Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

You need to brush up on your English skills. That is not what I wrote, and it is not the basis for my comment, either; you're simply trying to fit my comment into your straw-man conception of things.

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.

No, but underpinning the social contract is.  

I suggest you ask why someone writes something before you assume you understand their rationale for holding a position.

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

Translation: I'm happy being a bigot. Who cares what that does to social cohesion?

Also, it's funny how you missed Cato's caveat, and provision of an example of bigotry stemming from a private source that was rectified through legislation.

Perhaps when you read Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the context of the 14th Amendment, you'll see why your complaints are not only baseless, but will be disregarded by the courts when they adjudicate these sorts of cases.

Of course, you'll have to learn how to read for comprehension, first.

[Brakeman]

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.  

That statement sounds like something you should be yelling at your god.


Doesn't your god have a "golden rule" he copied from many previous gods?

Doesn't that "golden rule" say to treat other people how you would want to be treated?

The bottom line is We the people of the United States demand that you be courteous to people in business without regard to their private lives. This is important to the peace and tranquility of our society.

If you want to live in a society without much rules as such, I would strongly recommend Somolia. It's a republican's paradise with all the guns and religion you want.

[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?

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.

Clearly someone is too busy shrilly exaggerating what's going on here ("gutting every person's individual freedom") to have ever visited the south.

How about this: the moment you can provide a reason why the character of a customer is germane in any way to a business' purview to supply goods and services, that is readily demonstrable and not at all reliant on unverified religious dogma, then we'll talk about evidence. Until then, don't you dare pretend that discrimination against gays doesn't exist, nor that you have some kind of high ground in terms of justification.

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.

Except discrimination against gays is not a "rare occurrence," and you'd have to be either ignorant or dishonest to state otherwise.

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.  

Yes, you keep telling me what I think. Nothing arrogant about that at all.

[Cato]

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?

Holy fuck! Reread my post. I anticipated this and asked you to consider the lunch counter sit-ins. Your evasion was refuted in advance, but you dropped the turd anyway. Your reply was a non-answer and my point stands. Answer the question!

[Desert Diva]

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?

---

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.

Here's your rusty spork.  Have at it.

[SteelCurtain]

Desert Diva: Deliverer of the Rusty Spork.

[Esquilax]

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?

---

You have to be truly, truly stunted or disingenuous not to see the full implications of this: if one doctor can refuse service, all of them can. What, are you just going to arbitrarily force the last doctor to treat the baby, while still touting the "religious liberties" of all the others? Where are you going to get your justification for that, in the shadow of the other components of your view?

The fact is, these kinds of laws leave open the possibility for children and adults not to get vital medical care due to the bigotry of others. They could even die, because of it, and your lofty, baseless dismissal, this assertion that it doesn't happen with nothing backing it up, does nothing to dissuade anyone, especially since we live in a world in which gays face discrimination in everything from employment to fucking wedding pizza, discrimination that the same lawmakers dealing in these "religious freedom" cases are often trying their damnedest to enshrine into law too. By desperately defending bigotry on the one hand by demanding that christians be given a blank check to discriminate based on their beliefs, while simultaneously asserting that discrimination against gays is no big deal, you're showing the utter self serving, two faced nature of your argument, because you are equipping bigots with the power they need to make it a big deal.

[Heywood]

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?

---

You have to be truly, truly stunted or disingenuous not to see the full implications of this: if one doctor can refuse service, all of them can. What, are you just going to arbitrarily force the last doctor to treat the baby, while still touting the "religious liberties" of all the others? Where are you going to get your justification for that, in the shadow of the other components of your view?

The fact is, these kinds of laws leave open the possibility for children and adults not to get vital medical care due to the bigotry of others. They could even die, because of it, and your lofty, baseless dismissal, this assertion that it doesn't happen with nothing backing it up, does nothing to dissuade anyone, especially since we live in a world in which gays face discrimination in everything from employment to fucking wedding pizza, discrimination that the same lawmakers dealing in these "religious freedom" cases are often trying their damnedest to enshrine into law too. By desperately defending bigotry on the one hand by demanding that christians be given a blank check to discriminate based on their beliefs, while simultaneously asserting that discrimination against gays is no big deal, you're showing the utter self serving, two faced nature of your argument, because you are equipping bigots with the power they need to make it a big deal.

You  really think that if one doctor refuses to see the kid of gay parent all of them will?  Seriously....if you think this is a possibility....you're a moron.  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.

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

[robvalue]

I really can't believe how you can rationalize this to yourself Heywood. "A little bit of baseless discrimination is OK because it won't hurt too much, and there's no way enough people will do it to actually cause a problem."

Well, once one person is seen to easily get away with it, that opens the door for everyone to. Then what? You're just going to insist it's impossible there will ever be a problem? There's certainly enough homophobia going around for it to quickly get out of control. And even one case is one too many. There is a very real possibility someone could end up dead because of it. You only need one place of treatment where everyone is homophobic. Are you willing to gamble lives on that never happening?

I can't believe I'm having to explain why discrimination is a bad thing and not a "Liberty". Think for a minute what it would be like to be on the other side of it.

"Sorry sir, I won't treat your child because I don't like the colour of your hair. It offends my religion."

Religion rotting morality in action.

---

Hey now, what happened to the "golden rule"? The thing christians often chant as the most amazing thing jesus brought to the world?

Would a christian want to be turned away by someone offering a service, be it pizza or life saving surgery, because of an arbitrary objection that person makes which has no bearing on the service being offered? Would they like that?

Yeah, I bet they would just love it.

[Crossless2.0]

At least in the parable of the Good Samaritan the assholes in the story had issues with what they would have considered violations of ritual cleanliness. But a doctor turning away a child because Heather has two mommies? Not very Christian and not very professional.