Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Esquilax]

You  really think that if one doctor refuses to see the kid of gay parent all of them will?

All of them can.

Seriously....if you think this is a possibility....you're a moron.

Ah, the ad hominem, the last resort of the baseless fantasist driven into a corner. Seriously, just pretending that areas like the south don't exist doesn't make them go away, and moreover, as I pointed out last time, simply asserting that it's impossible is completely baseless. You don't know, as usual, and yet you're making big sweeping statements anyway; do you know every doctor in the state? Do you know the personal circumstances of every gay person in the state- because remember, that has an effect too? No?

Well then I guess you're just talking out of your ass then, aren't you?

I challenged you earlier to present some evidence that the market wasn't serving gays.  I challenged you to present some evidence that if you are gay, it is substantially harder for you to find health care, a florist, or a photographer. You haven't come up with anything except fearful and ridiculous threats of what might happen.

Yes, you shifted the burden of proof and demanded that I prove you wrong on your completely unjustified assertion that discrimination against gay people isn't a big deal, and that's not gonna happen, especially when study after study shows that it is a big deal. How many states currently have employment discrimination clauses literally written into their laws, and you want to give these guys another arrow in their quiver? Again, this is the utter contradiction within your argument: on the one hand you say discrimination isn't a big deal, while simultaneously arguing for empowering the christian right to discriminate in any way they want, including those ways that would be a big deal.

To be clear, the law also isn't bound merely to consider what's happening right now, when it furnishes a change; despite your ridiculous, baseless oversimplifications, it also must take into account its future effects and implications, and we've already seen what happens when you enact discrimination laws against a class of people for no reason. Discrimination within those areas intensifies, and you end up taking years and years fighting to get them repealed. Just look at the employment figures in areas where employment discrimination is legalized; there is a discrepancy in the figures. Much as you'd like to pretend that discrimination has no significantly negative effects, there is an impact.

I don't believe you want to restrict individual freedom over a ridiculous possibility.  You are just rationalizing your desire to control others.

I won't engage with your patently ridiculous strawman, but if you want to phrase this as an invasion of personal liberty, then let's do this: in what way is a person's individual liberty in any way impacted by having them do the job that they, in their personal liberty, chose to do?

[DeistPaladin]

The reality is, you just want to force people to behave the way you want them to behave for no good reason other than you think that is the way they should behave.  

What's really interesting is I believe this is the same guy that argued, on the topic of abortion, that the state should have the right to take away a woman's right to choose based purely on what he acknowledge to be his arbitrary opinion that life begins at the moment of conception. 

I argued that if the state is going to take away someone's right to choose, they need to have hard evidence that another being is being harmed by this choice and step one is to show reasonable proof that there is even another being at all. 

That didn't seem to matter to him. He felt no sense of shame that he was wanting to bully his way into a woman's life and make choices for her without any logical justification at all. 

But now, on an issue where there really is other beings involved who are potentially harmed by certain choices, he's indignantly using inflammatory language like "slavery" and defending people's "rights" to practice bigotry in their businesses. 

[Heywood]

You  really think that if one doctor refuses to see the kid of gay parent all of them will?

All of them can.

Seriously....if you think this is a possibility....you're a moron.

Ah, the ad hominem, the last resort of the baseless fantasist driven into a corner. Seriously, just pretending that areas like the south don't exist doesn't make them go away, and moreover, as I pointed out last time, simply asserting that it's impossible is completely baseless. You don't know, as usual, and yet you're making big sweeping statements anyway; do you know every doctor in the state? Do you know the personal circumstances of every gay person in the state- because remember, that has an effect too? No?

Well then I guess you're just talking out of your ass then, aren't you?

I challenged you earlier to present some evidence that the market wasn't serving gays.  I challenged you to present some evidence that if you are gay, it is substantially harder for you to find health care, a florist, or a photographer. You haven't come up with anything except fearful and ridiculous threats of what might happen.

Yes, you shifted the burden of proof and demanded that I prove you wrong on your completely unjustified assertion that discrimination against gay people isn't a big deal, and that's not gonna happen, especially when study after study shows that it is a big deal. How many states currently have employment discrimination clauses literally written into their laws, and you want to give these guys another arrow in their quiver? Again, this is the utter contradiction within your argument: on the one hand you say discrimination isn't a big deal, while simultaneously arguing for empowering the christian right to discriminate in any way they want, including those ways that would be a big deal.

To be clear, the law also isn't bound merely to consider what's happening right now, when it furnishes a change; despite your ridiculous, baseless oversimplifications, it also must take into account its future effects and implications, and we've already seen what happens when you enact discrimination laws against a class of people for no reason. Discrimination within those areas intensifies, and you end up taking years and years fighting to get them repealed. Just look at the employment figures in areas where employment discrimination is legalized; there is a discrepancy in the figures. Much as you'd like to pretend that discrimination has no significantly negative effects, there is an impact.

