Indiana's Religious Freedom Law -- Not About Religion?

Heh, so you don't think that's an example of bigotry? How many examples could we find in history to display how frightening a prospect such laws would be?

Wait are you're saying that would be a bad law? But earlier in this thread you were defending it. Or is it only ok to discriminate against blacks and gays?

Ooooo, I misread the original post. Forgive me, @Aljosa23 and @LostProphetFLCL. The point of view I've represented so far would support a business for denying service to a group of people for any reason, including their religious beliefs.

What I read was a law that denied Christians the right to receive goods from stores, not the right of business owners to deny goods.

Hm? I totally think it's an example of bigotry. I'm just pointing out the double standard that the proponents of this law would be in favour of one form of discrimination but not another. While I think both forms are awful.

Check out my post. I misread. MANY APOLOGIES.

@musicalmac:

"Statements such as this one, "My parents escaped any such fate and stuff like that doesn't happen anymore. Oh wait, my bad. That article is actually from last year." seem to point to the idea that we haven't made any significant progress since the civil rights movement. In the 1950s, I doubt the issues in Ferguson would have even made the news, and I'm certain that America wouldn't have elected a black president in 1950. Do you disagree?"

I stated my position on where I think racial progress is in this country very clearly. Twice. You are deliberately ignoring what I said. I very clearly said in both of my previous posts that the country as a whole has come a long way but you keep trying to "strawman" my position by characterizing it as something else. The reason I gave you that specific example is not because I was trying to imply something contrary to what I specifically said, but because you keep demanding specific examples (under the pretense of it being a prerequisite for "critical thinking"). Remember?

Also, you don't think that a riot in which the governor of Missouri was forced to declare a state of emergency and call in the national guard to quell the unrest wouldn't even "have made the news"? What is your logic here? Please, provide specific examples.

"I didn't specifically address your link about the lynching because I'm well aware that racial violence is still present and every example is a terrible tragedy. I never said we'd stamped out racism."

But again, you asked for specific examples to back up my position. I provided an example to do just that, and you refuse to discuss it. I was very clear. The country has come a long way but there are areas in the country where it hasn't made much progress at all. You can say things like "but we have a black president!" all you want, but let me ask the question a different way. If the majority of people in the United States thought the way that the people in rural Bladenboro, North Carolina think (where they threatened a mixed race couple for dating) that we would have a black president today?

My point is that racism does NOT "average out" across the country. Sure, if you act like a racist in an affluent neighborhood in a major metropolitan area you would be treated as a pariah, but there are plenty of places in the United States where a racist would just be treated like "one of the boys". Where do you honestly think rural Indiana comes out on this average?

"I chose not to discuss any personal experiences because those experiences are just that -- personal. It makes it personal and the thread I've created here isn't about me, it's about unpopular opinions that go against the grain of "conventional wisdom." I posed questions for the purpose of sparking a conversation and am presenting those opinions for discussion."

If you have a specific example of how you think I'm wrong, please provide it. All experiences with racism are personal by nature. Whether it happened to me, you, or someone else doesn't matter. You keep asking for specific examples, but when we give them to you, you keep going out of your way to try to find reasons to invalidate those examples when you don't agree with the picture they paint. If anything, a personal example should be -more- relevant than some random anecdote found on Google found trying to back your position.

"I asked for examples because there are many other states with similar laws, as well as a federal RFRA law signed by Bill Clinton. The thread is not a catch 22, it's a thread that requires some bigger-picture thought."

So you would like examples of how other, similar RFRA laws have hurt people in the past? Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just backpedaling because you didn't realize this law hasn't gone into effect yet, your premise is still fundamentally flawed. The whole point of your thread is around whether or not businesses should be allowed to choose who they serve. There are no examples of how RFRA laws have hurt homosexuals by allowing businesses to discriminate because none of the other RFRA laws in place extend to businesses. That's the whole reason that Indiana's law is controversial. Even if this law is the most harmful piece of legislature to gays in history and the day it passes every homosexual in the state of Indiana is denied access to every private business the day it goes into effect, there won't be a single example that anyone can provide you -today- because it hasn't happened yet nor are there any similar laws in effect in any other state. Your thread is either a deliberate catch 22 or you didn't realize that the examples you're asking for can't possibly exist yet regardless of who is right.

Again, research goes hand in hand with critical thinking.

