds more resentment than acceptance. Just don't support those businesses that do not support gay marriage, the denial of a significant new market for their goods and services will end those businesses soon enough.
Now, to protect the religious freedom to say "no" to a customer without fear of being sued to death, Indiana passed SB 101. This caused Gen Con LLC to put forth an empty threat to leave the state of Indiana. At that point, the corporate owners of Gen Con placed political activism to remove SB 101 before their reason for incorporation - putting on a gaming convention with a very good reputation. A decision I disagree with and do not support. However, one which is supported by SJW activists wholeheartedly, and becomes especially worrisome with the declaration that Gen Con LLC wants to hear about any acts of bigotry against Gen Con attendees (which some will take as an invitation to try and deliberately provoke a reaction).
Now as examples of that SJW activist behavior from the past we have Monte Cook, Zak S, The Pundit, and James Desborogh (GRIMM) being attacked and slandered. We have had people claim that D&D is racist because orcs are a dogwhistle for black people. We have had people claim that Gary Gygax was a misogynist because of the Random Harlot Table. We have had people claim that D&D 5E was anti-feminist because there were not enough female monsters depicted in the Monster Manual.
Lately, in Indiana, we have seen Memories Pizza be decried as homophobic because the owner would not cater a hypothetical gay wedding. A high school coach threatened the business with arson. A group of protestors have taken up at the business and caused them to close down for fear of endangering the employees and staff. The GoFundMe site set up by their lawyer to help cope with the business losses has been declared fraudulent without any evidence by a "concerned reporter" because she disagreed with their stance.
There is plenty of evidence available that these SJW activists are willing to go out of their way to be shitty to those they disagree with.
Now with all that in mind, I do not wish to spend hundreds of dollars at Gen Con to attend the convention. The impression I have is that it will be a hostile social environment because of all this, and I do not want to put up with that when I want to game and especially not when I pay to game.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823891Oh, c'mon. You know thats a strawman argument in the extreme. First, Gencon being welcoming to LGBT gamers doesn't equal them being specifically welcoming to SJWs. Second, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that some random extreme example of a person being a total douche online is atypical of any of Gencon's patrons, let a lone a majority? There's no love lost for me when it comes to SJWs, but the main reason I dislike them is because they engage in unfounded generalizations that equate an entire group of people with a handful of minority examples. Thats exactly the same thing you're doing here.
Um, you do realize the whole outrage is based upon unfounded it may happensies?
The whole Gencon issue is absurd.
Yeah the local shops are going to stop the LGBT peeps, evidently they all have icons floating over their heads, but will allow She Hulk, chainmail bikini wearing dude, Laura Croft, and a B5 uniform dude (at the local Irish pub just down the street)into their place. Yes I saw that and plenty more 'fans' like that walking in and out of the local businesses all over Indy during Gencon.
Quote from: jeff37923;823895I support gay marriage. I do not support the methodology of gay couples who wish to be married, filing business ending lawsuits against people who do not agree with the idea of gay marriage based upon their religious beliefs. I think that is overkill and breeds more resentment than acceptance. Just don't support those businesses that do not support gay marriage, the denial of a significant new market for their goods and services will end those businesses soon enough.
I don't necessarily agree with you on this, but I accept it as a reasonable position.
This is the part that I still am failing to see a connection between points A and C...
QuoteNow, to protect the religious freedom to say "no" to a customer without fear of being sued to death, Indiana passed SB 101. This caused Gen Con LLC to put forth an empty threat to leave the state of Indiana. At that point, the corporate owners of Gen Con placed political activism to remove SB 101 before their reason for incorporation - putting on a gaming convention with a very good reputation. A decision I disagree with and do not support. However, one which is supported by SJW activists wholeheartedly, and becomes especially worrisome with the declaration that Gen Con LLC wants to hear about any acts of bigotry against Gen Con attendees (which some will take as an invitation to try and deliberately provoke a reaction).
I just don't see the logic behind..
"Gen Con placed empty threat to leave state of Indiana"
leading to
"owners of Gen Con placed political activism to remove SB 101 before their reason for incorporation - putting on a gaming convention with a very good reputation"
I just frankly cannot see how it affects in any manner their purpose of putting on a gaming convention. To me its like saying if Burger King were to release a statement saying they were welcoming of the LGBT community in their restaurants that in some way affects their ability to make burgers.
Quote from: Sommerjon;823897Um, you do realize the whole outrage is based upon unfounded it may happensies?
When a law, of any sort, is introduced, "it may happensies" are a perfectly valid point of criticism. If my time on earth has taught me anything, its to never underestimate the capacity for stupidity and hate of the lowest common denominator.
The context of this bill, namely that it was proposed and signed into legislation by a man with a known documented history of rampant homophobia, suspicion is not only warranted, its a vital aspect of the system of "checks and balances" that the US government is supposed to be based around.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823898I just don't see the logic behind..
"Gen Con placed empty threat to leave state of Indiana"
leading to
"owners of Gen Con placed political activism to remove SB 101 before their reason for incorporation - putting on a gaming convention with a very good reputation"
I just frankly cannot see how it affects in any manner their purpose of putting on a gaming convention. To me its like saying if Burger King were to release a statement saying they were welcoming of the LGBT community in their restaurants that in some way affects their ability to make burgers.
It is the change of focus, instead of concentrating on creating a gaming convention they were concentrating on getting rid of SB 101. It wasn't a statement saying that they welcome GBLT, it was a move into political activism that raised tensions.
That and this paragraph:
Quote from: Letter to Gen Con Attendees 03/26/2015If you have positive or negative experienes with local hospitality during Gen Con, we want to hear about it. We will create an email feedback form for attendees prior to the 2015 convention, and review your experiences at our annual post-convention employee summit. We encourage attendees to continue to voice their opinions via social media or if they feel comfortable, to send emails to customerservice@gencon.com or call our Customer Service line at 800-529-3976 (x3806).
is what has me concerned. I'm sure that Gen Con LLC will do their best to keep SJW activists in attendance from being complete douchebags, but I think they will be outnumbered and fail because that paragraph is an invitation to get screwed with. It does not even have to be the SJW activists that we are used to, I can easily see some group using this as a false flag opportunity. I do not want to be there when that happens. I certainly don't want to be paying money for it.
So people that want themselves and other people to be treated decently are SJWs out to get gaming.
Fuck's sake. Grow a pair. It's like common decency and good will can only exist as part of a conspiracy to ultra-cynical tits like you.
Quote from: jeff37923;823900It is the change of focus, instead of concentrating on creating a gaming convention they were concentrating on getting rid of SB 101...
OK, I may not agree with your reasoning, but I understand now.
Quote from: Evansheer;823904So people that want themselves and other people to be treated decently are SJWs out to get gaming.
Fuck's sake. Grow a pair. It's like common decency and good will can only exist as part of a conspiracy to ultra-cynical tits like you.
Thank you for completely and totally getting it wrong, but I kinda expected that.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823905OK, I may not agree with your reasoning, but I understand now.
I don't mind if people don't agree. Depending on if the person is going to be a jackass about it, I may not give a shit.
I would prefer they understand my position, though.
Thank you.
Quote from: jeff37923;823879See, here you go trying to twist my position again. Why does it bother you so much that I don't feel like spending money at a venue that puts political activism before providing a service I would be paying for? Is this some holy crusade for you? Do you not think I should have the freedom to spend money where I choose and attend conventions that I choose? Must I go to Gen Con or else I am not supporting Tabletop Role-Playing Games? Are you bucking to be the next Will or maybe Sacrosanct Junior?
Dude wipe the froth from your computer screen. It's exactly this overreaction to someone disagreeing with you that makes me conclude you are oversensitive about a company doing a routing thing like expressing disagreement with new legislation they feel will impact their bottom line. You are way too worked up about the fact that someone else has a different view of what will make for a better con than your view and you have a bizarre notion that Gen Con can or could ensure, much less should ensure, that you won't hear anyone disagree with you about social issues.
It's like you are turning into the warped Mirror Universe version of those sensitive flowers over at RPGnet who demand to live in a safe space where no dissenting view can trouble the serene and vacuous surface of their tiny little minds. Instead of an all social justice all the time safe space like RPGnet, you want Gen Con to be a no social justice ever safe space. With over 56,000 attendees expecting that you won't run into someone with a different viewpoint on almost any issue, much less a much talked about issue in gaming, is a wackily unreasonable expectation.
I literally could care less whether or not you go to Gen Con. I don't work for Gen Con. I don't own shares in Gen Con. I have no financial or other incentive to support Gen Con. I've been doing RPGs since 1974 and I've never, ever gone to Gen Con. I can count the number of gaming cons I have gone to on the one hand of a clumsy carpenter. So I have no problem with people not going to cons for whatever reason. I just think your reasoning on this matter is unsound.
Quote from: jeff37923;823900It is the change of focus, instead of concentrating on creating a gaming convention they were concentrating on getting rid of SB 101. It wasn't a statement saying that they welcome GBLT, it was a move into political activism that raised tensions.
The people who do the actual day to day work on getting ready for the con were little affected by the management issuing a couple of press releases. So the loss of focus was likely to be fairly minimal at most.
You seem naïve about how companies behave in the real world as well as uninformed about management's duty to run the company so as to maximize value to its shareholders. What Gen Con did is (a) not at all unusual for a business, as we have seen lots of other businesses did similar or identical things (b) entirely in keeping with their mission to make money from running a con. It is not a change in focus to oppose legislation that the management determines is likely to cause them to have fewer attendees and thus less revenue.
Quote from: jeff37923;823900is what has me concerned. I'm sure that Gen Con LLC will do their best to keep SJW activists in attendance from being complete douchebags, but I think they will be outnumbered and fail because that paragraph is an invitation to get screwed with. It does not even have to be the SJW activists that we are used to, I can easily see some group using this as a false flag opportunity. I do not want to be there when that happens. I certainly don't want to be paying money for it.
Do you appreciate the irony that you, right now, are engaging in political activism? Do you appreciate the irony that your position toward GenCon is basically the same as GenCon's position toward Indiana (only much smaller scale)?
Quote from: Old One Eye;823929Do you appreciate the irony that you, right now, are engaging in political activism? Do you appreciate the irony that your position toward GenCon is basically the same as GenCon's position toward Indiana (only much smaller scale)?
Oh, I wasn't the only one with a smile on my face? Awesome.
Quote from: Jeff37923Why does it bother you so much that I don't feel like spending money at a venue that puts political activism before providing a service I would be paying for?
By all means, engage in an economic activist response to GenCon's economic activist response to Indiana.
I see this as quite separate from the issue of social justice warriors. I think this is something where lots of people are worried about a law that seems to give people a shield to discriminate against gay people. We can debate the effect of the law, what it says, what its intentions are, but the concern here arises from how people will actually be treated and if they will be refused service on the basis of who they are. If GenCon wants to raise that concern to the state, I don't see that as giving into Social Justice Warriors, I see that as a cause lots of people agree with. SJW stuff is more about debates over language, mindset, and political correctness. You don't have to be a social justice warrior to be concerned about this law.
Quote from: Sommerjon;823897Um, you do realize the whole outrage is based upon unfounded it may happensies?
The whole Gencon issue is absurd.
Yeah the local shops are going to stop the LGBT peeps, evidently they all have icons floating over their heads, but will allow She Hulk, chainmail bikini wearing dude, Laura Croft, and a B5 uniform dude (at the local Irish pub just down the street)into their place. Yes I saw that and plenty more 'fans' like that walking in and out of the local businesses all over Indy during Gencon.
The outrage is based on historical discrimination and at least one company explicitly stating that they would discriminate (Memories Pizza) so it isn't like that expectation is unfounded.
Two people of the same gender holding hands or kissing would be the likely signifier, and they shouldn't have to refrain from that to get a meal at a random restaurant.
Quote from: Bren;823925I literally could care less whether or not you go to Gen Con.
Bren, if you could literally care less, then why have you spent so much time and energy telling me how wrong I am for having this opinion?
Quote from: Old One Eye;823929Do you appreciate the irony that you, right now, are engaging in political activism? Do you appreciate the irony that your position toward GenCon is basically the same as GenCon's position toward Indiana (only much smaller scale)?
I'm not a business that was incorporated to produce a gaming convention like Gen Con. I'm a consumer who chooses where he spends his money.
If we want to be completely general about it, Gen Con and I are exactly the same in that we are legal entities.
Quote from: jeff37923;823947I'm not a business that was incorporated to produce a gaming convention like Gen Con. I'm a consumer who chooses where he spends his money.
If we want to be completely general about it, Gen Con and I are exactly the same in that we are legal entities.
I hope you go and have a good time, personally.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823936By all means, engage in an economic activist response to GenCon's economic activist response to Indiana.
The assumption here from the smarmy patronizing peanut gallery is that as a gamer, we should all make the journey to mecca and worship at the alter of Gen Con.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823948I hope you go and have a good time, personally.
Are you offering to pay my way?
Quote from: jeff37923;823946Bren, if you could literally care less, then why have you spent so much time and energy telling me how wrong I am for having this opinion?
Because your stated opinion is simultaneously so ironic and pants on head crazy in the exact same way as the political rhetoric of hug-box, echo chamber, I-want/need-a-safe-space where opposing viewpoints aren't allowed to trouble me segment of RPGnet so often aligned with the SJWs you don't want to see or hear at Gen Con. It's like you became the scar-faced Sulu or mustache wearing Spock mirror image of the SJWs.
Quote from: jeff37923;823949The assumption here from the smarmy patronizing peanut gallery is that as a gamer, we should all make the journey to mecca and worship at the alter of Gen Con.
Other than LordVreeg I don't recall anyone saying anything that comes even close to that. I know I specifically said the opposite. (And I strongly suspect LordVreeg's statement was a combination of a bit of snark combined with an honest belief that you might have fun if you did attend.)
Telling you that your reason for boycotting Gen Con is ironic and silly is not at all the same thing as telling you that you must attend Gen Con. You are allowed to not go for silly reasons or no reason at all. But when you publicly post your reasons, some of us are going to point out your reason is silly and some of us will mock your reason because of that.
Quote from: Bren;823951Because your stated opinion is simultaneously so ironic and pants on head crazy in the exact same way as the political rhetoric of hug-box, echo chamber, I-want/need-a-safe-space where opposing viewpoints aren't allowed to trouble me segment of RPGnet so often aligned with the SJWs you don't want to see or hear at Gen Con. It's like you became the scar-faced Sulu or mustache wearing Spock mirror image of the SJWs.
Bren, if I was in such a need for opinions that resembled my own in a hugbox environment, then why am I still here at TheRPGsite? If I demanded only an echo chamber, then I should have ragequit a long time ago.
This entire conversation we have been having in this thread is a refutation of your assertion.
My opinions differ. The question you should be asking is why does that bother Bren so much?
Quote from: jeff37923;823954Bren, if I was in such a need for opinions that resembled my own in a hugbox environment, then why am I still here at TheRPGsite?
Your boycotting Gen Con because their opposition to the Indiana law means you might run into an SJW there seems inconsistent with your claim not to be bothered by dissenting opinions. The inconsistency is why people are saying your stand is ironic. As to why you both stay here and listen to disagreement while the possibility of a dissenting voice bothers you so much at Gen Con? Hell if I know. I long ago gave up trying to explain away the inconsistent beliefs other people hold
Quote from: Bren;823961Your boycotting Gen Con because their opposition to the Indiana law means you might run into an SJW there seems inconsistent with your claim not to be bothered by dissenting opinions. The inconsistency is why people are saying your stand is ironic. As to why you both stay here and listen to disagreement while the possibility of a dissenting voice bothers you so much at Gen Con? Hell if I know. I long ago gave up trying to explain away the inconsistent beliefs other people hold
Quote from: jeff37923;823946Bren, if you could literally care less, then why have you spent so much time and energy telling me how wrong I am for having this opinion?
It is not just the possibility of a dissenting voice. I have already given examples of the extremes of shitty behavior SJW activists will engage in upthread. Just looking at how you are worrying my opinion like a dog with a bone is an indication that the "live and let live" attitude is dead. Why should I pay for the dubious privilege of this in person at a gaming convention?
I gotta support Jeff's stance.
Also, let's all review Bill Maher's Liberal vs. Liberal rule for some wisdom on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFeDFva6tcg
Jeff has stated unequivocally he supports gay marriage, and he has also stated he does not support corporate political activism.
I also question corporate activism because while its all warm and fuzzy when a corporation supports "our team", corporate activism is less than joyous when a mega-billion dollar corporation throws its weight against "our team."
And for those of you who have been members (or lurkers) of this site for a few years, you know Jeff and I've had numerous disagreements, so I'm not jumping to his defense out of huggies. We're both Traveller fans and we've rarely agreed on Traveller shit.
Can Jeff be a huge pain in the ass? Hell motherfucking yeah, but he's also one of the dudes behind Save vs. Hunger which took real world effort which resulted in real world help for actual people in deep trouble.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31524&page=2
Quote from: jeff37923;823771Why can I not ask for a reasonable assurance that I will not bothered by a SJW activist while I spend my hundreds of dollars at a gaming convention?
Do you avoid large group activities, like concerts?
My girlfriend avoids large group stuff, because dealing with a couple idiots out of 10,000 people ruins her experience.
Personally, I shrug them off. I did Knotfest last summer - Slipknot's 2 day metal festival with 40+ bands - and there were 30,000+ people there. I encountered lots of cool people and a couple drunk dickheads. For me, the overall experience was about the cool people, but I know the dickheads would have ruined the weekend for my girlfriend.
Its not that "my way" is better than "her way", people have different dickhead tolerances and I agree that if your dickhead tolerance is low, then avoiding large groups of strangers may be a good idea.
Quote from: jeff37923;823879Must I go to Gen Con or else I am not supporting Tabletop Role-Playing Games? Are you bucking to be the next Will or maybe Sacrosanct Junior?
GenCon is an experience BUT I have been told by many people that Origins was actually better for actual gaming.
BTW, if you ever enjoyed Palladium's RPG, I unbelievably recommend the Palladium Open House. http://palladium-store.com/1001/product/POH-SAT-Palladium-Open-House-Saturday.html
Also, before Bren becomes the next Will, I must see a picture of his head and determine whether I wish to rub dice on his skull.
If Bren's head is worthy, I shall bless his becoming the New Will.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823888MC Hammer is still around?
Yes, but he's incorporeal.
That's why you can't touch this.
Quote from: TristramEvans;823891Of course, you're perfectly entitled to not go, I could care less. I've never gone and 99% of the people I've gamed with in my life have never attended a gaming con of any kind.
Gaming cons can be tremendously huge fun. I highly recommend checking out your local conventions and giving one of them a try. Bring your crew!
Quote from: jeff37923;823962Why should I pay for the dubious privilege of this in person at a gaming convention?
Almost no one has said you
should pay to go to Gen Con. I certainly never said you should pay to go. I never said anyone should go. I even said I'm not going, though I didn't belabor anyone with my reasons for not going to this or any prior Gen Con.
What I did do was point out that your stated reason for not attending is both silly and ironic. Pointing that out is not at all the same as saying that unless you have a better reason, you should pony up some cash to go to Gen Con.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823963BTW, if you ever enjoyed Palladium's RPG, I unbelievably recommend the Palladium Open House. http://palladium-store.com/1001/product/POH-SAT-Palladium-Open-House-Saturday.html
Shoot, JR Blackburn, and Ramon Perez are gonna be there this year?
If they really have 100+ games available for joining, that's your money's worth and then some.
I no longer go to Cons, just to be clear.
I used to run games at them, but stopped back in the late 80s. I run all my own stuff now, and have far more players and games (especially with online) than I have any time to play.
I was literally just wishing Jeff a personal good time, since I am willing to argue with him, I am also making sure he knew as a gamer, it is nothing personal. Jeff's passion for what we do is always welcome.
I still believe it is sort of crazy and inconsistent boycotting a convention for trying to be more inclusive but worrying it changing their priorities from the supposed purity of pure gaming. And saying, as mentioned, that you are making an economic activist response in protest to GenCon making an economic activist decision. Personal vs larger entity is irrelevant.
But needing to go? As if it is Mecca?
Nope. Not for me. And I'm glad we can just move through this though process together.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823963I also question corporate activism because while its all warm and fuzzy when a corporation supports "our team", corporate activism is less than joyous when a mega-billion dollar corporation throws its weight against "our team."
Generally speaking I'd agree. When the context of "our team" is homophobia vs tolerance however, I think the context changes the equation. The fallacy I see with Jeff's reasoning is equating social justice with SJWs. When I call someone an SJW, ther term is meant ironically. It doesn't mean I don't care about social justice, it means I think online slacktivism and pouring over minutia of meaningless pop entertainment to extrapolate some inference in the manner of Fredrich Wrtham has nothing to do with actually working towards social justice. So when Gencon threatens to boycott a state for passing laws with homophobic motivations, I don't see that as them catering to SJWs, I see that as them genuinely being concerned with social justice. (All of this is changed by the fact that Gencon didnt stand by their threat, however, in which case I consider the whole thing an empty gesture).
It may help for clarity for me to say that I see zero difference between homophobia and racism. They are, to my mind, equal sides of the same coin.
QuoteYes, but he's incorporeal.
That's why you can't touch this.
I lol'd.
QuoteGaming cons can be tremendously huge fun. I highly recommend checking out your local conventions and giving one of them a try. Bring your crew!
I'm just not that type of person. I like gaming with close friends, I dislike crowds, and I hate to say it, but my misanthropy applies only slightly less to gamers as to any social group.
Trying to equate legitimate concerns over legally endorsed discrimination with the SJW Outrage Brigade is ridiculous. SJWs are not laughable because of their stated goals, but by their interpretation of innocuous media and tactics they follow allegedly in support of those goals which actually make things worse.
GenCon absolutely should support a policy of nondiscrimination for its customers, not just because its the right thing to do, but because its good for their business to do so and anyone who thinks otherwise should not attend GenCon so I don't need to run into their bigotted, backwater ass when I attend.
Quote from: Brad;821970And hence, you won't spend money, thus they go out of business...it's really not that hard. The law should not be regulating morality.
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54529abee4b03b1248feddd8/t/55187a1fe4b0c99d03d8cd9f/1427667488472/wevealreadyhadthisdiscussion)
Quote from: Spinachcat;823963I gotta support Jeff's stance.
Also, let's all review Bill Maher's Liberal vs. Liberal rule for some wisdom on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFeDFva6tcg
Jeff has stated unequivocally he supports gay marriage, and he has also stated he does not support corporate political activism.
I also question corporate activism because while its all warm and fuzzy when a corporation supports "our team", corporate activism is less than joyous when a mega-billion dollar corporation throws its weight against "our team."
And for those of you who have been members (or lurkers) of this site for a few years, you know Jeff and I've had numerous disagreements, so I'm not jumping to his defense out of huggies. We're both Traveller fans and we've rarely agreed on Traveller shit.
Can Jeff be a huge pain in the ass? Hell motherfucking yeah, but he's also one of the dudes behind Save vs. Hunger which took real world effort which resulted in real world help for actual people in deep trouble.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31524&page=2
Thank you. I feel humbled by this.
Quote from: Spinachcat;823963Do you avoid large group activities, like concerts?
My girlfriend avoids large group stuff, because dealing with a couple idiots out of 10,000 people ruins her experience.
Personally, I shrug them off. I did Knotfest last summer - Slipknot's 2 day metal festival with 40+ bands - and there were 30,000+ people there. I encountered lots of cool people and a couple drunk dickheads. For me, the overall experience was about the cool people, but I know the dickheads would have ruined the weekend for my girlfriend.
Its not that "my way" is better than "her way", people have different dickhead tolerances and I agree that if your dickhead tolerance is low, then avoiding large groups of strangers may be a good idea.
That is a big part of it, my dickhead tolerance is minimal at this point in my life.
Quote from: Bren;823966Almost no one has said you should pay to go to Gen Con. I certainly never said you should pay to go. I never said anyone should go. I even said I'm not going, though I didn't belabor anyone with my reasons for not going to this or any prior Gen Con.