I don't believe you want to restrict individual freedom over a ridiculous possibility.  You are just rationalizing your desire to control others.

I won't engage with your patently ridiculous strawman, but if you want to phrase this as an invasion of personal liberty, then let's do this: in what way is a person's individual liberty in any way impacted by having them do the job that they, in their personal liberty, chose to do?

No shifting of burden of proof.  You are making a claim there is a problem.  I am asking you to substantiate your claim.  Stop weaseling out.

[Esquilax]

No shifting of burden of proof.  You are making a claim there is a problem.  I am asking you to substantiate your claim.  Stop weaseling out.

Discrimination is a problem, you fucking loon. Giving people blanket permission to do it as much as they want has large spanning implications that are overwhelmingly negative for a large group of people, just as knock-on consequences of the logic behind them, while offering no benefit to counteract that, and that is a problem from a lawmaking perspective; laws that only have negative implications with no overriding benefit are bad laws to be considering.

Moreover, it's not my fault that you're unaware of the trends of discrimination elsewhere before you open your mouth and loudly assert that there are none. Overwhelmingly, trends in the US indicate that where discrimination is allowed in law, especially in socially conservative areas, notable inequality results.

But speaking of weaseling out, there was a question there that you weaseled out of: how is a purveyor of goods and services lacking in freedom for being expected to perform the job that they used their freedom to choose for themselves?

And more importantly, we've already seen that this kind of law enables medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, and therefore a consistent application of it allows for all medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, up to and including the point where the child suffers as a result, yes or no? If no, how do you justify inconsistently applying the law given your strong, manipulative language in favor of what you consider to be a "freedom" issue elsewhere? If yes, are you really willing to place the christian conservative's need to inflict their religious preferences on everyone over and above the health of children?

Don't try to weasel out by saying it's not likely, or won't happen; it is a consequence of the law you want in place, and thus by approving this law you are opening that door because you feel like being able to shit on gay people is more important. That's the end result of your stance here: Heywood thinks the health of children is less important than his need to deny people he doesn't like pizza.

[Heywood]

No shifting of burden of proof.  You are making a claim there is a problem.  I am asking you to substantiate your claim.  Stop weaseling out.

Discrimination is a problem, you fucking loon. Giving people blanket permission to do it as much as they want has large spanning implications that are overwhelmingly negative for a large group of people, just as knock-on consequences of the logic behind them, while offering no benefit to counteract that, and that is a problem from a lawmaking perspective; laws that only have negative implications with no overriding benefit are bad laws to be considering.

Moreover, it's not my fault that you're unaware of the trends of discrimination elsewhere before you open your mouth and loudly assert that there are none. Overwhelmingly, trends in the US indicate that where discrimination is allowed in law, especially in socially conservative areas, notable inequality results.

But speaking of weaseling out, there was a question there that you weaseled out of: how is a purveyor of goods and services lacking in freedom for being expected to perform the job that they used their freedom to choose for themselves?

And more importantly, we've already seen that this kind of law enables medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, and therefore a consistent application of it allows for all medical practitioners to refuse to treat babies, up to and including the point where the child suffers as a result, yes or no? If no, how do you justify inconsistently applying the law given your strong, manipulative language in favor of what you consider to be a "freedom" issue elsewhere? If yes, are you really willing to place the christian conservative's need to inflict their religious preferences on everyone over and above the health of children?

Don't try to weasel out by saying it's not likely, or won't happen; it is a consequence of the law you want in place, and thus by approving this law you are opening that door because you feel like being able to shit on gay people is more important. That's the end result of your stance here: Heywood thinks the health of children is less important than his need to deny people he doesn't like pizza.

More weaseling and baseless claims.

Can you point to a study that shows gays can't easily hire florists, or photographers, or get health care when they need it?  Can you provide some actual independent evidence of your claim instead of simply re-iterating it hoping that if you do it enough, it magically becomes fact?

---

The reality is, you just want to force people to behave the way you want them to behave for no good reason other than you think that is the way they should behave.  

What's really interesting is I believe this is the same guy that argued, on the topic of abortion, that the state should have the right to take away a woman's right to choose based purely on what he acknowledge to be his arbitrary opinion that life begins at the moment of conception. 

I argued that all human beings have the right to life.  Not just the subset of human beings those in power declare have the right to life.  The Nazis did the same thing the proabortion movement advocates.  The proabortion movement advocates that only certain humans beings have the right to life just like the Nazis did.

[DeistPaladin]

I argued that all human beings have the right to life.  Not just the subset of human beings those in power declare have the right to life.  The Nazis did the same thing the proabortion movement advocates.  The proabortion movement advocates that only certain humans beings have the right to life just like the Nazis did.

Godwin is alive and well, I see. 

No, you argued that life begins at conception. You were asked to provide proof of this considering that there's no brain and therefore no being at conception. You were forced to admit it's "just how you see it".

Needless to say, a personal feeling that can't be logically argued isn't a good basis to intrude on someone else's life and make decisions for them but you repeatedly said you were perfectly fine with that. 