"I also see that you were quick to dismiss my comment regarding the school in Georgia, "That's a ridiculous statement." What makes the statement, "She and her friends took action and solved the problem" ridiculous? Isn't that exactly what happened? Why look at it as a symptom and not a great victory? Young people took initiative and changed their local society, isn't that something to be celebrated?"

Wow, okay. So you think that the lack of an integrated prom is the source of racial tension in that community and that by successfully throwing an integrated prom that racial tensions have been fixed? The prom was a symptom of existing racial tension, and while holding an integrated is a great step forward that doesn't mean the problem is gone (and I explained that very clearly in my last post). If that's how you think prejudice works, then perhaps that helps to explain your position on this topic.

"This last bit is particularly important because it brings back the purpose of the thread, which is about the freedom of choice, not about whether or not racism still exists in the United States (because it does in some areas) or whether LGBTQ folks will at times face discrimination (many will)."

The thread is about discrimination and whether or not preventing it can or should be law. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who it is against so the comparisons are very relevant.

"EDIT: I think the growing mob mentality is also a compelling turn of events. A person is smart, but people can be dumb."

Are you talking about the majority of people disagreeing with you in this thread? Again, you're trying to make yourself out like some kind of victim because most people disagree with you. If I made a thread proclaiming that the world is flat and 10 people respond disagreeing with me, that doesn't mean I'm being mobbed. It just means that nobody agrees with me.

Also, did you just call the group "dumb" for disagreeing with you? With a Barry Sonnenfeld movie quote, no less?

-Byshop

@Byshop: A few things--

I'm not sure you've noticed yet, but I've only actually voiced my personal feelings on four occasions; 1. We're not in the 1950's anymore, and the social climate is entirely different, 2. Killing a human being and hurting the feelings of a human being are not on par, 3. True to form Christians would never refuse service to any individual because they were different, and 4. The majority is rarely the most outspoken party on an issue.

I'm not sure what more I can say when you put words in my mouth because it makes it challenging to keep the discussion grounded. The vast majority of my contribution in this thread have been about asking questions, not about attempting to argue a particular point of view. In this thread, I have actually bent to counter-points, apologized for miss-interpreting posts, and have made it clear time and time again what the purpose of the thread is and that I am playing representative to different opinions by asking the unpopular questions.

I am not concerned about looking like a victim and have made no attempt to appear the victim. In fact, here's the 5th personal opinion I'll express--I'll do everything in my power not to allow myself to be a victim, even when hardship comes. That's my personal belief because it's not the hardships that you face that define your character, it's who you become through dealing with hardships that defines your character.

Well Dave, it seems as if that line of thinking may be going the way of the Dodo bird as we've seen with Hobby Lobby and most recently, Indiana. Lets see what Arkansas does as well.

Lets be realistic here and separate hatred from not supporting something. Those two are not necessarily inclusive but it is easy to say they are if the possibility exists it will give credence to a position. I'm sure everyone here can think of something they don't support that is done by another individual but I think it would be awfully naive to assume hatred is the motivating factor. Could it exist? Of course.

You can do that already. There doesn't need to be any laws passed to give you approval unless you really want such a law passed because you can't think for yourself and want permission from a politician.

@musicalmac:

"I'm not sure you've noticed yet, but I've only actually voiced my personal feelings on four occasions;"

I was talking about personal anecdotes about racism, not expressing personal opinions. Every opinion expressed in this thread is by definition a "personal opinion". That's pretty obvious, and I didn't think it needed to be explicitly.

"1. We're not in the 1950's anymore, and the social climate is entirely different,"

You keep repeating this, and I've responded with specific reasons and examples of why this is at best an over simplified view of racial tension in the US. If you aren't going to address my replies and instead just insist on repeating your original opinion then this discussion cannot move forward because you are deliberately stalling it.

"2. Killing a human being and hurting the feelings of a human being are not on par,"

I agree, but this wasn't part of our discussion.

"3. True to form Christians would never refuse service to any individual because they were different,"

I agree, although I would not agree that the majority of people who self identify as "Christian" fall into this category.

"4. The majority is rarely the most outspoken party on an issue."

So? What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

"I'm not sure what more I can say when you put words in my mouth because it makes it challenging to keep the discussion grounded."