What I did do was point out that your stated reason for not attending is both silly and ironic. Pointing that out is not at all the same as saying that unless you have a better reason, you should pony up some cash to go to Gen Con.
Bren, by this time, everyone who has more than two brain cells to rub together, understands that you disapprove.
Quote from: LordVreeg;823974I no longer go to Cons, just to be clear.
I used to run games at them, but stopped back in the late 80s. I run all my own stuff now, and have far more players and games (especially with online) than I have any time to play.
I was literally just wishing Jeff a personal good time, since I am willing to argue with him, I am also making sure he knew as a gamer, it is nothing personal. Jeff's passion for what we do is always welcome.
I still believe it is sort of crazy and inconsistent boycotting a convention for trying to be more inclusive but worrying it changing their priorities from the supposed purity of pure gaming. And saying, as mentioned, that you are making an economic activist response in protest to GenCon making an economic activist decision. Personal vs larger entity is irrelevant.
But needing to go? As if it is Mecca?
Nope. Not for me. And I'm glad we can just move through this though process together.
Thank you for that. I'm glad that we can agree to disagree on this.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;822585I was looking for a fight. I found one. Thank you all. There's no better taste than your own blood.
I'm so fucking sick of being called a racist. Or a sexist. Or a crazy JESUS freak. It's offensive and uncivil in the most basic sense. They are literal fighting words and someone on the left is eventually going to be shot over it.
Which I think is what you're waiting for. I think you are waiting for the opportunity to enact some enabling laws. I really do.
While I respect the hoops a professor has to jump through to join a guild like teaching... being a history professor is no endorsement of your opinions on history.
Because the thing that cleaves us to the groups to which we belong are not universal truths (ie the sun warms the earth), but those ideas we put faith in, which have no sure evidence. Or more than that, ideas which are likely pure fantasy.
You might think global warming is real or that abortion is just a choice or rich people really don't pay their fair share, whatever that means. You may laugh at the huge majority of people who worship their silly sky god and believe a baby is a baby regardless of whether it's in a uterus or not and see the government as the greatest threat to their future.
You may see the opposition to illegal immigration as racism. (Come to think of it, you may not even recognize the concept of "illegal" immigration.) You may laugh at people who feel it as an assault on the ability of a regular person to make a living and live in an environment of relative public health and safety.
A real orator would have a third paragraph here. I'm kind of all done fighting at the moment. But you leftists are more hateful and narrow-minded and more racist than anyone you hate.
Yes I'm frothy at the mouth. When you kick a dog over and over again, it gets pretty vicious.
(http://quackademiology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Republiansharia.jpg)
Quote from: Doctor Jest;824014Trying to equate legitimate concerns over legally endorsed discrimination with the SJW Outrage Brigade is ridiculous. SJWs are not laughable because of their stated goals, but by their interpretation of innocuous media and tactics they follow allegedly in support of those goals which actually make things worse.
GenCon absolutely should support a policy of nondiscrimination for its customers, not just because its the right thing to do, but because its good for their business to do so and anyone who thinks otherwise should not attend GenCon so I don't need to run into their bigotted, backwater ass when I attend.
And thank you for completely misrepresenting my position and letting me know that I am a bigoted backwater ass. Do you feel better now?
Quote from: nightwind1;824022(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54529abee4b03b1248feddd8/t/55187a1fe4b0c99d03d8cd9f/1427667488472/wevealreadyhadthisdiscussion)
Quote from: nightwind1;824028(http://quackademiology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Republiansharia.jpg)
And the bumper sticker mentality hits just keep on coming!
Quote from: nightwind1;824028(http://quackademiology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Republiansharia.jpg)
Shine on, you tolerant and open-minded diamond.
I'm just happy as long as everyone realizes that "Tolerance" ALWAYS has to be imposed by FORCE, otherwise people might reject it.
#LGBTyranny
Quote from: Mjollnir;824037I'm just happy as long as everyone realizes that "Tolerance" ALWAYS has to be imposed by FORCE, otherwise people might reject it.
#LGBTyranny
Wonderful. A public service message brought to us by Cobra Commander.
Quote from: Mjollnir;824037I'm just happy as long as everyone realizes that "Tolerance" ALWAYS has to be imposed by FORCE, otherwise people might reject it.
#LGBTyranny
Don't be a twat, Mjollnir.
Quote from: jeff37923;823895Now as examples of that SJW activist behavior from the past we have Monte Cook, Zak S, The Pundit, and James Desborogh (GRIMM) being attacked and slandered. We have had people claim that D&D is racist because orcs are a dogwhistle for black people. We have had people claim that Gary Gygax was a misogynist because of the Random Harlot Table.
All that proves is that Gary had a random table for EVERYthing. :D
JG
Quote from: Bren;824046Wonderful. A public service message brought to us by Cobra Commander.
The more you know...
Quote from: jeff37923;824029And thank you for completely misrepresenting my position and letting me know that I am a bigoted backwater ass. Do you feel better now?
What makes you think I was talking about you, so specifically? Did you recognize yourself as such?
Quote from: Doctor Jest;824104What makes you think I was talking about you, so specifically? Did you recognize yourself as such?
That doesn't help in an already somewhat acrimonious discussion.
Quote from: Technomancer;824083The more you know...
and knowing is half the battle
Quote from: jeff37923;823895Let me spell it out for you, and everyone else.
I support gay marriage. I do not support the methodology of gay couples who wish to be married, filing business ending lawsuits against people who do not agree with the idea of gay marriage based upon their religious beliefs. I think that is overkill and breeds more resentment than acceptance. Just don't support those businesses that do not support gay marriage, the denial of a significant new market for their goods and services will end those businesses soon enough.
Now, to protect the religious freedom to say "no" to a customer without fear of being sued to death, Indiana passed SB 101. This caused Gen Con LLC to put forth an empty threat to leave the state of Indiana. At that point, the corporate owners of Gen Con placed political activism to remove SB 101 before their reason for incorporation - putting on a gaming convention with a very good reputation. A decision I disagree with and do not support. However, one which is supported by SJW activists wholeheartedly, and becomes especially worrisome with the declaration that Gen Con LLC wants to hear about any acts of bigotry against Gen Con attendees (which some will take as an invitation to try and deliberately provoke a reaction).
Now as examples of that SJW activist behavior from the past we have Monte Cook, Zak S, The Pundit, and James Desborogh (GRIMM) being attacked and slandered. We have had people claim that D&D is racist because orcs are a dogwhistle for black people. We have had people claim that Gary Gygax was a misogynist because of the Random Harlot Table. We have had people claim that D&D 5E was anti-feminist because there were not enough female monsters depicted in the Monster Manual.
Lately, in Indiana, we have seen Memories Pizza be decried as homophobic because the owner would not cater a hypothetical gay wedding. A high school coach threatened the business with arson. A group of protestors have taken up at the business and caused them to close down for fear of endangering the employees and staff. The GoFundMe site set up by their lawyer to help cope with the business losses has been declared fraudulent without any evidence by a "concerned reporter" because she disagreed with their stance.
There is plenty of evidence available that these SJW activists are willing to go out of their way to be shitty to those they disagree with.
Now with all that in mind, I do not wish to spend hundreds of dollars at Gen Con to attend the convention. The impression I have is that it will be a hostile social environment because of all this, and I do not want to put up with that when I want to game and especially not when I pay to game.
But the difference here Jeff is those of us arguing against the law and taking a different position from you, aren't saying you need to leave the hobby or you have to change your way of thinking. We're not trying to police thoughts and language here, we just have serious concerns about what effects this law will have on the rights of gay people. I get the concern about the social justice warrior thing. I certainly think that stuff has made some quarters of the hobby hostile to open discussion and to just playing and enjoying the games people like. This seems like more of a real world issue. One where we are not all going to agree on for a variety of reasons. But I do think this law is bad and that people have a right to be able to buy goods and services.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824141I do think this law is bad and that people have a right to be able to buy goods and services.
I already asked in this thread if businesses (in Indiana) currently have an obligation of service to everyone who asks, and if this law would allow shop owners to discriminate against certain categories of people (and not especially gays).
I was answered that: 1) Business owners have no obligation to accept anyone, and can refuse if they deem so. 2) The law is only about if they were sued by an angry rejected customer, that they could invoke (in court) the right to discriminate because of religious beliefs.
So this law is obviously not about precluding gays to buy goods and services. Because the shop owner can already say no without justification. (By the way: How do you know that the person in front of you who wants to buy, is gay or straight? Unless the person is claiming it, but for what reason?)
Note that discriminating people is not necessarily about their sexual orientation! (Especially as in most cases it's unknown to people around.) There are a few restaurants for the wealthy, that don't accept you if you don't have the right (i.e. elegant) clothing. Are you screaming against that? Are gay people screaming against that? And we might also imagine a restaurant's Christian owner refusing to serve a person clothed like a prostitute. Now, many people could understand that it would be bad for the "Christian restaurant" (it could lose customers) if people clothed like prostitutes would come in; but if per chance the person happens to be gay, it suddenly becomes a national scandal?
So what I see here, are drama-queens over-reacting.
(Of course, I must mention this: I support acceptance and respect of others, even if said other persons are of different sexual orientations, different political opinions, different religious beliefs, etc.).
Quote from: Turanil;824147I already asked in this thread if businesses (in Indiana) currently have an obligation of service to everyone who asks, and if this law would allow shop owners to discriminate against certain categories of people (and not especially gays).
I was answered that: 1) Business owners have no obligation to accept anyone, and can refuse if they deem so. 2) The law is only about if they were sued by an angry rejected customer, that they could invoke (in court) the right to discriminate because of religious beliefs.
While there are no statewide law in Indiana (unlike, say, Connecticut) that bans discrimination for sexual orientation, there is such laws in some locales, e.g. Indianapolis and Fort Wayne. Which makes this an attempt by the anti-gay lobby to overrule local preferences with state-wide laws. It also helps explain why the mayor of Indianapolis was peeved that anti-gay lobbyists in his state capital were writing legislation to override the will of his constituents on how their city should operate.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824141But the difference here Jeff is those of us arguing against the law and taking a different position from you, aren't saying you need to leave the hobby or you have to change your way of thinking. We're not trying to police thoughts and language here, we just have serious concerns about what effects this law will have on the rights of gay people. I get the concern about the social justice warrior thing. I certainly think that stuff has made some quarters of the hobby hostile to open discussion and to just playing and enjoying the games people like. This seems like more of a real world issue. One where we are not all going to agree on for a variety of reasons. But I do think this law is bad and that people have a right to be able to buy goods and services.
OK, I got it. I'm trying to mentally unpack all of it, but I got it.
EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place. The florest case was decided in February, here is the result. (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-says-70-year-old-flower-shop-owner-discriminated-gay-couple-heres-responded/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tdsfacebook)
Quote from: jeff37923;824168EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place.]
It isn't a new thing that some people who do not seem to deserve it get hurt. In jury trials, I know some folks who should be found guilty get off because of jury sympathy (I had a bad case of this on the first federal jury I sat on - but sense finally prevailed).
This does seem to create another opportunity to sue when there wasn't any actual discrimination taking place.
I wonder about the case of a wedding photographer (which I believe is a an actual case now). If you run such a company, you offer a very finite service because you can only service one at a time. A wedding photographer could turn down a gay wedding, not because its a gay wedding, but because they are already booked.
Then there are the businesses that want to follow the "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" mentality, who simply do not want to serve someone who acts like a belligerent ass - such as kicking someone out of your bar.
Quote from: jeff37923;824168OK, I got it. I'm trying to mentally unpack all of it, but I got it.
EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place. The florest case was decided in February, here is the result. (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-says-70-year-old-flower-shop-owner-discriminated-gay-couple-heres-responded/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tdsfacebook)
Keep in mind I was addressing your concern about social justice warriors and this discussion. My point was I think we can disagree over this issue without resorting to tactics that push either of us out of the hobby or make the other into a villain (which is what I see a lot of SJWs doing).
But to address your question. For me I guess I just think the right of people to get goods and services trumps the right of the shopkeeper who doesn't want to make a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. I mean the same reasoning could be used to deny people flowers for an interacial marriage or a bar mitzvah. I am not comfortable allowing people to use their faith as a shield to discriminate that way. Of course there will always be edge cases and I am fine with religious institutions being able to have whatever rules they want in place (i.e. I am fine with the Catholic Church not conducting gay weddings if it doesn't wish to). But this is a business, not a religious institution. And these are flowers. She isn't being asked to sacrifice a bull or take the lord's name in vain.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824453For me I guess I just think the right of people to get goods and services trumps the right of the shopkeeper who doesn't want to make a flower arrangement for a gay wedding.
The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.
Quote from: Brad;824455The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.
There is no religious precept about providing goods to people who dont follow your religious precepts in The Bible, that I'm aware of.
However, it does say if you shave your beard you're going to hell.
Quote from: Brad;824455The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.
Or more specifically, to force someone else to provide you with those goods and services.
Christ, it boggles the mind that anyone can claim to be a victim and their rights are being violated if they aren't allowed to force someone to work for them. I seem to remember an institution a couple centuries ago where people were forced to work for others against their will. I guess the compensation is a little better today, but still...
Quote from: Technomancer;824457Or more specifically, to force someone else to provide you with those goods and services.
Christ, it boggles the mind that anyone can claim to be a victim and their rights are being violated if they aren't allowed to force someone to work for them. I seem to remember an institution a couple centuries ago where people were forced to work for others against their will. I guess the compensation is a little better today, but still...
Well I think comparing an attempt to eliminate discrimination based on race, sexuality, sex, etc to slavery is a bit flawed. No one is being asked to work for free or being forced into an occupation they don't want to be in. People are simply being told if you open a bakery, you have to sell cakes to everyone regardless of their identity. I can certainly see the difficulty and complexity of this issue because there is a conflict between key values here. But my feeling is one of the lessons learned from jim crow and the civil rights era is allowing businesses to discriminate who they serve to on the basis on identity (which in my view that is what this is) is wrong and shouldn't be permitted by the law. I don't want a store to be able to refuse me or my wife goods or services because of who we are, and I would extend that concern to others. By all means people have a right to practice whatever religion they want but they can't use that to infringe on other peoples rights.
Quote from: Brad;824455The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.
Yes you have a right to practice whatever religion you want. But you can't use that as an excuse to violate other peoples' rights. The right to public accommodation exists. The civil rights act happened. Should a store be able to refuse service to black customers because they belong to the church of the creator for example? Under the civil rights act you can't. The question here is should that be applied to sexuality. I say yes and so does the state I live in. If Indiana doesn't want to share that view and wants to allow discrimination on the bases on sexuality, then I'd really rather not go there to conduct business. I think increasingly most people are starting to recognize that if you can't deny people services on the basis of race or sex, it makes little sense to allow people to do so on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824465Yes you have a right to practice whatever religion you want. But you can't use that as an excuse to violate other peoples' rights. The right to public accommodation exists. The civil rights act happened. Should a store be able to refuse service to black customers because they belong to the church of the creator for example? Under the civil rights act you can't. The question here is should that be applied to sexuality. I say yes and so does the state I live in. If Indiana doesn't want to share that view and wants to allow discrimination on the bases on sexuality, then I'd really rather not go there to conduct business. I think increasingly most people are starting to recognize that if you can't deny people services on the basis of race or sex, it makes little sense to allow people to do so on the basis of their sexual orientation.
No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.
Quote from: TristramEvans;824456There is no religious precept about providing goods to people who dont follow your religious precepts in The Bible, that I'm aware of.
However, it does say if you shave your beard you're going to hell.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
Hey, be involved with crap you have a moral objection to because I said so. right? Selling a gun to someone you know plans to commit murder with it isn't bad, right?
Quote from: Brad;824468No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.
Well, I am no constitutional scholar, so I will let legal experts and courts debate that. But in my view this leads us to the conclusion that one can then discriminate against black people by claiming if they are members of the Church of the Creator. So a Creator who owns a hamburger joint could say it is against his religion to serve black customers. That isn't the kind of society I would like to live in. I'm absolutely okay with people being able to practice any religion they want. And I am okay with religious institutions themselves having certain exceptions. But I am not okay with businesses being able to refuse people based on who they are and using religion as the reason.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824471Well, I am no constitutional scholar, so I will let legal experts and courts debate that. But in my view this leads us to the conclusion that one can then discriminate against black people by claiming if they are members of the Church of the Creator. So a Creator who owns a hamburger joint could say it is against his religion to serve black customers. That isn't the kind of society I would like to live in. I'm absolutely okay with people being able to practice any religion they want. And I am okay with religious institutions themselves having certain exceptions. But I am not okay with businesses being able to refuse people based on who they are and using religion as the reason.
I'm perfectly fine living in a society that allows individuals and private businesses to discriminate as they wish, for any reason. That's free exercise of liberty. Being equal under the law shouldn't be an excuse for the government to tell you what to think or do.
Quote from: Brad;824472I'm perfectly fine living in a society that allows individuals and private businesses to discriminate as they wish, for any reason. That's free exercise of liberty. Being equal under the law shouldn't be an excuse for the government to tell you what to think or do.
Okay, but understand that means you reject the Civil Rights act.
Quote from: Brad;824468No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.
Oh, really?
Goods and services is your quibble?
Perhaps, due to the shortness of the scope and forum I am misunderstanding. From the Civil Rights Act...
TITLE II—INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
I mean, it goes on. But that seems to cover it.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights+Act+of+1964
Unless you prefer to go back further and reject the amendments and changes that come about as culture changes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824473Okay, but understand that means you reject the Civil Rights act.
Absolutely. I don't think making laws is somehow magically going to grant anyone rights they already have. All the legislation in the world won't correct discrimination.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824474Unless you prefer to go back further and reject the amendments and changes that come about as culture changes.
The Civil Rights Act isn't part of the Constitution.
Quote from: Brad;824472I'm perfectly fine living in a society that allows individuals and private businesses to discriminate as they wish, for any reason. That's free exercise of liberty. Being equal under the law shouldn't be an excuse for the government to tell you what to think or do.
July 8, 1868 called. It said you're late for dinner at the White's Only, No Irish, No Jews diner.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824464Well I think comparing an attempt to eliminate discrimination based on race, sexuality, sex, etc to slavery is a bit flawed. No one is being asked to work for free or being forced into an occupation they don't want to be in. People are simply being told if you open a bakery, you have to sell cakes to everyone regardless of their identity. I can certainly see the difficulty and complexity of this issue because there is a conflict between key values here. But my feeling is one of the lessons learned from jim crow and the civil rights era is allowing businesses to discriminate who they serve to on the basis on identity (which in my view that is what this is) is wrong and shouldn't be permitted by the law. I don't want a store to be able to refuse me or my wife goods or services because of who we are, and I would extend that concern to others. By all means people have a right to practice whatever religion they want but they can't use that to infringe on other peoples rights.
This is why I mention the Stacey Campfield incident (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/bistro-at-the-bijou-owner-boots-bans-state-sen). The same laws which allowed the restaurant to refuse service and throw out a state senator for anti-gay remarks cover the businesses who refuse service for gay weddings. Now, I do suggest researching Stacey Campfield because he is a truly vile human being. Point, is, the same law that allows a business to refuse service to the Westboro Baptist Church without fear of being sued is what protects an 80 year old woman's flower arrainging when she refuses the business of a gay wedding.
The law is neutral, it is the people who use of the law which can be abusive. That applies to all sides.
Quote from: Brad;824475Absolutely. I don't think making laws is somehow magically going to grant anyone rights they already have. All the legislation in the world won't correct discrimination.
That seems a strange argument to me. I mean all the legislation in world won't stop murder or theft either but it makes a pretty big dent when you legislate against it. Sure people might find a way to discriminate even with the civil rights act in effect, but it has had a huge impact on peoples' ability to discriminate. I certainly am glad businessses can no longer refuse service to black people for example.
Quote from: Bren;824478July 8, 1868 called. It said you're late for dinner at the White's Only, No Irish, No Jews diner.
Guess that means I can't go, right? Quite a few assumptions are made on Ye Olde Internetz about a person's ethnicity when they outright reject certain things meant to protect a "disadvantaged" class.
Quote from: Brad;824476The Civil Rights Act isn't part of the Constitution.
It was signed into Law. Which is part of the that same Constitution.
You know, part of the expectation and duties of a government...So you can say you don't like it , but You CAN"T claim it isn't part of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the legislative powers, which include:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.You know, because those framers were aware that things would change beyond the scope of their writing and they wanted them to have the full legitimacy.
It's also based on the 14th and 15th amendment of the Constitution.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824482It was signed into Law. Which is part of the that same Constitution.
You know, part of the expectation and duties of a government...So you can say you don't like it , but You CAN"T claim it isn't part of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the legislative powers, which include:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
You know, because those framers were aware that things would change beyond the scope of their writing and they wanted them to have the full legitimacy.
It's also based on the 14th and 15th amendment of the Constitution.
A law cannot grant rights, per the Constitution. What is your point? The Constitution cannot grant rights, either.
Quote from: jeff37923;824479This is why I mention the Stacey Campfield incident (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/bistro-at-the-bijou-owner-boots-bans-state-sen).
Yeah, you mention it like it proves something.
I think this is a red herring though. I haven't seen anyone else in this thread arguing for a right to refuse service to assholes and bigots. I haven't even seen anyone else argue that we should refuse service to well mannered, appropriately attired, assholes and bigots, who are willing to pay for a service that is on offer. Now this is a long and rambling thread and I may have missed someone arguing for that right, but if so maybe you could point that out. Because I know I specifically said in response to you bringing this up earlier that assholes and bigots (assuming they are behaving appropriately as a customer) should have the same rights to service as other people.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824480That seems a strange argument to me.
He's trying to switch the playing field. Mostly to an argument about the meaning of rights. Seasoned with a bit of founding father ancestor worship and pinch of deism as the source of "rights."
Quote from: Bren;824485He's trying to switch the playing field. Mostly to an argument about the meaning of rights. Seasoned with a bit of founding father ancestor worship and pinch of deism as the source of "rights."
Fine, beat me to it.
It's hard though, taking someone seriously who can look at a law called "The Civil Rights Act" and try to say laws can't confer rights. Seems like a certainl level of denial.
Quote from: Bren;824485He's trying to switch the playing field. Mostly to an argument about the meaning of rights. Seasoned with a bit of founding father ancestor worship and pinch of deism as the source of "rights."
Sorry for actually using words in the Constitution to demonstrate that discrimination against anyone by private individuals is a perfectly valid exercise of liberty.
Quote from: Bren;824484Yeah, you mention it like it proves something.
I think this is a red herring though. I haven't seen anyone else in this thread arguing for a right to refuse service to assholes and bigots. I haven't even seen anyone else argue that we should refuse service to well mannered, appropriately attired, assholes and bigots, who are willing to pay for a service that is on offer. Now this is a long and rambling thread and I may have missed someone arguing for that right, but if so maybe you could point that out. Because I know I specifically said in response to you bringing this up earlier that assholes and bigots (assuming they are behaving appropriately as a customer) should have the same rights to service as other people.
You can think it is a red herring, that is your problem. The fact remains that without some refusal of service protection for the Bijou Bistro, they could have been sued out of business by Stacey Campfield. Just like how wedding related businesses have been sued out of business for refusing to service a gay wedding. How you can't see this as two sides of the same coin is due to your own intellectual myopia.
Now, lets take a step back. What is the goal for gay marriage? Acceptance of gay marriage, right? So does suing a business for refusal of service over gay marriage help to breed acceptance or does it generate resentment? By the number of states adopting RFRAs, I would say that it generates resentment because people are creating legislature to protect themselves from that lawsuit tactic.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824487Fine, beat me to it.
It's hard though, taking someone seriously who can look at a law called "The Civil Rights Act" and try to say laws can't confer rights. Seems like a certainl level of denial.
Do you understand what a negative right is? Probably not.
