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

[url=http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/buffalo-wild-wings-police_n_2974047.html]This happen last years[/url]

[url=http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/buffalo-wild-wings-police_n_2974047.html]Here is the first refuse service from the known restuarant and this is a couple of years back[/url]

While Gencon can be a big pain at times, their stance, if they follow through with it when Indiana passes this legislative abomination, is spot on.

It will never happen, but California has its share of problems:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/california-anti-gay-bill_n_6927464.html

Though obviously insane, the "Sodomite Suppression Act" will never become law--even if that idiot can gain enough signatures to get it on the ballot. So I'm not especially concerned about that one.

However, I found this response to it quite amusing: The Intolerant Jackass Act

link corrected

Eversuede wrote: Here is the first refuse service from the known restaurant and this is a couple of years back

This is one of those "irresistible force meets immovable object" situations. I'm somewhere in the middle, so before you jump on me from either side, consider you don't know my situation, and I'm not going into it.

On the one hand, it's nobody's business what two or more consenting adults do in private. Restaurants, gas stations, landlords, employers and the rest should have no right, in my opinion, to refuse goods, services or employment to anyone based on race, gender, or how they use it. It's not only wrong, it's just stupid.

On the other, our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. People should not be required by the government to participate in something against which they hold a sincere religious belief. (That's one definition of "slavery.") Because Constitution. So I have sympathy with clergy, wedding planners, etc who are caught between their belief and the law; participate in a wedding you sincerely believe is wrong, or have your life ruined. (Note, I'm not saying I think it's wrong. I fully supported my brother when he married his husband in Canada and... not going into that.) But people have rights on both ends of any transaction. Besides, do you want to let the government blackmail someone into being involved in the most important day of your life if they don't support you? Give your money to someone who does.

I too hope the governor will veto this bill, but in the interest of liberty I wouldn't be opposed to a much more limited version that focused on the religious freedom of business people and not just random prejudice. But governments aren't known for nuance.

Druegar wrote: Though obviously insane, the "Sodomite Suppression Act" will never become law--even if that idiot can gain enough signatures to get it on the ballot. So I'm not especially concerned about that one.

However, I found this response to it quite amusing: The Intolerant Jackass Act

This guy, of course, should be disbarred, locked up, and charged with a variety of crimes.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote: Though obviously insane, the "Sodomite Suppression Act" will never become law--even if that idiot can gain enough signatures to get it on the ballot. So I'm not especially concerned about that one.

However, I found this response to it quite amusing: The Intolerant Jackass Act

This guy, of course, should be disbarred, locked up, and charged with a variety of crimes.

LIKE

This thread blows my mind.

Are these the same people that denigrated as inappropriate and out of place any mention of political issues on the True Dungeon website just a few weeks ago when the commenter was right wing oriented? Some of the names are unfortunately the same, but I can't believe this level of hypocrisy…… could exist…..even here?

FYI - I would encourage the baker to bake the cake for the gays. Honestly, I couldn't care less whether gays marry or not, and it's none of my (or anyone else's) business anyway. We have so many more important issues to worry about than that one, and they have all been created by Obama's extreme left wing foreign policy and his entire presidency overall. The villains of the world have another 18 months or so to wreak havoc and murder unabashedly - unless we elect someone as short sighted as Obama again….. then the world may become hopelessly drawn into war and chaos…. I am not defending the favored target of the left, former President Bush, who surely was no saint and made plenty of mistakes, but none approach the blatant naivety and horrific judgment of the Obama administration.

My parents were penniless immigrants who entered this country legally through Ellis Island in the 1920s. Please don't get mad at me for defending the country that has given me and mine so much opportunity to be rewarded for hard work (a stark contrast to current federal philosophy on prosperity - get free handouts from Obama at the expense of the remaining working people and to hell with our descendants who will inherit his bloated deficit - just keep voting for his contemporaries).

I dearly love what this country has been, and defend and protect it I will.

That being said, I support the rights of gays to live the lives that they choose, as long as no one else is harmed by it. My interpretation of the constitution is that it guarantees them that right. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business, and no one else's. If they want to get married, they should be able to do it without interference, especially from government. I could be wrong in some cases, but my guess is that the people who propose silly laws like this are simply responding to the explosion of left wing lunacy seeded nationwide by the Obama administration, and they aren't really serious. In the Indiana case, that conclusion may be wrong, but not in the California case.

Brad Mortensen wrote: On the one hand, it's nobody's business what two or more consenting adults do in private. Restaurants, gas stations, landlords, employers and the rest should have no right, in my opinion, to refuse goods, services or employment to anyone based on race, gender, or how they use it. It's not only wrong, it's just stupid.

We are in agreement on that point.

But if one agrees with a law which says it's okay to discriminate against whomever as long as it's a "sincerely held religious belief", it must then be legal:

• to not serve Blacks if you're part of a supremacist religion (that is a thing)
• for a Baptist baker to refuse to bake a cake for a (straight) Catholic wedding
• for a bank to not give a home loan to a gay couple
• for a homeowner association to not allow Muslims to live in their area
• for a country club to not admit Jews
• for a school to not enroll Atheist children

Is that really what we want as a society?

Matt Baume has a great video explaining the details regarding "discrimination on the basis of..."

Here's the thing: if you (not addressing you Brad, I'm referring to the general "you") think same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, don't get gay married. Hell, don't even go to a same-sex wedding--we won't miss you. The state is not going to force you to attend Alana and Eve's nuptials, so stop pretending the sky is falling just because LGBTs are finally starting to be treated like human beings.

Disbeeleaf wrote: Are these the same people that denigrated as inappropriate and out of place any mention of political issues on the True Dungeon website just a few weeks ago when the commenter was right wing oriented?

If you're referring to this , the opposition was to discussing politics in a place where it did not belong, namely in a thread about tokens. That request was simply to move the discussion to the Off Topic forum--which is precisely where this "mind blowing" thread is located.

Disbeeleaf wrote: We have so many more important issues to worry about than that one, and they have all been created by Obama's extreme left wing foreign policy and his entire presidency overall.

Please do not attempt to hijack this thread. Feel free to start your own political rant thread(s)... in the Off Topic forum where they belong. I promise not to try to twist your anti-Obama discussions into discussions on LGBT rights. Cool? If I do, please reference this very post and I will STFU.