Actually this seems more like an excuse to completely sidestep the points I made in my previous post. I'll repeat some of them in case you forgot: You think that a riot involving the national guard wouldn't make news in the 1950s because... why? Why you are asking for specific examples of how RFRA laws that apply to businesses when no such RFRA laws are in effect yet (unless you asked this question before you realized that was the case)? Why do you feel you are being "mobbed" because people disagree with you and why do you think it's acceptable to call a group of people dumb because they don't share your opinions?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your position but frankly you are not doing a great job of explaining it. If you would like an example of putting words in other people's mouth's then I need to point to when you said "You seem to elude to the idea that racial tension in the United States is just as bad as it was in the 50's." in response to a thread in which I said both "You're correct that this is not the 1950s and that the country has come a long way, but one of the reasons it has is because of laws that were enacted outlawing discriminatory behavior." and "No, it's not the 1950s and in the grand, nationwide consciousness racism and sexism are considered bad things, but there are many, many parts in this country where things are still like the 1950s if not more ass backwards." I honestly don't know how I could have been more clear.

"The vast majority of my contribution in this thread have been about asking questions, not about attempting to argue a particular point of view. In this thread, I have actually bent to counter-points, apologized for miss-interpreting posts, and have made it clear time and time again what the purpose of the thread is and that I am playing representative to different opinions by asking the unpopular questions."

Questions are often statements unto themselves, and it's a cop-out to try to say "hey, I wasn't making a statement. I was just asking a question." If I ask someone "how long have you been beating your wife?", that's not just a question. That's a statement. I am establishing that the man beats his wife with the statement that is embedded in that question. The fact that I put a question mark at the end of the sentence doesn't change the fact that I've called that man a wife beater. If you have an opinion, own it. Don't try to play it off as "hey, I was just asking a question" just because the conversation isn't going your way. Even if you're playing Devil's Advocate and these opinions are not your own, you are adopting a position by asking the questions you are asking and making the statements you've been making.

And bending to a few points in the discussion doesn't exempt you from answering mine. I asked some very specific questions and made specific points in my last thread, and you have completely ignored them in this reply.

"I am not concerned about looking like a victim and have made no attempt to appear the victim. In fact, here's the 5th personal opinion I'll express--I'll do everything in my power not to allow myself to be a victim, even when hardship comes. That's my personal belief because it's not the hardships that you face that define your character, it's who you become through dealing with hardships that defines your character."

Really? When you make melodramatic statements like:

"I'm not your enemy, but you have made me out to be your enemy."

and "I am not your enemy, I am simply expressing unpopular opinions, and yet it has made me a target."

and "EDIT: I think the growing mob mentality is also a compelling turn of events. A person is smart, but people can be dumb."

...then you are trying to make it sound like everyone is ganging up on you unfairly. Nobody is doing that, but many people are disagreeing with you.

-Byshop

So moronic. But then again, you've been known to hate pop stars simply for making music you don't like.

@Byshop: Like I mentioned in the OP, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I was posing questions to encourage thinking about different angles regarding a contentious issue. Read the OP, that's really all there is to it.

I think the problem now has become that you've made this about me and not about the topic, which is what I was expressly attempting to avoid. I'm not sure how to communicate with you if you aren't going to believe what I say. And I'm actually not required to reply to you at all, though I am trying to continue engaging in an objective, non-personal discussion with you. It's difficult to reply to such aggressive, long-winded posts.

@musicalmac: no, you are not required to reply, it's very obvious to most of us that you are losing this discussion badly. Which is why you are dancing around the questions being asked to you and trying to make it personal with the people asking them to make yourself a victim and distract people from your own outlandish and immature behavior.

@musicalmac: If -you- are going to sidestep every point I make, then I kind of have to address that now don't I?

What did I say that was "aggressive"? Again, you are trying to act like everyone who disagrees with you is being emotional and unfair.

My post was too long? Fine. Here's the most relevant part:

"So you would like examples of how other, similar RFRA laws have hurt people in the past? Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just backpedaling because you didn't realize this law hasn't gone into effect yet, your premise is still fundamentally flawed. The whole point of your thread is around whether or not businesses should be allowed to choose who they serve. There are no examples of how RFRA laws have hurt homosexuals by allowing businesses to discriminate because none of the other RFRA laws in place extend to businesses. That's the whole reason that Indiana's law is controversial. Even if this law is the most harmful piece of legislature to gays in history and the day it passes every homosexual in the state of Indiana is denied access to every private business the day it goes into effect, there won't be a single example that anyone can provide you -today- because it hasn't happened yet nor are there any similar laws in effect in any other state. Your thread is either a deliberate catch 22 or you didn't realize that the examples you're asking for can't possibly exist yet regardless of who is right."