Once again, I reply to a legitimate post then get labeled a racist bigot. Basically, you are all a bunch of fucking assholes, how about that? The irony here is rich as fuck.
Quote from: jeff37923;824489You can think it is a red herring, that is your problem. The fact remains that without some refusal of service protection for the Bijou Bistro, they could have been sued out of business by Stacey Campfield. Just like how wedding related businesses have been sued out of business for refusing to service a gay wedding. How you can't see this as two sides of the same coin is due to your own intellectual myopia.
Are you just not bothering to read what I said? Seriously, go back and read all the words.
No one in this thread said that a business should have a right not to serve Stacey Campfield a wedding cake for the sole reason that he is an asshole and a bigot. I specifically said that more than once now. I said that the same rules should apply to assholes and bigots. They should serve him so long as he is wanting to buy what they sell, is properly dressed, polite, doesn't disrupt their business, is not trying to hold a political rally, solicit, or convert people, and actually has the means to pay for the goods or service they provide. That is why your "but what about Stacey Campfield?" is just a red herring.
Quote from: Brad;824488Sorry for actually using words in the Constitution to demonstrate that discrimination against anyone by private individuals is a perfectly valid exercise of liberty.
You are engaging in a constitutionalist argument. The people you are arguing with have not been engaging in an argument about the meaning of the word "right" in the constitution. They are discussing what sort of society they want to live in. Thus you are trying to switch the playing field from their discussion to one you want to have.
I also note in passing that the society that you say you want to live in has not existed in the USA for half a century (if it ever truly did exist). So by saying you want to live in that society you are saying you don't want to live in the society that has existed in the USA, probably since before you were born. Which is why I sarcastically said that the distant passed called and wanted you back.
Quote from: Bren;824498You are engaging in a constitutionalist argument. The people you are arguing with have not been engaging in an argument about the meaning of the word "right" in the constitution. They are discussing what sort of society they want to live in. Thus you are trying to switch the playing field from their discussion to one you want to have.
I also note in passing that the society that you say you want to live in has not existed in the USA for half a century (if it ever truly did exist). So by saying you want to live in that society you are saying you don't want to live in the society that has existed in the USA, probably since before you were born. Which is why I sarcastically said that the distant passed called and wanted you back.
I'm pointing out that a law, which is the point of this whole thread, cannot usurp the place of God-granted rights, by definition. Using the final authority on the matter in the US, the Constitution. Saying I'm being disingenuous is ludicrous; you can talk all you want about how you wish things were, but that's is fucking irrelevant. Circumventing liberty to impose some idealized reality is exactly how this shit happens in the first place. Whose ideal? Sorry, not really interested in having my actual rights oppressed so someone else won't feel bad.
Quote from: Brad;824500I'm pointing out that a law, which is the point of this whole thread, cannot usurp the place of God-granted rights, by definition. Using the final authority on the matter in the US, the Constitution. Saying I'm being disingenuous is ludicrous; you can talk all you want about how you wish things were, but that's is fucking irrelevant. Circumventing liberty to impose some idealized reality is exactly how this shit happens in the first place. Whose ideal? Sorry, not really interested in having my actual rights oppressed so someone else won't feel bad.
I don't think being able to kick someone out of a bakery because they are black is a God-given right. That seems pretty strange to me as a concept. I get that we want to respect religious liberties. I just don't see them extending to that kind of behavior. If your church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that is different. That is a religious institution. But if your opening a bakery that serves the public, why should you be able to deny service to someone just for being black, asian or white? It isn't oppression to say you have to bake a cake for black people if you also bake them for white people. Again, we've been down that road and it was terrible.
Quote from: Brad;824500I'm pointing out that a law, which is the point of this whole thread, cannot usurp the place of God-granted rights, by definition. Using the final authority on the matter in the US, the Constitution. Saying I'm being disingenuous is ludicrous; you can talk all you want about how you wish things were, but that's is fucking irrelevant. Circumventing liberty to impose some idealized reality is exactly how this shit happens in the first place. Whose ideal? Sorry, not really interested in having my actual rights oppressed so someone else won't feel bad.
Yes Brad you switched the playing field. No Brad I didn't call you disingenuous. Though you may want to read what disingenuous means as this post is pretty close. Let's review.
- rights are only defined in the constitution = wanting to use or discuss the meaning of rights in the constitution CHECK
- "God-granted rights" = theistic or at a minimum deistic belief CHECK
- US Constitution blah, blah, blah = constitutionalist argument CHECK
- Disingenuous = switching the playing field NO CHECK, those aren't the same, please consult a dictionary to alleviate your confusion.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824501I don't think being able to kick someone out of a bakery because they are black is a God-given right. That seems pretty strange to me as a concept. I get that we want to respect religious liberties. I just don't see them extending to that kind of behavior. If your church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that is different. That is a religious institution. But if your opening a bakery that serves the public, why should you be able to deny service to someone just for being black, asian or white? It isn't oppression to say you have to bake a cake for black people if you also bake them for white people. Again, we've been down that road and it was terrible.
I agree it is pretty strange in 2015. It's not so strange in the 1950s before the Civil Rights Act or in the 1860s before the 14th Amendment.
Quote from: Brad;824490Do you understand what a negative right is? Probably not.
Once again, I reply to a legitimate post then get labeled a racist bigot. Basically, you are all a bunch of fucking assholes, how about that? The irony here is rich as fuck.
Ah, and it comes out. Pardon us for reading what you wrote and responding.
I didn't call you a racist bigot, not did anyone else. I noted your level of denial, and I'm sorry that you have such strong patterning to feel this automatic response.
Quote from: Brad;824500I'm pointing out that a law, which is the point of this whole thread, cannot usurp the place of God-granted rights, by definition. Using the final authority on the matter in the US, the Constitution. Saying I'm being disingenuous is ludicrous; you can talk all you want about how you wish things were, but that's is fucking irrelevant. Circumventing liberty to impose some idealized reality is exactly how this shit happens in the first place. Whose ideal? Sorry, not really interested in having my actual rights oppressed so someone else won't feel bad.
Right.
Once again, it is the Constitution that grants the government the right to make laws. So it truly is the 'Final Authority' that says that it is the place of government to make these laws.
Period. Talk around it and through it and hold your breath all you like.
And you can froth at the mouth and talk about 'God given rights', but, to use your term....It is Fucking irrelevant. Enjoy the Cognitive Dissonance Cocktail, but these 'actual rights' as you see them, seem to be contrary to actual liberty for all.
Quote from: Bren;824496Are you just not bothering to read what I said? Seriously, go back and read all the words.
No one in this thread said that a business should have a right not to serve Stacey Campfield a wedding cake for the sole reason that he is an asshole and a bigot. I specifically said that more than once now. I said that the same rules should apply to assholes and bigots. They should serve him so long as he is wanting to buy what they sell, is properly dressed, polite, doesn't disrupt their business, is not trying to hold a political rally, solicit, or convert people, and actually has the means to pay for the goods or service they provide. That is why your "but what about Stacey Campfield?" is just a red herring.
So you do not understand my point and therefore it is a red herring? This is why I think you have intellectual myopia.
Its cool though, we can agree to disagree here too.
Quote from: Brad;824476The Civil Rights Act isn't part of the Constitution.
If I thought that the Reconstruction Amendments were enough to make segregation, poll taxes, etc. illegal then we wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, we did.
JG
Quote from: jeff37923;824530So you do not understand my point and therefore it is a red herring? This is why I think you have intellectual myopia.
I understand your point, your point is irrelevant which is why I said it is a red herring. Over and over you have dodged the fact that the only person in this thread who has said Stacey Campfield should be refused goods and service because he is an asshole and a bigot is you. No one except you is demanding the Indiana law so that people can use their religious beliefs to avoid serving assholes and bigots. That's why your saying, "aha if this law is struck down, Stacey Campfield might sue someone for not serving him a hamburger" is a red herring.
I'll try to explain this one more time so maybe this time you will get my point.
My response to your hypothetical Stacey problem is "so, fucking what?" If Stacey really wants a hamburger, and you are running a restaurant that sells hamburgers, and if ole Stacey is dressed appropriately, and he has money to pay for the hamburger, and he isn't disrupting the staff or patrons then SELL HIM A FUCKING HAMBURGER!
If he comes in with a camera crew and a bunch of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-abortion signs, to hold a press conference then kick his ass out because he is disrupting the restaurant. You don't need a special law to do that.
All I saw was more "blah blah blah" responses to my posts, so I'll refrain from more comment.
Yet like a moth to a flame, I cannot resist...if you somehow think a law trumps a negative right, you're not only an illiterate rube but have also fallen into the whole, "give up some liberty for X" thing, i.e. the slippery slope of totalitarianism.
Quote from: Brad;824553All I saw was more "blah blah blah" responses to my posts, so I'll refrain from more comment.
Yet like a moth to a flame, I cannot resist...if you somehow think a law trumps a negative right, you're not only an illiterate rube but have also fallen into the whole, "give up some liberty for X" thing, i.e. the slippery slope of totalitarianism.
All I know is I am not okay with allowing businesses to refuse people based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or religion. And I am pretty sure that doesn't put me in Stalin's company.
Quote from: Brad;824469Hey, be involved with crap you have a moral objection to because I said so. right?
I'm not sure how serving a customer food is "being involved" with their love life...
QuoteSelling a gun to someone you know plans to commit murder with it isn't bad, right?
Did you really just compare being gay to murder?
Was that really the best thought-out argument?
My point is that Christians already, as a whole, pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to follow. Which makes using the Bible as an excuse for being a bigot or an asshole null and void. Its
just that person chosing to be a bigot and an asshole. It's not them being Christian, and its not a religious argument nor "God-given" right.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824557All I know is I am not okay with allowing businesses to refuse people based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or religion. And I am pretty sure that doesn't put me in Stalin's company.
It makes you incredibly naive.
It's happening right now all over the country and no one bats an eye at it.
Brad is right in one sense: government cannot "grant" rights, because if it could, that means it would be able to legitimately take away rights, and there'd be no security for human liberty.
The nature of inalienable rights is that the government doesn't have to give them, and cannot take them away. A law that ensures someone's inherent human rights aren't taken away is legitimate; a law that takes away rights never is.
Quote from: James Gillen;824531If I thought that the Reconstruction Amendments were enough to make segregation, poll taxes, etc. illegal then we wouldn't have needed the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, we did.
JG
It took the Supreme Court overturning Plessy v Ferguson before the Civil Rights Act could even come into being, which means that since roughly 1954 Brad's argument was rejected by the courts.
That said, it wouldn't shock me if Hobby Lobby was used as a wedge to get the Supreme Court to re-address the Civil Rights Act itself, using corporate entities being granted religious rights as the tool to break the Act and restore Plessy v Ferguson.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824566It makes you incredibly naive.
It's happening right now all over the country and no one bats an eye at it.
I'm sorry but businesses being told they have to sell cupcakes to black people or that you can't refuse gay people seats at your restaurant isn't totalitarianism. And it certainly isn't anything close what happened in Russia under Stalin.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824580Brad is right in one sense: government cannot "grant" rights, because if it could, that means it would be able to legitimately take away rights, and there'd be no security for human liberty.
The nature of inalienable rights is that the government doesn't have to give them, and cannot take them away. A law that ensures someone's inherent human rights aren't taken away is legitimate; a law that takes away rights never is.
I get the principle behind it, but I think people who are against the civil rights act, and in particular those who reject Title II, are being quite extreme in their view. I think we all agree certain rights are inalienable. What is being disputed here is whether businesses have the inalienable right to discriminate on the basis of color, race, sex or sexual orientation. Personally I don't think they do. What I find troubling is what started out as a debate over whether we should extend protections to include gay people has turned into a debate over whether we should remove protections currently in place to prevent racial and gender discrimination. I'm all for personal liberty. All for freedom of expression. But I do draw the line at going back to what we had in this country prior to the civil rights act. When I hear people invoking the constitution or natural law principles to make the case against Tittle II and other parts of the Civil Rights Act, I cringe.
Parts of this thread feel like listening to people who are really jazzed up about their first constitutional law class but who have almost zero interest or experience in the how the world works outside of academic legal theory.
And what Brendan said.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824580Brad is right in one sense: government cannot "grant" rights, because if it could, that means it would be able to legitimately take away rights, and there'd be no security for human liberty.
The nature of inalienable rights is that the government doesn't have to give them, and cannot take them away. A law that ensures someone's inherent human rights aren't taken away is legitimate; a law that takes away rights never is.
Actually, much of what drives these laws is when One Unalienable Right runs into another.
You and Brad talk about these Rights as clean, non-intersecting things. However, the issue lies in the conflation areas. Absolute Liberty, for example, means one can do anything without repercussion. And while 'Liberty' is included in the US Birth certificate we call the Declaration of Independence, and while the Constitution and the Amendments (Known, funny enough, as the Bill of Rights) within give a listing of Rights, much of the the laws set down later by the government are actually clarifications due to the cultural and social abutments that happen with these Rights.
The Right to Free Speech does not give unlimited Free Speech. There are still Libel laws and Truth in Advertising laws. The Right of Freedom to Worship does not allow for Human Sacrifice, or allow other interdictions on the Rights of others...and that is frankly what is happening in this particular thread and circumstance it describes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824557All I know is I am not okay with allowing businesses to refuse people based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or religion. And I am pretty sure that doesn't put me in Stalin's company.
No, that makes you a decent human being. The whole point is the government shouldn't be dictating what being a decent human being means; that's a moral question that has no place in law.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824580The nature of inalienable rights is that the government doesn't have to give them, and cannot take them away. A law that ensures someone's inherent human rights aren't taken away is legitimate; a law that takes away rights never is.
That's true to some degree, but I still don't think such laws are actually necessary if people just don't act like massive dicks. You really only need one law: Don't Be An Asshole. Just because I think those sorts of laws are stupid (Civil Rights Act or whatever) doesn't mean I don't see the usefulness in them. Newtonian Mechanics is objectively incorrect, but you can still use it to get to the Moon.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824596I'm sorry but businesses being told they have to sell cupcakes to black people or that you can't refuse gay people seats at your restaurant isn't totalitarianism. And it certainly isn't anything close what happened in Russia under Stalin.
Yet black people are allowed to have 'exclusive businesses', gay people are allowed 'exclusive businesses'. Why are they allowed this? Where has your outrage been over these 'exclusive businesses'?
Quote from: Sommerjon;824649Yet black people are allowed to have 'exclusive businesses', gay people are allowed 'exclusive businesses'. Why are they allowed this? Where has your outrage been over these 'exclusive businesses'?
You know you're allowed to enter into a gay bar, right? I had a straight ex-coworker who used to frequent gay bars because he enjoyed the company.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824649Yet black people are allowed to have 'exclusive businesses', gay people are allowed 'exclusive businesses'. Why are they allowed this? Where has your outrage been over these 'exclusive businesses'?
I am unfamiliar with such businesses so it is a bit hard to address that. I certainly wouldn't support a business being able to discriminate against someone for being white either. But I have never encountered a business that refuses to serve whites or heterosexuals. There are going to be some edge cases of course. I can see the need for something like a gym that is exclusively female clients and trainers, just like we have mens and women's bathrooms.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824607The Right to Free Speech does not give unlimited Free Speech. There are still Libel laws and Truth in Advertising laws. The Right of Freedom to Worship does not allow for Human Sacrifice, or allow other interdictions on the Rights of others...and that is frankly what is happening in this particular thread and circumstance it describes.
Which inalienable right is being infringed upon by a law that ensures religious liberty cases will be reviewed and possibly even make it to court?
Quote from: Brad;824635That's true to some degree, but I still don't think such laws are actually necessary if people just don't act like massive dicks. You really only need one law: Don't Be An Asshole. Just because I think those sorts of laws are stupid (Civil Rights Act or whatever) doesn't mean I don't see the usefulness in them. Newtonian Mechanics is objectively incorrect, but you can still use it to get to the Moon.
I am fine with people being assholes. I am not fine with people refusing service to folks on the basis of identity. The last thing we need is a 'don't be an asshole law'.
Well before the civil rights act businesses discriminated all the time, and it wasn't just a product of Jim Crow laws. While I think few businesses would find success discriminating against black people today, I do think there are pockets where this would occur. Racism is much less of an issue today than it what it was sixty years ago, and I would have even said it was nearly eradicated before I saw some of the visibly racist reactions to the Obama presidency (and I am not talking here about people simply disagreeing with his policies or not liking the guy, I am talking about the blatantly racist signs and remarks that we all saw in the last eight years). I don't think we are at all in a place yet where removing tittle II would result in few issues. I think enough racism exists for discrimination to be a huge problem if we made it legal.
My bigger concern is I think there is still enough prejudice against homosexuals that you could have widespread denial of services and goods in places if these moves are allowed to go unchecked. But bigger than that is the principle, I simply don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of skin color, sexual orientation or gender. You don't have to go very far to see people saying terrible things about homosexuals.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824649Yet black people are allowed to have 'exclusive businesses', gay people are allowed 'exclusive businesses'. Why are they allowed this? Where has your outrage been over these 'exclusive businesses'?
If white people are legitimately being discriminated against, obviously that is wrong. But I have to admit when I hear white people complain that they are actually the ones who are oppressed, I have to roll my eyes. Yes political correctness has gotten insane. Yes people are way too quick to take offense when it isn't intended today. No that doesn't make you oppressed. Efforts to redress real disparities in the society that exist along racial lines don't make you oppressed. I can certainly people arguing such measures are not effective, are unfair, or counter-productive (and we could debate each policy), but when white people cry oppression today it really looks ridiculous to me.
Quote from: Brad;824633No, that makes you a decent human being. The whole point is the government shouldn't be dictating what being a decent human being means; that's a moral question that has no place in law.
You see it as a moral question, I see it as a right. I expect that when I walk into a store and pay money, I won't be denied service because of my skin color, my sex, who I'm with, etc.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824649Yet black people are allowed to have 'exclusive businesses', gay people are allowed 'exclusive businesses'. Why are they allowed this? Where has your outrage been over these 'exclusive businesses'?
There are black only businesses that only cater to Blacks? And won't cater to other races? Exclusive Gay businesses that won't cater to straights?
The only thing that I can think of is women's only gyms, and I have been against them based on what we have been discussing. So my 'outrage' was actually there.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824661Efforts to redress real disparities in the society that exist along racial lines don't make you oppressed. I can certainly people arguing such measures are not effective, are unfair, or counter-productive (and we could debate each policy), but when white people cry oppression today it really looks ridiculous to me.
People who are denied real equal opportunity have a reason to gripe no matter who they are. Shouting them down, claiming it doesn't exist or that it looks ridiculous seems to have a similar response in any group.
There are segments of US society (and very clearly in Europe) that are becoming radicalized, and some of the ugliest elements are getting stronger. They will get stronger and louder as time goes on, if real equal opportunity doesn't emerge.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824659Which inalienable right is being infringed upon by a law that ensures religious liberty cases will be reviewed and possibly even make it to court?
I would probably go with Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for the unalienable rights in question. That's pretty easy.
Quote from: Lynn;824672People who are denied real equal opportunity have a reason to gripe no matter who they are. Shouting them down, claiming it doesn't exist or that it looks ridiculous seems to have a similar response in any group.
There are segments of US society (and very clearly in Europe) that are becoming radicalized, and some of the ugliest elements are getting stronger. They will get stronger and louder as time goes on, if real equal opportunity doesn't emerge.
What opportunities are you being denied because of your whiteness? I am just not seeing any real oppression of white people in the US. Sorry. I am sure individual cases of mistreatment do occur (for instance in places where racial tensions are high). I am not disputing that white people can also be on the receiving end of bad treatment. What I am saying is this mantra I keep hearing that white people are actually the ones who are being oppressed just seems ridiculous on the face of it. And I say that as someone who finds political correctness, taking offense at everything and SJWs, all pretty distasteful as well. This stuff can be annoying, silly, and even begin to chill free expression, but it isn't racial oppression by any stretch of the imagination. I am not going to act like white people are systematically being oppressed when they clearly are not.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824673I would probably go with Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for the unalienable rights in question. That's pretty easy.
That's a very poor answer.
Liberty requires that you have certain freedoms -- freedom of speech, religion, association, etc. and being denied service by a business for any reason does not infringe on these. Even the freedom of association must be mutual; just because you want to associate with someone(in this case do business with them) does not mean they have to return the sentiment.
Same with the Pursuit of Happiness. You have the right to pursue your happiness, though this does not guarantee you will attain it. It also does not give you the right to use someone else's property in order to pursue your happiness without their permission(property rights and freedom of association both apply here).
I find that in these discussions that people often forget that businesses are
somebody else's property. I find the idea that you have a right to make use of someone else's property, labor, etc. against their wishes(yes, even if their reasons are crap) to be ridiculous.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824669There are black only businesses that only cater to Blacks? And won't cater to other races? Exclusive Gay businesses that won't cater to straights?
The only thing that I can think of is women's only gyms, and I have been against them based on what we have been discussing. So my 'outrage' was actually there.
I live in a border town in AZ that have a few mexican only businesses. No signage or anything, but they never seem to have time for you when you try and go there.
So I take my business elsewhere.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824675That's a very poor answer.
Liberty requires that you have certain freedoms -- freedom of speech, religion, association, etc. and being denied service by a business for any reason does not infringe on these. Even the freedom of association must be mutual; just because you want to associate with someone(in this case do business with them) does not mean they have to return the sentiment.
Same with the Pursuit of Happiness. You have the right to pursue your happiness, though this does not guarantee you will attain it. It also does not give you the right to use someone else's property in order to pursue your happiness without their permission(property rights and freedom of association both apply here).
I often find that in these discussions that people often forget that business are somebody else's property. I find the idea that you have a right to make use of someone else's property, labor, etc. against their wishes(yes, even if their reasons are crap) to be ridiculous.
Sorry, I gave you a short answer because many people don't understand those are unalienable rights.
Their business may be their property, but the interaction with the public is not, whether it happens in a showroom, a bar, a lunch counter, or online.
Once they decide to provide a service to the public, it is no longer a matter of their labor or property, that is secondary to the interaction with the public. You are open to the public (that is all created equal) or not.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824677I live in a border town in AZ that have a few mexican only businesses. No signage or anything, but they never seem to have time for you when you try and go there.
So I take my business elsewhere.
Right, but they aren't legally, 'Mexican only'.
And we were talking about the legality.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824677I live in a border town in AZ that have a few mexican only businesses. No signage or anything, but they never seem to have time for you when you try and go there.
So I take my business elsewhere.
That is covered by title II of the Civil Rights Act. If they are denying you service due to your skin color or national origin, it's technically illegal.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824680That is covered by title II of the Civil Rights Act. If they are denying you service due to your skin color or national origin, it's technically illegal.
Heh.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824682Heh.
Good luck with that.
I honestly don't think it would be as difficult as you imagine provided the case is strong.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824675Liberty requires that you have certain freedoms -- freedom of speech, religion, association, etc...
You and others can crib some wording from the founding fathers, however unless you are in favor of religion including and supporting involuntary human sacrifice and slavery you aren't actually in favor of unfettered freedom of religion. So we've all agreed that some restrictions of religion are right, proper, and necessary. Now all we are doing is arguing about where to draw the line.
I've yet to hear anyone offer anything other than vague theory for why the religious line should be drawn to include "I'm not servin' no blacks or queers. Not in my store. Why? Um...cuz o' my religion. Yea that's it. Religion."
Quote from: Bren;824684You and others can crib some wording from the founding fathers, however unless you are in favor of religion including and supporting involuntary human sacrifice and slavery you aren't actually in favor of unfettered freedom of religion. So we've all agreed that some restrictions of religion are right, proper, and necessary. Now all we are doing is arguing about where to draw the line.
Actually, I've been pretty clear in that I believe one's own freedoms do not allow them to infringe on the freedoms of others. In what you just mentioned, a number of rights are being clearly infringed upon -- life, property, and association, just to name 3(and likely other rights in the process). So if anything your examples strengthen my point.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824678Their business may be their property, but the interaction with the public is not, whether it happens in a showroom, a bar, a lunch counter, or online.
