TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

Harlax wrote: Given that the person refused to identify his restaurant, he either lacked the courage of his convictions or was simply trolling the audience.

That's entirely possible.

Druegar wrote:

Chip Bowles wrote: lets keep in perspective who is the problem here: POLITICIANS!!!!
not fellow TDers.

Hear hear!

Agreed!!

That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Might have to sign put for Angie's List! And while I've never been a fan of Wal-Mart, got to give them props in Arkansas!

news.yahoo.com/angies-list-halts-expansion-over-indiana-law-seen-171140495--finance.html

Did this get posted?

files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

bpsymington wrote: That's it, Mike, keep digging!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/story_n_6962682.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Very Happy after UK victory (over a certain team from Indiana ) and to quote the Gov:

“I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state,” he said. “I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill.”

OK did you even read the very clear law?

In defense of the legislation, he noted that 19 other states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws similar to Indiana’s. And he pointed out that President Barack Obama voted for Illinois’ version of RFRA as a state senator.

Similar in that they both claim to protect religious rights, News flash one of these does not

The governor also criticized the news media’s coverage of the legislation. “Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination,” he said. “If it was, I would have vetoed it.”

OK this leads to the ancient joke about how to know when a politician is lying...too easy his mouth is moving! If this is true, then he never listened to the bill's supporters see below link

www.monicaboyer.com/a-hero-with-no-cape-only-flowers-rejects-govt-settlement/

PS, I am a Christian and love the word of the Lord. However, hateful people like the Westboro Baptist Church and the people who love this bill make me very sad as their religion (because they insist calling it Christianity) drives away a lot of people from knowing Jesus and God

Kirk Bauer wrote: I have to admit I find corner cases the most interesting. For example, I feel it is easy to say you support free speech until you dig into causing panic and child porn.

I think hate speech and online threats are probably grayer (and more interesting) issues than panic.

Regarding child porn, you have the issue where taking and possessing a picture of oneself (if you a child) could involve child porn. Not to mention the line where artistic nudity crosses into porn.

I don't think Incognito was trying to invalidate your statement but instead to expore the murky waters around these issues.

You are correct Kirk.

While I agreed with the gist of Druegar's statement, there were some minor accuracies which I wanted to point out (essentially a "reservation" in terms of treaty law).

Druegar wrote:

If you're casting the role of MLK for a movie, I think it's okay to not hire an Asian lesbian to portray him.

While blackface (and equivalents) are typically not socially acceptable nowadays, it is still extremely common to see whitewashing and similar race-bending. Recently there have been more instances of casting traditionally white roles with non-white actors and actresses, but it is still relatively rare.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Momentarily leaving aside the morality of prostitution,

Hey now! Some religions genuinely believe in Sacred Prostitution! Government should stop infringing on religious liberty!!!

the morality of selecting a prostitute that you find attractive is neither morally nor legally difficult - non-controversial precedent existing in cases such as actors, models, or other performers where their physical appearance is germane to the job.

Also - a private consumer's choice to do or not do business with any service provider is logically, legally, and ethically distinct from a public business choice on who to provide service to. What is at issue with the Indiana law is how businesses can treat prospective customers.

No one is proposing that it be illegal for a private citizen to use whatever reasoning they want to select a vendor (even if their reasons may have a morally objectionable basis, such as racism).

Well the situation would also apply for businesses (instead of just consumers) if you consider madams, brothels, and pimps and whether they should morally be allowed to discriminate based on physical appearance when hiring prostitutes for their place of business.

Druegar wrote:

If you're casting the role of MLK for a movie, I think it's okay to not hire an Asian lesbian to portray him.

Incognito wrote: it is still extremely common to see whitewashing and similar race-bending.

My statement was not commenting on white-washing. I said it would be okay to not hire an Asian lesbian to play MLK. Not only is that a Black male role, it's someone who is well known and who many people currently alive today have seen. I did not imply that there could never be an artistic reason to use non-literal casting.

Incognito wrote: Hey now! Some religions genuinely believe in Sacred Prostitution! Government should stop infringing on religious liberty!!!

So true!

I find it fascinating that many of the folks complaining about "the horrible gays trampling on their religious freedom" suddenly sour to the idea when the tables are turned on them. E.g., they think it's fine for a Christian to not provide flowers for a lesbian couple's wedding because their particular faith thinks homosexuality is a horrific sin, but if a Muslim tailor refused to make a woman an "immodest" dress, something must be done to prevent this horrible injustice from happening!

"Strongly held personal beliefs" is a two-edged sword, not an axe that can only be used against LGBTs.

bpsymington wrote: Did this get posted?
files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

In post 146 , but I'm cool with it being reiterated.

Druegar wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the folks complaining about "the horrible gays trampling on their religious freedom" suddenly sour to the idea when the tables are turned on them. E.g., they think it's fine for a Christian to not provide flowers for a lesbian couple's wedding because their particular faith thinks homosexuality is a horrific sin, but if a Muslim tailor refused to make a woman an "immodest" dress, something must be done to prevent this horrible injustice from happening!

Yes, unfortunately, for lots of conservative Christians, "religious liberty" only applies to their religion and not to others.

Prominent examples include:

- The Oklahoma 10 Commandments statue but then those in power change their mind when other religions want their own statues (like the Satanic one)

- Cases where it is okay to hand out Christian pamphlets but when others (like atheist groups) want to also hand out pamphlets, suddenly there is a rule change

- Holiday names (for Christians and Jews) being listed on a school's calendar but then when some Muslims ask for their holidays to also be listed, the school board decides to remove all names

- How hard it is to get building and zoning permits to build a single mosque even when there are dozens and dozens of churches

- Individuals who vilify sharia law but then are eager to impose their own evangelical Christian beliefs on everyone else.


At the end of the day, I think it comes down to "majority privilege" (which can equally apply when a minority group has dominant political power).

Similar criticisms can be levied against Islamic hypocrisies in Muslim countries, or Judaism in Israel, etc.

One of the things that always amused me by all the anti-same-sex marriage efforts (bans, voiding valid instances, not recognizing those from other states) is that it sets a dangerous precedent in that one day, if the demographics shift and you have a homosexual majority population, then they would have an "equal right" to ban, void, and not recognize heterosexual marriages. Of course, many religious extremists can't even fathom such a scenario so they don't truly understand the implications (or they use cognitive dissonance to try to explain things away because they are such a really special snowflake!).

bpsymington wrote: Might have to sign put for Angie's List! And while I've never been a fan of Wal-Mart, got to give them props in Arkansas!

news.yahoo.com/angies-list-halts-expansion-over-indiana-law-seen-171140495--finance.html

Angie's List had been trying to get funds from the state without much luck. While nice of them to tag their reason as a protest, it is more of a PR move.

I am disgusted by our legislature and governor for enacting this travesty, but I would like people to debate measures to counteract or repeal this law. It is easy to just make a statement about not doing business with the state, but excluding the majority of citizens seems like a form of discrimination as well. A small SFX/make up company in Florida announced on FB that they were no longer attending events in Indiana nor would they sell anything to anyone in Indiana. Ironically, they exist in a state with similar legislation already on the books.