Of course, you don't have to reply, but if I spend this much time poking holes in your logic and the best you can respond with is "I don't have to reply to you" then I think I've made my point.

-Byshop

@Buckhannah: I'm not trying to win the conversation.

@Byshop: I'm sorry you feel that way.

@musicalmac: you missed your calling, you should definitely be on Capitol Hill. Your ability to spin things, spout outlandish and insulting drivel, and then immediately afterward convince yourself it never happened and everyone else is to blame (and if they disagree they are stupid) is at a level that would make most crooked career politicians blush.

I'd say people like you are killing this forum, but the fact that this two day old bait thread is still the newest one in the forum makes saying that unnecessary.

@Solaryellow: that line of thinking going away should scare the **** out of everyone.

Hatred does not have to come into it, that's right. But there's no real defense to having that belief. You can have it for sure, but much like being against interracial relationships, you will get no sympathy.

You again being the general you

How is he a mod?

Who musicalmac? I found this entire discussion between mac and byshop to be very civil and thought out. I'd rather people have these discussions then simply remain silent and harbor their own beliefs. Discussions like this force these issues into the forefront and make people really think out their positions. More discussion, not less, is a good thing.

If we want to move forward on issues such as race and sexuality, etc., we need to have discussions without fear of persecution.

Those laws are not the same as Indiana's as it currently stands. Byshop has pointed this out quite well, and the distinction between them is very important.

We can debate whether the Indiana law is positive or not, but it is objectively not the same law as the federal law or those laws in the other states you mentioned. In order to discuss the merits of the Indiana law, those engaging in the discussion should first acknowledge this (and have an understanding of how it differs).

Moderators are community members just like everyone else, entitled to the same opinions and discussion as everyone else. The only difference is they have also volunteered some of their free time to assist with enforcing the rules of the forum. My mod status or musicalmac's is not related to or relevant to the topic at hand. Mods don't always agree on forum topics, but we come together in matters of rule enforcement.

Whether you agree with musicalmac's opinion on this is not related to his moderator status.

-Byshop

I think I should post one more time about my intentions here and they need to be the only thing in this post, otherwise I'm afraid they may be ignored again.

1. I do not have a dog in this fight, and 2. I was posing unpopular questions to facilitate discussion.

That's it.

I wish the thread hadn't taken such a dramatic turn and gotten so personal. I was hoping for contributions more along the lines of those shared by @comp_atkins, @Renevent42, @fenriz275, @JimB, @Serraph105, @Solaryellow, @BranKetra, @whipassmt, @chessmaster1989, @Aljosa23, @lamprey263, @Treflis, @silkylove, @redstorm72, and @sonicare, because of their largely thoughtful, objective focus on the issue and not on the people discussing the issue (and you're all tagged here to encourage more of that sort of contribution).

@musicalmac: you missed byshop

Thanks, but I believe that was his point.

-Byshop

Nope.

It's not an indictment of you when your boss compliments your co-worker.

Sorry, but if you refuse to discuss the very relevant points I brought up with you then you don't get to engage with me in this. You keep saying you don't "have a dog in this fight" while simultaneously debating people on the topic. You can't have it both ways.

-Byshop

You can choose to believe that, but you are incorrect. I've explained my intent many times now.

conservatives will never stop this shit.

they are just flat out too stupid to realize no amount of laws will ever keep them from wanting a big fat dick in their mouths.

just the other day i walked in on my parents watching some televangelist and he was going on about the dreadful temptation of the gay and i thought no, you are not tempted into gay sex because of our promiscuous culture, you are tempted because you are gay and sit around all day thinking about how much you want a dick inside you.

i just wish conservatives would get it over with and get themselves some cock, then maybe i would not have to hear them going on about cock incessantly and constantly trying to legislate away the gay.

@musicalmac: you're surprised things got personal in a thread where you resorted to a cowardly broad insult (if you want to call people dumb, be a man about it) when it became clear (to everyone but you) that you had been demolished?

Yes, what a shocking thing

Well, here's more news:

Rock band Wilco reverses decision to cancel Indiana concert

And this occurs after the "religious freedom" law is changed to add first references to sexual orientation and gender identity. A good change, so far.