Once they decide to provide a service to the public, it is no longer a matter of their labor or property, that is secondary to the interaction with the public. You are open to the public (that is all created equal) or not.
Interactions with people, including "the public," fall under freedom of association. I see no reason why a business must be open to "the public" as a whole, or not open at all. And no, a first-degree right such as one's property rights is not secondary to something else except where it can be shown that they are attempting to exercise their rights in a way that is infringing on the rights of someone else. Which, again, it wouldn't be simply by denying service to someone(even if their reason for doing so was crap).
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824687Actually, I've been pretty clear in that I believe one's own freedoms do not allow them to infringe on the freedoms of others. In what you just mentioned, a number of rights are being clearly infringed upon -- life, property, and association, just to name 3(and likely other rights in the process). So if anything your examples strengthen my point.
It doesn't strengthen your point.
The disagreement is whether a business should be allowed to discriminate in sales. You see that as a fundamental right for the business. I don't see any particular reason to accept that as a fundamental right . Especially when the business is accepting the advantages of our society's social contract where protections such as law, courts, police, fire, etc. help the business. Just think of serving the public fairly as a societal tax on the business levied as part of the social contract that all businesses explicitly sign up for when they incorporate, seek licenses, etc.
In addition, as someone who is basically pro-capitalist, I see lack of discrimination in business transactions as something that allows the market to operate more efficiently, which in general is a good thing that is in society's interest to promote. We have enough necessary inefficiencies, without creating laws to promote unnecessary inefficiencies.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;824650You know you're allowed to enter into a gay bar, right? I had a straight ex-coworker who used to frequent gay bars because he enjoyed the company.
And yet the lesbian bar that was in the same shopping center as a gamestore in my area did just that. One of the owners came down to the gamestore is 'request' that they refrain from entering their establishment "because they were upsetting their clientele".
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824661If white people are legitimately being discriminated against, obviously that is wrong. But I have to admit when I hear white people complain that they are actually the ones who are oppressed, I have to roll my eyes. Yes political correctness has gotten insane. Yes people are way too quick to take offense when it isn't intended today. No that doesn't make you oppressed. Efforts to redress real disparities in the society that exist along racial lines don't make you oppressed. I can certainly people arguing such measures are not effective, are unfair, or counter-productive (and we could debate each policy), but when white people cry oppression today it really looks ridiculous to me.
So you're an Apologist.
Living in a part of the country that is almost 80% white tends to breed that I guess.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824669There are black only businesses that only cater to Blacks? And won't cater to other races? Exclusive Gay businesses that won't cater to straights?
The only thing that I can think of is women's only gyms, and I have been against them based on what we have been discussing. So my 'outrage' was actually there.
Yeah, that's the only one. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824682Heh.
Good luck with that.
When you get people like Brendan saying this "But I have to admit when I hear white people complain that they are actually the ones who are oppressed, I have to roll my eyes."
People wonder why you would say "Good luck with that".
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824663You see it as a moral question, I see it as a right. I expect that when I walk into a store and pay money, I won't be denied service because of my skin color, my sex, who I'm with, etc.
Have you ever seen a "No shoes, No shirt, No service" sign? By your criteria, isn't that a violation of your business rights?
Quote from: Bren;824684I've yet to hear anyone offer anything other than vague theory for why the religious line should be drawn to include "I'm not servin' no blacks or queers. Not in my store. Why? Um...cuz o' my religion. Yea that's it. Religion."
Have you bothered to read about the cases currently on file? Just as an example, the florist who was sued out of business had the gay man who filed the lawsuit as a regular customer and was a friend, she just refused to arrange for a gay wedding - she was perfectly willing to keep him as a customer. These lawsuits are for very specific incidents and not some general "I hate queers and blacks" bullshit you are trying to claim.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824690Interactions with people, including "the public," fall under freedom of association. I see no reason why a business must be open to "the public" as a whole, or not open at all. And no, a first-degree right such as one's property rights is not secondary to something else except where it can be shown that they are attempting to exercise their rights in a way that is infringing on the rights of someone else. Which, again, it wouldn't be simply by denying service to someone(even if their reason for doing so was crap).
Ah.
You see no reason. Well that explains a lot. Opinion.
This is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that much of law is about when one Right bumps into another.
You, and certain lunch counter owners from the pre 1964 south may think that property rights allow people to treat people differently. But how people access the public sphere is fundamentally about equality. You may be happy to let people be discriminated against if it lets you run your castle as you see fit. And since that public Sphere is that....public...when you change the level of access to it based on race, etc, you are discriminating.
So you can't have it both ways. Property rights are great, but once you agree to intersection with the public sphere, you need to give equal access to that sphere, or you are discriminating.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824695So you're an Apologist.
Living in a part of the country that is almost 80% white tends to breed that I guess.
".
Well, I don't think location is particularly relevant. But if you are going to bring it up, I would like to give a more accurate picture. I've lived in other parts of the country, including southern California by the border, and the city I live in presently, Lynn, is pretty diverse. It is still probably predominantly white but much larger minority populations than the rest of the state (I think the city itself is like 60% white). The neighborhood I live in is mostly black, cambodian and hispanic. And my wife isn't white. Certainly parts of the state are what you probably imagine (particularly the more well-to-do communities). But cities are a lot less homogeneous.
I'm not sure what you think I am an apologist for. I'm just looking at the situation with open eyes. I really think it takes some serious balls and a hefty dose of delusion when whites why to invert the situation into them being the ones who are systematically oppressed for their skin color. I don't believe people should be able to discriminate against people for their skin color (including against White people). What I don't buy is this notion that whites are suddenly oppressed now because of Obama, measures meant to repair some of the racial iniquities in the work force, or because of rules that protect us all from discrimination. If you want to complain about affirmative action, be my guest. I think it is fair to criticize affirmative action policies if you think they don't work or are problematic. i just don't think they amount to oppression.
Quote from: jeff37923;824697Have you ever seen a "No shoes, No shirt, No service" sign? By your criteria, isn't that a violation of your business rights?
That isn't based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or national origin. That is a dress code. I think some dress codes do have issues, and that is worth discussion, but it isn't the same.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824701Well, I don't think location is particularly relevant. But if you are going to bring it up, I would like to give a more accurate picture. I've lived in other parts of the country, including southern California by the border, and the city I live in presently, Lynn, is pretty diverse. It is still probably predominantly white but much larger minority populations than the rest of the state (I think the city itself is like 60% white). The neighborhood I live in is mostly black, cambodian and hispanic. And my wife isn't white. Certainly parts of the state are what you probably imagine (particularly the more well-to-do communities). But cities are a lot less homogeneous.
I'm not sure what you think I am an apologist for. I don't believe people should be able to discriminate against people for their skin color (including against White people). What I don't buy is this notion that whites are suddenly oppressed now.
Don't ruin his illusion of you.
Quote from: SommerjonQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegThere are black only businesses that only cater to Blacks? And won't cater to other races? Exclusive Gay businesses that won't cater to straights?
The only thing that I can think of is women's only gyms, and I have been against them based on what we have been discussing. So my 'outrage' was actually there.
Yeah, that's the only one.
Well, speak up. It's fantastic of you to say something exists...if it so easy, even you should be able to do it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824703That isn't based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or national origin. That is a dress code. I think some dress codes do have issues, and that is worth discussion, but it isn't the same.
Maybe, but it is an accepted method of refusing service to potential customers.
This all comes down to a business being the private preserve of the owner, to do with as they see fit. Discrimination happens all the time, this discussion demonstrates our own ability to discriminate between ideas.
Quote from: jeff37923;824699Have you bothered to read about the cases currently on file? Just as an example, the florist who was sued out of business had the gay man who filed the lawsuit as a regular customer and was a friend, she just refused to arrange for a gay wedding - she was perfectly willing to keep him as a customer. These lawsuits are for very specific incidents and not some general "I hate queers and blacks" bullshit you are trying to claim.
That's awesome. She'll discriminate, but she'll allow him to stay as a client, as long as he keeps himself in the closet. How nice of her.
I'm so glad she was sued out of business.
So.
Fucking.
Happy.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824707That's awesome. She'll discriminate, but she'll allow him to stay as a client, as long as he keeps himself in the closet. How nice of her.
I'm so glad she was sued out of business.
So.
Fucking.
Happy.
Your idiocy is showing. Read up on the case. It is not one where she will only serve the gay customer if she does not know he is gay you intellectually dishonest turd.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824700So you can't have it both ways. Property rights are great, but once you agree to intersection with the public sphere, you need to give equal access to that sphere, or you are discriminating.
There is a massive difference between state-imposed discrimination (segregated schools, for instance) and the local coffee shop not wanting to serve blacks. The first is implicitly taxpayer supported, the second is an individual acting alone. The first is completely unsupported by the Constitution, the second is allowable if you want full exercise of liberty.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824705Well, speak up. It's fantastic of you to say something exists...if it so easy, even you should be able to do it.
If the women-only gyms are member only, they're not open to the public.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824695And yet the lesbian bar that was in the same shopping center as a gamestore in my area did just that. One of the owners came down to the gamestore is 'request' that they refrain from entering their establishment "because they were upsetting their clientele".
Well, what were they doing to "upset the clientele?" Smell bad?
Quote from: Brad;824709There is a massive difference between state-imposed discrimination (segregated schools, for instance) and the local coffee shop not wanting to serve blacks. The first is implicitly taxpayer supported, the second is an individual acting alone. The first is completely unsupported by the Constitution, the second is allowable if you want full exercise of liberty.
What about the liberty of a black person to pursue a venue he desires?
Quote from: Rincewind1;824712What about the liberty of a black person to pursue a venue he desires?
He can pursue all he wants; what does that have to do with anything?
Quote from: flyerfan1991;824710If the women-only gyms are member only, they're not open to the public.
That was my example, which I don't agree with. I already brought that up. Look upstream.
Quote from: jeff37923;824706Maybe, but it is an accepted method of refusing service to potential customers.
This all comes down to a business being the private preserve of the owner, to do with as they see fit. Discrimination happens all the time, this discussion demonstrates our own ability to discriminate between ideas.
Discriminating against ideas and discriminating against people because of who they are, are not the same.
Quote from: jeff37923;824708Your idiocy is showing. Read up on the case. It is not one where she will only serve the gay customer if she does not know he is gay you intellectually dishonest turd.
hey lets make sure it is the same one, I've read up on a lot of them. There's a lot of idiots and cases out there. We talking Washington State Florist? Because, yes, that one is exactly one where she would have gotten him flowers for his wedding except she knew he was gay.
"At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated." -from the complaint.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065
Therefor, if she had NOT been aware he was gay, she would have served him.
So, if this is the same one, you are incorrect.
Quote from: Brad;824709There is a massive difference between state-imposed discrimination (segregated schools, for instance) and the local coffee shop not wanting to serve blacks. The first is implicitly taxpayer supported, the second is an individual acting alone. The first is completely unsupported by the Constitution, the second is allowable if you want full exercise of liberty.
Your idea of liberty is fantastic. I'm so glad I live in a country where we can have this conversation, and one where the elected government, no matter how crazy sometimes, understands that "all men are created equal" matters and that liberty means being able to be treated like anyone else just because you are black or a woman or Gay or a moronic gamer living in mom's basement arguing about things on internet sites.
Seriously. Being free to discriminate is your idea of 'Full Exercise of Liberty'???
Quote from: Brad;824713He can pursue all he wants; what does that have to do with anything?
Then I see no reason why he should be any more prohibited from pursuing to drink at the coffee that tries to bar him for the colour of his skin. Liberty cuts both ways.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824716hey lets make sure it is the same one, I've read up on a lot of them. There's a lot of idiots and cases out there. We talking Washington State Florist? Because, yes, that one is exactly one where she would have gotten him flowers for his wedding except she knew he was gay.
"At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated." -from the complaint.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065
Therefor, if she had NOT been aware he was gay, she would have served him.
So, if this is the same one, you are incorrect.
Same case, but the reporting is slanted in your article. This one isn't. (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-says-70-year-old-flower-shop-owner-discriminated-gay-couple-heres-responded/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tdsfacebook)
Quote from: LordVreeg;824714That was my example, which I don't agree with. I already brought that up. Look upstream.
As soon as he said "women only", I knew this was where he was going.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824717Seriously. Being free to discriminate is your idea of 'Full Exercise of Liberty'???
Why wouldn't it be? Apparently, your idea of freedom essentially boils down to, "People should have to do whatever I think is the right thing." Which is exactly what you're arguing against people doing who have specific religious convictions. You do realize you're directly contradicting yourself, right? You cannot profess some sort of moral objection to how individuals treat each other, and simultaneously say other people's moral objections are irrelevant simply because you disagree with them.
Quote from: Rincewind1;824718Then I see no reason why he should be any more prohibited from pursuing to drink at the coffee that tries to bar him for the colour of his skin. Liberty cuts both ways.
One person's rights don't trump another. Sorry.
Quote from: Brad;824722One person's rights don't trump another. Sorry.
Indeed they do not, which is why, in this ACAP utopian definition of liberty of yours, we'd ultimately have to settle this discussion by force - who'll be stronger, the customer who demands to be served, or the private owner?
Quote from: Brad;824721Why wouldn't it be? Apparently, your idea of freedom essentially boils down to, "People should have to do whatever I think is the right thing." Which is exactly what you're arguing against people doing who have specific religious convictions. You do realize you're directly contradicting yourself, right? You cannot profess some sort of moral objection to how individuals treat each other, and simultaneously say other people's moral objections are irrelevant simply because you disagree with them.
No.
My Idea of Freedom, as I said, accepts that Rights run into each other. Your straw man about my beliefs is entertaining, but good only for comedic value. And it is the place of the Law to deal with these intersections. Such as the idiotic comment that one person's rights don't trump another's. Your right to Life doesn't trump my freedom of belief in human sacrifice?
I believe that all people are created equal. As an unalienable right, as it stands right before Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. And in their own space and time, these equal people can do as they will. When their exercise of rights, such as property, brings them into conflict with someone else's equality, the Right to own Property gives way to that equality.
Quote from: jeff37923;824719Same case, but the reporting is slanted in your article. This one isn't. (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-says-70-year-old-flower-shop-owner-discriminated-gay-couple-heres-responded/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tdsfacebook)
Just so I can be absolutely clear on what you're saying. Are you are saying The Heritage Foundation is an unbiased source?
Quote from: LordVreeg;824728the Right to own Property gives way to that equality.
Except that directly contradicts the Constitution. "Equality" is a manufactured concept being used in this case, it has nothing to do with being equal under the law.
It's not a strawman when you're the one purporting your own moral system as fact.
Quote from: Rincewind1;824725Indeed they do not, which is why, in this ACAP utopian definition of liberty of yours, we'd ultimately have to settle this discussion by force - who'll be stronger, the customer who demands to be served, or the private owner?
I'm all for Trial By Combat. If something is *that* important to you, put up or shut up.
Quote from: jeff37923;824699Have you bothered to read about the cases currently on file? Just as an example, the florist who was sued out of business had the gay man who filed the lawsuit as a regular customer and was a friend, she just refused to arrange for a gay wedding - she was perfectly willing to keep him as a customer. These lawsuits are for very specific incidents and not some general "I hate queers and blacks" bullshit you are trying to claim.
Yes. They are all cases of someone refusing a service they offer to the public to a specific person or persons solely to publicly show their disapproval or dislike of that person or persons. Very similar to the person wanting not to serve that asshole politician you mentioned several times. I've specifically addressed both of these issues about half a dozen times already. I don't see any need for a business to be able to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, or religion or lack thereof.
Attire, within reasonable limits is quite different. No shirt, no shoes, no service...no problem. Jewish Synagogue or Moslem Mosque doesn't want people strolling in with uncovered heads or hair or whatever...their house, their rules...no problem. Requiring all your potential customers to wear a beanie hat with a propeller...seems stupid, but I don't have a problem with that. Of course the beanie hat store should be willing to sell beanie hats to everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, intelligence and religion or lack thereof.
Also the desire by some to be allowed to publicly show how much they disapprove of someone else is totally unlike rules on attire that establishments impose on all potential customers. Buying flowers from a flower store doesn't interrupt the business of selling flowers. Strolling half naked and shoeless into a flower store quite possibly may.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824716hey lets make sure it is the same one, I've read up on a lot of them. There's a lot of idiots and cases out there. We talking Washington State Florist? Because, yes, that one is exactly one where she would have gotten him flowers for his wedding except she knew he was gay.
If she had not known the flowers were for a gay marriage, of course she would sell the flowers. She may or may not have known this guy was gay before he wanted flowers for his marriage to another guy.
From what I read her issue was not simply selling flowers to a gay guy, it was selling flowers for a gay marriage. If the gay customer had wanted flowers for something else it sounds like she'd maybe still be happy to sell flowers to him. Which seems in keeping with the desire for these anti-gay marriage folks to be able to publicly display their opposition to gay marriage and ensure that gay people live without the civil and emotional benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
Quote from: Brad;824732I'm all for Trial By Combat. If something is *that* important to you, put up or shut up.
I believe you guys live on different continents.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824703That isn't based on skin color, sexual orientation, sex or national origin. That is a dress code. I think some dress codes do have issues, and that is worth discussion, but it isn't the same.
Not yet, anyway.
Bren, both you and LordVreeg are trying desperately to paint these people being sued as evil despicable haters who are worse than Hitler and shouldn't be allowed to live. It is a demonization tactic commonly used by SJWs to appeal to the emotions. Fact is, the business owners being sued and harassed are not evil. We disagree with their stance, but they do not deserve the character assassination.
Quote from: jeff37923;824738Bren, both you and LordVreeg are trying desperately to paint these people being sued as evil despicable haters who are worse than Hitler and shouldn't be allowed to live. It is a demonization tactic commonly used by SJWs to appeal to the emotions. Fact is, the business owners being sued and harassed are not evil. We disagree with their stance, but they do not deserve the character assassination.
Worse than Hitler? WTF?! :jaw-dropping:
All I am saying is that Ms. Flower Store Owner should follow the law of the jurisdiction she lives in. How the heck do you get from that to your imaginary claim that I said she is worse than Hitler? This is actually worse than the lying sort of off the wall, Orwellian, New Speak that the wackier warriors for social justice over at RPGnet engage in.
Seriously, how the heck do you get from me saying she is expected to follow the law of the state she lives in to "worse than Hitler"?
I don't think that her desire to publicly disapprove of gay marriage gives her a free pass (nor should it give her a free pass) to ignore the antidiscrimination laws of the state and city that she lives in.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824700This is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that much of law is about when one Right bumps into another.
True, but I don't see one right bumping into another here. I see one right(actually at least 3 rights) bumping into something that, while good, is not actually on the level of a right. All rights are good; however, not all that is good is a right.
QuoteSo you can't have it both ways. Property rights are great, but once you agree to intersection with the public sphere, you need to give equal access to that sphere, or you are discriminating.
Well, of course. However, I don't see discrimination prima facie as a negative. I do see discrimination
for certain reasons as a negative, such as the obvious one of race, but not one that infringes on anyone's rights.
Quote from: Rincewind1;824718Then I see no reason why he should be any more prohibited from pursuing to drink at the coffee that tries to bar him for the colour of his skin. Liberty cuts both ways.
It's very simple. The "pursuit of happiness" category does
not entitle you to the use of someone else's property in that pursuit. You have the right to pursue your desire to drink coffee. You do not have the right to do so at a specific venue. Unless you own the business, it is by definition
someone else's property. Someone who denies you such service is, of course, being a colossal jerk(especially if it's over something like your race), but they are not violating any of your rights.
Quote from: Bren;824740Worse than Hitler? WTF?! :jaw-dropping:
All I am saying is that Ms. Flower Store Owner should follow the law of the jurisdiction she lives in. How the heck do you get from that to your imaginary claim that I said she is worse than Hitler? This is actually worse than the lying sort of off the wall, Orwellian, New Speak that the wackier warriors for social justice over at RPGnet engage in.
Seriously, how the heck do you get from me saying she is expected to follow the law of the state she lives in to "worse than Hitler"?
I don't think that her desire to publicly disapprove of gay marriage gives her a free pass (nor should it give her a free pass) to ignore the antidiscrimination laws of the state and city that she lives in.
And you are still doing it.
The only way your argument works is if these people are evil and must be removed from society. Except they are not evil villains no matter what picture you paint. They may be poor business owners because they are ignoring a lucrative new market, but they are not evil.
Quote from: jeff37923;824719Same case, but the reporting is slanted in your article. This one isn't. (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/20/state-says-70-year-old-flower-shop-owner-discriminated-gay-couple-heres-responded/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tdsfacebook)
Yeah. National News Outlet VS Confirmation Bias site. Sorry, Jeff, but you are well on the way of discrediting yourself. The Daily SIgnal doesn't 'report'. It confirms a bias.
Quote from: Brad;824731Except that directly contradicts the Constitution. "Equality" is a manufactured concept being used in this case, it has nothing to do with being equal under the law.
It's not a strawman when you're the one purporting your own moral system as fact.
Um, No...it does not. Wow, what are you, 0 for 20 now? Don't ever do anything with the Constitution more deep than what you are doing here, okay? The Constitution does not supercede the Declaration of Independence, it actually derives its power from the Declaration.
You know, this part?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Equality is a concept deeply rooted in the country and our founding documentation. Yes, there was work to be done, based on the time it was written, and things like slavery (and we know how you feel about property, you'd have been there with Jeff Davis on that one) and Women's Rights still had a long way to go.
But for many of us, this equality so enshrined has been a pole star. As in the Declaration, Equality comes first, so it needs be to create our more perfect union.
Disagree as you will, say all you wish I use my own morality system, make every excuse behind careful, selected passages of the Constitution. At the end of the day, Equality is a critical part of the national origin.
Quote from: jeff37923;824738Bren, both you and LordVreeg are trying desperately to paint these people being sued as evil despicable haters who are worse than Hitler and shouldn't be allowed to live. It is a demonization tactic commonly used by SJWs to appeal to the emotions. Fact is, the business owners being sued and harassed are not evil. We disagree with their stance, but they do not deserve the character assassination.
Hey, I won't lie that I was thrilled she got sued and might lose the business.
(BTW, neither article said she had lost it yet. More poor reporting, Jeff).
And not all of them are evil or despicable...though some on both sides probably are...but I won't back own here Jeff. I did not say that she was evil or despicable, and you can look back through these threads. I did say I was happy she was sued. Because I am thrilled to see the government stand behind the idea that Gays or Blacks or Greens are equal in the public sphere. They should not be unable to purchase or celebrate in the same way as anyone else.
I guess I'll come right out there; discrimination and the act of judgement bothers me greatly. It seems to be an affront to what the country is all about.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824674What I am saying is this mantra I keep hearing that white people are actually the ones who are being oppressed just seems ridiculous on the face of it. And I say that as someone who finds political correctness, taking offense at everything and SJWs, all pretty distasteful as well. This stuff can be annoying, silly, and even begin to chill free expression, but it isn't racial oppression by any stretch of the imagination. I am not going to act like white people are systematically being oppressed when they clearly are not.
I think many, many individuals claim to be victims of systematic oppression; but the scope of whatever it is, if it isn't a silly claim to begin with, is much narrower than blaming an entire race, ethnicity or gender.
If I get jumped by a group of guys who all look to be of the same racial and / or ethnic background, I as an individual am victimized by this small group of guys, not their entire race or ethnicity. Maybe it is racially motivated, but the grandma of the same background who lives 5,000 miles away has nothing to do with it.
If laws or policies exist that greatly advantage one group (based on whatever background) over another, that is a discriminatory systematic advantage, no matter what group that is. Being among the disadvantaged group when that exists - is that oppression?
It all comes down to the individual level as that's where the victims are, and that's where protections have to be. If the individual is not protected, then what you have is cleaned up tribalism.
