Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Step back and see the rich political humor in this.
Pubs gain control of another state and pass really dumb, regressive legislation to appease their religious right fringe, which terrorizes them.
Predictably, it blows up in their faces.
Their reaction:
"Gosh...Uh... well... ya see... We don't think it really means what it says. Kinda. But we still hate gays, immigrants, minorities, etc. And sometimes we sorta forget that we ain't 'spose to say that in public or legislate stuff like this."
Important debates over the intersection of faith and equality are impaired when they are overtaken by misguided rhetoric, rather than being informed by the history and context of how our legal system has treated this issue.
I agree, but I'd say the important debate about faith and equality amounts to this:
There’s a general context underlying all of this. Many conservatives are interested in expanding the notion of “religious freedom” beyond just private notions of how to worship. The bottom line is that some people what religious people to have special rights that exempt them from certain laws because of their religious beliefs. These exemptions would not be available to people who want to do the same thing based of general philosophical views.
In other words, religious faith is supposed to out-rank more general philosophical views when it comes to claiming exemptions from certain laws. If an atheist wants to claim an exemption from laws prohibiting the possession of pot for some philosophical reason, it's no good, but if a religious person wants to claim this exemption based on a traditional religious practice, then the appeal might work. Lot's of weird things could happen here. Should Satanism be considered a form of religious faith in the eyes of the law? Why or why not?
I think the successes of atheists in some legal settings has fueled this "push-back" from certain conservative religious people. This could get messy. But, you're right; this is not just an "Indiana" issue. There are, as you say, some important debates to be had here.
Are people who follow a religion the only ones who can have their deeply help moral and ethical principles protected? Can the secularists be forced to go against their deeply help moral and ethical principle, just because they don't worship at some alter or temple?
Let's say I'm a doctor who believes that elective abortions after the third trimester take the life of a real live human baby. Can I be forced to provide those abortions against my moral objections, just because I don't belong to some religion?
Are people who follow a religion the only ones who can have their deeply help moral and ethical principles protected? Can the secularists be forced to go against their deeply help moral and ethical principle, just because they don't worship at some alter or temple?
Let's say I'm a doctor who believes that elective abortions after the third trimester take the life of a real live human baby. Can I be forced to provide those abortions against my moral objections, just because I don't belong to some religion?
Seriously? You're not aware that an objection to performing abortions based on conscience has been allowed since Roe v. Wade? Or did you simply see another opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion?
Its very true that this law has been completely overblown and misrepresented by SJWs who took the law beyond its scope to falsely imply Indiana is legalizing free and open discrimination of gays. Indiana is now amending the wording of the law right now to clarify its intent, but the damage has already been done. The fear has been spread about this law and the outrageous headlines did their job at enraging and misinforming the entire country.
We need to stop letting journalists form our opinions about every little thing and actually think for ourselves. When our entire worldview is shaped by reading headlines and skimming carefully-written propaganda, its just fueling more divisiveness between all Americans. Read the whole story and know when you're being manipulated. I've read news articles that make an inflammatory claim and spend a dozen paragraphs discussing their interpretation of the story, while burying a sentence in the last paragraph that completely invalidates the entire story. We're being played, but sadly most of us are too lazy or willing to be fed what we want to hear to read beyond the headlines.
Seriously? You're not aware that an objection to performing abortions based on conscience has been allowed since Roe v. Wade? Or did you simply see another opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion?
Ah, making assumptions and acting upon them now are we? Where have I ever taken cheap shots at religion?
Let's take the discussion to the bakery. some people apply this new Indiana law to a baker having the religious right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Can only a religious person assume that right, or could anyone who disapproves of gay marriage refuse to bake that same cake?
Yup. As I said earlier, BUSINESSES didn't want this law. BIGOTS wanted this law. The business community never asked for it and never wanted it. Laws like this are BAD for business.
Ken
Businesses run by people of faith (don't laugh) wanted this law. Practices that offend the sensibilities of people who have different values than you shouldn't be bullied by the politically correct into serving rituals they believe are wrong minded. They've always been free to turn away money from many other sources.
Seriously? You're not aware that an objection to performing abortions based on conscience has been allowed since Roe v. Wade? Or did you simply see another opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion?
That is exactly what the law addresses, issues of conscious. I favor the law (and I'm an atheist). Forcing someone to participate in an act they don't agree with is wrong. No difference between forcing someone to participate in a homo wedding, sell the morning after pill or as a surgon, to perform an abortion. If your business owner insists on you as an employee doing those things, fine, go somewhere else to work. But the government shouldn't have a voice in that. And it shouldn't apply just to those with "religious exemptions".
... the radical homosexuals (and their supporters) ...
Sodomites .. beware:
Well!
Sticks and stones!
You lost the argument, so you resort to name calling.
Sad and pathetic.
Bigots are losers.
Personally, I'm enjoying the SCHADENFREUDE .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