I guess businesses and corporations have personal freedom to make choices, even when they hurt other people, but women have no such rights, even when they're only harming a collection of mindless cells. 

But don't let me stop you from screaming "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi". It suits the eloquence of all of your other "arguments" to support your positions . 

[Esquilax]

More weaseling and baseless claims.

Like I said earlier, if you want to talk about baseless claims, you're welcome to provide a verifiable reason for discrimination that doesn't rely on the unevidenced religious claims of the christian god. Until then, I'd kindly invite you to stop dismissing my claims regarding discrimination, which have a rich tradition of bearing out exactly as I've said, merely because you're incapable of thinking back even a few years. Just look up the record that employment discrimination against gay people has, and then tell me things won't be exactly the same if you give those same goddamn people another method to discriminate with.

Can you point to a study that shows gays can't easily hire florists, or photographers, or get health care when they need it?  Can you provide some actual independent evidence of your claim instead of simply re-iterating it hoping that if you do it enough, it magically becomes fact?

Can I point to a study indicating the results of what would happen if a thing that was illegal before now became legal? Sorry, no department of hypothetical science that I know of just yet, but the past is always a good indicator of the future, and as I've pointed out in the past, conservative states equipped with the legal ability to discriminate tend to foster inequality toward gay people because of this: the fact that you don't think it's a big deal because that's not important to your argument is little more than your own baseless claim. I'd invite you to live as a gay person under such discrimination for a little while so you can make that claim in an informed way.

But hey, in the end I'd just like you to admit to what you're arguing for: just say "I hate gay people so much that I'm willing to open the possibility that they and their children die or suffer medical problems, because I hold the religious opinions of others in higher regard than their lives." Because that, ultimately, is what you're arguing for here; you could at least be honest enough to say it. And if you can't, then I guess you don't really feel that strongly about all this. Your convictions only last up until the point that you're required to own up for the nasty shit you believe.

[Cato]

Heywood's argument in this thread strongly resembles the argument some make about the cause of the U.S. Civil War; that it was a conflict about states' rights and had nothing at all to do with slavery.

[Heywood]

More weaseling and baseless claims.

Like I said earlier, if you want to talk about baseless claims, you're welcome to provide a verifiable reason for discrimination that doesn't rely on the unevidenced religious claims of the christian god. Until then, I'd kindly invite you to stop dismissing my claims regarding discrimination, which have a rich tradition of bearing out exactly as I've said, merely because you're incapable of thinking back even a few years. Just look up the record that employment discrimination against gay people has, and then tell me things won't be exactly the same if you give those same goddamn people another method to discriminate with.

Can you point to a study that shows gays can't easily hire florists, or photographers, or get health care when they need it?  Can you provide some actual independent evidence of your claim instead of simply re-iterating it hoping that if you do it enough, it magically becomes fact?

Can I point to a study indicating the results of what would happen if a thing that was illegal before now became legal? Sorry, no department of hypothetical science that I know of just yet, but the past is always a good indicator of the future, and as I've pointed out in the past, conservative states equipped with the legal ability to discriminate tend to foster inequality toward gay people because of this: the fact that you don't think it's a big deal because that's not important to your argument is little more than your own baseless claim. I'd invite you to live as a gay person under such discrimination for a little while so you can make that claim in an informed way.

But hey, in the end I'd just like you to admit to what you're arguing for: just say "I hate gay people so much that I'm willing to open the possibility that they and their children die or suffer medical problems, because I hold the religious opinions of others in higher regard than their lives." Because that, ultimately, is what you're arguing for here; you could at least be honest enough to say it. And if you can't, then I guess you don't really feel that strongly about all this. Your convictions only last up until the point that you're required to own up for the nasty shit you believe.

In many states it is already been and has been legal to refuse to serve someone because they are gay.  You're just trying to weasel out of backing up your claim with an excuse that doesn't hold water.

The truth is, the only problem that exists is people like you are butthurt that there exist a few people like pizzeria owners who don't want to serve gays.  I am sorry, but your butthurt isn't a sufficient reason to start curtailing individual rights.

---

Heywood's argument in this thread strongly resembles the argument some make about the cause of the U.S. Civil War; that it was a conflict about states' rights and had nothing at all to do with slavery.

Having lost the argument, Cato tries to change the subject to justifications for the Civil War.

[Esquilax]

In many states it is already been and has been legal to refuse to serve someone because they are gay.  You're just trying to weasel out of backing up your claim with an excuse that doesn't hold water.

Please provide an evidence based reason why gay people should be discriminated against, or either backtrack you entire position, or stop insisting on evidence. You can't selectively require evidence for things.

The truth is, the only problem that exists is people like you are butthurt that there exist a few people like pizzeria owners who don't want to serve gays.  I am sorry, but your butthurt isn't a sufficient reason to start curtailing individual rights.

So, you're not going to admit that you're okay with children dying, so long as christians get to do whatever they want?