Quote from: Brad;824732I'm all for Trial By Combat. If something is *that* important to you, put up or shut up.
"I AM on trial for being a dwarf. I've been on trial all my life."
Quote from: Lynn;824765I think many, many individuals claim to be victims of systematic oppression; but the scope of whatever it is, if it isn't a silly claim to begin with, is much narrower than blaming an entire race, ethnicity or gender.
If I get jumped by a group of guys who all look to be of the same racial and / or ethnic background, I as an individual am victimized by this small group of guys, not their entire race or ethnicity. Maybe it is racially motivated, but the grandma of the same background who lives 5,000 miles away has nothing to do with it.
If laws or policies exist that greatly advantage one group (based on whatever background) over another, that is a discriminatory systematic advantage, no matter what group that is. Being among the disadvantaged group when that exists - is that oppression?
It all comes down to the individual level as that's where the victims are, and that's where protections have to be. If the individual is not protected, then what you have is cleaned up tribalism.
You can't ignore the context though. The situation in the US has somewhat specific circumstances where I think there is good reason to believe we are still dealing with the legacy of Jim Crow and Slavery, and that legacy disproportionately affects black people in a negative way. I do think things are getting better but I don't think we've reached a point where things have gone the other way and suddenly whites are oppressed on a broad scale. Are whites occasionally the target of racism? I'm sure they are. In those instances it isn't right. But my point is, I don't think the claim by whites that they are now oppressed because we've enacted things like affirmative action to help address some of the imbalances that Jim Crow created, holds much water. I can certainly see if people want to argue the policies are unfair, not needed, or ineffective. Personally I still think we need these things but I can see plenty of room for debate. What I don't see is that being evidence of widespread mistreatment of whites that is at all comparable in any way to what black people still endure (again despite us making monumental strides and things greatly improving).
I don't know if you want to cry white oppression go ahead, but it just doesn't match what I see in the world at all.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824749True, but I don't see one right bumping into another here. I see one right(actually at least 3 rights) bumping into something that, while good, is not actually on the level of a right. All rights are good; however, not all that is good is a right.
You DO understand that the Constitution derives it's power from the Declaration, right? That Equality is seen pretty universally as an unalienable right?
Quote from: GeekWell, of course. However, I don't see discrimination prima facie as a negative. I do see discrimination for certain reasons as a negative, such as the obvious one of race, but not one that infringes on anyone's rights
But since equality is considered an unalienable right, discrimination, or removing said equality, is removing a basic right.
Quote from: GeekIt's very simple. The "pursuit of happiness" category does not entitle you to the use of someone else's property in that pursuit. You have the right to pursue your desire to drink coffee. You do not have the right to do so at a specific venue. Unless you own the business, it is by definition someone else's property. Someone who denies you such service is, of course, being a colossal jerk(especially if it's over something like your race), but they are not violating any of your rights.
Really? Talk about working from opinion. The only part you get right is that it is very simple. The 'Liberty' category can and IS used in the public sphere. I know you don't like it, but you cannot say what it does and does not entitle a person to. You can express an opinion, that is opposite from the law and most constitutional scholarship, but it is merely that. Back it up if you have anything more, love to toss some quotes back and forth and to get some new ideas, but so far, the reason I am quoting the Declaration is so I'm not the guy saying,"The "pursuit of happiness" category does
not entitle you to the use of someone else's property in that pursuit. You have the right to pursue your desire to drink coffee" and then not citing shit for background.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824735I believe you guys live on different continents.
No kidding.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the argument's migration from "rule of law" to "trial by combat".
Either this is some really really good trolling, or this kind of confirms my belief that some brands of libertarianism is just a couple of steps away from anarchy, Somalia style.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824772You DO understand that the Constitution derives it's power from the Declaration, right? That Equality is seen pretty universally as an unalienable right?
Yes. And freedom of speech, religion, and association are considered necessary to ensure Liberty, and rights to private property and protection from theft are considered necessary to both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What we're discussing here are cases in which a person's(business owner's) freedom of religion, freedom of association, and property rights are being infringed upon when they've done nothing to infringe on the actual rights of others. Rights coming into contact with things that which may be good, but are not rights themselves.
QuoteBut since equality is considered an unalienable right, discrimination, or removing said equality, is removing a basic right.
Discrimination by private persons does no such thing. Forbidding of such discrimination by government entities, on the other hand,
does. If you are not free to
not associate with someone, then you do not truly have freedom of association.
QuoteReally? Talk about working from opinion. The only part you get right is that it is very simple. The 'Liberty' category can and IS used in the public sphere. I know you don't like it, but you cannot say what it does and does not entitle a person to. You can express an opinion, that is opposite from the law and most constitutional scholarship, but it is merely that. Back it up if you have anything more, love to toss some quotes back and forth and to get some new ideas, but so far, the reason I am quoting the Declaration is so I'm not the guy saying,"The "pursuit of happiness" category does not entitle you to the use of someone else's property in that pursuit. You have the right to pursue your desire to drink coffee" and then not citing shit for background.
It's a very simple principle. I have a right to private property. Now can you tell me on what grounds you could justly come on my property and use some of my private property for . . . well, anything really? I'll leave this pretty open. I think it's a safe bet that even if you can come up with something, it'll be a pretty fringe case, and that in almost any circumstance I'd be well within my rights to stop you, even using force to do so if necessary.
Now what is a business? It is a tool -- larger, more expensive, and more complicated than most, but still in the end just a tool. There is nothing about a business that justifies its owner losing some of their rights just for possessing and using it. It is still someone's private property. This being the case, such a business is not "the public square," and therefore certain laws that would apply -- and rightly so -- to the use of the public square cannot justly apply to them.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824784Now what is a business? It is a tool -- larger, more expensive, and more complicated than most, but still in the end just a tool. There is nothing about a business that justifies its owner losing some of their rights just for possessing and using it. It is still someone's private property. This being the case, such a business is not "the public square," and therefore certain laws that would apply -- and rightly so -- to the use of the public square cannot justly apply to them.
Businesses have been highly regulated since the time of the Founding Fathers. From these earliest times, there have been regulations about where you were allowed to put your shop, what signs should be, what goods could be sold, hours, prices, taxation, licensing, and so forth.
Like most fields, business law has grown increasingly complex - with a myriad of things that a business is required to do, or cannot do. I do think there is often too much regulation of small businesses - most of it at the state and local level.
However, it seems bizarre to single out anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act, when business is so highly regulated in nearly every other way. Hell, try to sell some individual cigarettes, and you could get choked to death by the police.
If you want a state with no regulation of business, I don't agree - but the important point is that no one in power, including the authors of the Constitution - have ever enforced this view. It is vastly far away from what has always been the case in the U.S.
Quote from: jeff37923;824753And you are still doing it.
The only way your argument works is if these people are evil and must be removed from society. Except they are not evil villains no matter what picture you paint. They may be poor business owners because they are ignoring a lucrative new market, but they are not evil.
You said that I tried to "paint these people being sued as evil despicable haters who are worse than Hitler and shouldn't be allowed to live."
I didn't say that.
I didn't imply that.
And I really don't like you telling lies about me.
Please stop telling lies about me.
Well, that is plain silly.
Quote from: GeekIt's a very simple principle. I have a right to private property. Now can you tell me on what grounds you could justly come on my property and use some of my private property for . . . well, anything really? I'll leave this pretty open. I think it's a safe bet that even if you can come up with something, it'll be a pretty fringe case, and that in almost any circumstance I'd be well within my rights to stop you, even using force to do so if necessary.
Now what is a business? It is a tool -- larger, more expensive, and more complicated than most, but still in the end just a tool. There is nothing about a business that justifies its owner losing some of their rights just for possessing and using it. It is still someone's private property. This being the case, such a business is not "the public square," and therefore certain laws that would apply -- and rightly so -- to the use of the public square cannot justly apply to them.
It may be a simple principle, but it is not reality.
You are pretty correct if you were just making private sales out of this location. Like a home office.
If you open a restaurant, for example that is open to the public, everything changes. You are subject to health codes, inspection, and other public space regulations. As a restaurant in the US, there would be no smoking, no matter what your opinion may be. You can't serve alcohol to minors, or you'll lose your liquor license...which is another thing you'll need to acquire to sell the stuff to the public....you have to be fair in your hiring, and provide a safe workspace. Can't be telling people lies on your menu, as well, so much for free speech....All these and more, in your private property, when you open a public business.
And you lose your right to treat discriminate to whom you offer service to.
"TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Again. In the real world, when one decides to open a a public business on Private property, the business aspects are still regulated by the government, and as above, part of the aspects so regulated are based on the determination of the rights of that public. Your opinion may be different, but again, your above willful misunderstanding of the changes of the status of a private property when opened to the public is at odds with reality, not just in my opinion, but by law.
Yeah a 10% difference, that changes everything. :rolleyes:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824701I'm not sure what you think I am an apologist for. I'm just looking at the situation with open eyes. I really think it takes some serious balls and a hefty dose of delusion when whites try to invert the situation into them being the ones who are systematically oppressed for their skin color.
This is why you are an Apologist. There is no way in your mind a non-white would refuse service to a white person.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824701I don't believe people should be able to discriminate against people for their skin color (including against White people). What I don't buy is this notion that whites are suddenly oppressed now because of Obama, measures meant to repair some of the racial iniquities in the work force, or because of rules that protect us all from discrimination. If you want to complain about affirmative action, be my guest. I think it is fair to criticize affirmative action policies if you think they don't work or are problematic. i just don't think they amount to oppression.
Discriminate not oppress.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824705Well, speak up. It's fantastic of you to say something exists...if it so easy, even you should be able to do it.
Do a google search for black hair salon, then do the same for white hair salon.
Go to every ethnic or cultural specific establishment in your area and see how many times you are made uncomfortable or even asked to leave. If you don't have any ethnic or cultural specific establishments in your are, shut the fuck up.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824770What I don't see is that being evidence of widespread mistreatment of whites that is at all comparable in any way to what black people still endure (again despite us making monumental strides and things greatly improving).
I don't know if you want to cry white oppression go ahead, but it just doesn't match what I see in the world at all.
So non-white to you is still the victim. You wonder why I call you an Apologist.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824770You can't ignore the context though. The situation in the US has somewhat specific circumstances where I think there is good reason to believe we are still dealing with the legacy of Jim Crow and Slavery, and that legacy disproportionately affects black people in a negative way.
Yes, the present is a product of the past, but we as individuals also have to take responsibility for ourselves. One stereotype of Americans I encounter abroad is a people that is quick with excuses and casting blame on others, and its not a stereotype associated with a particular race or ethnicity.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824770I do think things are getting better but I don't think we've reached a point where things have gone the other way and suddenly whites are oppressed on I don't know if you want to cry white oppression go ahead, but it just doesn't match what I see in the world at all.
I didn't use that word. Too many educated but worldly inexperienced people are quick to use words like oppression.
Quote from: Lynn;824809One stereotype of Americans I encounter abroad is a people that is quick with excuses and casting blame on others, and its not a stereotype associated with a particular race or ethnicity.
That's not a stereotype I've encountered out in the world. Out of curiosity, where was this and was this in one particular part of the world or in multiple regions? (Also feel free to PM me if you don't want to tangent the thread.)
Quote from: LordVreeg;824761Um, No...it does not. Wow, what are you, 0 for 20 now? Don't ever do anything with the Constitution more deep than what you are doing here, okay? The Constitution does not supercede the Declaration of Independence, it actually derives its power from the Declaration.
What? No. The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority in the United States whatsoever.
The Declaration of Independence was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776. Because the Continental Congress was deeply flawed, a Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787 that, notably, did not derive any authority or power from the Continental Congress. The Constitution was then ratified through a process which was also independent of the Continental Congress.
So, no, the Constitution does not "derive its power from the Declaration".
As for why the U.S. Constitution allows the government to pass laws prohibiting public businesses from practicing segregation or discrimination, it's because (a) the commerce clause explicitly gives them that power and (b) nothing in the Bill of Rights prohibits them from exercising the commerce clause in that way.
(The argument can be -- and has been -- made that this somehow constitutes "depriving" someone of their property without due process of law. But the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in pointing out that this is a really bad argument because (a) it doesn't really deprive the business owner of anything and (b) such a broad reading of the 8th Amendment would clearly invalidate
any law or regulation passed under the commerce clause, which is clearly not the intent of the 8th Amendment.)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824701Well, I don't think location is particularly relevant. But if you are going to bring it up, I would like to give a more accurate picture. I've lived in other parts of the country, including southern California by the border, and the city I live in presently, Lynn, is pretty diverse.
You are replying to someone else's quote here, not mine.
Quote from: Lynn;824814You are replying to someone else's quote here, not mine.
Huh? :confused:
He was replying to Sommerjon. I can tell because Sommerjon's name was in the quote.
Quote from: Bren;824816Huh? :confused:
He was replying to Sommerjon. I can tell because Sommerjon's name was in the quote.
But my name was in the quote - look up.
Lynn, you're not the only Lynn in the world, it's also a city in Massachusetts.
I know it confusing since you probably have Sommer " what about white history month" jon ignore listed.
Quote from: Planet Algol;824818Lynn, you're not the only Lynn in the world, it's also a city in Massachusetts. I know it confusing since you probably have Sommer " what about white history month" jon ignore listed.
He was quoted, but Brendan had my name in the body of his answer to Sommerjon.
There are a surprising number of male Lynns in the world (and countless women and "sound alikes" in other languages). Step by step...there can be only one :D
Quote from: Lynn;824819He was quoted, but Brendan had my name in the body of his answer to Sommerjon.
There are a surprising number of male Lynns in the world (and countless women and "sound alikes" in other languages). Step by step...there can be only one :D
If this is a pun the first time was funny, even though I missed it. But the second time wasn't.
It only appeared to be your name in Brendan's post. It was actually the name of Lynn, Massachusetts, a city north of Boston. As far as you being the Highlander, I'm fairly certain the city will still be there after you, sadly, are gone. :)
Quote from: Bren;824822It only appeared to be your name in Brendan's post. It was actually the name of Lynn, Massachusetts, a city north of Boston. As far as you being the Highlander, I'm fairly certain the city will still be there after you, sadly, are gone. :)
Ill have to change my last name to Massachusetts and then trademark it for good measure.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824764Hey, I won't lie that I was thrilled she got sued and might lose the business.
(BTW, neither article said she had lost it yet. More poor reporting, Jeff).
And not all of them are evil or despicable...though some on both sides probably are...but I won't back own here Jeff. I did not say that she was evil or despicable, and you can look back through these threads. I did say I was happy she was sued. Because I am thrilled to see the government stand behind the idea that Gays or Blacks or Greens are equal in the public sphere. They should not be unable to purchase or celebrate in the same way as anyone else.
I guess I'll come right out there; discrimination and the act of judgement bothers me greatly. It seems to be an affront to what the country is all about.
Dude, as you ride your high horse into the sunset just keep in mind that the image of marriage equality is now an 80-year old woman who lost her business. That there is some really good optics for generating acceptance.
Quote from: Bren;824792You said that I tried to "paint these people being sued as evil despicable haters who are worse than Hitler and shouldn't be allowed to live."
I didn't say that.
I didn't imply that.
And I really don't like you telling lies about me.
Please stop telling lies about me.
But that has been what you have been doing this entire thread. By saying that the SB 101 was bigoted you are saying that an 80 year old woman who has been robbed of her livelihood does not need to be protected because she is an evil bigot and fuck her anyways. If you cannot handle the consequences of the methodology you are supporting then maybe you should not support them.
But hey, feel free to cry and say that you are being maligned.
Quote from: jeff37923;824846an 80 year old woman who has been robbed of her livelihood
I agree it is scandalous that the 70 years old woman has been robbed of her livelihood because of the trial*. All of this for what? Because she didn't want to make a floral arrangement for a customer because he is gay? In my opinion there is no way this should deserve anything more than a simple fine. However, she was in fact only condemned to a fine. What costs her her livelihood and house, is that she must also pay the fees (at 300+ $ per hour) of the attorney. And then, where this fine is at but 2000$, the attorney's fees apparently* exceed 100,000$. The problem is not anti-discrimination laws here; it is your judicial system the problem: it is flawed!
(*: assuming the information reported is true, of course.)
--------
By the way: During the middle-age, someone could lose everything to a house-fire, flooding, or what not. So there might be a man (or woman) who worked hard all of his life to get a house and being able to eat everyday, and then suddenly overnight: become a beggar. But today in this 21st century civilized western-world, we believe such misfortunes are but things of the past (thanks to insurances and such). Yet it is not: with the conjunction of a simple politically incorrect belief and a greedy lawyer: overnight you can become a beggar too.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824799This is why you are an Apologist. There is no way in your mind a non-white would refuse service to a white person.
.
I never said that. Of course a non-white person might refuse a white person service. That is one of the reasons why I said I oppose refusal of service based on race (whether the person being refused service is white, black, etc).
Quote from: jeff37923;824845Dude, as you ride your high horse into the sunset just keep in mind that the image of marriage equality is now an 80-year old woman who lost her business. That there is some really good optics for generating acceptance.
Jeff,
She hasn't lost the business yet. She has a fine to deal with, and a court battle if she wants it. But if that particular visual takes place, I'll remind you it happened because of her lack of acceptance.
Hell, you want better optics, I'd take Sherman's March to the Sea during the Civil War.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824799Do a google search for black hair salon, then do the same for white hair salon.
Go to every ethnic or cultural specific establishment in your area and see how many times you are made uncomfortable or even asked to leave. If you don't have any ethnic or cultural specific establishments in your are, shut the fuck up.
First, I think you need to relax. Second, this I actually have lots of experience with. Remember how I said I live in a black and hispanic neighborhood? We have tons of barber shops and nail salons here that are run by black people and cater primarily to black clientele. I go to these barber shops all the time because they cut my hair better than the mall salons or the ones in the suburbs (and the conversation is better). I've never been asked to leave and they've never made me uncomfortable for being there. I think you misunderstand what these establishments are. They aren't "black only" businesses.
And these are not the only businesses like this where I live. The nearest market to my house is a cambodian market. After that the next closest is a spanish market. Then there is the Halal Meat market with a sign in Arabic. I go to the Cambodian market all the time. No one ever gives me a hard time for not being Cambodian. I also used to work in a Thai restaurant (owned by Thai people, with all Thai employees) and before that I worked for Koreans. I honestly haven't encountered what you are describing despite all these experiences.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824799So non-white to you is still the victim. You wonder why I call you an Apologist.
I think by and large, black people are at a bigger disadvantage in the united states than white people because of the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. I think things have improved a lot, but I do still think there are problems and I think it sounds silly when white people complain that they are being oppressed now.
Again what do you think I am an apologist for?
Quote from: Lynn;824814You are replying to someone else's quote here, not mine.
I was replying to Sommerjon. Lynn is the city I live in.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;824812What? No. The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority in the United States whatsoever.
The Declaration of Independence was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776. Because the Continental Congress was deeply flawed, a Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787 that, notably, did not derive any authority or power from the Continental Congress. The Constitution was then ratified through a process which was also independent of the Continental Congress.
So, no, the Constitution does not "derive its power from the Declaration".
As for why the U.S. Constitution allows the government to pass laws prohibiting public businesses from practicing segregation or discrimination, it's because (a) the commerce clause explicitly gives them that power and (b) nothing in the Bill of Rights prohibits them from exercising the commerce clause in that way.
(The argument can be -- and has been -- made that this somehow constitutes "depriving" someone of their property without due process of law. But the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in pointing out that this is a really bad argument because (a) it doesn't really deprive the business owner of anything and (b) such a broad reading of the 8th Amendment would clearly invalidate any law or regulation passed under the commerce clause, which is clearly not the intent of the 8th Amendment.)
Actually, in terms of legal authority, The US Congress places the Declaration of Independence as the first of the Organic Laws of the United States.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/Organic_Laws_of_the_United_States/Declaration_of_Independence
This is under United States Statutes at Large.
For example, if you go to the US house of Reps website, and look up the United States Code, you find this
"The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. "
And if you go under that and look at the complete US Code (which is kind of awesome in and of itself), you'll see, at the very beginning of these permanent laws, the Organic Laws, with the Declaration of Independence at the top. It is the very beginning of the Permanent Laws of the country, according to Congress (http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim).
So, yeah. It has legal authority.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824859I was replying to Sommerjon. Lynn is the city I live in.
Lynn, Lynn the city of sin
You never come out, the way you came in
You ask for water, but they give you gin
The girls say no, yet they always give in
If your not bad, they won't let you in
It's the damndest city I've ever lived in
Lynn, Lynn the city of sin
You never come out, the way you came in
Quote from: Sommerjon;824799Yeah a 10% difference, that changes everything. :rolleyes:
.
Again I don't think it matters but since you want to be dismissive of folks due to demographics, I just feel the need to point out that the city is considered pretty diverse. Something like 30% Hispanic/Latino, large Asian population (at least higher than national average) and the black population is about equal to the national average. I think your picturing all of Boston looking like Martha's Vineyard or Rockport maybe.
Quote from: Lynn;824809Yes, the present is a product of the past, but we as individuals also have to take responsibility for ourselves. One stereotype of Americans I encounter abroad is a people that is quick with excuses and casting blame on others, and its not a stereotype associated with a particular race or ethnicity.
.
I've never encountered this stereotype. Not saying it doesn't exist. I can see it maybe around how we deal with things like mental illness for example (where we probably have a deserved reputation for over medicating peopke). Most of the stereotypes I encounter are more along the lines of Americans being stupid, having no culture, being a segregated country (I get the impression that a lot of the images from the sixty years ago still resonate outside the US), that we are all words, that we're super religious, that we are all independent and don't rely on others, that we are crazy about sex and promiscuous, that we are puritanical about sex, that we are not flexible about rules, that we like to bomb people, etc. I'm not saying those are true but those are what I encounter when I talk to people from other countries.
In my experience, by far the prevailing stereotype about Americans in the UK is that they're loud. ie "loud-mouthed yank" or something similar. Also, fat, but hey, the whole world is fat these days.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824871I've never encountered this stereotype. Not saying it doesn't exist. I can see it maybe around how we deal with things like mental illness for example (where we probably have a deserved reputation for over medicating peopke). Most of the stereotypes I encounter are more along the lines of Americans being stupid, having no culture, being a segregated country (I get the impression that a lot of the images from the sixty years ago still resonate outside the US), that we are all words, that we're super religious, that we are all independent and don't rely on others, that we are crazy about sex and promiscuous, that we are puritanical about sex, that we are not flexible about rules, that we like to bomb people, etc. I'm not saying those are true but those are what I encounter when I talk to people from other countries.
I get the "excuses" stereotype from my work, which is in international business development in the tech industry - especially from Japanese, Chinese and Koreans who work cooperatively with American partners and overseas American employees. Its not a general stereotype you get from media sources though.
There is a big difference between people who never leave their own countries, those who live life as expats, and those who go whole hog and become -Americans (then generational differences on top of that).
Also - for all the negative stereotypes you hear about (and we seem to dwell on), there are positive ones too.
Something else I've noticed is that many Americans perpetuate the stereotype of having no culture themselves because they've never had a basis for comparison. I've known many people who discovered what it is to be an American when they've been truly submerged in another culture. I am sure many expats on therpgsite.com have experienced this.
Quote from: One Horse Town;824883In my experience, by far the prevailing stereotype about Americans in the UK is that they're loud. ie "loud-mouthed yank" or something similar. Also, fat, but hey, the whole world is fat these days.
In part that's because that is the way we have been portrayed on British TV. I lived in the UK for a couple of years and my wife I watched and still watch a lot of British TV. We found it very funny how routinely the American in any British work of televised fiction would, sooner or later, but usually sooner, loudly say "Goddamn." Often though not always in a poor imitation of a Texas accent. I've pointed that out to a number of my British friends who, until it was pointed out, didn't really notice it.
