Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Brakeman]

Already we've seen a pediatrician refuse to treat the child of a lesbian couple. Pretending that homophobic bigotry is a trivial problem displays a lack of comprehension of exactly how hateful the bigots are, and the extent of damage they can do.

There is no social good upheld by permitting businesses to engage in discrimination of this sort.

I agree. I go further in saying that the dominate religion supported patriarchal society has brainwashed us into believing that women are valued by their sexual traits. Convincing people that strangers should have any say or opinion at all about another individual's consensual sexual behavior is the first crime.

[Esquilax]

The other problem is that this "just go and find another X to serve you," line of reasoning fails to take into account the point of anti-discrimination law, which is to protect everyone. What if there isn't another X? If you're in a small town within a state and the only doctor in town refuses to see you because you're gay, what do you do? Move? What if you're in a large but conservative town, and everyone refuses to see you because you're gay? Move? Does any of that seem reasonable?

Now, the standard objection from bigots is to loftily assert that if everyone around you hates you, you should want to move, but as usual their oversimplifications fail to take into account that this isn't always a financially or otherwise viable idea. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws are to safeguard everyone's ability to obtain goods and services, as human beings need to to survive. The law needs to take into account the extremes of its own implications, and the fact is that these religious freedom laws cause harm to others for no real reason. As a provider of a good or service, you aren't required to approve of your customers, and I guarantee that every single one of those buyers has at least one thing bigots like that would disapprove of; the gay thing is an arbitrary, self serving line, baselessly drawn, and there is simply no reason for the law to kowtow to it, beyond the shared ideology of the lawmakers.

[Heywood]

Considering that this has already manifested itself in a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of two lesbians, I think we are going down that slippery slope like it has been coated with goose grease.  Fuck every single person who thinks this is okay.  With a rusty spork.

What is the big deal?  Another doctor at the clinic was more than happy to see the child.  There is no evidence to suggest this baby was denied healthcare because of her parents sexual orientation.  Why then is it necessary in your mind that this doctor be forced to do something she doesn't want to do?

---

I agree that if a baker backs out at the last minute there is a cause to sue.  The problem is bakers and photographers are being told to either bake cakes/shoot photos for gay weddings or face fines by the state. That is wrong.  Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avikian claimed the "the goal is never to shut down a business, the goal is to rehabilitate"

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index....dding.html

This Indiana law is in response to actions described by the article above.
Now I ask you this, when the state decides you need to be "rehabilitated"....are you going to be happy about it?  You should be glad there is some push back against these state actions.  If you aren't, its too late for you.....your already a brainwashed drone.

The law is not limited to bakers and photographers, so your disingenuous attempt to minimize the potential for damage is contemptible.

Disingenuous is claiming this law was implemented so people can back out of weddings at the last moment.   The truth is this law is push back against states action to force people to do things they don't need to do(either for their own good or the good of others) or want to do.

[Foxaèr]

Why then is it necessary in your mind that this doctor be forced to do something she doesn't want to do?

Are you fucking retarded?

Honestly, are you?

I am going to assume that your religion has blinded you.

Of course it has.

Here is the reason behind your inability to accept it.

Should someone die because a theistically minded doctor can perform a procedure that can save a life but he is unwilling to perform stated procedure on religious measures?

Guess what? If you state, no, you are mirroring the god you worship. God loves to make sure you receive no help.

[Heywood]

The other problem is that this "just go and find another X to serve you," line of reasoning fails to take into account the point of anti-discrimination law, which is to protect everyone. What if there isn't another X? If you're in a small town within a state and the only doctor in town refuses to see you because you're gay, what do you do? Move? What if you're in a large but conservative town, and everyone refuses to see you because you're gay? Move? Does any of that seem reasonable?

Perhaps you can provide some evidence that there are wide spread instances where gays are not getting photo services, or wedding cake services, or health care simply because  they are gay.  Perhaps you can provide some evidence that there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed.  A problem that is so serious, it requires gutting every person's individual freedom. 

If we are to limit peoples freedom on possible rare occurrences....we should then ban same sex marriages because some of them are going to be entered into for fraudulent reasons.  I'm not advocating that.  I am showing how stupid your argument is when you don't back it up with anything that shows there is a real problem which needs to be fixed.

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.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your freedom to be a bigot stops when it results in other people being treated as second-class citizens.

Don't like it?  Tough shit. Change the law, or move to Saudi Arabia.

[Heywood]

Your freedom to be a bigot stops when it results in other people being treated as second-class citizens.

Translation: You're perfectly free as long as you behave the way I think you should behave.


Sorry Parker, just because your sensibilities get offended isn't enough of a reason to take away peoples individual freedom.  If you are going to limit peoples freedom, there needs to be a damn good reason for it.  Preventing butthurt ain't a good reason.

If people are going to be free, some people will use that freedom to be assholes.  Get over it and move on.

[Cato]

Sorry Parker, just because your sensibilities get offended isn't enough of a reason to take away peoples individual freedom.  If you are going to limit peoples freedom, there needs to be a damn good reason for it.  Preventing butthurt ain't a good reason.

In your opinion should Rosa Parks have moved to the back of the bus? I mean, after all, there were other seats and the bus was going to the same place right? Anticipating your inability to apply concepts broadly, when you attempt to retort that the bus is a public service, consider the well known lunch counter sit-ins.

You have to be trolling. I find it difficult that anybody can actually be this obtuse.

[Heywood]

Sorry Parker, just because your sensibilities get offended isn't enough of a reason to take away peoples individual freedom.  If you are going to limit peoples freedom, there needs to be a damn good reason for it.  Preventing butthurt ain't a good reason.

In your opinion should Rosa Parks have moved to the back of the bus? I mean, after all, there were other seats and the bus was going to the same place right? Anticipating your inability to apply concepts broadly, when you attempt to retort that the bus is a public service, consider the well known lunch counter sit-ins.

You have to be trolling. I find it difficult that anybody can actually be this obtuse.

Cato,

Obtuse is conflating state provided services with services provided by free individuals as you have done above.  Are you really this dumb or are you tactically trying to change the subject?

[robvalue]

I think it's time for the majority of the USA to take their country back!