Philosophers and logicians do it often. Baruch A. Brody, for example, in his book Logic: Theoretical and Applied, talks about both sides of the marijuana and heroin debate in a detailed, systematic way without attempting to resolve the issue.

There have been a number of performers who have cancelled shows in Indiana over this. I live in Colorado and we had a similar thing happen with our infamous "Amendment 2" which was a state constitutional amendment that basically prevented the creation of laws protecting gay rights. Numerous artists boycotted Colorado in protest and even the Steven King movie The Stand (about half of which takes place in Boulder, Colorado) was filmed elsewhere because of it. While I was bummed that the movie wasn't going to be filmed in the town I grew up in, I was glad that it had the desired effect. They removed the amendment pretty soon after it was voted in. I expect we'll see something similar happen with Indiana, especially in today's climate.

-Byshop

That's fine if the person doing that actually takes both sides. What's not fine is clearly taking one side, arguing that side, criticising those who disagree with that side and then trying to claim impartiality afterwards because it was phrased as a question and not a statement. That's the same annoying thing that extreme right or left wing political opinion programs do. "Hey, I'm not -saying- Obama is Hitler. I'm just asking the question 'Is Obama exactly like Hitler?'. I'm not saying anything. I'm just putting the question out there."

-Byshop

Byshop,

Philosophers and logicians do that as well. Defending a stance does not necessarily mean one agrees with it. The defender may believe that one side has a stronger argument than another, but that is not a certain identifier for agreement.

I take no issue with someone playing Devil's Advocate.

-Byshop

With how fast the LGBT army and media changed the minds of the lawmakers in Indiana through intimidation, how much more could be done if a LGBT person was president? In fact, if a LGBT ran for president, could there even be an opponent to debate him/her without being called a bigot? Imagine in an LGBT presidential administration if congress could even function as any vote against the wishes of the LGBT president would surely be construed as bigotry. The Congressional branch would have to be abolished because that type of hate can't be allowed in a free country and would thus leave the president to make all laws by executive order.

That be a pretty efficient form of government as there would be no dissent. Anyone who disagrees with President LGBT would be sent to be "re-educated" because those who disagree with any policy made by the President would most certainly be prejudiced. Why in fact, traditional marriage might have to be outlawed as it would be considered a form of provocation against non heterosexuals.

Of course, none of this could happen in America. We're just talkin' after all, right? Yeah, we're just talkin'...

^ The law got changed and in the end it wasn't about religious freedom, it was about bigotry. I'm just musing about how it would look if an LGBT person became president is all.

People thought this would happen with Obama only with him being black instead.

@richietickles: ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

From Rainbows to ACORN's, little dictatorships grow.

Basically, nothing happens overnight.

law has basically pretty much been altered so that denial of service can't be done on protected class grounds, so it's nothing but a law in name only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM

New, very compelling news to share about this issue and the questions surrounding personal freedom --

Gay Woman Apologizes to Christian-Owned Indiana Pizzeria, Sends Donation

“The gay community that we know knows full well what it’s like to be condemned for doing nothing but living your life according to your beliefs,” she added. “We know so many gay individuals that fully support the freedom of living your life according to your beliefs and feel that freedom extends to everyone, even the people that we don’t agree with.”

What do you all think about that? Would anyone argue that this is a brave show of support for personal liberties, or is this woman misguided?

@musicalmac: it's more nuanced then an either or

@dave123321: A clear sky is blue, water is the essence of wetness, and Jupiter is a gas giant. In what ways do you think it's nuanced?

If you break it down, isn't this a pretty clear case of one individual supporting another individual's right to choose despite disagreeing on a very fundamental level with that person? Isn't that something to be praised?

but anyway people shouldn't be insulting and attacking the owners the way we saw happen. Best thing to do is to not associate with them if you feel that that is the need. Allow the legal system to work for you if it's a rights issue.

She does make a good point in the article:

My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” Hoffman said in a radio interview. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”

.......... Yeah you know its not like President Obama hasn't seen HISTORIC levels of opposition in places like congress since the moment he got elected in office.. If it isn't the hilarious Christian victim complex angle, its the "government is turning tyrannical" angle..

@musicalmac: ok sure it's a show of support for the right to hold certain beliefs. Doesn't change people's point about how far that right extends