I find it funny on two levels. One it is almost as tritely stereotyped as someone British popping into American fiction, tennis racket in hand to say, "I say chaps, tennis anyone?" or "Pip pip" or "What ho?"
Secondly it is funny because at one time, the French sobriquet for the British was "Les goddams" because that's what the British said all the time. Pot meet the goddamn kettle. ;)
Also, re: the fat. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824856First, I think you need to relax. Second, this I actually have lots of experience with. Remember how I said I live in a black and hispanic neighborhood? We have tons of barber shops and nail salons here that are run by black people and cater primarily to black clientele. I go to these barber shops all the time because they cut my hair better than the mall salons or the ones in the suburbs (and the conversation is better). I've never been asked to leave and they've never made me uncomfortable for being there. I think you misunderstand what these establishments are. They aren't "black only" businesses.
And these are not the only businesses like this where I live. The nearest market to my house is a cambodian market. After that the next closest is a spanish market. Then there is the Halal Meat market with a sign in Arabic. I go to the Cambodian market all the time. No one ever gives me a hard time for not being Cambodian. I also used to work in a Thai restaurant (owned by Thai people, with all Thai employees) and before that I worked for Koreans. I honestly haven't encountered what you are describing despite all these experiences.
My wife was told to leave a salon in Ohio, was asked to leave a salon in Florida, my daughter was told they don't do cracker hair in Florida, I was asked to leave a hobby shop in California(for wearing a military uniform), was told the restaurant doesn't accept US currency in California, my eldest son and his then girlfriend(Korean) were kicked out of an asian foodstore for dating each other in Florida, was asked to leave a Halal Market in Ohio for religious reasons, wife was asked, oh so nicely, to not come back to a church in Georgia(black church).
Yeah it's me misunderstanding what these establishments are. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sommerjon;824913My wife was told to leave a salon in Ohio, was asked to leave a salon in Florida, my daughter was told they don't do cracker hair in Florida, I was asked to leave a hobby shop in California(for wearing a military uniform), was told the restaurant doesn't accept US currency in California, my eldest son and his then girlfriend(Korean) were kicked out of an asian foodstore for dating each other in Florida, was asked to leave a Halal Market in Ohio for religious reasons, wife was asked, oh so nicely, to not come back to a church in Georgia(black church).
Yeah it's me misunderstanding what these establishments are. :rolleyes:
It just doesn't match my experience with such places. If you were in fact treated in this manner that is all covered by the civil rights act and I wouldn't object to you invoking title II. That strikes me as an unusual amount of discrimination for a white person to face though (not saying it didn't happen but this is Internet so I take every thing people say with a grain of salt). I can say my wife is Thai and we've never encountered discrimination from anyone in any Asian community. The only problems we've run into are either with racist white people (and that has been pretty rare) and every so often get attitude from social justice types. And like I said I've never had any problems when I have gone to Halal markets, Cambodian markets, black barber shops or black churches (I've been to a couple and people were always quite welcoming to me). I go to the Thai temple with my wife and no issues. Been to the Cambodian Temple nearby on my own and they were really friendly.
Either way all I am arguing for us to keep laws that protect people from the kind of discrimination you are complaining about and to expand them to include protections against discriminating against sexual orientation. If you feel discriminated against these kinds of laws help you, they don't add more discrimination.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824857I think by and large, black people are at a bigger disadvantage in the united states than white people because of the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery.
If we look at people in the aggregate I agree. So understand this as a disagreement about means not aims.
However, a lot of the disadvantage individuals experience is less about race and more about poverty. Framing things in racial terms ignores that fact and frankly gives short shrift to poor kids from white and Asian parents. Fixing the disparities in opportunity based on wealth would, I think, do a better job of improving opportunities in our society in a way that is less polarizing and in a way that gives more control over everyone’s individual destinies. Most people can’t change their apparent race or color, but everyone can through education, hard work, and perseverance have a chance to improve their economic situation. Creating more opportunities for people to do that is in everyone’s interest and can, I think, move things out of the current zero sum game trap of racial politics.
Granted because poverty correlates with race there is a lot of overlap between race and income, but to use a real life example, the dad in the black family that lived up the street from me when I was in high school played pro football. I’m sure his kids had to face discrimination, but they did that with a good education from a national ranked high school in what was then the third most affluent county in the US (mean, not median income). His kids grew up associating, acculturating, and competing with the children of other college educated professionals: doctors, lawyers, executives, and other upper middle class folks. Claiming that that guy’s kids have had a tougher road as individuals than the kids of some white family without a college education, living in a different county, with a well below the national average school district, and whose income was well below the poverty line, makes little sense to me. And yet, when we ignore individuals to focus on racial groups, no matter how well meaning we are in that, we are in some sense belittling the challenges and hardships that those real people really face.
I’m not trying to claim that my road was very tough, because it wasn’t. I went to the same school district as the kids of the college educated pro ball players, lawyers, doctors, and executives. But I don’t think it is right, fair, or beneficial to a healthy society to ignore that fact that just because the two of us are white, that the kid growing up below the poverty line did not have the same advantages I’ve had or the same advantages that some minority kids have had. And that poor white kid also deserves a society that makes better opportunities available to him or her. And it is in society's interest not to waste any kid's potential no matter the race.
Quote from: Bren;824920I'm not trying to claim that my road was very tough, because it wasn't. I went to the same school district as the kids of the college educated pro ball players, lawyers, doctors, and executives. But I don't think it is right, fair, or beneficial to a healthy society to ignore that fact that just because the two of us are white, that the kid growing up below the poverty line did not have the same advantages I've had or the same advantages that some minority kids have had. And that poor white kid also deserves a society that makes better opportunities available to him or her. And it is in society's interest not to waste any kid's potential no matter the race.
Just to be clear, I am not making this argument. What I am objecting to is the notion that it is suddenly open season on white people. Being poor is certainly a disadvantage. Being white isn't. One can be white and also be poor. I am just saying broadly speaking the deck isn't stacked against the white population. To me it just sounds rather strange to hear white people act like they are on the receiving end of Jim Crow like treatment when at most we have things like affirmative action which are just efforts to redress some of the disparities you mention in the start of your post (certainly the merits, fairness and efficacy of affirmative action itself can be debated).
Quote from: Sommerjon;824913My wife was told to leave a salon in Ohio....
Wow. That is upsetting. I glad I've never had an experience that was anything like that anywhere in the world.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824924I am just saying broadly speaking the deck isn't stacked against the white population.
Broadly speaking, I agree.
Quote...(certainly the merits, fairness and efficacy of affirmative action itself can be debated).
I think it should be debated, but I'm not optimistic that a useful debate will occur given how racially polarized this topic is in our society. I think focusing on economic disparity is less racially polarized, but given the economic/class polarization in the USA I don't know that it will be any less contentious a solution. But to me focusing on disparity based on income seems a fairer and a more effective solution that focusing on race. Thus it is a better solution.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824924Just to be clear, I am not making this argument. What I am objecting to is the notion that it is suddenly open season on white people. Being poor is certainly a disadvantage. Being white isn't. One can be white and also be poor. I am just saying broadly speaking the deck isn't stacked against the white population. To me it just sounds rather strange to hear white people act like they are on the receiving end of Jim Crow like treatment when at most we have things like affirmative action which are just efforts to redress some of the disparities you mention in the start of your post (certainly the merits, fairness and efficacy of affirmative action itself can be debated).
Broadly speaking, you are correct.
However, some of us grew up in places where we were the distinct minority, I was was one of 6 white kids in a high school were the graduating class was 2k. So, yeah, I can relate when someone speaks about being a victim of racism or being assaulted due to their skin color. Because I was for most of my childhood.
Something I'm always reminded of when assholes tell me how privledged I am am my opinion in unwelcome.
Which to be clear to every other poster in this thread, is
not what Brendan is doing.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824928Broadly speaking, you are correct.
However, some of us grew up in places where we were the distinct minority, I was was one of 6 white kids in a high school were the graduating class was 2k. So, yeah, I can relate when someone speaks about being a victim of racism or being assaulted due to their skin color. Because I was for most of my childhood.
Something I'm always reminded of when assholes tell me how privledged I am am my opinion in unwelcome.
Which to be clear to every other poster in this thread, is not what Brendan is doing.
Sure that I understand. I am not saying stuff like what you are describing doesn't happen. We're not strangers to racial tension here in Boston by any stretch. I can imagine if your a white kid going to school in a place like Dorchester, that isn't going to be easy. The picture is more complex in Lynn but there that kind of stuff can happen here as well. For example we have a pretty big gang problem in Lynn and most of the gang activity is along racial and ethnic lines. So I'm sure racial hostility goes in multiple directions in certain quarters. Still I don't personally experience it. All I am saying is broadly speaking I don't think whites face anything approaching what black people can point to.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;824928Something I'm always reminded of when assholes tell me how privledged I am am my opinion in unwelcome.
Which to be clear to every other poster in this thread, is not what Brendan is doing.
I don't think the term privilege, as it currently gets used, is at all useful. It has become a rhetorical hammer to end discussion. I do think racial disparities and racism still exist and I certainly have seen first hand that my wife for example faces more of it than I do on a daily basis, but I think the way people constantly invoke that term allows us to overlook the specifics of each case too easily and just isn't helpful. Really what I am objecting to is the inverse (people seeming to make an argument that minorities are actually the ones with privilege now). I just don't see it.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824863Actually, in terms of legal authority, The US Congress places the Declaration of Independence as the first of the Organic Laws of the United States.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/Organic_Laws_of_the_United_States/Declaration_of_Independence
This is under United States Statutes at Large.
That is literally the exact opposite of the Constitution deriving its authority from the Declaration of Independence.
Sounds like the Stutzman case is making an interesting argument in that being a Florist, she's not just selling flowers, she's creating a floral arrangement, a piece of art, essentially protected speech, and she has a right not to be forced to create something against her beliefs.
Do consultants or advertisement agencies have to accept all customers? Is retail product sales different from creative involvement?
Going to be some interesting cases after SCOTUS comes back with the gay marriage decisions.
As a unrelated, humorous and probably tasteless fun fact, what's your opinion of Barronelle Stutzman's haircut? My gaydar tingled a bit. :hmm:
Quote from: Sommerjon;824913I was asked to leave a hobby shop in California(for wearing a military uniform)
Which hobby shop was this?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;824935That is literally the exact opposite of the Constitution deriving its authority from the Declaration of Independence.
So, no more about the Declaration having no legal authority? Good.
I'd love to hear how the link makes the Declaration of Independence Deriving it's authority from the yet-unwritten Constitution, which would be the opposite.
Quote from: CRKrueger;824939Which hobby shop was this?
Yeah. That sucks, really.,
Quote from: CRKrueger;824938Do consultants or advertisement agencies have to accept all customers? Is retail product sales different from creative involvement?
No and yes.
Consultancy by its nature is always going to be different for each customer. The service is not a one size fits all, uniform offering. A given client may want different services, different expertise, different timing, different duration, different price, different fringes, different method of reimbursement - lots of things. So that means a consultant is in a position to refuse a client for one or more reasons that are unrelated to discrimination or that cannot easily be shown to be discriminatory. On the other hand, if the consultant says "no we don't work for your kind." (Whatever kind that might be.) Then the consultant has explicitly made the case about refusal (rather than inability or unreasonable inconvenience) to provide the service.
A product (retail or commercial) tends to be more straightforward since products typically have preset prices and the product is often a commodity which is comparable to other products on offer. Which makes it not very credible to say, "sorry we are out of flowers" when the store is full of flowers. Especially if the next customer walks in the door and out the door with some flowers.
But in the Stutzman case, there was no attempt to say, sorry I am not able to provide you with flowers. Stutzman refused to provide flowers because of the purpose for which the followers were to be used - i.e. for a gay marriage.
I've no idea about the flowers creative expression argument. "Good luck Bill and Phil, may you have many happy years together" (or whatever the guys names are) doesn't seem to require a lot of creativity in the wording from a florist.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824942Yeah. That sucks, really.,
Also illegal on a couple of levels. Unless business law has changed since I looked at it last, the store has to accept US money for all debts public and private.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824761Um, No...it does not. Wow, what are you, 0 for 20 now? Don't ever do anything with the Constitution more deep than what you are doing here, okay? The Constitution does not supercede the Declaration of Independence, it actually derives its power from the Declaration.
You know, this part?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Equality is a concept deeply rooted in the country and our founding documentation. Yes, there was work to be done, based on the time it was written, and things like slavery (and we know how you feel about property, you'd have been there with Jeff Davis on that one) and Women's Rights still had a long way to go.
But for many of us, this equality so enshrined has been a pole star. As in the Declaration, Equality comes first, so it needs be to create our more perfect union.
Disagree as you will, say all you wish I use my own morality system, make every excuse behind careful, selected passages of the Constitution. At the end of the day, Equality is a critical part of the national origin.
Explain to me where God making all men equal means they must all be treated equally BY OTHER PEOPLE. The Constitution specifically refers to the Federal Government. And that's it. That is literally fucking it. You're trying to interject some notions of how people should treat each other into language that spells out specifically what the Fed is allowed to do.
Pretending I'm wrong doesn't magically make your complete misrepresentation of the Constitution right. So, whatever...
Also, directly saying I support slavery because I think property rights are important invalidates anything else you could possibly say. I thought you were a fucktard before, now I'm 100% sure you're just a communist with an axe to grind against anyone who likes capitalism. Nice ad hominem, really helps your non-argument.
Quote from: Sommerjon;824913My wife was told to leave a salon in Ohio, was asked to leave a salon in Florida, my daughter was told they don't do cracker hair in Florida, I was asked to leave a hobby shop in California(for wearing a military uniform), was told the restaurant doesn't accept US currency in California, my eldest son and his then girlfriend(Korean) were kicked out of an asian foodstore for dating each other in Florida, was asked to leave a Halal Market in Ohio for religious reasons, wife was asked, oh so nicely, to not come back to a church in Georgia(black church).
Yeah it's me misunderstanding what these establishments are. :rolleyes:
Well, if you and your family are as charming in real life as you are here, I don't think race was the reason for all of these incidents...
Quote from: Bren;824945Also illegal on a couple of levels. Unless business law has changed since I looked at it last, the store has to accept US money for all debts public and private.
Well, yeah. But it also sucked.
Quote from: Brad;824958Explain to me where God making all men equal means they must all be treated equally BY OTHER PEOPLE. The Constitution specifically refers to the Federal Government. And that's it. That is literally fucking it. You're trying to interject some notions of how people should treat each other into language that spells out specifically what the Fed is allowed to do.
Pretending I'm wrong doesn't magically make your complete misrepresentation of the Constitution right. So, whatever...
Also, directly saying I support slavery because I think property rights are important invalidates anything else you could possibly say. I thought you were a fucktard before, now I'm 100% sure you're just a communist with an axe to grind against anyone who likes capitalism. Nice ad hominem, really helps your non-argument.
Brad, you're a riot.
No one is pretending you are wrong. No one has to pretend. You have a specific, narrow view of how Rights are derived, and I don't really think any amount of counter-argument, proof, or logic will affect it.
Sure, the unalienable rights only deal with the how the government interacts with them. Not how they must be treated by OTHER PEOPLE (caps yours). So Life, Liberty...all that other stuff....doesn't involve how they are affected by other people. We can murder each other, enslave each other, mess with each other's property...just the government can't? That's idiotic.
And I really didn't mean you definitely support slavery now. I just meant you certainly would have back in the Civil War and beyond somewhat.
And now I'm a communist with an axe to grind? Not much of a communist...Well, I paid a lot in taxes and I actually don't think it was a bad thing, based on longitudinal research. So for those on the anti-government side, I'd look a bit socialist. But I also am a big fan of capitalism. I like making money. I just have a good overview.
Quote from: Bren;824926I think it should be debated, but I'm not optimistic that a useful debate will occur given how racially polarized this topic is in our society. I think focusing on economic disparity is less racially polarized, but given the economic/class polarization in the USA I don't know that it will be any less contentious a solution. But to me focusing on disparity based on income seems a fairer and a more effective solution that focusing on race. Thus it is a better solution.
I don't see why I should have to choose either race or economic disparity.
Economics is absolutely a cause of discrimination, but race is also a demonstrable cause of discrimination - as shown in plenty of studies.
Quote from: jhkim;824980I don't see why I should have to choose either race or economic disparity.
Economics is absolutely a cause of discrimination, but race is also a demonstrable cause of discrimination - as shown in plenty of studies.
I have felt for a long time addressing inequality as an economic whole first would get a lot done in all spheres.
Quote from: jhkim;824980Economics is absolutely a cause of discrimination, but race is also a demonstrable cause of discrimination - as shown in plenty of studies.
Economics is more easily measured. If people of a specific ethnicity or race are in greater need than others in that measure, then more of them will get the help.
Quote from: jhkim;824980I don't see why I should have to choose either race or economic disparity.
Economics is absolutely a cause of discrimination, but race is also a demonstrable cause of discrimination - as shown in plenty of studies.
In theory, you don't have to choose. In practice, we (you, me, society in the USA in general) have made the choice in favor of attempting to address disparity based on race while essentially ignoring disparity based on economic class. For some time now, that has seemed to me to be the more contentious, less efficient, and more individually unjust way to address existing disparities in our society.
QuoteEconomics is absolutely a cause of discrimination, but race is also a demonstrable cause of discrimination - as shown in plenty of studies.
Its been quite a while since I last looked at any studies. But I seem to recall economic class (of the subjects family of origin) and education (of the subject and subject's family) provides a stronger correlation with economic performance of the subject than does race. Economic class seems like a less popular area of academic study now than it was many years ago when I looked at this question so I would be unsurprised if there are more studies now that look at correlations based on race.
Quote from: Brad;824958Explain to me where God making all men equal means they must all be treated equally BY OTHER PEOPLE.
Since when did "God" make all men equal? That sure as hell never happened.
The whole concept of equality is a human one, solely. No deities enter into the equation. Nature never gave a shit about equality.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824983I have felt for a long time addressing inequality as an economic whole first would get a lot done in all spheres.
I think a lot of the bitterness and anger that finds outlets in various forms of social conflict really stems from the increasingly crushing economic pressures due to income inequality. The Super-Rich are rising toward Cosmic-Rich, Rich is merely like the old Upper Middle Class and everyone else is basically in a free fall slide working harder year by year and getting less and less from it. Tends to make people get pissed off at everything.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824600I get the principle behind it, but I think people who are against the civil rights act, and in particular those who reject Title II, are being quite extreme in their view. I think we all agree certain rights are inalienable. What is being disputed here is whether businesses have the inalienable right to discriminate on the basis of color, race, sex or sexual orientation. Personally I don't think they do. What I find troubling is what started out as a debate over whether we should extend protections to include gay people has turned into a debate over whether we should remove protections currently in place to prevent racial and gender discrimination. I'm all for personal liberty. All for freedom of expression. But I do draw the line at going back to what we had in this country prior to the civil rights act. When I hear people invoking the constitution or natural law principles to make the case against Tittle II and other parts of the Civil Rights Act, I cringe.
I agree that equality under the law is a tricky sort of concept, particularly when it intersects with things like property rights. Part of where the answer might lie here is with the classical capitalist concept of the fair and open market. My feeling is that a man should have the right to decide whether he sells carrots or not, and at what price he sells them, but he shouldn't necessarily have the right to refuse to sell them to redheads, or to set higher prices for left-handed people.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824607Actually, much of what drives these laws is when One Unalienable Right runs into another.
You and Brad talk about these Rights as clean, non-intersecting things. However, the issue lies in the conflation areas. Absolute Liberty, for example, means one can do anything without repercussion. And while 'Liberty' is included in the US Birth certificate we call the Declaration of Independence, and while the Constitution and the Amendments (Known, funny enough, as the Bill of Rights) within give a listing of Rights, much of the the laws set down later by the government are actually clarifications due to the cultural and social abutments that happen with these Rights.
The Right to Free Speech does not give unlimited Free Speech. There are still Libel laws and Truth in Advertising laws. The Right of Freedom to Worship does not allow for Human Sacrifice, or allow other interdictions on the Rights of others...and that is frankly what is happening in this particular thread and circumstance it describes.
Generally speaking, the limit of inalienable rights is when it interferes with the rights of others. Human sacrifice is not allowed because it would deny the inalienable right to life that another person has, which would render one's own right to life not inalienable. It's the same with liberty: the reason that it's irrational to be in favor of banning marijuana but opposed to a ban on Big Gulps, or being in favor of a ban on yarmulkes but against a ban on wearing crosses is that you cannot claim an inalienable human right to liberty while denying that liberty to others.
Quote from: Brad;824635That's true to some degree, but I still don't think such laws are actually necessary if people just don't act like massive dicks. You really only need one law: Don't Be An Asshole.
The entire basis of the Founding Father's system of government was predicated on the supposition that the people who would come after them probably would be assholes. It was what made the American experiment successful; unlike other revolutionary political creations, the founders were wise enough to suppose that the people who succeeded them might not be as smart, as honorable, or as dedicated as they were, and thus took pains to create a system that tried as much as possible to offset that, rather than creating a system that inherently
depends on good, smart and dedicated people holding the reins of power.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;824680That is covered by title II of the Civil Rights Act. If they are denying you service due to your skin color or national origin, it's technically illegal.
The question is still why the fuck would you want to give racist fucks your money?
Quote from: GeekEclectic;824690Interactions with people, including "the public," fall under freedom of association.
I'm not sure you quite get that term. "Freedom of association" is the very real freedom to be able to FORM association with other people, the right to join groups: political parties, clubs, unions, fraternities, etc. and more broadly the right to gather in groups in private or public (freedom of assembly).
It is not the right to not have to be around other people you don't like ever.
Freedom of association doesn't actually have anything to do with denying service to others, unless you're talking about refusing membership to individuals for reasons directly related to the group's purpose.
Quote from: Bren;824694It doesn't strengthen your point.
The disagreement is whether a business should be allowed to discriminate in sales. You see that as a fundamental right for the business. I don't see any particular reason to accept that as a fundamental right . Especially when the business is accepting the advantages of our society's social contract where protections such as law, courts, police, fire, etc. help the business. Just think of serving the public fairly as a societal tax on the business levied as part of the social contract that all businesses explicitly sign up for when they incorporate, seek licenses, etc.
In addition, as someone who is basically pro-capitalist, I see lack of discrimination in business transactions as something that allows the market to operate more efficiently, which in general is a good thing that is in society's interest to promote. We have enough necessary inefficiencies, without creating laws to promote unnecessary inefficiencies.
Your first paragraph is nonsense. "Social contract" cannot over-rule inalienable rights. Nothing can ever over-rule inalienable rights.
Your second paragraph, however, is slightly more on the mark. Something I think the person you were answering is missing, and that you seem to be grasping at, is that the right to the Pursuit of Happiness is fundamentally the right to commerce and property. Geekeclectic thinks that serves his argument, but in fact the right to the pursuit of happiness depends on an open and fair market with a free flow of commerce. If you are selling property (cakes, for instance), everyone has an inalienable right to potentially purchase it.
Quote from: jeff37923;824697Have you ever seen a "No shoes, No shirt, No service" sign? By your criteria, isn't that a violation of your business rights?
There's a pretty important difference. "No shirt" is something you are doing; "no irishmen" is something that you ARE.
Quote from: Rincewind1;824718Then I see no reason why he should be any more prohibited from pursuing to drink at the coffee that tries to bar him for the colour of his skin. Liberty cuts both ways.
What you're actually arguing for here is not so much liberty as the Pursuit of Happiness. What Brad isn't acknowledging is that there is more than one inalienable right. Liberty depends fundamentally on property, property depends on the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Or to put it another way, if a cafe owner had the 'right' to not sell coffee to Irishmen, said cafe owner could theoretically be denied the right to obtain coffee on the open market (say, for being left-handed), and this would lead to general collapse of liberties. To assure HIS freedom to obtain goods, he must recognize the freedom of others to buy his goods at the price he wishes to sell those goods.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824728No.
My Idea of Freedom, as I said, accepts that Rights run into each other.
Rights cannot 'run into each other'. As soon as any (real) right would conflict in such a way with someone else's right that it would cause the legitimacy of said right to collapse, you can reason exactly how those rights apply.
QuoteYour straw man about my beliefs is entertaining, but good only for comedic value. And it is the place of the Law to deal with these intersections. Such as the idiotic comment that one person's rights don't trump another's. Your right to Life doesn't trump my freedom of belief in human sacrifice?
Again, perfect example: your liberty only extends to where it doesn't impinge on someone else's liberty; because if it did you would have no right to liberty either. Rights are universal or they do not exist. Ergo, you cannot make claim to a right that would deny a right to another.
QuoteI believe that all people are created equal. As an unalienable right, as it stands right before Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. And in their own space and time, these equal people can do as they will. When their exercise of rights, such as property, brings them into conflict with someone else's equality, the Right to own Property gives way to that equality.
Nope. The right to own property is predicated on the right to commerce (that is, the 'pursuit of happiness'). Which means that a property owner cannot deny the right to the pursuit of happiness to someone else by claiming his right to property (because he would be implicitly creating the paradox of denying the inalienability of that right).
Quote from: RPGPundit;825086The entire basis of the Founding Father's system of government was predicated on the supposition that the people who would come after them probably would be assholes. It was what made the American experiment successful; unlike other revolutionary political creations, the founders were wise enough to suppose that the people who succeeded them might not be as smart, as honorable, or as dedicated as they were, and thus took pains to create a system that tried as much as possible to offset that, rather than creating a system that inherently depends on good, smart and dedicated people holding the reins of power.
Sadly, that didn't last very long.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825099Sadly, that didn't last very long.
Actually, it's still going on right now. It's showing its age, sure, but it's the principle reason why we don't have King-Jeebus Emperor-Viceregent Dubya the First on the Throne of Fuck-Yeah-America right now.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825039Since when did "God" make all men equal? That sure as hell never happened.
The whole concept of equality is a human one, solely. No deities enter into the equation. Nature never gave a shit about equality.
In the Declaration of Independence, you ass. Though it's not "god" it's "their Creator". So if it really makes you feel better you can imagine it's Xenu or something.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825103Actually, it's still going on right now. It's showing its age, sure, but it's the principle reason why we don't have King-Jeebus Emperor-Viceregent Dubya the First on the Throne of Fuck-Yeah-America right now.
It was based on a series of checks and balances thats eroded over time. Luckily, yes, we've not yet reached the point of someone declaring themselves Emperor for life. But there was also absolutely zero accountability for what trespasses people in power did commit. The government created by the forefathers has been disappearing slowly but surely, starting around the time that Central Banking was allowed into the halls of power.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825104In the Declaration of Independence, you ass. Though it's not "god" it's "their Creator". So if it really makes you feel better you can imagine it's Xenu or something.
Context, here. The argument being made was that "God created people equal" but that there's no requirement for people to treat each others as equal. The fallacy of this position is that if people don't treat each other as equals its an absolutely meaningless statement, and what was clearly intended by the Declaration of Independence is that everyone in society should be treated equally within and by society. The role of the Creator in this is equation is merely to enforce this as a natural state of affairs, not to suggest that its simply something to do with "God" and in no way applies to society. What I pointed out was the opposite is the truth of the matter.
And if you had followed the conversation up to that point instead of blindly responding to one post you might have caught that, you ass.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825103Actually, it's still going on right now. It's showing its age, sure, but it's the principle reason why we don't have King-Jeebus Emperor-Viceregent Dubya the First on the Throne of Fuck-Yeah-America right now.
Have you seen the Obama Administration lately?
Quote from: jeff37923;825107Have you seen the Obama Administration lately?
It's been a massive improvement. So I'm told.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;825111It's been a massive improvement. So I'm told.
OK, I LOL'd.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;825111It's been a massive improvement. So I'm told.
America. Fuck yeah! :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;825091Your first paragraph is nonsense. "Social contract" cannot over-rule inalienable rights. Nothing can ever over-rule inalienable rights.
No more nonsense really than inalienable rights. Rights are a man made construct that don't exist outside of that framework. A rabbit, a wolf, a microbe no more has an inalienable right than you do.
QuoteYour second paragraph, however, is slightly more on the mark.
I'm not really surprised you liked that one better. Nice that we at least agree on the outcome even if the principals aren't in agreement.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825088The question is still why the fuck would you want to give racist fucks your money?
I don't know. I've never been denied service personally for anything so I don't know how I might react. The closest I've ever come to this was my wife getting reluctant service at a jewelry counter. But that wasn't denial, you could just tell the woman didn't like serving her and was trying to make the exchange difficult. I think my wife got a certain amount of satisfaction persisting and being served by the woman (and wasn't worried about whether she was giving money to a racist). But this was also a case where it was just one employee and didn't have anything to do with the business itself.
I can imagine one might simply push the issue out of a desire for justice or fair treatment (not out of a desire to do repeat business at the place). Basically force them to take your money not because you want them to get rich with it, but for the principle of it. But I can also understand simply not wanting to buy anything from a place like that as well.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825085Generally speaking, the limit of inalienable rights is when it interferes with the rights of others. Human sacrifice is not allowed because it would deny the inalienable right to life that another person has, which would render one's own right to life not inalienable. It's the same with liberty: the reason that it's irrational to be in favor of banning marijuana but opposed to a ban on Big Gulps, or being in favor of a ban on yarmulkes but against a ban on wearing crosses is that you cannot claim an inalienable human right to liberty while denying that liberty to others....
I agree that equality under the law is a tricky sort of concept, particularly when it intersects with things like property rights. Part of where the answer might lie here is with the classical capitalist concept of the fair and open market. My feeling is that a man should have the right to decide whether he sells carrots or not, and at what price he sells them, but he shouldn't necessarily have the right to refuse to sell them to redheads, or to set higher prices for left-handed people.
Well, then we actually see this from a similar place, that Rights do bump into each other, and when one person's Rights hit another's, that is where government should step in, but in the least intrusive way possible.
And your other post agreed with that as well. So, though in exacts we may not completely agree, this is the same way I view the issue.
Quote from: LordVreeg;824978Brad, you're a riot.
No one is pretending you are wrong. No one has to pretend. You have a specific, narrow view of how Rights are derived, and I don't really think any amount of counter-argument, proof, or logic will affect it.
Sure, the unalienable rights only deal with the how the government interacts with them. Not how they must be treated by OTHER PEOPLE (caps yours). So Life, Liberty...all that other stuff....doesn't involve how they are affected by other people. We can murder each other, enslave each other, mess with each other's property...just the government can't? That's idiotic.
And I really didn't mean you definitely support slavery now. I just meant you certainly would have back in the Civil War and beyond somewhat.
And now I'm a communist with an axe to grind? Not much of a communist...Well, I paid a lot in taxes and I actually don't think it was a bad thing, based on longitudinal research. So for those on the anti-government side, I'd look a bit socialist. But I also am a big fan of capitalism. I like making money. I just have a good overview.
Okay. Fuck you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;824939Which hobby shop was this?
Some mom&pop models/train shop outside of Ft. Irwin. Just after Desert Storm, late '91/early '92.
Quote from: Planet Algol;824962Well, if you and your family are as charming in real life as you are here, I don't think race was the reason for all of these incidents...
So what was it then?
What I'm saying is that you're probably an outrageous asshole in real life as well.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825106Context, here. The argument being made was that "God created people equal" but that there's no requirement for people to treat each others as equal. The fallacy of this position is that if people don't treat each other as equals its an absolutely meaningless statement, and what was clearly intended by the Declaration of Independence is that everyone in society should be treated equally within and by society. The role of the Creator in this is equation is merely to enforce this as a natural state of affairs, not to suggest that its simply something to do with "God" and in no way applies to society. What I pointed out was the opposite is the truth of the matter.
And if you had followed the conversation up to that point instead of blindly responding to one post you might have caught that, you ass.
I did catch that, but being willfully obtuse is not a meaningful response.
In any case, equality is not itself something that can be DIRECTLY enforced; rather, it is the base assumption, which is expressed through the other inalienable rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Those rights exist because all people are equal. Denying those rights to some people is denying the fundamental equality of all people, and thus denying one's own rights. The way to "enforce" equality, however, is to ensure that everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are upheld.
Quote from: jeff37923;825107Have you seen the Obama Administration lately?
Yup, not a dictatorship either. Again, thanks to the brilliant system of government your founding fathers established.
I've seen first hand shittier countries with shittier systems of government. Allow me to refer you to this article (http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/03/24/politics/venezuelan-marxist-apocalypse-could-it-happen-in-america/).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;825103Actually, it's still going on right now. It's showing its age, sure, but it's the principle reason why we don't have King-Jeebus Emperor-Viceregent Dubya the First on the Throne of Fuck-Yeah-America right now.
Well, Hillary's announcing on Sunday.
JG
Quote from: RPGPundit;825243I did catch that, but being willfully obtuse is not a meaningful response.
"I'm sorry, but when you say I'm being obtuse, exactly what do you mean?"
Quote from: Planet Algol;825205What I'm saying is that you're probably an outrageous asshole in real life as well.
Your balls shrivel up a bit there?
Man up.
You called me and my wife and my children outrageous assholes in real life.
I learned a long time ago that discrimination happens. No law is ever going to force that to change.
A black person can discriminate against a white person just as easily as a white person can to a black person. An Asian can discriminate against another Asian, a gay man can discriminate against a bisexual man, and on and on and on.
Discrimination runs through everything; race, sex, sexual orientation, social standing, economic standing, name, place of residence, job, company you work for, whom you married, children, parents, which edition of D&D you like, and on and on.
It annoys me when people only see white people discriminating against blacks and straight discriminating against lgbt.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825274Your balls shrivel up a bit there?
Man up.
.
This isn't helping your case.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825274Discrimination runs through everything; race, sex, sexual orientation, social standing, economic standing, name, place of residence, job, company you work for, whom you married, children, parents, which edition of D&D you like, and on and on.
It annoys me when people only see white people discriminating against blacks and straight discriminating against lgbt.
Personally I'd take which edition of D&D you play off the list, cause that is a bit silly, but no one is really disagreeing with those points Sommerjon. I mentioned several times that discrimination can be directed at white people too, and that the civil rights act covered that. I wasn't saying white face no discrimination ever, I was saying the notion that it is majorly wide-spread or that minorities are now the privileged ones, is ridiculous to me. In these discussion you sometimes hear white people who act like they are living under some kind of reverse Jim Crow now. I was talking about that. Either way though, the laws we are talking about here are meant to protect you as well. If you feel white people are discriminated against, then the civil rights act does cover you. If you worry that gay people are going to discriminate against straight people, then extending public accommodation rules to protect on the basis of sexual orientation will protect both straight and gay alike.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825274I learned a long time ago that discrimination happens. No law is ever going to force that to change.
The civil rights act did a pretty good job of stamping out a lot of discrimination on many fronts. You can't stop all discrimination. People are free to be bigots if they want. But title II is an effective tool for making sure people have access to goods and services and can't be denied them on the basis of race. Clearly laws can have an impact. If they were ineffectual people wouldn't be complaining about them.
QuoteA black person can discriminate against a white person just as easily as a white person can to a black person. An Asian can discriminate against another Asian, a gay man can discriminate against a bisexual man, and on and on and on.
t.
This seems like a strange point. It seems you are either trying to respond what we mean by discrimination here by pivoting on two alternate uses of the word (switching between discrimination in the broad sense to the specific) or you are talking about people who belong to a particular group but still harbor resentment or bigotry toward it. Not really sure but either way this just seems to be an attempt to muddy the waters.
EDIT: I think I read that wrong the first time (thought you said a white person can discriminate against a white person, a black person against a black person. Completely misread it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825274Your balls shrivel up a bit there?
Man up.
You called me and my wife and my children outrageous assholes in real life.
I learned a long time ago that discrimination happens. No law is ever going to force that to change.
A black person can discriminate against a white person just as easily as a white person can to a black person. An Asian can discriminate against another Asian, a gay man can discriminate against a bisexual man, and on and on and on.
Discrimination runs through everything; race, sex, sexual orientation, social standing, economic standing, name, place of residence, job, company you work for, whom you married, children, parents, which edition of D&D you like, and on and on.
It annoys me when people only see white people discriminating against blacks and straight discriminating against lgbt.
Yes, people discriminate consciously and subconsciously all the time. You forgot geographies and accents and perceived social class, among a host of others. But saying no law will change that is forcing a false duality to the situation. It is not an on and off switch. It can get better (and worse).
However, There are individual and small group patterns, and then there are cultural systemic level patterns. And as above, one does not expect quick, easy solutions. Some people don't want change, some people are too weak and withdraw the field, and frankly, people don't change quickly. But changing laws does help. This whole thread is a testimony to that. The whole RFRA bill was a pushback of the tide of legalization of gay marriage, as was the national response against the bill. And 20 years ago; man, that was not even a possibility. Change is slow; but also very real.
So it isn't that most people see ONLY the large-scale stuff; " white people discriminating against blacks and straight discriminating against lgbt". To the contrary. Seeing some individual or small scale stuff is a very different thing from trying to work towards a nation where there is not systemic discrimination baked into the culture.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825274Your balls shrivel up a bit there?
Man up.
You called me and my wife and my children outrageous assholes in real life
Well,
A) you act like a total fucking miserable asshole here, so chances are you actually are one.
B) there's a good chance that someone who would choose to marry a total fucking miserable asshole is one as well.
C) a child that was taught acceptable behaviour by two total fucking miserable assholes is probably going to (mis)behave like one as well.
So yes, you are an asshole, and your wife and child are probably assholes as well. Contemplate this on the tree of woe... ....asshole...
Edit: I assumed that you're self aware enough to know that you come across as a total jerkwad and weenie here. If not, I'm sorry, but you really need to reevaluate how you communicate with others. Don't take my word for it, ask some other folks.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825301The whole RFRA bill was a pushback of the tide of legalization of gay marriage, as was the national response against the bill.
Except the whole RFRA bill was a pushback against people getting sued out of business for their religious beliefs. Although that's a good spin you put on it.
Quote from: jeff37923;825326Except the whole RFRA bill was a pushback against people getting sued out of business for their religious beliefs. Although that's a good spin you put on it.
And here I thought it was so that Native Americans could take peyote as part of a religious ceremony.
Quote from: jeff37923;825326Except the whole RFRA bill was a pushback against people getting sued out of business for their religious beliefs. Although that's a good spin you put on it.
(1) The anti-gay lobbyists standing beside the governor signing the bill make me doubt that protecting people from getting sued was the reason rather than the PR rationale.
(2) The fact that the state of Indiana doesn't even have a law on the books like those in Colorado and Washington state that would provide grounds for a law suit increases my skepticism that protecting business owners was the primary motivation instead of placating the Republican anti-gay base in Indiana.
(3) The flower lady wasn't sued out of business. The amount asked for against her was less than $8.00., the price of the car ride to a different florist. (I think the amount was $7.91 but can't recall the exact amount). That could not possibly drive her out of business. Also, she hasn't paid the money as she is still contesting the decision.
Meanwhile, she's collected donations in the six figures.
The money she has spent has been given to her lawyers not to the people who sued her or to the state. She spent the money contesting the suit against her and in litigating against the states decision that she violated state antidiscrimination laws for which the state fined her a minimum of $2,000 dollars for her discriminatory actions. The amount of money given to her by supports more than covers the fine and the lawsuit against her ten times over.
The lawsuit against her isn't causing her to go out of business. The fine is not causing her to go out of business either. And she hasn't yet paid either the damages or the fine since she is still in litigation.
If she has closed her business it was not due to being sued, but due to her contesting the law in the state she lives in, which, by the way, is not Indiana and in her choice not to obey the law of her state.
Quote from: jeff37923;825326Except the whole RFRA bill was a pushback against people getting sued out of business for their religious beliefs. Although that's a good spin you put on it.
Well, that's the extreme micro view of the macro issue, the anthill on the base of the mountain. Though the comment says a lot about perspective.
Religious exemption to laws as is old as law itself, and even in terms of our own country and in terms of exemption to equality laws. Bob Jones University was one of the more famous for their religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act that lasted until the 1990s.
And as has been mentioned, in 1993 the American Indian cases with ceremonies using peyote, etc, were the basis for the original national RFRA laws. But it is important to notice that it was THEN that the idea of 'Compelling interest' was introduced to the idea in the courts. But it was somewhat victimless.
This all changed in the 2000s and later, where the religious Right started using RFRA laws to go on offence, trying to create a situation where their Religious Rights were allowed to trump a person's Civil Rights, no matter the supposed separation of Church and State.
Why has this has come to a head is a matter of a few factors. One is frankly the continued change in national mood. Graphically, it is startling. in 1994, Hawaii put up a Gay Marriage Ban. And those increased dramatically, to a high Water mark of 37 states in 2009. Again, the High Water mark was only 6 years ago. In 2003, Mass was the first state to legalize Gay Marriage. In 2009, there were 3 states that legalized Gay Marriage.
Today? Six year later we are at 37 States with Legalized Gay Marriage and 13 left with Gay Marriage bans, and most of those are being sued.
Another is the fact that this is the first RFRA since the Hobby Lobby case, and that was very contentious.
Businesses are changing. Where 10 years ago you could count on corporations to be able to put profits first in this fight continue to back the Right that allows them to avoid taxes and remove regulations, recently we've seen major businesses leave ALEC based on their increasingly out of step climate denial and here, Indiana was totally surprised at the the corporate response to their move. But it is part of that national mood mentioned above...being seen as an employer willing to fight discrimination is a popular position.
So, yes, the news, especially the crazies, will fan flames about photographers or florists who discriminated and were taken to task. But what is really happening is the replay of all civil rights struggles. That is a micro issue of a macro cycle we've seen again and again. And the reason that a bunch of anti-gay organizations were part of the push to create the bill and the reason they were there for the signing is because at it's heart, this is a pushback vs the legalization of Gay Marriage that seems to be a tide moving against them.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;825334And here I thought it was so that Native Americans could take peyote as part of a religious ceremony.
That may very well have been for the Federal version, the Indiana state version was what had described.
The noise and fury being made by Bren and LordVreeg comes from the fact that there is no wording in SB 101 that encourages anti-gay discrimination, no matter how much they want the bill to say that (because it would then fit the false narrative they are advocating).
Quote from: jeff37923;825345That may very well have been for the Federal version, the Indiana state version was what had described.
The noise and fury being made by Bren and LordVreeg comes from the fact that there is no wording in SB 101 that encourages anti-gay discrimination, no matter how much they want the bill to say that (because it would then fit the false narrative they are advocating).
The Indiana RFRA was supported heavily by and backed by anti-Gay lobbyists.
One can tell a lot about a law and the intent by who supports it and their history.
And this is, by that standard, and anti-gay bill. It was backed by anti Gay groups.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/religious-freedom-supporters-mostly-silent/70557506/
"And the website for Advance America, a pro-family, pro-church group headed by influential lobbyiest Eric Miller, who also was invited to attend the private bill signing, makes no bones about what is behind the new law. It proclaims: "Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!"
Ah, protection from the agenda of being treated like other people . Darn those Gays.
And what does that protection allow? Protection to Discriminate.
Which is why the law was changed. In a week.
It's why Pence was asked if the bill allowed discrimination by law 6 times in an interview, and ducked answering 6 times.
I had no knowledge of this legislation before this thread. I read the links provided by jeff37923 and others, read the Indiana law, read the Connecticut law, and did a little additional searching on the Internet about this issue. In my judgment, this is not a particularly hard issue to examine and figure out the pros and cons nor why the law was written and passed.
I'll let folks make up their own mind as to what is noise and what is fury and where both are coming from.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;825334And here I thought it was so that Native Americans could take peyote as part of a religious ceremony.
I did that once. Lost 5 days of my life and came to in a different state (started in Utah, "woke up" in Nevada).
Quote from: RPGPundit;825243I did catch that, but being willfully obtuse is not a meaningful response.
One man's "willfully obtuse" is another man's "cogent point delivered satirically".
QuoteIn any case, equality is not itself something that can be DIRECTLY enforced; rather, it is the base assumption, which is expressed through the other inalienable rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Those rights exist because all people are equal. Denying those rights to some people is denying the fundamental equality of all people, and thus denying one's own rights. The way to "enforce" equality, however, is to ensure that everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are upheld.
I agree with all of that, but we're on trickier ground when it comes to regulating what a private business can do. At least, I say "trickier" in that its not as simple as saying "everyone's free so every business should be free to serve or not serve who they want". But the two cogent points here are that the government already highly regulates private business practice so claiming that enforcing a no discrimination policiy is unduly subverting a business owner's rights and also, the quite obvious fact that there is no legitimate religious grounds for refusing service to someone based on any accepted mainstream Judeo-Christian theology. A person can believe being gay is a sin, but extrapolating from that that allowing a gay person to shop in one's store is a sin has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with someone's personal homophobic hate-fest.
OTOH, there should be a distinction here, I think, when it comes to art. I empathize with the flower-shop owner that was perfectly willing to provide a service to a customer but declined to do floral arrangements for their wedding. I'd say this falls under the umbrella of art, and art is a personal investment, not simply of time, but of one's "soul" (hate using that term, but lack a better one). A person should never be obligated to do artwork for another person, for any reason. its not the same as a retail service. And on those grounds I'd be tempted to give the flower shop owner lee-way. But thats my personal opinion. I don't think the government or legal system in America currently makes any distinctions between artwork and other services.
Saw this quote (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-rpgpundit-and-d-have-probably-done.html?showComment=1428227255942#c1128706851080457189), seemed somehow applicable:
Quote from: RPGPunditFeeding the poor is "an expression of religious belief". Blaming hurricanes on gay marriage is an expression of subcultural insanity.
If your church doesn't allow gay marriage but your state does, and you base business decisions on that fact, then basically you're refusing someone service because they engage in a completely legal activity your church does not allow. Some Christian churches allow for gay marriage and for gay priests/ministers. Do you not sell cakes/flowers/shotguns to people from those churches?
What about the guy whose religion demands his wife wears a black bee-keeper suit and walks three paces behind him? Does he get to refuse service to all women who don't wear black bee-keeper suits?
I think the religious right needs to hold it's horses a second, and then decide what it's going to do when all the Sharia-based RFRA cases come flooding in.
Somehow I think the violence and completeness of the 180 degree turn will make both Mitt Romney and John Kerry drop their jaws in awe. :jaw-dropping:
Quote from: CRKrueger;825374I think the religious right needs to hold it's horses a second
That is only part of the problem.
The methodology used to help bring about social change needs to be evaluated by the groups using them so that situations like this do not happen.
All involved need to act with more forethought and common sense.
Then again, common sense never is.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825348The Indiana RFRA was supported heavily by and backed by anti-Gay lobbyists.
One can tell a lot about a law and the intent by who supports it and their history.
And this is, by that standard, and anti-gay bill. It was backed by anti Gay groups.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/religious-freedom-supporters-mostly-silent/70557506/
"And the website for Advance America, a pro-family, pro-church group headed by influential lobbyiest Eric Miller, who also was invited to attend the private bill signing, makes no bones about what is behind the new law. It proclaims: "Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!"
Ah, protection from the agenda of being treated like other people . Darn those Gays.
And what does that protection allow? Protection to Discriminate.
Which is why the law was changed. In a week.
It's why Pence was asked if the bill allowed discrimination by law 6 times in an interview, and ducked answering 6 times.
Well, if the bill was truly about religious freedom, we'll see how much religious freedom there is in Indiana if some Wiccans show up in Indianapolis to dance nude in front of the capitol as part of a Summer Solstice ceremony.
Quote from: jeff37923;825375That is only part of the problem.
The methodology used to help bring about social change needs to be evaluated by the groups using them so that situations like this do not happen.
All involved need to act with more forethought and common sense.
Then again, common sense never is.
Nor is the eternal regressive impulse versus the move forward towards equality.
These are the same conversations that were had for relgious equality, and Racial equality, and gender equality, and now sexual identity.
This is a cycle. And in all, of them, I can show you the same pattern of relgious resistance from the regressive side. Religious arguments against gay marriage mimic perfectly the ones vs interacial marriage. Anyone else read through Senator Bilbo's (yes, Bilbo) book, "Take your choice, Separation vs Mongrelization'? This is no different. Use of religion to justify discrimination, same patterns, same partners...and hopefully the same outcome.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;825380Well, if the bill was truly about religious freedom, we'll see how much religious freedom there is in Indiana if some Wiccans show up in Indianapolis to dance nude in front of the capitol as part of a Summer Solstice ceremony.
Looking forward to that.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825382Nor is the eternal regressive impulse versus the move forward towards equality.
These are the same conversations that were had for relgious equality, and Racial equality, and gender equality, and now sexual identity.
This is a cycle. And in all, of them, I can show you the same pattern of relgious resistance from the regressive side. Religious arguments against gay marriage mimic perfectly the ones vs interacial marriage. Anyone else read through Senator Bilbo's (yes, Bilbo) book, "Take your choice, Separation vs Mongrelization'? This is no different. Use of religion to justify discrimination, same patterns, same partners...and hopefully the same outcome.
Religion touched you in a naughty place and you never got over it. Now we know what you discriminate against.
Quote from: jeff37923;825386Religion touched you in a naughty place and you never got over it. Now we know what you discriminate against.
Batting a big, fat zero as usual.
Though, I know your history. No citation, nothing to back you up, then you just make strange personal jabs. You don't seem to notice when a smarter man would have quit the field. Ah, me, the joys of the internet, when a trial by combat has you screaming like a certain Black Knight screaming you'll bite my kneecaps off.
You should try something new, like working with facts.
I'd tell you to quit while you're behind. I'm actually a regular member of the local Uni-Uni chapter, and spend a high % of Sundays there. I have no issues with faith, just intolerance hiding behind faith.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825388Batting a big, fat zero as usual.
Though, I know your history. No citation, nothing to back you up, then you just make strange personal jabs. You don't seem to notice when a smarter man would have quit the field. Ah, me, the joys of the internet, when a trial by combat has you screaming like a certain Black Knight screaming you'll bite my kneecaps off.
You should try something new, like working with facts.
I'd tell you to quit while you're behind. I'm actually a regular member of the local Uni-Uni chapter, and spend a high % of Sundays there. I have no issues with faith, just intolerance hiding behind faith.
Yeah bro, you know me. You really do.
Quote from: jeff37923;825386Religion touched you in a naughty place and you never got over it.
If religions didnt have a habit of quite literally doing that, this'd be funny.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825394If religions didnt have a habit of quite literally doing that, this'd be funny.
Unfortunately.
Then again, I know enough Catholics who think the whole priest abuse scandal were lies cooked up by the enemies of the Catholic Church, so in that case it could be more sad than anything else.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825348It's why Pence was asked if the bill allowed discrimination by law 6 times in an interview, and ducked answering 6 times.
Damn! Peter only denied Jesus 3 times!
Quote from: LordVreeg;825382These are the same conversations that were had for relgious equality, and Racial equality, and gender equality, and now sexual identity.
I wonder what the next fight is going to be.
Anyone make an educated guess?
Any links to back up the guess?
Quote from: CRKrueger;825078I think a lot of the bitterness and anger that finds outlets in various forms of social conflict really stems from the increasingly crushing economic pressures due to income inequality.
I fully agree. I'm sure you've heard this one:
"A rich guy, a white guy and a black guy sit down at a table together. There's a plate of 12 cookies, the rich guy grabs 11 of them and says to the white guy "watch out, that black guy's trying to steal your cookie".
In this battle, just substitute "Christian" for white and "homosexual" for black.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825088The question is still why the fuck would you want to give racist fucks your money?
To see her boobies?
I assume you're referring to a really hot KKK stripper, or a Werewolf Woman of the SS? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGP20F53ogc)
Quote from: Sommerjon;824913My wife was told to leave a salon in Ohio, was asked to leave a salon in Florida, my daughter was told they don't do cracker hair in Florida, I was asked to leave a hobby shop in California(for wearing a military uniform), was told the restaurant doesn't accept US currency in California, my eldest son and his then girlfriend(Korean) were kicked out of an asian foodstore for dating each other in Florida, was asked to leave a Halal Market in Ohio for religious reasons, wife was asked, oh so nicely, to not come back to a church in Georgia(black church).
You were told a restaurant in California does not accept US currency?
Which restaurant in which city? And what did this restaurant accept as currency instead?
It sounds like a great place to get a free meal!
Quote from: James Gillen;825251"I'm sorry, but when you say I'm being obtuse, exactly what do you mean?"
It means you're not being right or acute.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825363I did that once. Lost 5 days of my life and came to in a different state (started in Utah, "woke up" in Nevada).
Nope. That wasn't the peyote. That was the alien abduction and butt probe. It was all caught on video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tZar4wRP40)
Quote from: Spinachcat;825397I wonder what the next fight is going to be.
Anyone make an educated guess?
I heard someone in media mention a little while back that children were the only population group it was still legal to discriminate against. Not sure what to think of that.
Meanwhile in France apparently transhumanists are suffering some pretty bad discrimination. Some guy who replaced his eyeball with a videocamera, or something, got beat up by McDonalds employees a while back, and what I read suggested it wasnt an isolated incident. Too lazy to find the link right now.
QuoteNope. That wasn't the peyote. That was the alien abduction and butt probe.
That explains why my prostate cancer was magically healed afterwards
Quote from: TristramEvans;825400Meanwhile in France apparently transhumanists are suffering some pretty bad discrimination. Some guy who replaced his eyeball with a videocamera, or something, got beat up by McDonalds employees a while back, and what I read suggested it wasnt an isolated incident. Too lazy to find the link right now.
My recollection part of the issue involved the fact that the guy's setup stored images taken from his camera and there were some privacy concerns regarding whether the images could be downloaded and kept.
Oh and probably that the setup made him look weird.
Quote from: jeff37923;825392Yeah bro, you know me. You really do.
All hat, no cattle.
Quote from: Bren;825406All hat, no cattle.
I find that amusing since you and LordVreeg have egos to large to admit that the text of SB 101 has nothing in it that advocates anti-gay discrimination.
Go soothe your wounded pride with the rest of the overly butthurt, son.
Quote from: jeff37923;825418I find that amusing since you and LordVreeg have egos to large to admit that the text of SB 101 has nothing in it that advocates anti-gay discrimination.
Since that has zero to do with the issue at hand....Keep looking for relevance, Jeff. No one is going to put that verbiage in the Law, and even Pence couldn't deny it (6 times) in a national interview.
It was backed by anti Gay lobbyists, even partially drafted by one. And they were quite clear about that when it was signed, and when Pence had to backtrack and put in language that it couldn't be used to discriminate against the Gay community, the religious Right all came out and said that gutted and ruined the bill.
So, if the anti discrimination language ruins the bill's intent...that says the bill was, in the eyes of the Religious Right, originally a license to discriminate. No way around it Jeff.
I can see the misinformation in this thread continues.
Quote from: Brad;825463I can see the misinformation in this thread continues.
You shouldn't have started it if it pains you so much.
Quote from: Rincewind1;825508You shouldn't have started it if it pains you so much.
Just because you're a dumbass doesn't mean I "started it".
Quote from: Brad;825514Just because you're a dumbass doesn't mean I "started it".
Wow. Straight to the bone. I am undone.
PS. Yes you did.
Quote from: Brad;821958I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.
Now please write another essay about how being forced to sell to people regardless of their race, religion or sexuality is the worst oppression since Soviet Russia and how anarcho - capitalism will fix everything with magical touch of Invisible Hand of Free Market. I could use another laugh.
Quote from: Rincewind1;825518Now please write another essay about how being forced to sell people regardless of their race, religion or sexuality is the worst oppression since Soviet Russia and how anarcho - capitalism will fix everything with magical touch of Invisible Hand of Free Market. I could use another laugh.
That's a Thread Win, I believe.
Quote from: Rincewind1;825518Now please write another essay about how being forced to sell to people regardless of their race, religion or sexuality is the worst oppression since Soviet Russia and how anarcho - capitalism will fix everything with magical touch of Invisible Hand of Free Market. I could use another laugh.
It's not my fault you can't understand simple concepts of liberty. Being condescending and acting like you have some high ground in no way invalidates anything I've said.
Quote from: LordVreeg;825383Looking forward to that.
Oh, I don't know about that. You ever seen a bunch of naked Wiccans?
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;825573Oh, I don't know about that. You ever seen a bunch of naked Wiccans?
Yes, yes I have.
Quote from: Brad;825570It's not my fault you can't understand simple concepts of liberty. Being condescending and acting like you have some high ground in no way invalidates anything I've said.
No one has to invalidate anything you say because you do nothing to validate it. Maybe you don't understand the reason for the continued warm reception, but this post of your is pretty par for the course. Blaming everyone for not understanding what you don't explain, defend, cite examples of, link relevant information about, or in general make any cogent argument about.
It's not your fault? Yes it is.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;825573Oh, I don't know about that. You ever seen a bunch of naked Wiccans?
It makes me want to hand out skin cream and shaving supplies.
Quote from: Planet Algol;825320Well,
A) you act like a total fucking miserable asshole here, so chances are you actually are one.
B) there's a good chance that someone who would choose to marry a total fucking miserable asshole is one as well.
C) a child that was taught acceptable behaviour by two total fucking miserable assholes is probably going to (mis)behave like one as well.
So yes, you are an asshole, and your wife and child are probably assholes as well. Contemplate this on the tree of woe... ....asshole...
Edit: I assumed that you're self aware enough to know that you come across as a total jerkwad and weenie here. If not, I'm sorry, but you really need to reevaluate how you communicate with others. Don't take my word for it, ask some other folks.
And look at that, classic example of bigotry. Followed up by guilt by association.
Quote from: TristramEvans;825586It makes me want to hand out skin cream and shaving supplies.
In some situations. Sometimes you get lucky.
Quote from: Sommerjon;825615And look at that, classic example of bigotry. Followed up by guilt by association.
Pfffffffffftttttt. You're an asshole, and that's why you're treated as such.
Thank goodness. I'd hoped it was only a matter of time before this thread about Indiana's bigotry bill and GenCon uncovered the *real* victim.
Quote from: Brad;825570It's not my fault you can't understand simple concepts of liberty. Being condescending and acting like you have some high ground in no way invalidates anything I've said.
This is one of those occasions that I find your avatar highly appropriate.
jg
Quote from: LordVreeg;825579No one has to invalidate anything you say because you do nothing to validate it. Maybe you don't understand the reason for the continued warm reception, but this post of your is pretty par for the course. Blaming everyone for not understanding what you don't explain, defend, cite examples of, link relevant information about, or in general make any cogent argument about.
It's not your fault? Yes it is.
Nahh, you're just an idiot. Sorry.
Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHHwg6cV2lU
I propose to vote a new law: Instead of allowing discrimination because of religious reasons, I propose to allow anyone to be stupid and offend people every now and then, without having to lose their house and shop because of this (especially when they are 70 years old).
It seems now that the law should forbid people to be verbally offensive and sound idiot. Or maybe they would not be sued in saying something stupid like "I won't sell you flowers because my astrologer told me it would bring me bad luck to sell anything to the 13th client today (and you happen to be the 13th)", but they can lose everything if saying something stupid like "I won't sell you flowers because I believe that Jesus don't like gay marriages, despite I cannot find anywhere in the bible where he said so"."
Lawyers crave money. In suing people for the major felony of saying stupid things, they won't risk unemployment any soon.
Quote from: Brad;826007Nahh, you're just an idiot. Sorry.
Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHHwg6cV2lU
Could you prove how free market economy'd cause Vreeg to stop being an idiot, according to you? It might persuade me to vote for acap.
Quote from: Brad;826007Nahh, you're just an idiot. Sorry.
Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHHwg6cV2lU
Perfect. This is as relevant to the subject at hand and as well backed up by pertinent fact as everything else you've said.
Keep calling people names and getting mad that no one understands you.
Quote from: James Gillen;825757This is one of those occasions that I find your avatar highly appropriate.
I agree.
Relevant video: It's not a lie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ).
A commercial break from the regular scheduled programming. I was surprised by an article about SJWs over on Medium (https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3).
Quote from: Lynn;826152A commercial break from the regular scheduled programming. I was surprised by an article about SJWs over on Medium (https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3).
I'm not otherwise familiar with Medium. Are they known for any biases (as most news outlets are these days)?
Quote from: TristramEvans;826199I'm not otherwise familiar with Medium. Are they known for any biases (as most news outlets are these days)?
They have a real mix of articles - not specifically political or incendiary.
Quote from: Lynn;826222They have a real mix of articles - not specifically political or incendiary.
I've read the article, and I have to say it mirrors my opinions on the matter 100%.
Quote from: TristramEvans;826235I've read the article, and I have to say it mirrors my opinions on the matter 100%.
It does for me as well.
Quote from: LordVreeg;826039Caw caw caw caw caw
Can you please use English?
Quote from: Brad;826400Can you please use English?
I'll try to use smaller words for you. Very small.
Quote from: LordVreeg;826404I'll try to use smaller words for you. Very small.
<3 <3
In light of the recent attack at Gen Con of Hambly, I'm doing a thread necro from over 3 years ago because this discussion shows that several of us (myself included) saw this kind of event potentially happening even back then. Relevant posts start at Post #337. (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?31945-Gen-Con-to-Possibly-Leave-Indiana-politics&p=823513&viewfull=1#post823513)
You were right and I was wrong.
And now I expect GenCon to become worse. Right now, the SJW rot is loud and proud [and supported by GenCon] for all to see, but if you avert your eyes and close your ears you can still just play games all weekend.
THAT ability for some to ignore their crusade will anger SJWs, and they will be next up to "fix".
And unless GenCon sees a financial loss (the "get woke, go broke" event), they will continue to pander because SJWs provide extensive free, corporate friendly advertising.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052546You were right and I was wrong.
I really wish that I had been wrong.
Me too!
I thought SJWism was a malignant fad, but I didn't see it having staying power. I didn't expect it to metastasize as it has, nor did I expect the media and Silicon Valley to become so infected (and funding its cancerous growth).
I always expect stupid, but the current level of stupid even took me by surprise.
But hey, its good for LOLz. Outrage at the constant stupid isn't as fun (or useful) as mocking the fucks.
AND everyone (of any stripe) gets to vote with their wallets as they choose. I choose to give GenCon & Origins $0.00 and will heartily and joyfully support small cons.
I doubt anyone could have foreseen the advent of Anita Sarkesian and her ability to poison every well she touches and how shes empowered the SJWs. The amount of damage she has done to several media is appalling in how pervasive and far reaching it has gotten.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052546You were right and I was wrong.
And now I expect GenCon to become worse. Right now, the SJW rot is loud and proud [and supported by GenCon] for all to see, but if you avert your eyes and close your ears you can still just play games all weekend.
THAT ability for some to ignore their crusade will anger SJWs, and they will be next up to "fix".
And unless GenCon sees a financial loss (the "get woke, go broke" event), they will continue to pander because SJWs provide extensive free, corporate friendly advertising.
I wish I could agree with you man. About the "just ignore everyone and game!" thing.
you might be able to ignore
them but when
they find out you're "alt right" and a "Nazi" and decide they have to be "safe" and flip your table, accost you at the door, stomp in circles around your table chanting DON'T GAME WITH <$_person>! <$_person> IS A NAZI!, demand GC throw you out, dox you, harass you or as exactly what happened to Hambly
conduct side-door ops to discuss how they're going to physically attack you then it's not about "just sit and enjoy your game".
Quote from: Omega;1052599I doubt anyone could have foreseen the advent of Anita Sarkesian and her ability to poison every well she touches and how shes empowered the SJWs. The amount of damage she has done to several media is appalling in how pervasive and far reaching it has gotten.
This is absolutely true.
I hate Anita Sarkeesian, she's a moral authoritarian outrage artist masquerading as a feminist.
Quote from: Omega;1052599I doubt anyone could have foreseen the advent of Anita Sarkesian and her ability to poison every well she touches and how shes empowered the SJWs. The amount of damage she has done to several media is appalling in how pervasive and far reaching it has gotten.
Anita Sarkeesian was a scourge of only computer gaming. I know that I didn't think that she would mutate and jump species to infect tabletop gaming with her disease or that Gen Con would consider her for a GoH position.
Dungeon Delver, I agree that anyone to the right of Chairman Mao who is vocal online should expect to be targeted (and now perhaps assaulted) at GenCon (or any other SJW influenced con).
However, I'm specifically referencing the non-political gamers. AKA, people who don't cruise forums, who aren't politically affiliated in any meaningful way, and who just want to have fun and play cool elf games on their vacation.
I believe GenCon achieved their goal to either silence or remove any non-SJW voices from their attendance. Thus, the next target of the SJWs (who always need new Nazis) will be those "just having fun" gamers.
Right now, those non-political gamers either are oblivious to the SJW bullshit or shrug it off as "stuff that won't affect me if I'm quietly playing my game".
I believe those gamers are next up on the SJW enemy list.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052635Dungeon Delver, I agree that anyone to the right of Chairman Mao who is vocal online should expect to be targeted (and now perhaps assaulted) at GenCon (or any other SJW influenced con).
However, I'm specifically referencing the non-political gamers. AKA, people who don't cruise forums, who aren't politically affiliated in any meaningful way, and who just want to have fun and play cool elf games on their vacation.
I believe GenCon achieved their goal to either silence or remove any non-SJW voices from their attendance. Thus, the next target of the SJWs (who always need new Nazis) will be those "just having fun" gamers.
Right now, those non-political gamers either are oblivious to the SJW bullshit or shrug it off as "stuff that won't affect me if I'm quietly playing my game".
I believe those gamers are next up on the SJW enemy list.
If they are not with us, then they are against us? Yeah, I can only see it moving in that direction.
Sadly, I think if there was another attack on a non-SJW and it resulted in a death, then maybe there would be some change and soul-searching. By then though, Gen Con would be dead even as a concept for gaming conventions.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1052605This is absolutely true.
I hate Anita Sarkeesian, she's a moral authoritarian outrage artist masquerading as a feminist.
Femenisim is about making life eaiser for upper middle class and upper class women and harder for anybody else
Early feminism, such as women voting and having equal rights under the law, benefited all women. It's important to separate the bizarro world of current internet feminism from its noble and worthwhile roots.
I agree the feminism preached on college campuses (microaggressions, identity politics, male gaze, etc) does nothing for poor and working class women. It's feminism for and by the latte sippers.
Quote from: jeff37923;1052609Anita Sarkeesian was a scourge of only computer gaming. I know that I didn't think that she would mutate and jump species to infect tabletop gaming with her disease or that Gen Con would consider her for a GoH position.
She and her cronies moved from PC gaming to other venues sich as internet in general and was at the freaking United Nations and actually talked them into repealing certain internet rights before saner heads stepped in and said "Like hell". Shes gone after movies, and you can see her influence all over, and now shes gone after board and RPG gaming.
I was just recently watching a show and at the start was this advertisement about how "men are bad and turning men into women will just make them bad women." I kid you not.
Quote from: Lurtch;1052696Femenisim is about making life eaiser for upper middle class and upper class women and harder for anybody else
A friend of mine who really hates feminists for some reason once said. "Its a bunch of dykes trying to turn me into their dyke slave so they can dictate my whole life."
Still no idea what set her off.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052705Early feminism, such as women voting and having equal rights under the law, benefited all women. It's important to separate the bizarro world of current internet feminism from its noble and worthwhile roots.
I agree the feminism preached on college campuses (microaggressions, identity politics, male gaze, etc) does nothing for poor and working class women. It's feminism for and by the latte sippers.
Womens rights is not necessarily feminism and over the decades its evolved into its current man hating state as the nuts take over as oft happens with movements.
And we have seen enough of these claims in the RPG industry that women arent there when from nearly the get-go women have been there especially on the art side and eventually a woman OWNED the biggest RPG company ever. Nut no no. none of that ever happened and we must un-oppress the women! Depending on how much damage anita did at GenCon things could get worse. We'll see what she does after.
Quote from: Omega;1052719I was just recently watching a show and at the start was this advertisement about how "men are bad and turning men into women will just make them bad women." I kid you not.
I've seen that Prager U ad. It's essentially the antithesis of Sarkeesian(and her ilk)'s message. It was actually saying that men are
not bad(specifically that masculinity isn't inherently bad), and that when they are, it's not
because of their masculinity.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052705Early feminism, such as women voting and having equal rights under the law, benefited all women. It's important to separate the bizarro world of current internet feminism from its noble and worthwhile roots.
I agree the feminism preached on college campuses (microaggressions, identity politics, male gaze, etc) does nothing for poor and working class women. It's feminism for and by the latte sippers.
Exactly!
First and Second Wave Feminism were wonderful things, it's this new wave of internet college kid feminism that is a toxic ideology and a disgrace to the old-school feminists who did a lot of good for women of all backgrounds.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1052724I've seen that Prager U ad. It's essentially the antithesis of Sarkeesian(and her ilk)'s message. It was actually saying that men are not bad(specifically that masculinity isn't inherently bad), and that when they are, it's not because of their masculinity.
Assuming its the same one then the way it was presented made it look like anything but that. There was still the strong emphasis on "Men are Bad".
Quote from: Omega;1052789Assuming its the same one then the way it was presented made it look like anything but that. There was still the strong emphasis on "Men are Bad".
I've seen it. It takes a while to realize they're trying to make a point and not been devoured by the brain eatet.
Quote from: Omega;1052789Assuming its the same one then the way it was presented made it look like anything but that. There was still the strong emphasis on "Men are Bad".
Is this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-kxdyJs6y8) it? It has its setup, then the twist at the 22-second mark. I don't agree with everything PragerU puts out, as they're traditionally conservative whereas I am extremely libertarian, but anything that counters the "men are bad
because of their masculinity" message is a breath of fresh air in my book.
Self-righteousness is a hell of a drug. And unlike other drugs, it can run on the fumes of its own waste byproduct of dysfunction & destroyed lives. :)
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1052806Is this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-kxdyJs6y8) it? It has its setup, then the twist at the 22-second mark. I don't agree with everything PragerU puts out, as they're traditionally conservative whereas I am extremely libertarian, but anything that counters the "men are bad because of their masculinity" message is a breath of fresh air in my book.
No. Different woman but starts off much the same. But darker in shading. Less effects. Shorter too I think? If it pops up again I'll try to pin who made it.
Thanks for pointing this one out though.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1052705Early feminism, such as women voting and having equal rights under the law, benefited all women. It's important to separate the bizarro world of current internet feminism from its noble and worthwhile roots.
I agree the feminism preached on college campuses (microaggressions, identity politics, male gaze, etc) does nothing for poor and working class women. It's feminism for and by the latte sippers.
Mona Charen (https://www.c-span.org/video/?446056-1/qa-mona-charen) makes almost that exact same argument. (Link goes to a Q&A with her that's mostly about her criticism of modern feminism.)
Once a movement achieves its ends, it's often become an institution at that point. Then the institution needs to perpetuate itself... by any means necessary, including becoming worse than the things you originally opposed.
I'm not sure what first-wave Feminism did that was supported by all or nearly all women of the era. Female suffrage certainly wasn't as far as I can tell. I would think Feminism has always benefited only a minority of women; its main beneficiaries were the corporations, who benefit from a larger labour pool, and the expanding state bureaucracies, who have more to do and more people to do it.
Classic Feminism's goals - equal voting rights, equal pay for equal work, equal rights under the law, ability to run for office, real rape victims not blamed for being attacked, etc - were very valuable to all women.
However, its true the corporations benefited from the larger labor pool to drive down wages and state bureaucracies were significantly expanded in response.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a law for a reason!